Something that leads to the obvious conclusion probably didn't take the story a different direction. Somebody was looking for a fight and the storyline (as far as we know) didn't deviate from that goal.
The nooses are an obvious step toward escalation, but that's not where the story started.

There are a lot of sayings, GregB.
At the instant when you're calling someone an asshole for cutting you off, you're looking for a fight. Fortunately, in most cases, the fight doesn't happen.
Sometimes it does happen though and nobody has any way of knowing the full story because each person involved happens to think of themselves as a person. Confrontation is an aggressive attempt to defend individuality.

Implied threat of rape.
Implied threat of lynching.
Which one is the media spectacle when it turns from implication to reality?

The discussion at hand is a case where we're being given information that manages to distract most of us from the underlying problem. There were more than seven kids present at the fight. Where were they during the beating? Why one white kid? Why not the whole treestump gang? Why not three noose hangers?
There are gaps in the story and basing a judgement on the parts we know does not advance our collective grasp of the underlying problem.

Without knowing the full story and having the capability of completely understanding exactly what the tree issue was/is, WHY would you assume that justice would have prevailed IF the 6 had been given the spot?
BandAids are not an effective treatment for fractures.

M