Emmett Till protesters STORM senior living facility in search of woman accused of setting lynch mob on him t - after 1955 warrant for her arrest is unearthed. (Apparently revenge runs on black-people-time)

Article (archive)
  • Protesters are in search of Carolyn Bryant Donham, now in her 80s, of Raleigh, N.C. after a 1955 arrest warrant is unearthed in Mississippi
  • She accused the 14-year-old of whistling at her in a grocery store in Money, Miss.
  • Donham's husband, Roy Bryant, and half-brother, JW Milam, were arrested for his lynching, but were later acquitted
  • The pair later admitted guilt, but couldn't be prosecuted due to double-jeopardy laws
  • On Wednesday, protesters went to three listed addresses under Donham's name in search of her, but didn't find her
  • One of the addresses was a senior living facility; Raleigh PD was called and the facility was locked down
  • Video of the event shows protesters asking seniors if they recognized Donham's photo before leaving and chanting 'black power' and 'no justice, no peace'
Emmett Till protesters stormed a senior living facility in search of the woman who has been accused of setting a lynch mob on him after a 1955 arrest warrant was unearthed in a Mississippi courthouse.
Carolyn Bryant Donham, now in her 80s, of Raleigh, North Carolina, reportedly accused Till of whistling at her in a grocery store in Money, Mississippi, in 1955.
A week later, the 14-year-old Till was abducted, tortured, fatally shot and dumped into the Tallahatchie River, where his body was found swollen and mutilated three days later. His open casket shocked the nation.
Donham's husband, Roy Bryant, and half-brother, JW Milam, were arrested for his lynching, but later acquitted. The pair eventually admitted guilt, but couldn't be prosecuted due to double-jeopardy laws.
Last week, the unserved arrest warrant for Donham was found in the basement of a Mississippi courthouse, causing Till's family and activists to once again call for justice.
1657249936621.png

1657249953798.png
1657249994516.png
'You cannot ignore this,' said Priscilla Sterling, Till's cousin, according to WRAL. 'If this is what’s needed to do for us to change our mindset, our behaviors and attitudes in the society, then this will do it. This will do it. Execute the warrant.'
One of the protesters later told a local media outlet: 'I do understand that Ms. Bryant is in her mid-to-late-80s, but understandably, this is a crime she committed when she was 22. Sixty years later, it’s time for her to be held accountable.'
Donham's daughter-in-law, Marsha Bryant, said the older woman 'had nothing to do with it.' She also claimed her relative was 'appalled' by Till's murder.
'They think she should die or go to jail forever. They think what happened to Emmett Till should happen to her,' Marsha told the Clarion Ledger.
On Wednesday, the Lead Counsel for the Black Lawyers for Justice, Malik Shabazz, and other activists stormed a senior living center in search of her.
Shabazz and the group were seen going down a grungy stairwell in the senior living facility, which was not named, to hopefully confront the old woman.
'We on the move. We don't know how they're hiding this white woman down here, they're hiding Carolyn Bryant Donham,' Shabazz said in a Facebook Live. 'They're calling the police, but we're on the move. We know she's in here.'
The group descended on the brightly lit room, where senior citizens sat in wheelchairs and looked confused as the activists - some wearing what appears to be bulletproof vests - entered.
One woman asked, 'What does she look like?' when questioned if they knew Donham.
1657250124539.png
Shabazz said: 'The false accuser of Emmett Till, the one that said that Emmett Till had sexually assaulted her...she lives in this building.'
The unidentified woman replied: 'No, honey, she does not live in this facility. She lives in a nursing home, this is not a nursing home.'
The woman went on to say that Donham lives in a nursing home - or so she heard on TV - and dodged answering the question of the exact facility the woman was at.
The group then left the facility through the side door, chanting: 'No justice, no peace' and 'black power.'
The activists also approached two other residences listed under Donham's name, to tape an 'eviction notice' to the front door.
Raleigh police were said to have arrived on the scene minutes after the protesters entered the building, according to The Daily Beast, which caused the facility to go into a brief lockdown.
The activists are still searching for Donham.
The Department of Justice closed Till's case in December, stating that no further prosecution could take place because federal hate crimes didn't exist in 1955. It also said the 'statute of limitations' for a civil rights case have expired.
1657250085192.png
 
1) it was clearly a sexual assault
It wasn't "clearly" anything, because we don't know what happened, because there was no trial, because the kid was killed and thrown into a river instead of arrested and charged. I will shit on #metoo any day of the week and I'm all but sure you will as well, but you expect me to take at face value some girl saying "well, he grabbed me" when she didn't even report it to the police? When one of the murderers only reports asking his victim whether "he did the talking"? When said murderer said he would kill a black man just for getting near talking about having sex with a white woman because he's of the firm belief that that's the black man's stepping out of his "place"?

But even if you wanted to assume that he indeed grabbed her up... that's not sexual assault in Mississippi. It's not even sexual battery-- both of these charges require forcible penetration, or a reasonable expectation thereof, unless they made those statutes much more strict anytime before 2010.
2) the men only went to his house to give a scare/talking to
They fucking abducted him at gunpoint. Your link points to the same interview I linked to and talked about. You underplaying this is absolutely incomprehensible.

3) he admitted to “having” (ie raping)
Stop that. There's no such indication that that's how we're supposed to understand that verbiage. As far as I can find, the most "have" implies on its own is "having sexual intercourse" and not "rape". I brought this up, too, and you have yet to demonstrate that this is (assuming Milam's reliability here) Till admitting that he's raped white women. None of the surrounding context (according to Milam, he talks about how how his grandmother was white right after he talks about having "had" white women).

It wouldn't have even mattered to Milam, either. Again, talking about having had sex with a white woman while black merited capital punishment to him, by his own admission.

Now compare how this is being reported now
Who cares how it's being "reported now"-- I was arguing from the actual accounts of the inciting incident along with the story Bryant and Milam sold for money after they got acquitted.

Why the hell do you think I care about the "thousands of white Emmett Tills" in a conversation about how Emmett Till got lynched and murdered? What do you think that has to do with anything? How does that justify what happened in any regard? Shoot, maybe there wouldn't be cause to ask why Till's case got so much traction if those juries didn't nullify in the first place.
 
Why the hell do you think I care about the "thousands of white Emmett Tills" in a conversation about how Emmett Till got lynched and murdered?
Sorry, this isn’t a conversation about how Emmit Till got murdered. It’s a conversation about a literal extra-judicial black lynch mob intimidating elderly white people happening right now. Perhaps you are in the wrong thread?
 
Sorry, this isn’t a conversation about how Emmit Till got murdered. It’s a conversation about a literal extra-judicial black lynch mob intimidating elderly white people happening right now.
No, that's what the article above is about. Our conversation is specifically about how bullshit your "Emmett Till was acktually a sexual assaulter because some woman said so, and Bryant & Milam were gud boys who were just gonna rough him up a bit and give him a stern talking to until he made them shoot him in the head and throw his body in a river" revisionism is.

You don't get to assert facts about the case, talk about Emmett Till for two exchanges and then go "this isn't about Emmett Till-- are you lost, boy?".
 
No they can't. The US Constitution explicitly prohibits retroactive criminal enforcement. Not just as an amendment, but in the original ratified document. Its not even an overly complicated portion like the 14th amendment. Its a one sentence "No U".

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

This came up when some retards in the House of Representatives were talking about passing a law that essentially say's "Donald Trump can't be President ever again". The idea was quietly dropped.
A bill of Attainder / EPF law is not the same as double-jeopardy.

Bill of Attainder is a law that only targets one specific person and/or their family , usually blatantly and by name. (The Trump example being a perfect and correct example)

Ex Post Facto is that once something becomes illegal, it can only be prosecuted going forward from the passing of the law. You can't retroactively use it against people who did the thing when it was legal. If they lower the speed limit on a road from 40 to 25, I can't be served a ticked for driving 40 on it yesterday, only if I do it again today.

Double Jeopardy is that once you've been found Not Guilty of a crime, you cannot be charged with the exact same crime again, the state doesn't get to essentially keep trying again and again until they get the outcome they like. The way "around" this, legally anyway, is indeed what the Fed can do to someone who was found not guilty at the state level, and that is to bring technically different charges that cover the same exact act/event in a different court so that DJ doesn't attach. The most common version was for a KKK member to be acquitted of murder through jury nullification and the Fed would step in and charge the same person in Federal Court for violating civil liberties (i.e. life) of another, which is against Federal law, but, doesn't exist in lower state courts. And they were all set to do it if Chauvin had walked in Minneapolis, they were there to pick him up at the courthouse steps for Civil Rights and try him again.
 
You don't get to assert facts about the case,
Acktually, I do in fact have that right. Before your spaghetti word salad entered this thread I was responding to somebody maliciously repeating that the woman had recanted her testimony. Honestly I’m more interested in the hostile media machine that went from “Well it was just a mild sexual assault okay” in 1956 to “he just said goodbye instead of Goodbye “ma’am” in 2022. We’ve become all too accustomed to these misreportings and distortions of fact that seem to sanctimoniously gloss over any ill behaviors of any non white actors. From this case, duke lacrosse, George Zimmerman, George Floyd, etc etc, always some tiring moral panic that paints the black person as a literal saint and anyone else involved as some vile racist evil villain caricature. This story is ultimately a story about a combative kid that wanted to prove his masculinity to his friends and was embarrassed when the woman reacted startled and scared and couldn’t let it go, and a husband who likewise felt he needed to protect his reputation and deliver his own brand of justice. By omitting these details it turns into some weird perversion of white men afraid of the smooth talking black kid that’s gonna get yo girl and need to put him in his place. That’s not remotely what happened here. The one public thing that everyone witnessed was the woman running out to her car to get her gun for protection, and Emitt was still keeping up with his verbal harassment as he walked away

These distortions are directly responsible for the lynch mob forming in the article, black juries routinely acquiting violent murderers, openly threatening and harassing white jurors, and even the all white acquittal in this case in the 1950s, likely from a community fed up with this reporting. I honestly couldnt care less whether you think the hand went to her ass or just her waist and whether that’s acktually an assault or not
 
Acktually, I do in fact have that right. Before your spaghetti word salad entered this thread I was responding to somebody maliciously repeating that the woman had recanted her testimony. Honestly I’m more interested in the hostile media machine that went from “Well it was just a mild sexual assault okay” in 1956 to “he just said goodbye instead of Goodbye “ma’am” in 2022. We’ve become all too accustomed to these misreportings and distortions of fact
You keep going back to allegations that were never examined in court.

At any rate: you don't get to carry on talking about Emmett Till in particular and then turn around and say "hey, we're talking about the lynching that just happened here, not about Emmett Till". You carried on with the discussion without being forced.

The one public thing that everyone witnessed was the woman running out to her car to get her gun for protection, and Emitt was still keeping up with his verbal harassment as he walked away
The only thing that everyone attests to is her getting a gun "for some reason" (for protection? just because? we'll never know with deserved confidence for multiple obvious and aforementioned reasons). The most that anyone testifies to at that junction is that Till "whistles"-- and it's disputed as to whether he did it towards Carolyn or "some checkers game".

By omitting these details it turns into some weird perversion of white men afraid of the smooth talking black kid that’s gonna get yo girl and need to put him in his place.
What in the fuck are you going on about?

When people talk about "Emmett Till", they talk about how was how it was a prototypical #metoo case that went deadly or how it's another case of the old-as-time "falsely accuse slave of rape" maneuver-- none of this bollocks about "he didn't say 'goodbye' right". That's because barely anybody thinks that getting abducted, pistol whipped, and shot in the head-- all on the words of a woman and nothing else-- is a reasonable response to much anything that went un-investigated. Do you actually think "alleged harassment/assault" would somehow taper the reaction of these people if they chose to lynch her in the first place?

You claim to be concerned about accuracy, but you go well beyond a simple "actually, we don't know if Carolyn later denied her testimony-- we only have the word of one historian, and one of her family members denies that she did". At every turn you're trying to downplay what was certainly done to Till while assuming facts that never had a chance to be entered into evidence in any court case. You're not correcting the record-- you're constructing an equally biased story, emphasizing and lending credence to different aspects within the same pool of untried evidence.
 
Last edited:
Part of why the murderers were acquitted is that the penalty for murder was death and the jury didn't think that white men should die for killing a black kid.

Which is fucked up, but there you have it.
I don't think kidnapping also had a death sentence, and a jury didn't even bother indicting them for that despite their admission.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Flaming Insignias
none of this bollocks about "he didn't say 'goodbye' right".
I literally linked an article that claimed “he didn’t say goodbye right”

That's because barely anybody thinks that getting abducted, pistol whipped, etc
I never said what the men did was a reasonable response. I already gave my interpretation of the story which you are deliberately ignoring
You claim to be concerned about accuracy, but you go well beyond a simple "actually, we don't
Yes that’s the whole point, the entire left wing media establishment makes interpretations and distortions that fuel their own narrative, when you can easily read between the lines in the other direction and reach a different conclusion. I think their is a kernel of truth in the original 1956 article, even outright lies usually contain atleast a bit of truth. But from there it was a game of operator spanning decades that became “it was just a whistle” and even “he didn’t say goodbye right”

Yeah I’m sure not saying ma’am angered this bitch so much she ran outside to get her gun. All white people are evil racists and young black boys are never overly pushy trying to exert their sexual appetites on everyone around them.
 
I don't think kidnapping also had a death sentence,
It did in the US from 1932 - 1968, and that was kidnapping alone, even if you didn't harm your victim.

The USSC amended it in 68' so that it was only a capital offense if there were additional aggravating factors, like murder.
 
When people talk about "Emmett Till", they talk about how was how it was a prototypical #metoo case that went deadly or how it's another case of the old-as-time "falsely accuse slave of rape" maneuver-- none of this bollocks about "he didn't say 'goodbye' right". That's because barely anybody thinks that getting abducted, pistol whipped, and shot in the head-- all on the words of a woman and nothing else-- is a reasonable response to much anything that went un-investigated. Do you actually think "alleged harassment/assault" would somehow taper the reaction of these people if they chose to lynch her in the first place?

You claim to be concerned about accuracy, but you go well beyond a simple "actually, we don't know if Carolyn later denied her testimony-- we only have the word of one historian, and one of her family members denies that she did". At every turn you're trying to downplay what was certainly done to Till while assuming facts that never had a chance to be entered into evidence in any court case. You're not correcting the record-- you're constructing an equally biased story, emphasizing and lending credence to different aspects within the same pool of untried evidence.
I think one thing should be mentioned again, Central Park 5 was also mentioned as a case of #Metoo blaming the central park five "falsely" which outside of PBS the truth was they (CP5) were guilty and helped by an agenda driven DA, and a bunch of spin. To the point many people think the accuser of the CP5 (the victim in that case) should have to apologize to them when they literally admitted to doing the act to friends and more. It wasn't a false accusation case despite being prompted at first by people who were misled on the case. Note: ET case could be different, I'm just using an example for comparison to make a case point.

Emmett Till although talked about before modern times was rarely used, and often used in regards to the claim that he was just "innocent black boy in the wrong part of town." Which is another narrative of claims and examples that keep getting found to be incorrect. (Or the husband killed him over jealousy his wife was interested/etc.)Sure Emmett's case is questionable but it hasn't been proven because a lot of articles of such cases at those times either no longer exist in circulation or were never retrieved so we can't get the full story, but it's still likely there was some spinning. The self-hating whites who spin lies about black people actions in such cases have been going on for generations, one such claim is the one about whites chasing a group of blacks out of some town/lynching them for no reason, but upon further inspection said claim found said black group raped a bunch of white girls as such an example. That's why that old claim is no longer brought up because it got found out for being tripe. Note: The "Metoo angle" was barely used and not until the last few years. For many years it was primarily used as a "innocent black man gunned down for being black."

Whenever a claim such as Emmett Till's case is "White people just over reacted and murdered a black boy because evil racist bigots" or "Overzealous husband couldn't control himself." As the conscionable narrative I have huge doubts that the claim is anything other than bullshit at that point. Especially given the other details that we do know don't add up such as actions of the accuser.

I'd argue it's very obvious there was more going on in that case than mentioned in current known articles, now what direction you can make about it from there is up to the people reading between the lines, but I don't believe the "evil southern racist kill innocent boy" angle. Just like I didn't believe the CP5 "The victim misidentified them as her attackers" angle. Or that town in western USA lynching black people because "racist." angle. You can believe he was innocent, and maybe he stirred the pot leading to acceleration (IE: Didn't deserve it but one action lead to another), but after seeing repeat circumstances I don't think most will believe he just did a light flirt and got what is considered a feral dog's death back then.

Taking it as a train of thought it doesn't add up unless something more was happening in that interaction/exchange, and we'll probably never know what it is, but it's not impractical to take a belief that some think this story is blown out of proportion or being lied about just like the various other cases, some including which happened during the same era or prior. IE: The black serial killer who killed black women that for quite a few years was originally pinned on white men for some reason. Point being we don't have the full accuracy so we can only go on circumstantial evidence and beliefs to frame the rest of the puzzle at this point in time unless something solidifies it better like previous mentioned cases.
 
Sorry, this isn’t a conversation about how Emmit Till got murdered. It’s a conversation about a literal extra-judicial black lynch mob intimidating elderly white people happening right now. Perhaps you are in the wrong thread?
there is absolutely no way that guy is going to get a girlfriend if grabbing them on the street has consequences so he's kind of in the right thread
 
I literally linked an article that claimed “he didn’t say goodbye right”
Great. One article from 2014 versus years of general discourse and readily available facts.

I never said what the men did was a reasonable response.
You actively downplayed what surely happened:
2) the men only went to his house to give a scare/talking to (they went to his house to abduct him at gunpoint after asking him if he "did the talking")
while inventing a new sense of slang on the spot:
3) he admitted to “having” (ie raping) women before they decided to kill him ("having" is slang for consensual sex at most, and you have yet to demonstrate that it was ever otherwise)
and trying to justify a baffling case of jury nullification based on something that had nothing to do with their job for those cases:
Nothing justifies what the men did, and they should have been punished for their actions, but the reason for the jury nullification is pretty clearly demonstrated by the blatant anti-white articles in this case. There are thousands of white Emmit Tills every year, there are thousands of white women assaulted by blacks. The norm is black violence and white victimization. The fact that this became a national story even in 1955 is rank hypocrisy


Yes that’s the whole point, the entire left wing media establishment makes interpretations and distortions that fuel their own narrative, when you can easily read between the lines in the other direction and reach a different conclusion.
This kind of eisegesis isn't okay in either direction. You're actively polluting the conversation, that way.

All white people are evil racists and young black boys are never overly pushy trying to exert their sexual appetites on everyone around them.
The inverse is equally untrue, and yet that's the sense I get from people who have to talk about his father being executed for rape in order to weasel out some implication.

it doesn't matter what you think
Mississippi law as far back as I can trace (so, 2010, currently) doesn't recognize it as sexual (requires penetration) or simple (requires bodily injury), either. Feel free to actually cite law in contradiction to my conclusion.

Whenever a claim such as Emmett Till's case is "White people just over reacted and murdered a black boy because evil racist bigots" or "Overzealous husband couldn't control himself." As the conscionable narrative I have huge doubts that the claim is anything other than bullshit at that point. Especially given the other details that we do know don't add up such as actions of the accuser.
Both men were literally "racist bigots" who abducted and murdered a kid. It's good to be skeptical, but that skepticism actually needs to give way to investigation instead of some anti-opinion taken for its own sake:
Milam: "Well, what else could we do? He was hopeless. I'm no bully; I never hurt a nigger in my life. I like niggers -- in their place -- I know how to work 'em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, niggers are gonna stay in their place. Niggers ain't gonna vote where I live. If they did, they'd control the government. They ain't gonna go to school with my kids. And when a nigger gets close to mentioning sex with a white woman, he's tired o' livin'. I'm likely to kill him. Me and my folks fought for this country, and we got some rights. I stood there in that shed and listened to that nigger throw that poison at me, and I just made up my mind. 'Chicago boy,' I said, 'I'm tired of 'em sending your kind down here to stir up trouble. Goddam you, I'm going to make an example of you -- just so everybody can know how me and my folks stand.'"
He said all this while being protected from double jeopardy, mind you. He got paid for this. The guy also abducted Till after asking him whether he "did the talking"-- he didn't ask whether he touched the woman. Just whether he talked to her.

I'm also not citing articles. I'm principally citing the post-case testimony that Bryant and Milam sold, as well as court testimonies.
 
Last edited:
The mask is also off in the sense that they are very close to admitting what many want: full turnabout.

We were raised to belive in equality; that people should be treated the same and given the same opportunities and that racism was supposed to be in the past.

For some activists, racism won't be over until whites go through the same shit blacks did-hundreds of years of oppression, attacks, poor treatment, and lesser status and unfair outcomes under the law. Only then, when whites have paid their penance, can there be "true" equality.

In their mind, lynching whites should be legal for as long as it was legal or accepted for whites to lynching blacks. What they will do to this confused old lady if they catch her is one example. Another is the "black rage" defense where it's becoming acceptable for a black guy to kill someone who calls them "nigger" or even just utters the word in their presence. I guarantee some court will make precedence that it's legal in the next 5 years.

Uppity wypipo will learn their place.
You're hitting the nail on the head, for years now it's been obvious that the fight for justice and equality has shifted into pure an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth quest for cold blooded revenge for America's past, it's only getting even more obvious by the day.

They want payback, they want to make white America suffer for it's past.

And needless to say this is an evil idea, we don't have the saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole blind" for no reason, revenge is not justice.

I'm not seeing how this doesn't eventually blow up into some sort of war unless people start distancing themselves of the toxic attitudes or start distancing themselves literally, as in self segregating, it's an awful, heart breaking thing but you can't help but wonder if the well is simply poisoned on the whole MLK "I have a dream", "judge a man by the content of his character" thing because there's simply too much fucking bad blood in the US for things not to fall apart into a storm of resentment.

I don't honestly even know what the answer is, I just know our current situation is too fucked up and this story is a perfect example of how fucked up things have got that something needs to change.

I just pray that cooler heads prevail and people get a much needed sense of perspective.
 
Back