Talk:Jena Six/MychalBell

Dangerous versus Deadly Weapon

Someone with editing privileges needs to correct this portion of the article. Louisiana law requires the use of a DANGEROUS, not a deadly, weapon for the charge of aggravated assault. Specific to Louisiana, rubber soled tennis shoes have been held to be the weapon for assault with a dangerous weapon in State v. Munoz, 575 So.2d 848 (La. Ct. App. 1991) and in State v. Taylor, 485 So.2d 117 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Mychal Bell Trial

I think the point about claims made by Bush appointee, Donald Washington, needs clarification and qualification. When I looked at the sources, Washington said that it would be difficult to make the case in a court of law that the beating of barker was related to the noose incident, because none of the 40 students questioned about the beating mentioned the noose incident. That does not mean that the incidents are not related (it seems to me that they obviously are), or that, if directly asked about the relationship, at least some of the students involved would not say that they are related.

I also think that from the perspective of many people, especially blacks, the fact that Donald Washington is a black US Attorney appointed by Bush sheds light on his perspective and role in this case. For a black attorney to be appointed by Bush, he would have to interpret civil rights issues in a way that is contrary to the perspective of most black people and most civil rights attorneys. As the reference to Donald Washington stands now, it falsely implies that he is black and therefore is more reliable and without political bias in claiming no connection between the nooses and the attack on Barker. That it not likely to be a valid assumption.````

What you think is interesting. What is out there is what goes in the article. And the page on Washington shows a black man. Would you deny the reader this information?--Wehwalt 01:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the line be changed to say "US Attorney Donald Washingtion who is black AND a Bush appointee."

This is not just what "I think" it is a fact, it is "out there" and it is information that will better allow the reader to understand and assess for themselves the political motives and inclinations of the US Attorney assigned to the this case. Here is a link to the report Bush administration Takes Aim: Civil Rights Under Attack from the oldest and largest coalition of civil rights organizations

http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/taking_aim/

Without this qualification on Washingtion, the article is misleading and less informative, and definitely NOT nuetral.Kelmad 18:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - if it is relevant that Washington is black (The implication being "if even a black man doesn't find the incident racially motivated...") then the fact that he is appointed by Bush is also relevant for the opposite reason (The implication being "Naturally, the Bush apointed attoney did not find any racial motivation..."). Either mention both - that he is a Bush appointed Black attorney or don't mention either.24.69.35.203 19:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I did, and I moved it out of the lede so as to avoid putting emphasis on the point. However, it was restored in a rather pov way.--Wehwalt 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Jury

I created a separate category describing the jury. First, the Jury should be labeled what is was by verifiable fact, that is, entirely Caucasian. Only then should the jury be labeled what people think about it i.e. 'all-white jury' with a link to a separate page. It is entirely bias to label the jury as 'all-white' while at the same time linking the to a page that describes the political term 'all-white jury'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdem (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Bell release declined

This just in.[1] Rklawton 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's already in the article.Ophois 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One Error and A Question on Mychal Bell possibly beating a woman

First the error, shouldn't "Mychal Bell, a juvenile" be "Mychal Bell, a juvenile at the time of the incident" since isn't he now a legal adult in that state? Secondly, I notice their is kind of a lack of details here on exactly what Mychal Bells previous convictions involved (especially in comparison to what the past convictions of the whites involved in this had been). That doesn't seem appropriate to a neutral site, because past criminal history is a vital factor in the U.S. justice system in determing everything from sentancing to bail, that's a pretty key series of details not to include on an encyclopedia. Leaving out details like that make it hard for an uninformed reader to decide if his treatment was due his race, or due his past, which should be the decision a neutral article and a reliable source leaves the reader to decide based on all the facts we can find and present here. I had read off one source that Mychal Bells prior convictions had involved him beating his girlfriend, and if that is true that is certainly an important distinction that no doubt factored into the judges decisions (and is also socially relevant if the girlfriend was also black, since domestic violence in the african american community is a very serious social issue). However since that source was citing a 2nd source, which was in turn citing a 3rd source, I do not feel comfortable making an edit like that since hearsay is so prevelant in this event and I don't think anything should be put on the main page unless it's from an unquetionably reliable source. However if it's true and someone knows a reliable source for it, that's just the sort of details on his past that should be on an neutral article on it. His race being the detemining factor can't be established unless it's shown what the other factors were IN DETAIL, and then logically excluding those as cause of his later treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.183.1 (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, if you look at the article, you'd see that the juvenile mistake was already fixed. Anyways, as for your claims about the beatings, please provide a source. Those were on Bell's juvenile record, so the public probably will never know what they were for.Ophois 01:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bell's past criminal history

The website in the reference does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IWikiMe (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been fixed. Ophois 13:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to write a summary of what Jason Whitlock presents with regards to Mychal Bell's criminal history. It is somewhat vague, but it does mention his violent criminal history. http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7170510Jim 05:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any law, that would maybe say that after so many charges that he would have to tried as an adult??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1hotmba (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No proof, but I believe youths in Louisiana cannot be charged as adults for assault/battery charges. This even if the kid has 4 priors *cough*70.109.116.216 05:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Righ now, Bell's section starts off with his criminal past. However, this seems to be POV. Does anyone else agree that this should be moved farther into the article?Ophois 02:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional information on public defender in Mychal Bell's case

I have added the public defender’s name and specified his race for the following reasons: Since the controversy is about race, it should be acknowledged that the public defender that has been criticized for his handling of Bell’s defense is himself African-American. The source is unchanged, it's the same Chicago Tribune article previously referenced. As it reads now, the article mentions the all-white jury and immediately accuses the public defender of incompetently handling the case. This implies a racial motive on his part, which also makes the mention of his race relevant to presenting a neutral point of view. Typing monkey 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, though I reworded it a bit to fit better. Ophois 19:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)