Homophobic Murders ...

[Shelby]

But is "Joe White" being attacked because he is white?

Yes. My point exactly.

You said it yourself: he was "in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time".

But the only reason it would be wrong is because I was not the not the right ethnicity.

Remember the aftermath of the Rodney King fiasco? Whites were getting their heads bashed in for no other reason than being white. But somehow we're exempt from hate because our great great grandaddies were politically incorrect viewed through the lense of the present? I suppose in this case the rage was justified?

I realize this thread is about sexual orientation and not race. Sorry to veer. At the same time I don't find it inconceiveable that a group of gays might beat up a redneck given the right circumstances. Should their penalties be stiffened?

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think it was an accident 6 times out of 10.

One time out of a trillion is too many. And whether or not it ends in death or "just a simple coma and disfigurement" does not make a difference. Killing someone who raped your daughter IS NOT THE SAME THING as killing a random person because you PERCEIVE something about them.

 

[jeff black]

One time out of a trillion is too many. And whether or not it ends in death or "just a simple coma and disfigurement" does not make a difference. Killing someone who raped your daughter IS NOT THE SAME THING as killing a random person because you PERCEIVE something about them.

You are right.... 1 out of a trillion is too many.

The killing father comment was to express how people can lose control, in a heated situation.

I am not excusing violence in any way,shape, or form.

 

[DC_DEEP]

...But somehow we're exempt from hate because our great great grandaddies were politically incorrect viewed through the lense of the present? I suppose in this case the rage was justified?

I realize this thread is about sexual orientation and not race. Sorry to veer. At the same time I don't find it inconceiveable that a group of gays might beat up a redneck given the right circumstances. Should their penalties be stiffened?

No. Never. Not justified. Those rioters who killed any honkey they saw should be held to the same criteria. It was a hate crime.

And yes, if the group of gays lurked outside a bar and killed the first redneck who walked out, yes. A hate crime. No. Not justified. Never. It would be a hate crime, and they should receive hate-crime penalties. What do you not get, Shelby? I think that anyone who perpetrates a violent crime against another person just simply based upon race or gender or religion or sexual orientation or cake frosting preference should be held accountable under hate crime criteria. Period. It is NOT the same as a crime of passion (a woman killing her abusive husband), it is NOT the same as a father attacking his daughter's rapist, it is NOT the same as anything else other than another hate crime.

 

[Shelby]

Ok, I get it.

Sometimes I have to be beat upside the head but I can be persuaded. lol
​

 

[Matthew]

Re: "I can't believe it happened here" - people get bashed in San Francisco regularly, even in the Castro. I really don't see it as a question of this area being "more tolerant" than that area.

Re: Hate Crimes - I think civilized societies should add extra penalties to discourage and punish crimes they find especially heinous, and violence based on hatred of minority/oppressed groups is a great candidate for that category imo.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I would appear that some members just don't seem to believe me when I say I am "equal opportunity, equal responsibility" across the board. I am, really.

 

[hobbitDJ]

okay, here's where the gay man chimes in with a dissent.

I think it's foolish to give special class or consideration to any crime on a mandated level. Education and influence through sensitivity training will provide a much greater, more defensible good.

I'm a screaming Libertarian who seeks equal treatment for ALL.

I hate to think we overclassify and overcategorize events in the name of furthering a "victim" status, as a means of what amounts to revenge. That's BS and we all know it.

I'll scream this from the highest mountaintop (and especially at Ann Coulter right now): Stop focusing your perceived victim status and focus on your own progress. Whiners don't win the war.

How would I approach the hate-crime bit? Make use of the "hate" tag to track these types of attacks, then use that data to concentrate resources for educational programs where needed. But the tag itself has no place in the courtroom. We already consider the motivation for a crime during sentencing.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I would appear that some members just don't seem to believe me when I say I am "equal opportunity, equal responsibility" across the board. I am, really.

I hear that DC. So am I and I seem to need to repeat it nearly daily.

I hate to think we overclassify and overcategorize events in the name of furthering a "victim" status, as a means of what amounts to revenge. That's BS and we all know it.

We already consider the motivation for a crime during sentencing.

Oh yeah we do! Often to the detriment of the victim...

Idealist.

Since you're gay and posture yourself so idealistically you can thank your gay stars you weren't at "Puzzles" gay lounge New Bedford Massachusetts playing pool one night back in Feb. of this year.

 

[jeff black]

I hear that DC. So am I and I seem to need to repeat it nearly daily.

Without taking sides...even though I will.

I have seen a few of the Homosexual members who claim to be equal, but spend a great deal of time representing one side.
There is nothing wrong with that. I think alot of people find it hard to defend what they don't know.

It would be like Attacking Mcdonalds, when you love eating there.:tongue:

 

[hobbitDJ]

I think that anyone who perpetrates a violent crime against another person just simply based upon race or gender or religion or sexual orientation or cake frosting preference should be held accountable under hate crime criteria. Period. It is NOT the same as a crime of passion (a woman killing her abusive husband), it is NOT the same as a father attacking his daughter's rapist, it is NOT the same as anything else other than another hate crime.

Exactly. But crimes of passion or defense are already protected. Everything else is assumed to be rooted in hate. Why would you kill someone you particularly liked? If you did, you might be up for an insanity defense. "Hate Crimes" legislation, when used to protect homosexuals, offer up the best means for using the defense of "gay panic". It's like shouting out our differences are so big and so wide that no one can deal with each other as just plain *people*. And recognizing that formally creates a legal knot that's difficult to get around.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Exactly. But crimes of passion or defense are already protected. Everything else is assumed to be rooted in hate. Why would you kill someone you particularly liked? If you did, you might be up for an insanity defense. "Hate Crimes" legislation, when used to protect homosexuals, offer up the best means for using the defense of "gay panic". It's like shouting out our differences are so big and so wide that no one can deal with each other as just plain *people*. And recognizing that formally creates a legal knot that's difficult to get around.

Are you telling me that you neither understand nor support the division of murder into distinct categories, such as murder one (premeditated), murder two (non-premeditated), involuntary manslaughter, vehicular homicide, or any other? Murder in the commission of a burglary, say, as opposed to murder in the commission of a fag-beating? The law is full of distinctions recognizing intent v. outcome. The thing is, if those distinctions are not clearly spelled out in statute, a prosecution team cannot use them. There is a reason the law treats simple assault differently than aggravated assault.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Exactly. But crimes of passion or defense are already protected. Everything else is assumed to be rooted in hate. Why would you kill someone you particularly liked? If you did, you might be up for an insanity defense. "Hate Crimes" legislation, when used to protect homosexuals, offer up the best means for using the defense of "gay panic". It's like shouting out our differences are so big and so wide that no one can deal with each other as just plain *people*. And recognizing that formally creates a legal knot that's difficult to get around.

As for "gay panic" defense in a murder trial, I think it should be catagorized and renamed "weakling panic" defense and "xeno panic" defense. In the former, the weakling (the straight guy) panics when accosted by his brutal abuser (the gay who put the move on him) because he has absolutely no self-control. But since it is no longer specific to gays, but extended now to weaklings, it could also apply to the woman who can't stop herself from murdering the man who put the moves on her in the bar... or the atheist who can't control his murderous rage when door-to-door jesus salesmen ring his doorbell. In the xeno panic defense, it would be a mitigating factor if the person you kill is different from you in any way, which of course, is plenty of reason to murder. His skin is a different color... he has a different love relationship that you do... he says "poe-tay-toe" and you say "poe-tah-toe." Any attorney who encourages his client to use any kind of "-panic defense" is a fucking idiot. Any judge who allows that sort of shit in his courtroom is a fucking idiot.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Without taking sides...even though I will.

I have seen a few of the Homosexual members who claim to be equal, but spend a great deal of time representing one side.
There is nothing wrong with that. I think alot of people find it hard to defend what they don't know.

It would be like Attacking Mcdonalds, when you love eating there.:tongue:

Forgive me jeff. I'm having a dense day. Could you clarify more what you mean? Thanks.

But crimes of passion or defense are already protected. Everything else is assumed to be rooted in hate. Why would you kill someone you particularly liked? If you did, you might be up for an insanity defense. "Hate Crimes" legislation, when used to protect homosexuals, offer up the best means for using the defense of "gay panic".

Sorry hobbit but I'm having a very difficult time believing you're a homosexual.:33:

 

[jeff black]

Forgive me jeff. I'm having a dense day. Could you clarify more what you mean? Thanks.

My apoligies, Stronzo.

MY english is sucking these days. As is my cognitive thinking abilities.

I was refering to a few of the members on the board, who like yourself, Claim to be open-minded and equal opportunity, but tend to be a bit more protective of things that affect them, like the rights of homosexuals. Now, I wasn't judging, or stating it was a bad thing. I just wanted to correct your statement a bit, so that it felt more truthful to me.

Like MANY people here, Stronzo, You are open minded and believe in equal opportunity etc, but you DO have a soft spot in your heart for homosexuality.

 

[B_Stronzo]

My apoligies, Stronzo.

MY english is sucking these days. As is my cognitive thinking abilities.

I was refering to a few of the members on the board, who like yourself, Claim to be open-minded and equal opportunity, but tend to be a bit more protective of things that affect them, like the rights of homosexuals. Now, I wasn't judging, or stating it was a bad thing. I just wanted to correct your statement a bit, so that it felt more truthful to me.

Like MANY people here, Stronzo, You are open minded and believe in equal opportunity etc, but you DO have a soft spot in your heart for homosexuality.

That's what I thought you meant. 'Claim to be' huh? Whoa. Tell me where I'm not open minded? You don't get to hurl out a premise like that without an example dude.

If I come across favoring my gay brothers and sisters jeff it's for one reason only. It's one of the most topical issues these days in the "injustice" category globally and it's under heavy fire from all the powers that be. Read newspaper reports of atrocities in Russia, Poland, Egypt, and Turkey (let alone these United States) if you doubt the veracity of the situation.

Be assured injustice of any kind bothers me equally but the input of people on this board (dare I include you too...) with respect to what can only be percieved as an all out war on my gay brothers seems to be largely overlooked and brushed off.

Easily one could say that my black LPSG detractors are only concerned similarly about what effects them but you don't appear to single them out do you? (Lex is a sterling exception for obvious reasons)

What are you passionate about jeff?

 

[findfirefox]

In order to stop homophobic murders your going to have too stop all murders, simply meaning random people are killed everyday who are just going about their business, let alone if you give people a "reason" such as being gay, bi, black, Latino, Jewish, anything.

In my opinion, the murders of people for reasons such as race, sexuality, etc will never stop, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

[D_alex8]

Like MANY people here, Stronzo, You are open minded and believe in equal opportunity etc, but you DO have a soft spot in your heart for homosexuality.

My response to that is a quote - almost a throw-away, as the opening line to the preface - from Dorinne Kondo's 1997 study About Face: Performing Race in Fashion and Theater: "We write about what moves us. As positioned subjects with particular stakes in our work, this is both inevitable and necessary."

Kondo's point is that, although one may be drawn to focus on that which is 'close to home', it does not necessarily mean one is excluding all else, let alone adopting a prejudiced viewpoint towards 'others'.

 

[B_Stronzo]

That, in my opinion fff, is totally irrational.

People once were lynched in the south without fear of repercussion.

Since there now is repurcussion (i.e. hate crime status) lynchings have ceased to occur.

It's primarilly the result of a fear of being held accountable not through any great understanding of the equality of the races I'll warrant.

 

[ETA123]

My apoligies, Stronzo.

MY english is sucking these days. As is my cognitive thinking abilities.

I was refering to a few of the members on the board, who like yourself, Claim to be open-minded and equal opportunity, but tend to be a bit more protective of things that affect them, like the rights of homosexuals. Now, I wasn't judging, or stating it was a bad thing. I just wanted to correct your statement a bit, so that it felt more truthful to me.

Like MANY people here, Stronzo, You are open minded and believe in equal opportunity etc, but you DO have a soft spot in your heart for homosexuality.

Ummm, it occurs to me, as a straight male who is very open-minded and who believes in equal opportunity that supporting gay rights and opposing hate crime goes hand in hand with being open-minded and believing in equal opportunity.

Saying that because a gay man supports gay rights, he's only doing so because he's gay is like saying a human being who supports clean air to breath is only doing so because he breathes oxygen.

In other words, it has nothing to do with him being a gay male, but everything to do with him actually being open-minded and supportive of equal opportunity.