Hanging a Noose Can Get You Five Years

Last edited:
My kid got three days' suspension for taking one to high school a couple of years back.

But we haven't hung many ******s with them down here.
 
KingMerv00 said:
First, that wouldn't have any bearing on the nature of the threat.

Second, you are wrong. Your link says that lynchings are almost 3 times greater for blacks even though they only represent about 12% of the total population.

Man, I'm embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...
No what I am saying is that the lynchings were not limited to Blacks and the bulk of which occurred shortly after the civil war and by 1935 were for the most part non-existent.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html

As to the "nature of the threat" I still don't get what the "threat" is. Should we criminalise the wearing of a cross since it is used by the KKK? There are already laws about making a "terroristic threat" and they apply to every race. Should we make it a criminal offence for a Black man to wear this tee shirt?

http://www.oki-ni.com/invt/rt0025blk
 
Let's see. Suppose we have 1,000 people.

880 are white. (88%)

120 are black. (12%)

Some of them were lynched (executed by hanging, conducted illegally by citizens).
The ratio of whites to blacks is 1:3. For every white who suffered lynching, 3 blacks suffered it.

120 / 3 = 40.

For the purposes of illustration only, this means that if 40 of the whites were lynched, the corresponding ratio in the black population would completely eliminate it.

Now. All other considerations aside, how does one come up with the notion that this represented an equal likelihood for either race, an "equal opportunity?"
 
Texas said:
You really don't want to get into crime statistics about white on black vs black on white violent crimes do you?
Click to expand...

Not until after you've addressed the ridiculous lynching statements first, no.

One fallacious argument at a time, please.
 
slingblade said:
Let's see. Suppose we have 1,000 people.

880 are white. (88%)

120 are black. (12%)

Some of them were lynched (executed by hanging, conducted illegally by citizens).
The ratio of whites to blacks is 1:3. For every white who suffered lynching, 3 blacks suffered it.

120 / 3 = 40.

For the purposes of illustration only, this means that if 40 of the whites were lynched, the corresponding ratio in the black population would completely eliminate it.

Now. All other considerations aside, how does one come up with the notion that this represented an equal likelihood for either race, an "equal opportunity?"
Click to expand...
Because it is location and time specific. See the link I provided for lynchings by year. It does not matter what the ratio is if your are the one at the end of the rope. In the time that lynchings were the most prevalent mob justice was common no matter what the race happened to be.
 
Texas said:
No what I am saying is that the lynchings were not limited to Blacks and the bulk of which occurred shortly after the civil war and by 1935 were for the most part non-existent.
Click to expand...

No what you said is:

...lynching was a fairly equal opportunity sport from the 1800's to 1968.
Click to expand...

Then you did me the favor of proving yourself wrong.

As to the "nature of the threat" I still don't get what the "threat" is.
Click to expand...

Those determinations are made by the legislature, alleged victim, the cops, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. (As I said above.)

Look, I'm sure death by Guan dao is at an all time low too. That does not mean that I cannot be threatened by one. Just because lynching is out of style does not me threatening someone with a lynching is not a real threat.

I agree, the laws should be applied equally across all races. Is this that not the case here?
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
No what you said is:



Then you did me the favor of proving yourself wrong.




Look, I'm sure death by Guan dao is at an all time low too. That does not mean that I cannot be threatened by one.

I agree, the laws should be applied equally across all races. Is this that not the case here?
Click to expand...
Why is this a case of laws being applied "equally across all races"? This is the the criminalisation of a piece of rope. How is intent determined? If a guy hangs a deer and to clean and takes it down and leaves the noose up and his neighbor is black is that a threat just because the neighbor "feels" threatened? Was the effigy of Palin with a noose around her neck a criminal act or the countless effigies of Bush with his head in a noose?
 
BTW your example is meant to be a weapon a "noose" is used for many things other than a weapon.
 
Texas said:
Because it is location and time specific. See the link I provided for lynchings by year. It does not matter what the ratio is if your are the one at the end of the rope. In the time that lynchings were the most prevalent mob justice was common no matter what the race happened to be.
Click to expand...


A 3:1 ratio proves that it was much more common if you happened to be black.
 
Texas said:
Why is this a case of laws being applied "equally across all races"?
Click to expand...

Because I assume the law makes it illegal to threaten a white man with a lynching too. I might be wrong. Feel free to show me otherwise.

This is the the criminalisation of a piece of rope.
Click to expand...

No, it is the criminalization of an act that threatens a lynching by using a rope. Nooses themselves are still legal for non-violent purposes.

How is intent determined?
Click to expand...

By looking at the totality of the evidence. Courts do this all the time and differentiate between self-defense, manslaughter, 2nd degree murder, 1st degree murder etc.

Look at mens rea.

If a guy hangs a deer and to clean and takes it down and leaves the noose up and his neighbor is black is that a threat just because the neighbor "feels" threatened?
Click to expand...

This is up to the jury but I say no. Threats must be intentional.

Consider the case:

0) People elect the state legislature.
1) Legislature passes law defining what a "threat" is.
2) Neighbor (black OR white) calls the cops because he feels the nooseman is threatening to kill him.
3) Cops arrive on the scene and feel it is a threat. They arrest nooseman.
4) The judge may choose to dismiss the case because of lack of evidence or because the noosemans actions were not punishable by law.
5) Jury considers the evidence and whether or not his act was intentional. The alleged victim has the burden of proof.

If any one of the steps above go in the favor of nooseman, he does not go to jail. If the neighbor called the cops without good cause, he might even be able to sue him for abuse of process.

Was the effigy of Palin with a noose around her neck a criminal act or the countless effigies of Bush with his head in a noose?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent question. It depends on the wording of federal statutes, and the circumstances (proximity to the target, the intent of the burners, whether or not the target knows of the effigy, etc. etc.).
 
Last edited:
Texas said:
BTW your example is meant to be a weapon a "noose" is used for many things other than a weapon.
Click to expand...

So is a knife.

Are you seriously arguing it is impossible to threaten a person with a noose and that, if it happens, it should be legal?
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
Around ehre we hang noose for the newly led husband. I think we will better switch to something else PDQ, if we move to the state cited by the OP.
Click to expand...

Everyone in here IS aware that the law does not ban nooses in all situations right? It simply specifies that threatening with a noose "shall yield X years in jail". This really isn't all that controversial. It has never been legal to threaten the life of another citizen.
 
Last edited:
Texas said:
Just like it is more likely for a white to be killed by a black than for a black to be killed by a white today. It is time specific. To use your 12% of population statistic that 12% is responsible for 52% of all murders in the country

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Click to expand...

Let's see.

From that link:

Homicide Type by Race, 1976-2005

[I had to reformat it to make sense in this post, as I copied it from a pre-formatted table and it doesn't format properly here. If you doubt my accuracy, you may visit the link to see for yourself.]

Victims Offenders
White Black Other White Black Other
All homicides 50.9% 46.9% 2.1% 45.8% 52.2% 2.0%

Victims:

White: 50.9%
Black: 46.9%
Other: 2.1%

Offenders:

White: 45.8%
Black: 52.2%
Other: 2.0%


Although slightly less true now than before, most murders are intraracial
From 1976 to 2005 --

86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks
Click to expand...

Whites are responsible for almost 46% of the murders in this country. The vast majority of whites were murdered by other whites. I'm not sure a difference of 6% shows we're a great deal less homicidal than blacks.

Also note that the word is "intra-racial," meaning "within the race."

In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.
Click to expand...

Which does not necessarily mean they actually committed more crime, but could mean that they were arrested more often for crime. Which would result in large part from racial profiling. If you are looking for more crime amongst a certain group, and at the same time not looking as hard at another group, you're likely to catch more in the former than the latter.

Surprisingly:

More whites were victims of gang-related homicide [57.5% white; 39% black], but more whites were offenders in gang-related homicide [54.3% white; 41.2% black].

Whites also commit more sex-related and workplace homicides than blacks.


(ok, I'm done now; quote away! :p)


Oops, not quite. One more thing:

You moved the goalposts. We're not talking about who is more likely to murder, but who was more likely to be lynched.

Don't do that. It's poor argumentation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom