Three cleared in cross burning
Teens won't face charges in incident near Meggett
Jellyman
Chaplin
Jones
Previous Stories
NAACP chief seeks probe of incidents; Scott: Cross-burning, lynching photo target blacks, published 09/24/08
Photo was not hate crime, FBI says, published 09/23/08
Three arrested in cross burning, published 09/13/08
Three teenagers arrested in a cross-burning incident last month have been cleared of all charges at a hearing that found the evidence against them insufficient, authorities said.
The Charleston County Sheriff's Office arrested Joseph Wayne Chaplin Jr., 18, of Ravenel; Robert Jarrett Chance Jones, 19, of Ravenel; and Nicholas George Jellyman, 17, of Meggett, on Sept. 12, nearly a week after residents reported seeing a burning cross along a road between Meggett and the Petersfield community in southern Charleston County. The teens were released on bail shortly after their arrest.
The misdemeanor charges were dropped Monday because they failed to meet the requirements of the law, according to the 9th Circuit Solicitor's Office, which prosecuted the case.
State law makes it a crime to mount a flaming cross in a public space or on private property without permission. The cross found near Meggett on Sept. 6 was placed on private property.
Shortly after its discovery, Sheriff Al Cannon called the incident an act of "mischief."
"They indicated that it was a bored, mischief type of thing," he had said. "We don't believe that this is part of anything greater than three young people involved in some mischief."
But the episode prompted condemnation from the Charleston branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others, especially since the discovery of a MySpace Web site photograph of a figure dressed as a Ku Klux Klansman holding a noose around the neck of what appeared to be a white man in blackface. According to biographical information on the Web page, the photo was created by Chance Jones, one of the teens.
Charleston NAACP President Dot Scott called for an investigation of the incident and rebutted the assertion that it was a prank, saying it was a hate crime. South Carolina has no hate crime statute, though federal law includes a hate crime provision.
"It's unfortunate that the state of South Carolina doesn't have a law that addresses (this incident)," she said Friday. "We are continuing with our press for an investigation at the federal level."
Maj. John Clark of the Sheriff's Office said deputies are available to any residents with information about this incident or others. Community service officers can be reached by calling the Sheriff's Office or through the municipal offices of Hollywood and Meggett, he said.
"We understand the concerns," Clark said.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
YankeeLiberal (anonymous) says...
What else can you say but "Wow." Do these kids' parents agree that it was "just a prank?"
October 18, 2008 at 5:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
singleroni (anonymous) says...
just as the battle hymn of the republic is a hate song against southerners.
October 18, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldglory (anonymous) says...
I'd say these 'boys' are a bit beyond the 'mischief' age.
October 18, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
Exactly Yankee. But, sadly, I'm sure that the parents more than likely do agree that it was just a prank. And, I'm sure these boys thought just that, too. That's where the ultimate ignorance comes in. Passed on from parent to child -- a cycle of ignorance and poor attitudes. VERY SAD! There is NOTHING funny about this.
And I'm sure that they still don't get it.
October 18, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
The law in this state has it exactly right in viewing this as a property crime and nothing more. Thought control is exactly that--thought control. The NAACP's take on this is logically, legally, and morally mistaken since, among other things, it is MORALLY INFERIOR to punish people for their beliefs or expressing those beliefs in a non criminal way that does not damage property or physically injure anyone. I find 3 of the 5 preceding posts to be fascinating because of the conceit of the posters that they are somehow intellectually and morally superior. They are not superior and their lack of correctly undertstanding the full meaning of freedom and liberty, including Freedom of Speech, suggests an intellectual and moral deficiency. We all have to learn and live in this world in peace with other viewpoints and to understand that symbols are SUBJECTIVE, which means that one person sees a piece of wood shaped like a cross burning and another mistakenly takes it as a mortal threat when it clearly does not consitute same in and of itself.
Freedom of thought and speech has to include the right to have any belief structure about "race" that one pleases as long as he or she doesn't act out his or her beliefs in a criminal manner, meaning crimes aginst property or individuals, since making exceptions means such freedom is an ILLUSION rather than a reality. I find the smug nonsense in 3 of the 5 posts above to be fascinating, since "cycle of ignorance", "poor attitudes", "beyond the mischief age", and "wow" are poor and pathetic subsitutes for reasoning this out completely. As for who gets it, I do get it entirely and 3 of the 5 previous posters quite clearly do not, despite their simpleton, snide remarks to the contrary.
October 18, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HighDef (anonymous) says...
what a bunch of idiot's., these kids need a beat down and I'm sure they'll get it in jail someday.
October 18, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoelaces (anonymous) says...
I doubt these kids knew there was actually a law on the books that says burning a cross is illegal.
I didn't know there was a specific law written for this action until now. That being said, I am smart enough to know better. Not exactly the kind of thing we did at that age when we were "bored and into mischief."
October 18, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
When they say it was "a prank" they mean there was no underlying group thing like the NAACP or KKK was involved. But "mischief" or not prosecute them to stop the "mischief" as the LAW ALLOWS. Which in this case there is no law except property crimes.
I agree with the "halfsheli" comment "That's where the ultimate ignorance comes in. Passed on from parent to child -- a cycle of ignorance and poor attitudes."
And this is passed from all races unfortunately,and the AA community's cycle is more troubling to me than this. The NAACP has more to worry about than this crap. 70% teen pregnancy rates, young men killing each other at alarming rates, can't graduate from high school, therefore they can't work in our society.
DON'T FEAR, THE ENTITLEMENT GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT TO COME INTO POWER! You think its bad now??
October 18, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pats2848 (anonymous) says...
halsheli - you are exactly right...ignorance sadly passes on from one generation to another. Furthermore as long as the state brushes off such actions as just pranks, the longer they will continue.
October 18, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fockerout (anonymous) says...
would i get arrested (or would Dott Scott get pissed)if i made a cross out of two popsicle sticks and burned them in my own front yard???
October 18, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fockerout (anonymous) says...
As long as you don't play poker in your own house and not burn a cross in Charleston County, then Sherif Al Connon Jr. Esq. might only have one thing left to do...let a cop killer go free (computer glitch my ass).
October 18, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ColdBud (anonymous) says...
fockerout, no, the law does not apply to private property. There may be some other law that may come in to play, inciting a riot or something like that... I don't know as I haven't researched it yet.
I feel that these young men probably knew exactly what they were doing. They most likely developed their views based on what they have heard their parents say and do. In my opinion, they probably didn't realize the action was against the law, but they probably did know that the action was racist. What they didn't know is that it was stupid and ignorant and only proved that they are less intelligent than the people they tried to make fun of, scare or oppress.
October 18, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCgal (anonymous) says...
Where's the do the crime do the time gang this AM?
Who gets to determine when a teen crime is mischeif, family court, or adult court?
October 18, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ed52 (anonymous) says...
terrible decision! can you ,just for a second, imagine the hate that will be preached in ame churches tomorrow. thank you rev wright.
October 18, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kontact (anonymous) says...
Wrong is wrong guys (and gals). They got over on the state because it was private property but you can bet the farm that the feds will eventually indict these idiots. To not think that these kids burning crosses was not racially motivated you'd have had to been asleep the past century. As a black man I feel that the most disrespectful and hateful thing about this situation is when my brothers and sisters that are white attempt to justify the actions of these racist pigs. Common sense is common sense. I wouldnt burn the U.S. flag nor would I condone it by anyone I knew because thats disrespectful to Americans as a whole. Thats why we get offended when we see foreigners burning our flag in protest. It doesnt help them get sympathy from us at all cause it breeds hate. Same with burning a cross in the south. What did yall think these fine young men were doing, not protesting against God!!
October 18, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
I for one,would never remotely justify the actions of the racist pieces of trash! This disgusts me. These no good rednecks knew what they were doing was hateful,racially motivated and done to cause fear/hurt to the black community. It really breaks my heart that in this day and age we still have such hate. Hate based on nothing more than skin color? It really baffles me.
October 18, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stonehead (anonymous) says...
"The misdemeanor charges were dropped Monday because they failed to meet the requirements of the law, according to the 9th Circuit Solicitor's Office, which prosecuted the case.
State law makes it a crime to mount a flaming cross in a public space or on private property without permission. The cross found near Meggett on Sept. 6 was placed on private property."
There is some logic missing here. So it was "placed on private property", but was it with permission or without permission? If it was without permission, then the law was violated and the misdemeanor charge should stand.
I don't think that they did it just as a "prank". My guess is that they wanted to add a photo of burning crosses to their MySpace page, possibly adding it to the background on the photo of the "noose the black guy" scene.
In this case the letter of the law seems to be pretty clear. Did they do it with or without the permission of the property owner? If they had permissions, then it's corect dropping the charges. If they had no permissions, the charges should have stayed according to the law.
To the author of this article Did they have permissions to use that piece of private property? Yes, No, Unknown? If you are a journalist you probably should have addressed that question in your report.
October 18, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HighDef (anonymous) says...
Serial mooner- i bet they get their ass beat before they make it to jail. These kids are white trash.
I guess it comes down to being a good person or not, the only people i would think would support these idiots are outright racist pigs and trial lawyers , which Charleston has plenty of. If this act wasn't out of pure hate , what did they try to prove by this ? How many rednecks does it take to ignite a cross ?
October 18, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003), was a First Amendment case decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. The respondent, Barry Elton Black, had been convicted of violating a Virginia statute against cross burning. In this case, the Court struck down that statute because it takes the act of cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate. Such a provision, they argue, blurs the distinction between proscribable "threats of intimidation" and the Ku Klux Klan's protected "messages of shared ideology." However, cross-burning can be a criminal offense if the intent to intimidate is proven.
October 18, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech conflict with free speech rights because they isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint.
Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divides society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced. Some have argued that if it is true that all violent crimes are the result of the perpetrator's contempt for the victim, then all crimes are hate crimes. Thus if there is no alternate rationale for prosecuting some people more harshly for the same crime based on who the victim is, then different defendants treated unequally under the law, which violates the United States Constitution.
October 18, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kontact (anonymous) says...
Well let me tell you what does divide certain members of society: When one group (white , black, asian, etc...)does something deragotory to another group and they arent held accountable for their actions!!
October 18, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tulane75 (anonymous) says...
Although not relevant to this case, the discussion of First Amendment issues reminded me of my favorite 1st Amendment case, Cohen vs. California, a reference to which is linked below. Included are links to the oral argument and written opinion.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1...
October 18, 2008 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
diablo_tonto (anonymous) says...
I think I'm down w/GetSerious's idea about the "dirt road field trip" on James Island! These days it's become really easy to be a tough guy behind a computer screen(MySpace Gangsta) or setting things on fire(Crosses) when no one is around?? Usually it's an inferiority issue that causes this and I'm pretty sure that's the case w/these lil "maricones"! It's 2008 now, and you would have thought that a lot of these people could grasp the concept that getting along w/each other, is a lot friggin easier than constant division and turmoil? Oh well.......
October 18, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tulane75 (anonymous) says...
I expressed my opinion on Cohen vs. California. I agree with it!
Concerning the cross-burning, it strikes me the same as a swastika. These cross-burners are the ones who would have volunteered to round up families to take them to the train depot for transport.
At the same time, I recognize that the Solicitor's decision to prosecute or not involves both questions of law and practical considerations of proof. I respect the prosecutor's decision in this case.
October 18, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HighDef (anonymous) says...
The solicitor's decision is correct. I just hope that the majority never thinks this is how you express yourself. Everyone should have all the freedoms granted to us through the constitution, I just think flag/cross burning is for un-intelligent folk that seek attention through hate.
October 18, 2008 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
Kontact, you're just plain wrong and you made a mistake letting this thread (and all future threads) know your race and cultural identity since actual bigots will now take a certain viewpoint about you.
Well, black man, it might interest you to know that I have a very good friend who is black and also that people like me are the staunchest defenders of your NATURAL RIGHTS, which includes freedom of speech and also opposing any attempt at thought or mind control regardless of the stated reason (or should I say "excuse"). I mean, get your head on straight!!! You have no more right to DICTATE what other people think and feel and therefore say than I or anyone else has to dictate same to you.
Do you understand that if you ever succeed in imposing your viewpoint upon others, the corollary possibility exists that others could succeed in forcing their viewpoint upon you? The answer is NO YOU DONT and you need to read the writings of superior black people like Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Clarence Thomas, and many more. You can't claim I'm a racist, since I recognize the existence of "superior black people" and consider them extremely important to the GREAT DEBATE our nation is having that goes way beyond a mere cross burning. So what's your next line of attack, since it is reasonable for me to assume that you are a RACIST that happens to have black skin. I hope, for your sake, that I am mistaken in this assumption.
On another poster, I respect Tulane 75. Even though this poster and I are different ideologically, he or she clearly has the intellectual intregity to recognize the obvious and I applaud him or her for that.
October 18, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stonehead (anonymous) says...
Outrage
"The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech conflict with free speech rights because they isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint."
Please elaborate. What Supreme Court decision are you referring to?
In the case of Virginia vs. Black, it was a 7-2 decision. And the court struck it down because of the statute's prima facie evidence provision. Without the provision the court would have deemed the statute constitutional.
In any case the South Carolina law is not really a "hate crime" law. It is simply a property crime law restated specifically for cross burning. The Virginia law held cross burning a felony. The SC law makes it a misdemeanor, and only when it is done "without permission". Think about it, pretty much anything one does without permission on somebody else's property should be a misdemeanor. The SC statute is a joke, and it's not funny when offenders can get "cleared" of it so easily.
October 18, 2008 at 6:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stonehead (anonymous) says...
Postman-
You should be interested to know that, in the Virginia vs. Black case, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas are the two dissenters.
You should read their opinions. I would say Clarence Thomas' opinion is more closer to Kontact's than to yours. And I would go out a limb to guess that, Clarence Thomas, as one on your "superior black people" list, is far more intelligent than you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia...
October 18, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pinch22 (anonymous) says...
These are not babies. Everyone knows the implications of cross burning. The racial history of this country is on the front burner more than ever due to the up and coming election. This is another example of 2 different interpretations of the law for racial groups (literal interpreation without context and 'prank' interpretation). All crimes can be called a prank. I never heard of a 'prank' exclusion.
I don't think it was 100% but 50% racial, but if the laws are applied to another racial group 1 way then it needs to be applied to all groups the same way. That's the meaning of 'no justice no peace'.
October 18, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DawnM (anonymous) says...
Jellyman is a funny last name!
October 18, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
I suspect there are very few people today that have been directly affected by the activities of the Kook Klux Klan.
Coming back from a trip to Savannah in 1965 I passed a "real" cross burning just off hwy 17 somewhere around the Ravenal area but I'm not aware of any others since.
Just as with slavery, none alive today have suffered it's abuses but it still affords a rallying point for many who just can't seem to discard their childish righteous indignation.
The stars and bars, removed from the statehouse, still offers something of perceived importance to decry by those more than willing to overlook the myriad of real problems at hand.
Maybe after the flag has been eliminated, not only physically, but from appearances in movies or as pictures in history books, it may just be relegated to being the "F" word.
Might cotton be next on the list of unmentionables?
Lord save us from ourselves if this is the level of idiocy we have been reduced to!
October 18, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cracker_jack (anonymous) says...
Way to go fellas! I'm sure Dot Scott is furious. If she would focus on getting her own race in check she wouldn't have time to worry about what the white folks are doing. She isn't worried about trying to reduce the number of crimes commited by her own race. She's more focused on searching high and low to find any little thing she can find to point the finger at whites for all the blacks problems. I wonder whatever happened with her crusade to get the confederate flag removed from the statehouse lawn. Hmmm......Anyway, good job fellas.
October 19, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BIB101 (anonymous) says...
Knowing this area and them having names and faces posted was not a good idea per this situation
October 20, 2008 at 4:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.