Gay Bar Attack

[GottaBigOne]

Viva la resistance david. This is why self defense is such an important thing. Yes, no one should have to defend themselves against loonies who wish to do them harm, and its not "fair" that str8 people dont have the same problem, but you know what thats the way things are. There are always dangers out there. No one is completely safe and can not ever be completely safe. We should do thing s to stamp out bigotry in the mind, but until then there will always be a threat of gay bashing. The only thing we can do is be prepared. You can't expect to live in a world where there aren't other people out there who might attempt to hurt you, the only thing you can do is be prepared. When those that gay bash realize that gays are gonna fight back and are prepared to fight back with lethal force, then THAT will act as a deterrant.

I do not though advocate retaliatory violence(vigilantism), only self defense.

 

[davidjh7]

Viva la resistance david. This is why self defense is such an important thing. Yes, no one should have to defend themselves against loonies who wish to do them harm, and its not "fair" that str8 people dont have the same problem, but you know what thats the way things are. There are always dangers out there. No one is completely safe and can not ever be completely safe. We should do thing s to stamp out bigotry in the mind, but until then there will always be a threat of gay bashing. The only thing we can do is be prepared. You can't expect to live in a world where there aren't other people out there who might attempt to hurt you, the only thing you can do is be prepared. When those that gay bash realize that gays are gonna fight back and are prepared to fight back with lethal force, then THAT will act as a deterrant.

I do not though advocate retaliatory violence(vigilantism), only self defense.

Initiating the attack, no. But I personally have no problems, if the defence has to be extended by other means after the initial attack, to keep the person down. I have a high tolerence for alot of things, but when I feel justified, I am a mean, righteous person, and I have alot of patience, and a long memory. I also know lots of very dirty, ugly tricks to use on those who deserve to be stopped. I know psychology and human nature well enough to know how to study people, and know where to hit them where it will hurt the most. I have spent my life trying to be a decent person, and to helping people, rather than hurting them. But I do know how to be evil.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Defending yourself is never evil.

If anyone attacked me I would have no problem ending their life. I do not agree that self defense should only extend to stopping the initial attack. If it would endager my life to try to only subdue the attacker then I think it is entirely within my right to kill him. Killing him would be the only way to ensure that the attack stops.

 

[Pye]

Defending yourself is never evil.

If anyone attacked me I would have no problem ending their life. I do not agree that self defense should only extend to stopping the initial attack. If it would endager my life to try to only subdue the attacker then I think it is entirely within my right to kill him. Killing him would be the only way to ensure that the attack stops.

Then you get into "use of excessive force" where is the limit? should there be a limit?

 

[Dr Rock]

Then you get into "use of excessive force"

man, if you ever find yourself in that situation, you'll rapidly come to appreciate that nothing is "excessive" when it's YOUR ass on the line.

 

[davidjh7]

Then you get into "use of excessive force" where is the limit? should there be a limit?

The only way I will fight someone anymore, because fighting for the hell of it is stupid, is if I truly feel my life is threatened. Being physically bashed means my life is threatened, because it is motivated by pure baseless hate, and therefore it is without end. Since the person hates enought o attack based on only his hate, he can;t be counted on to stop or limit his hate. Therefore, my life is threatened. If my life is threatened, then I am justified stopping that threat, up to and including ending his or her life. Excessive force is justified in a life threatneing instance. As I said, a fair warning....

 

[Pye]

The only way I will fight someone anymore, because fighting for the hell of it is stupid, is if I truly feel my life is threatened. Being physically bashed means my life is threatened, because it is motivated by pure baseless hate, and therefore it is without end. Since the person hates enought o attack based on only his hate, he can;t be counted on to stop or limit his hate. Therefore, my life is threatened. If my life is threatened, then I am justified stopping that threat, up to and including ending his or her life. Excessive force is justified in a life threatneing instance. As I said, a fair warning....

But this is only justified if you can prove that a Hate Crime is being perpetrated..and at waht point is one allowed to defend oneself? is it
imminent threat or must it come to initial blows?

 

[davidjh7]

But this is only justified if you can prove that a Hate Crime is being perpetrated..and at waht point is one allowed to defend oneself? is it
imminent threat or must it come to initial blows?

According to most state's laws on self defence, you have to be in imminent danger with no means of escape. I personally would have to be in a situation where I couldn't get away, to even bother with the event. I would try and calmy walk away, or find other means. But the first hand laid on my is the last.

 

[GottaBigOne]

Like Rock said, there is no such thing as "excessive" when your life is on the line.

 

[BuddyBoy]

I am more explicitly saying that: it is not necessary to put anything into the law specifically covering if you kill because you hate women, or hate blakcs, or whatever. I am saying that it doesn't matter what your reason for killing someone is, if it is any reason but self defense, then you are a murderer plain and simple, and should get the death penalty.

Ok, I can see where we differ, and why your argument stands up in that context.

I don't believe in capital punishment. I tend to view incarceration as a more significant deterrent. And I believe in circumstantial sentencing. Since this actually emcompasses the reality in many jurisdiction, I favour extending hate crimes protection to crimes based of sexual orientation as opposed to instituting mandatory death sentences for all muder 1, 2 and 3 convictions.

But, I appreciate your viewpoint, too.

 

[EnglishGentleman]

I think in many ways we're being distracted by the violent apex of the hatred these young men in the attack and by extension have been debating the whole issue in the context of violence.

The disparity of law on both sides of the atlantic is this:

Say I went on a TV panel and was sat next to a learned gentleman who had African ancestry. If I were to refer to him in my repartee using words such as "Coon", "Wog" or "Nigger" I would rightly be accused of Racism and in the UK certainly could be prosecuted for it both for the racist behaviour itself and even for "Incitement to Racially Motivated Violence".

If I were sat next to the same guy yet I was calling him "Faggot", "Queer" or "Arse Bandit" I may offend some people, but the worst I could be accused of is poor taste!

I can't speak for US legislature on this point with any authority but I believe the positions to be similar there (please correct me if I'm wrong those of us with US legal expertise).

It is this kind of attitude that I personally find hard to understand and which I believe propagates a society in which hatred towards and/or violence against gays is considered less morally reprehensible than, say, violence against blacks or hispanics. If I met a chinese homosexual and called him a "Slanty-eyed fudge-packer" I would be condemned more for insulting his race than his sexuality, neither of which were his choice.

That is the issue at stake here. Choice. No-one can choose to be born gay any more than they can choose their skin colour, yet western society still allows gays to be used as figures to be poked fun at, but we have laws to prevent the same treatment between people of differing colours or traditions.

Being gay is no less a part of a persons make-up than their colour or religion, yet it is not protected in the same way.

So how about this instead?

If a certain friend of mine who is gay, black & moslem, were macheted in public, I would hate to think the perp would get a lighter sentence for arbitrarily murdering him in a gay bar, than in an R 'n' B club or a mosque.

 

[Dr Rock]

fighting for the hell of it is stupid

it might be stupid, but you can't deny that it's deeply satisfying :biggrin1:

 

[madame_zora]

it might be stupid, but you can't deny that it's deeply satisfying :biggrin1:

I'm sure that's why we all do it.

This simply HAS to come around eventually. Don't look for any improvements in the next couple of years, but once georgie boy is out of office perhaps we can scrounge up a leader somewhere with a brain and a heart (either one would be an improvement). In our history, laws have always changed first, then opinions. GBO and I disagree about what is right and wrong about how this should be done, but no one can disagree about how it HAS been done.

 

[steve319]

This simply HAS to come around eventually.

I would agree. It seems to be just a matter of time before society takes the next logical step with these protections. Inexorable tide. (and a long time coming, too!)

Though the risk of backlash toward the newly protected parties is substantial at first, the fact that it seems to be so long in coming around will surely calm down some of that reaction, even in the most hate-spewing segments of our culture. I think legal protection is the only way to go.

Cultural change is slow (maddenly slow!), but I think it IS occurring. Thanks to the efforts and voices of people like Clinton, Oprah, Ang Lee, or even the brave folks here at LPSG.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I think in many ways we're being distracted by the violent apex of the hatred these young men in the attack and by extension have been debating the whole issue in the context of violence.

Yes. It's precisely as you say EG. It seems, as we go round after round, about the legitimacy of hate crime legislation, we are put-off (ideally not by intent) to the real reason I began this thread. I mentioned its inclusion in hate legislation only as an aside. Yet many have taken only that aspect and flown with it. My primary focus was to address my own disbelief and sadness which surrounds those who are more immediately effected by the homophobic attack. I imagine you'd have to live here to conceptualize the popular shock at these events.

Awareness, to me, is key in an informed society. Where many only in greater New England were updated daily on these events in Massachusetts now people as far away as some kind fellow from England (EG) is in the know. It may seem a small thing but it's not. All exposure of hatred is "a good thing".

To that end I'm pleased to have had this forum and the sympathetic responses and support of many on the LPSG site.

 

[B_Stronzo]

..... or even the brave folks here at LPSG.

Here here steve319!

 

[madame_zora]

Yes. It's precisely as you say EG. It seems, as we go round after round, about the legitimacy of hate crime legislation, we are put-off (ideally not by intent) to the real reason I began this thread. I mentioned its inclusion in hate legislation only as an aside. Yet many have taken only that aspect and flown with it. My primary focus was to address my own disbelief and sadness which surrounds those who are more immediately effected by the homophobic attack. I imagine you'd have to live here to conceptualize the popular shock at these events.

Awareness, to me, is key in an informed society. Where many only in greater New England were updated daily on these events in Massachusetts now people as far away as some kind fellow from England (EG) is in the know. It may seem a small thing but it's not. All exposure of hatred is "a good thing".

To that end I'm pleased to have had this forum and the sympathetic responses and support of many on the LPSG site.

We sure have more readers than posters, so it's really not a bad place to get out a message, if that is your goal.

 

[B_Stronzo]

We sure have more readers than posters, so it's really not a bad place to get out a message, if that is your goal.

In this instance, without equivocation, I can say that it is.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

If I were to refer to him in my repartee using words such as "Coon", "Wog" or "Nigger" I would rightly be accused of Racism and in the UK certainly could be prosecuted for it both for the racist behaviour itself and even for "Incitement to Racially Motivated Violence".

If I were sat next to the same guy yet I was calling him "Faggot", "Queer" or "Arse Bandit" I may offend some people, but the worst I could be accused of is poor taste!

I can't speak for US legislature on this point with any authority but I believe the positions to be similar there (please correct me if I'm wrong those of us with US legal expertise).

EG:

I'm no lawyer and only a casual observer of U.S. law but under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution you could use racially or sexually derogatory words in public all you want without fear of being jailed.

You might be critcized, shunned, boycotted, ostracized, or even fired from your job but you can't be jailed for speech like that.

 

[GottaBigOne]

In our history, laws have always changed first, then opinions. GBO and I disagree about what is right and wrong about how this should be done, but no one can disagree about how it HAS been done.

In a democracy it is impossible to change laws without the consent of the majority, so I do not understand how you can change the law before you change people's minds. Majority does not mean unanimous consent, which hasn't been reached and can't be reached by force.
What most people don't seem to understand is that it wasn't the bus company's that wanted to segregate their buses, it was the Jim Crow laws that forced them to. NO company would benefit from ostracizing half (if not more) of its customer base, they were compelled to by law, and when the laws were changed, and they were allowed to run their business their way they did so. Sure there were some people who didn't agree, and they were vocal about it, but it wasn't the bus companies, because they were making money, and to a good businessman the only color he sees is green.