GOP Rep: Matthew Shepard Was A Hoax

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
162
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Lest anyone say the GOP isn't full of compassionate conservatives:

As the House of Representatives debates an expansion of hate crimes legislation, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) has taken the rhetoric to a new level, claiming that those who say Matthew Shepard was murdered in Wyoming for being gay are perpetrating a "hoax" on the American people.


"I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills," said Foxx. -C-SPAN via HuffPo


Matthew Shepard's mother was in the gallery and got to hear that come from the floor of US House of Representatives. Nice.
 

SCsoccerMom

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Posts
60
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
153
Age
53
Location
SC
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Female
It is sad anytime a innocent person is harmed much less killed for ANY reason. I have no idea what the "facts" of that legal case are. But look at the bigger picture. And one that the congressman was trying to make. ANYTIME ANY government can arrest, prosecute and take away anyones liberty FOR OUR THOUGHTS.....it is utter insanity in a nation of free people. Let's also look at the rhetorical efforts here to hide that glaringly obvious government intrusion....name it after this poor young man and WHO could have the heart to vote against it? This is shameful. I know people want to punish people for such hateful callous things. But let us not throw away our liberty and protection from the State in Matthews name or anyones name. These people are already going to be imprisioned for their actual physical criminal acts and I am glad. However, I hope we all don't run amuck and give the gov't power to punish any of us for our thoughts! That would be a crime against us and our children for all time.
 

MickeyLee

Mythical Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Posts
33,707
Media
7
Likes
49,844
Points
618
Location
neverhood
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
It is sad anytime a innocent person is harmed much less killed for ANY reason. I have no idea what the "facts" of that legal case are. But look at the bigger picture. And one that the congressman was trying to make. ANYTIME ANY government can arrest, prosecute and take away anyones liberty FOR OUR THOUGHTS.....it is utter insanity in a nation of free people. Let's also look at the rhetorical efforts here to hide that glaringly obvious government intrusion....name it after this poor young man and WHO could have the heart to vote against it? This is shameful. I know people want to punish people for such hateful callous things. But let us not throw away our liberty and protection from the State in Matthews name or anyones name. These people are already going to be imprisioned for their actual physical criminal acts and I am glad. However, I hope we all don't run amuck and give the gov't power to punish any of us for our thoughts! That would be a crime against us and our children for all time.

you suck :mad:

maybe you are just completely ignorant of the intent behind Hate Crime laws. i'll keep it simple.

if you kill someone because they are gay you are a threat to ALL gay people. simple as that. the purpose of the law is to increase sentencing after the trial. the DA/prosecuting attorney still has to prove the accused's intent. having a hate crime law on the books will not stop you from saying "god hates faggots" it will ideally keep the fucker in jail for years if he/she lashes out violently.

historically crimes against homosexuals or transgender persons have led to fewer convictions and lighter sentences when compared to the same crimes committed on straight people.

if you followed the Matthew Shepard case you might have known that the Gay Panic defense was used in an attempt and lessen the offense in the eyes of the jury. that two murderers were so offended and threatened by sexual advances from Mathew Shepard they were not sane at the time of the beating.

if being a queer gets me tied to a fence post to die slowly, then beating the queer should leave someone rotting in prison.
:rant:

going to stomp off and be a cranky queer for a few hours.
 
Last edited:

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,512
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
SCsoccerMom writes:

"ANYTIME ANY government can arrest, prosecute and take away anyones liberty FOR OUR THOUGHTS..."

--------------------

Listen, lady, if somebody is arrested and prosecuted for BASHING A GAY GUY WITH A BASEBALL BAT -- then how exactly does this translate into being arrested for "thoughts"?

Nobody's claiming you should be arrested for hateful thoughts, ignorant mother (lucky you, your anti-gay thoughts are still permissible), but for actual physical hate crimes.


More rubbish from the soccermom: "..poor young man..." (right. just save it, woman) "and WHO could have the heart to vote against it?... I hope we all don't run amuck and give the gov't power to punish any of us for our thoughts! That would be a crime against us and our children for all time."

Who are you, Trinity? Working the threads under another name?

WHO is punishing you for your thoughts?? It's not enough to have diarrhea of the mouth, Mom, you actually should substantiate your charges. Turn off the Rush Limbaugh and tell us how your mere thoughts are being violated?
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
<snip> ANYTIME ANY government can arrest, prosecute and take away anyones liberty FOR OUR THOUGHTS.....it is utter insanity in a nation of free people.<more snipping>.

Look, I'm with Will - how exactly is arresting someone for bodily harm to another human being "prosecuting... for thoughts." Seriously. Where do you get that idea?

And why do you, and apparently this fine woman from the state that borders you to the north, get the idea that hate crimes legislation is only about gays? It isn't. It's about any group of people who is violently persecuted solely based on their inclusion within a group.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
More rubbish from the soccermom: "..poor young man..." (right. just save it, woman) "and WHO could have the heart to vote against it?... I hope we all don't run amuck and give the gov't power to punish any of us for our thoughts! That would be a crime against us and our children for all time."

Who are you, Trinity? Working the threads under another name?

A trans by any other name types as poorly, WT :rolleyes:

But here's where I diverge from the pack, though not in support of what Sucker"mom" has to say about hate crimes, least of all the way (s)he chose to express that POV.

Living in a diverse, multicultural society based on tolerance and equality means that everyone gets to be as big a flaming asshole as they want to be. The sociopaths who beat Matthew Shepard nearly to death and left him tied to a lonely fence for 18 hours (oddly like crucifixion, and with irony considering who is denying the facts of that case now) were vicious, cruel thugs who, in denying Matthew his dignity as a human being carried their blind hate to nearly-inhuman levels. They deserved to be tried for murder (the ultimate crime in America) and were. Where Sucker"mom" is so dead wrong is in ascribing their punishment to "thoughts" instead of their heinous actions is the tip off that we're dealing with the sock puppet of a tone-deaf, bigoted polemicist.

The fact is that no amount of punishment will bring him back to those who loved him. And I cannot fathom how their punishment could possibly deter other sociopaths from committing equally barbarous acts in the future: these were crimes beyond reason, and are fear of the consequences of getting caught don't figure into why the ignorant cunts commit them. Being an ignorant, stupid cunt is not against the law; committing a crime based on one's ignorant, cuntish opinions is, and you punish the crime accordingly. Justice is not vengeance or retribution, it's about punishing criminals.

If the laws that govern these ignorant, cuntish crimes aren't severe enough, then work on making them tougher. If someone keys your car because you have a long-running feud, that's vandalism. If someone keys your car because they think you're an "uppity negro" who doesn't know his place, then it's vandalism and a civil-rights matter and should be taken up in civil court (providing you can prove it).

There's a highly valid argument (that Sucker"mom" seems to have forgotten) that motive is always a factor in deciding the severity of the charge. Otherwise, there's be no difference between manslaughter and first-degree murder. This is a long-standing tradition in our system of jurisprudence to account for this. It's folded into our concept of justice already, and I don't see how adding another layer of culpability changes anything.

If there's a lack of empathy on the part of DAs for the victims of crime, then it's time to change their thinking. This happens all the time: think of rape, for instance. Though such thinking should be deader than the dodo, defense attorneys can still push such Neanderthal notions as whether or not the victim's attire or demeanor "invited" her rape, and prosecutions against the rape of sex workers are especially, notoriously unsuccessful in this regard.

Let me make my point as clear as possible: if a crime is committed with hate as the primary motive, then it should be prosecuted under the harshest possible penalties within existing precedent for motive. But enacting laws forbidding speech that would otherwise be protected under the first amendment is, in my opinion, misguided and probably unconstitutional.

I'm sure that this is my strong anti-authority streak showing, and I don't expect to win any popularity contests in stating it, but it's truly how I feel.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
A trans by any other name types as poorly, WT :rolleyes:

But here's where I diverge from the pack, though not in support of what Sucker"mom" has to say about hate crimes, least of all the way (s)he chose to express that POV.

Living in a diverse, multicultural society based on tolerance and equality means that everyone gets to be as big a flaming asshole as they want to be. The sociopaths who beat Matthew Shepard nearly to death and left him tied to a lonely fence for 18 hours (oddly like crucifixion, and with irony considering who is denying the facts of that case now) were vicious, cruel thugs who, in denying Matthew his dignity as a human being carried their blind hate to nearly-inhuman levels. They deserved to be tried for murder (the ultimate crime in America) and were. Where Sucker"mom" is so dead wrong is in ascribing their punishment to "thoughts" instead of their heinous actions is the tip off that we're dealing with the sock puppet of a tone-deaf, bigoted polemicist.

Murder is murder.
 

tripod

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Posts
6,665
Media
14
Likes
1,831
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That little badger woman represents my fucking district and she makes me fuckin' sick. I live where the people are not too bright and she gets re-elected year after year... I've tried to vote her out twice, it seems to have no effect. I saw her in a grocery store once and she looked mean as hell.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
60
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Or when it's 1st degree, 2nd degree, 3rd degree, or involuntary, etc...
This isn't directed to you, of course, but I wish people would stop trying to overly generalize things.

I really need to stop assuming people know what the hell i'm talking about, don't i?

Gay panic. That's the defense used in the Shepard case. The attempt was not to get off scott free, but to get the conviction reduced from Murder to Manslaughter. This is why I think hate crimes legislation is a good idea. It prevents further perpetuation of bigoted ideas as a means of defense. It says, in essence, if you killed someone because you hate the group he belongs to, that's the same thing as premeditation.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I really need to stop assuming people know what the hell i'm talking about, don't i?

Gay panic. That's the defense used in the Shepard case. The attempt was not to get off scott free, but to get the conviction reduced from Murder to Manslaughter. This is why I think hate crimes legislation is a good idea. It prevents further perpetuation of bigoted ideas as a means of defense. It says, in essence, if you killed someone because you hate the group he belongs to, that's the same thing as premeditation.

Don't worry... I understood completely.
I was just adding more to the whole "murder is murder" comment. Part of it was sarcastic, but as I stated it wasn't aimed at you. Sorry for the confusion.