Post-racial what now?
Justice for Jason
Early on the morning of February 3, 2008, Jason, an African American student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, was in his dormitory. Two intoxicated white men, Jonathan Bowes and Jonathan Bosse, approached Jason’s dormitory window repeatedly referring to him as a “nigger” and breaking in the window. They then forced their way into the dormitory lobby where they assaulted Jason, breaking his nose and giving him a concussion.
Under this continuing assault Jason was forced to defend himself with a pocketknife, injuring his assailants. As a result of defending himself against this unprovoked assault Jason, the victim of the attack, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. These charges carry a possible thirty year prison sentence. One of the perpetrators, Jonathan Bowes, was charged only with misdemeanors carrying a maximum eighteen month sentence. The other, Jonathan Bosse, was not charged at all.
It was disturbing enough that Jason Vassell was subjected to a severe physical attack and an assault on his spirit. What we have subsequently witnessed has been an even more shameful violation both of Jason’s rights and of the community’s values of justice and equality irrespective of race. We have watched the Northwestern District Attorney’s office march forward with no apparent regard for the potentially explosive racial implications of this case. The question here is one of justice and fairness; one of making a decision that is right. It is a question of justice for Jason and, equally important, of whether the interests and well being of the community are being served by this prosecution. It is not a question of whether criminal charges can be brought, but rather, whether they should be brought and against whom. It is a question of whether the interests of true justice and the well being of the community are being served by this prosecution.
Legally, a charge of aggravated assault may make sense as far as criminal law goes. (I use "sense" very lightly here...)
His attacking with a knife would have been "legal" self-defense (I think this comes under the whole Stand Your Ground Law/Castle Doctrine thing) if he'd stayed in his room waiting for them to come to him.
Because the lobby isn't considered part of his home/private arena? (Apparently? I think this shit needs to be looked into. If I'm cornered in the lobby of my multi-level apartment building, I'm going to fucking defend myself. And that might mean I grab a "weapon." Maybe a floor lamp or glass candy dish...)
So...you have to try to avoid the fight in the first place. And arming yourself with any kind of dangerous weapon before going out into a room where the Big Bad Assholes are waiting for you (whether you're intending to confront them or intending to try to de-escalate the situation) makes you rife for charges, apparently, if you use said weapon.
(Why, hallo there incontinent U.S. Justice system where we're supposed to dial 9-1-1 and then twiddle our fingers waiting for the Good Guyz to show up and save our asses. ...Right. What price privilege?)
But the very fact that these two white guys are being barely charged (18 months for one of them) when they broke into this dorm and assaulted a student...that's a whole other kettle of fish. Blind justice? No. I don't think so.
Here's the motion to dismiss.
If I had been in his situation...I don't know that I would have gone to the lobby (even if it were, as the motion to dismiss described, to let in a friend), but my perspective is colored by my sex and gender.
But I'm fairly sure I would have armed myself with something before calling the cops (may as well) and then trying to find a safe space. I'd be very worried, quite honestly, that someone who was drunk, calling me racial epithets, and breaking into my home (dorm or not) would be quite likely to try to do more than just throw a few drunken punches.
Shorter non-rambly post: Aspects of legal system (particularly with regard to self-defense) need serious looking into with possible overhauling of language. (Oh, and getting rid of the fucking racial bias, too.)
Early on the morning of February 3, 2008, Jason, an African American student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, was in his dormitory. Two intoxicated white men, Jonathan Bowes and Jonathan Bosse, approached Jason’s dormitory window repeatedly referring to him as a “nigger” and breaking in the window. They then forced their way into the dormitory lobby where they assaulted Jason, breaking his nose and giving him a concussion.
Under this continuing assault Jason was forced to defend himself with a pocketknife, injuring his assailants. As a result of defending himself against this unprovoked assault Jason, the victim of the attack, was charged with two counts of aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon. These charges carry a possible thirty year prison sentence. One of the perpetrators, Jonathan Bowes, was charged only with misdemeanors carrying a maximum eighteen month sentence. The other, Jonathan Bosse, was not charged at all.
It was disturbing enough that Jason Vassell was subjected to a severe physical attack and an assault on his spirit. What we have subsequently witnessed has been an even more shameful violation both of Jason’s rights and of the community’s values of justice and equality irrespective of race. We have watched the Northwestern District Attorney’s office march forward with no apparent regard for the potentially explosive racial implications of this case. The question here is one of justice and fairness; one of making a decision that is right. It is a question of justice for Jason and, equally important, of whether the interests and well being of the community are being served by this prosecution. It is not a question of whether criminal charges can be brought, but rather, whether they should be brought and against whom. It is a question of whether the interests of true justice and the well being of the community are being served by this prosecution.
Legally, a charge of aggravated assault may make sense as far as criminal law goes. (I use "sense" very lightly here...)
His attacking with a knife would have been "legal" self-defense (I think this comes under the whole Stand Your Ground Law/Castle Doctrine thing) if he'd stayed in his room waiting for them to come to him.
Because the lobby isn't considered part of his home/private arena? (Apparently? I think this shit needs to be looked into. If I'm cornered in the lobby of my multi-level apartment building, I'm going to fucking defend myself. And that might mean I grab a "weapon." Maybe a floor lamp or glass candy dish...)
So...you have to try to avoid the fight in the first place. And arming yourself with any kind of dangerous weapon before going out into a room where the Big Bad Assholes are waiting for you (whether you're intending to confront them or intending to try to de-escalate the situation) makes you rife for charges, apparently, if you use said weapon.
(Why, hallo there incontinent U.S. Justice system where we're supposed to dial 9-1-1 and then twiddle our fingers waiting for the Good Guyz to show up and save our asses. ...Right. What price privilege?)
But the very fact that these two white guys are being barely charged (18 months for one of them) when they broke into this dorm and assaulted a student...that's a whole other kettle of fish. Blind justice? No. I don't think so.
Here's the motion to dismiss.
If I had been in his situation...I don't know that I would have gone to the lobby (even if it were, as the motion to dismiss described, to let in a friend), but my perspective is colored by my sex and gender.
But I'm fairly sure I would have armed myself with something before calling the cops (may as well) and then trying to find a safe space. I'd be very worried, quite honestly, that someone who was drunk, calling me racial epithets, and breaking into my home (dorm or not) would be quite likely to try to do more than just throw a few drunken punches.
Shorter non-rambly post: Aspects of legal system (particularly with regard to self-defense) need serious looking into with possible overhauling of language. (Oh, and getting rid of the fucking racial bias, too.)