+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/24/2018 12:48 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.298 Visits   5 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/26/2008 02:40 AM ID: 70287 Permalink   

Judge Appoints Black-Only Session


A judge in Fulton County, Ga, booted all those not black from his courtroom in order to address issues with only a black audience. During this session, no official acts or statements took place.

Judge Marvin S. Arrington Sr. has offered an explanation for his act, as well as an apology to those who were offended. The history of criminals streaming into his courtroom were mostly black, and his desire was to hit the core of the community.

The defense lawyer present, Albert A. Mitchell, spoke that his words inspired and raised praise from those present. After the session was over, the judge recalled the white staff and lawyers back into the courtroom.

    WebReporter: Kroww Show Calling Card    
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  How interesting  
that your ID name means a 'gathering of lawyers'. I have heard but don't quote me that this is so. Upon looking for it all over the net to substantiate the claim, I have not been able to find it, go figure!
  by: sleeky     04/26/2008 03:47 AM     
  Only thing  
I came up with is the movie'A murder of Crows' starring Cuba Gooding Jr. It's about a lawyer who.... you will have to see for yourself:)
  by: sleeky     04/26/2008 04:06 AM     
  This is my first news!  
I'll have to check that out, the name thing. When I first saw this news on tv, I thought the worst at first. After reading up on it, I feel the judge did something good for the community. Please, now quick quips before reading, I hope that this piece shows a good side of our judicial system.
  by: Kroww   04/26/2008 04:09 AM     
  or second..  
I thought it was first but apparently potty mouth went through too
  by: Kroww   04/26/2008 04:10 AM     
  Good first post  
Keep it up!
  by: sleeky     04/26/2008 04:18 AM     
As a white man (I'm not, but say I am) I'll send all the blacks, mexicans, and asians out in the hall to wait while we discuss things. You see, here in Bel Air we only have white people come through my courtroom and I feel it's only fair that we exclude people that aren't white when we chat...Oh wait, that's discrimination...

My opinion - He's a judge. Everyone involved in that courtroom either as a resident or as an employee of the state should be allowed to be in while it's in session. If you exclude people, make it based on the case and NOT on skin color.

I have a dream, that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
-Dr. King

You can't have it both ways.
  by: aardvark   04/26/2008 06:02 AM     
  Come on you guys  
You know how hard it is to hit the core of the black community with white people sitting in the same room.
  by: H. W. Hutchins   04/26/2008 10:22 AM     
In what way was he judging anyone by their skin
when he made that decision? I think it's pretty
obvious that he wasn't sending those people out
because there was something wrong with them or
because he thought they didn't deserve to hear
what he had to say. He sent them out because he
wanted to speak to a black audience specifically
about things that pertained to them and their place
in society. I can see how some of the people he was
talking to might have thought he was putting on a
show or have been intimidated if he made that
gesture with everyone else around. You probably
wouldn't give your son an important life lesson in
front of his friends, even if they all deserved to hear
it too. You would do it in private.

That being said, I have no idea what the content of
the message was so I can't say I agree with it.
  by: Fratley   04/26/2008 11:15 AM     
cannot be justified by great intentions. Did this judge have good intentions? Sure. Was removing everyone except blacks from the courtroom racist? Yes. He made a decision based solely on the color of one's skin. That is, by its very definition, RACIST. The end does not justify the means.
  by: tomblik     04/26/2008 04:13 PM     
Theres more on the source, which was the most informing of the articles I looked at for this. Bill Cosby has even spoken up for the judge.

That being said, I believe racism is bad, but I feel the judge did a good deed. When I was young, we were seperated and both blacks and whites told about what could offend the others, to respect differences etc. Whenit was tried before that, with mixed races, the jeers came down and interrupted, preventing the discussion from continuing. For example, when it was mixed, the school addressed issues of matter to black first (decided by coin toss to be fair), and before they could get to how whites could get offended, the jeers from the blacks caused fights, etc. I was the upbringing of the area that gave them that sort of reaction, we were in tobacco central, and many grandfathers still talked about picking cotton and working tobacco for slave wages and the bad treatment. example - 'yeah see how you sposed to act, cracka?'

If this judge's act is to be called racist, I personally would call it a rarely seen example of -good- race based judgement.
  by: Kroww   04/26/2008 06:32 PM     
  I Have To Go With Ardvark  
Racism, even for the best reasons is still racism and is not to be tolerated by any branch of the government.
  by: ichi     04/27/2008 03:39 AM     
It's sad that the idea that only white people can be racist is so prevalent with us minorities.

Echoing the lot of yee: Racism is bad, mm'kay.
  by: edya   04/27/2008 05:42 AM     
The best thing I've ever heard in regards to this kind of situation was on a morning show, on it was a representative for black peoples rights talking about crime levels. The man interviewing him asked him "Two thirds of the crime commited in this area are commited by people of black, or mixed race origin, are you saying this isn't true?"
The man calmly replied with "No. I'm saying that it shouldn't matter what colour someone is when they commit a crime."

Basicly he was calling into question the entire practice of segragating the people breaking the law into groups defined by colour first and foremost, as opposed to wealth and such.
I think on a very basic level society has to come away from pointless and unintentional segragation.
  by: G1itch   04/27/2008 08:47 AM     
  Racism at its best  
There all kinds of racism. What one person deems 'good racism' and 'bad racism' is rediculous. I commend the judge for trying to talk to the community but the real answer would have been an open dialogue. I always love the term Civil Rights Advocate since the people involved usually only focus on their race's slights. If this had been the other way around we would have that idiot Sharpton marchng in the streets. Anyone here ever heard of the Baltimore Nine??? didn't think so. So, no races of the world you CAN'T have your cake and eat it too. A lot of people throw around the word equality but don't understand its meaning imho. A rant on ghetto fabulous is necessary in 'that dirty dirty' very badly. Why isn't SHarpton more angry at the black on black crime is beyond me- maybe because it has a negative connotation.
  by: jimmyp   04/27/2008 07:04 PM     
well done first summary.

i think the title is a tad misdirecting though, Kroww. a 'session' kind of implies to me that there is something official or state sanctioned going on. in this case, there isnt.
  by: elijah4twenty     04/27/2008 09:53 PM     
  @ jimmyp  
Sharpton is in love with Sharpton. He is one of the worst for using racism to further his own goals. He is not the answer he is the problem. A media Whore.
  by: ichi     04/27/2008 10:44 PM     
Actually that isn't the definition of racism.

I refer you to Article 1.4
"Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved."
  by: jendres     04/28/2008 03:02 AM     
  like the right  
"provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups"

Like the right to attend that secret meeting?
Which was, by any definition, based on race.
  by: CapitalistPig     04/28/2008 01:15 PM     
Its hard to educate the children of the white community with black people in the same classroom.

......See it doesn't really work both ways.
  by: Pyronius     04/28/2008 09:16 PM     
It would have made a lot more sense to address only those in the courtroom who have commited crimes. That is the only way that this would have not been concidered rasicm. Would it not be offensive to the upright black man to be grouped with a thug? In the same scenario, what if there was a white thug who could have benefited from the session? A person should not be addressed for any reason solely on the color of their skin.
  by: redheadedwonder   04/28/2008 09:36 PM     
  You know... long as there is any segregation or even the thinking that there is any difference between black or white the racism will rear it's ugly head...

I applaud that the judge had good intentions, and I understand his reasoning, but it's wrong.
  by: chiffington   04/29/2008 04:34 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: