Judge doesn't punish gaybashers

[+ Lucky]

A Florida judge thinks it's pretty much okay to beat up fags:

 

 

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

 

Man gets house arrest, probation for beating three men after gay pride celebration in Florida

 

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

 

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

 

 

 

(04-22) 09:33 PDT TAMPA, Fla. (AP) --

 

A man convicted of attacking three men as they left a gay pride celebration was sentenced to house arrest and probation, a decision that angered the victims.

 

Devin Scott Angus, 21, had faced up to 30 years in prison. He pleaded guilty earlier this month to charges of aggravated battery and a hate crime.

 

Hillsborough Circuit Judge Chet Tharpe said he worried that sending Angus to prison could make him worse. He sentenced him to two years of house arrest followed by four years of probation.

 

"I hope this judge isn't involved in any other discrimination cases, because evidently he doesn't know how to handle these," said victim Steven Hair.

 

The assault happened July 7, on the last day of PrideFest, a six-day event celebrating gays and lesbians.

 

Before attacking the men in a parking garage, Angus taunted them by dropping his pants and screaming obscenities. Hair, 26, suffered a skull fracture, a split sinus and tooth damage; Sonny Gonzales, 35, received a head laceration; and Scott Boswell, 25, got a split lip.

 

On Monday, Angus tearfully apologized, saying he was drunk when he attacked them. "I don't know why I did it. I did it," Angus said. "I don't hate homosexuals. I didn't hate you that night. I don't now."

********************************************************************

 

(Judge Tharpe may be reached at (813) 272 6850. Although this looks like "personal" information, it is an official government phone number publicly listed.)

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

Most people who commit the crime of assault - particularly where, as here, it does not involve a weapon, and where (it doesn't indicate if it's true here) it's a first-time offense - don't end up being imprisoned, but rather, are sentenced to probation.

 

Do you think that this criminal should be treated differently, i.e., more harshly, simply because the victims he chose to assault were gay?

[taylorky]

LOL whoa i bet all the right-wing self hating fruits that post here will be relocating to tampa. think of the money they can save.all the ass-whipping and humiliation they can handle .........for free, not $200.00,$250.00 or $300.00 an hour but FREE. just think about it as compassionate sadism for the cause uncle brucies.and as a bonus, when you go the r.n.c. rallys you can show your bruises and scars, and prove you accepted your punishment for being a fruit with joy......taylorisdisgusted@15:26-04/22/03

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

You are a little pussy who wants to see yourself as a victim for life.

 

TAYLOR: "I'm a little oppressed faggot who needs special treatment, so when someone beats ME, they should get EXTRA punishment, because I'm so handicapped and victimized and oppressed and weak, that it's EXTRA mean when someone beats up a faggot like me, so treat them DIFFERENTLY and give them MORE PUNISHMENT than if they beat up a normal person."

 

That is SICK. Your need to be an oppressed victim, and your demand that the law be re-written to give you special consideration based upon your status as a "victim", is the purest form of self-hatred that exists.

[+ Lucky]

My take on jailtime is that the more the damage, the more the time. The more victims, the more time. The more insidious and hateful, the more a message needs to be sent as to the standards of the community. This judge is sending the wrong message, except as taylor points out, to the hairy dominant types who need a good wupping.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>My take on jailtime is that the more the damage, the more the

>time. The more victims, the more time. The more insidious and

>hateful, the more a message needs to be sent as to the

>standards of the community.

 

So you think that a criminal who walks up to 3 gay men and bashes them over the head with a baseball bat and calls them "fag" should be punished more than a criminal who walks up to 3 straight men and bashes them over the head with a baseball bat and takes their wallets?

[+ Lucky]

Did they take the fags' wallet or purses?

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>Did they take the fags' wallet or purses?

 

No - Criminal # 1 just walked up to the 3 gay men, bashed them over the head with a baseball bat, and called them "fag." He took nothing.

 

Criminal # 2 walked up to the 3 straight men, bashed them over the head with a baseball bat, and took their wallet, but said nothing.

 

Your initial post suggests that you think Criminal # 1 should be punished more. Which do you think should be punished more - or should they be punished equally?

 

In other words - ISN'T IT THE SAME REPUGNANT CRIME TO BASH SOMEONE OVER THE HEAD WITH A BASEBALL BAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE VICTIM IS GAY OR STRAIGHT????

 

How could anyone - other than a clinically retarded, self-victimizing child like Taylor - argue that there should be greater punishment doled out for a crime based upon the SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the victim???

[Luv2play]

Substitute "Jew" or "Black" in your example no. 1 and ask the question: Is this a hate crime? Then substitute "Fag" and ask the same question. All gays are asking is that they be treated like others who, because of who they are, are physically attacked in a hate crime, not through any other motivation such as robbery. This has NOTHING to do with "self-victimization". It's HATE, pure and simple, the same kind that sent 6,000,000 Jews, homosexuals and gypsies to their deaths in Nazi Germany.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>Substitute "Jew" or "Black" in your example no. 1 and ask the

>question: Is this a hate crime? Then substitute "Fag" and ask

>the same question.

 

Yeah - the game is just as repgunant no matter which characteristic you use. How can the race or gender or sexual orientation of a victim matter in the slightest when punishing a crime? To think that it should matter means that a crime is more or less serious depending upon the race or sexual orientation of the victim. That is a heinous proposition.

 

If 3 black men walk up to a white person and bash him over the head with a baseball bat and take his wallet and call him "cracker" while doing so, should they be punished worse than 3 black men who walk up to a white person and bash him over the head and take his wallet but don't call him "cracker"?

 

How about if their victim is black - you actually think that makes it a less serious crime?

 

Having to analyze the race of a victim in order to determine the punishment the criminal should get is pure racism. I can't imagine that anyone would advocate that!!

 

>All gays are asking is that they be treated

>like others who, because of who they are, are physically

>attacked in a hate crime, not through any other motivation

>such as robbery. This has NOTHING to do with

>"self-victimization". It's HATE, pure and simple, the same

>kind that sent 6,000,000 Jews, homosexuals and gypsies to

>their deaths in Nazi Germany.

 

People are allowed to hate. Hating someone is not illegal. If it were, most of the people in this forum would be in prison.

 

Bashing someone over the head with a baseball bat IS illegal, and it's as repgunant of an act whether it's done in order to take someone's wallet, to exact vengence for some perceived slight, or to advance someone's political agenda. The secret beliefs of the criminal can't possibly make a difference, unless you think that Judges should sit as Thought Police.

 

How about if someone hates tall people and goes around bashing them? Should they get extra punishment as compared to someone who goes around randomly bashing people?

 

This need to divide people up into special classes and delcare some of them to be deserving of special treatment because of how victimized they are is one of the most destructive - and self-hating - needs that exist.

[+ Lucky]

"Hating someone is not illegal."

 

But targeting people who are gay is. The crimes are not committed but for that.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>"Hating someone is not illegal."

>

>But targeting people who are gay is. The crimes are not

>committed but for that.

 

It's ALREADY illegal to assault someone - whether they are gay, straight, tall, short, fat, thin, or anything else.

 

Saying that the punishment should be WORSE when you assault someone who is gay rather than straight, or black rather than white, or tall rather than short, is to create a hierarchy of victims - and to make the seriosness of a crime dependent upon the race or sexual orientation of the victim -

 

People who are assaulted EVERY DAY see their assaulters convincted and sentenced to probation, without serving any jail time.

 

What possible justification is there to treat THESE particular assaulters differently - and imprison them - just because here, the victims happen to be gay.

 

What do you say to the victims of the multiple crimes of assault whose assaulters are not imprisoned: " Oh, well what happened to you wasn't as bad, because you're not gay."

 

Creating these sorts of classifications based on race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. - and then have the law treat EXACTLY THE SAME CRIME differently based upon those classifications -- is the very opposite of EQUALITY - which is what gay people, I thought, were supposed to be seeking.

 

If I'm assaulted, I don't want the assaulter treated differently than the assaulter of a straight person. I want him treated EXACTLY THE SAME. That is what EQUALITY under the law means -- that everyone is treated the same REGARDLESS Of race, sexual orientation, etc.

 

People like you and "Taylor" who want the law to constantly subdivide people according to these classes and treat them differently based upon these classes are advocating the exact opposite of Equality.

[Flower]

[font color = "blue"

] >Most people who commit the crime of assault - particularly

>where, as here, it does not involve a weapon, and where (it

>doesn't indicate if it's true here) it's a first-time offense

>- don't end up being imprisoned, but rather, are sentenced to

>probation.

[font color = "green"

]

......guess it depends where you're from. In most California counties, this crime, based on the injuries described would have been prosecuted as an Assault w/GBI or great bodily injury, and if plead guilty or convicted, the defendant would MOST CERTAINLY have done 6 months at least if not state prison time. I'm wondering what your frame of reference is or from where it is based so I can avoid your town :+

 

[font color = "blue"

] >Do you think that this criminal should be treated differently,>i.e., more harshly, simply because the victims he chose to

>assault were gay?

[font color = "green"

]

Absolutely!!! For two reasons, mainly.

 

First the law SAYS it should be treated differently and thus the label "HATE CRIME." Whether one agrees with it or not, the legislature makes the law, not individual judges. There is much precedent for legislatures making exceptions based purely on status--all discrimination statutes for one, including sexual harassment; drivers license (age), alcohol (age; location) adult book stores (age;location;) and too many more to enumerate.

 

Secondly, it is morally MORE reprehensible for someone to target an individual based on status than to have just a chance drunken encounter and fight--the former is premeditated and totally intentional.

[phage]

As far as I’m concerned there are two real questions:

 

1. What is the current state of hate crimes legislation in Florida and did the judge follow the law?

 

2. How in the hell did three guys get beat up by one drunken assailant? What were victims two and three doing while victim one was getting bashed? Frozen with fear? For Christ's sake...fight back...run away...do something besides wait for your turn!

[Guest pshaw]

When judges and juries stop buying homosexual panic as a reason for acquitting or giving light sentences to murderers ("He put his hand on my knee so obviously, as a REAL MAN, I had to cave the queer's skull in"), maybe then I will be more inclined to agree that there is no need for hate crime laws.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>When judges and juries stop buying homosexual panic as a

>reason for acquitting or giving light sentences to murderers

>("He put his hand on my knee so obviously, as a REAL MAN, I

>had to cave the queer's skull in"), . . .

 

 

This has virtually never succeeded. In fact, most criminal defendants who have tried it are sitting behind bars, where they belong.

 

>maybe then I will be more

>inclined to agree that there is no need for hate crime laws.

 

This is the most illogical conclusion ever from a premise which is, in any events, false.

 

If certain violent, actually guilty defendants are being aquitted due to a homosexual panic defense, how would the injustice of that be repaired by punishing other, totally unrelated defendants more based on the sexual orientation or race of their victim???

 

Or, is it as I suspected - this whole thing is based on this notion that gay people are such poor, oppressed victims, so it's extra bad whenever anyone commits a crime against us, and so the law should punish those who do it more than those who commit crimes against straight people or against some other group which the law doesn't favor?

[Flower]

>Creating these sorts of classifications based on race, sexual

>orientation, gender, etc. - and then have the law treat

>EXACTLY THE SAME CRIME differently based upon those

>classifications -- is the very opposite of EQUALITY - which is

>what gay people, I thought, were supposed to be seeking.

>

>People like you and "Taylor" who want the law to constantly

>subdivide people according to these classes and treat them

>differently based upon these classes are advocating the exact

>opposite of Equality.

 

[font color = "green"

] If you ask me, and no one did, but you aren't seeing the forest for the trees. You are so worried about your macho "dom" image and so AFRAID of being seen as some swishy MO rather than the DUM MAN that you want others and yourself to perceive you as, that you just don't get it--you aren't seeing or understanding the rationale for a "HATE CRIME."

 

The act of targeting an individual based on belief's, color, status, gender, etc., is an ACT OF EXTREME PREMEDITATION not present in the ordinary mugging for someone's (anyone's) wallet. If a gay man and a str8 man were both mugged and injured the same with the same (for money) motivation, then the crime is the same and so should be the punishment. Not so if the gay man was targeted cause he was gay, however--then there is a more animus premeditation.

 

If I am burning brush in my yard, and the fire accidentally, albeit negligently, goes out of control and burns my neighbors house down, should my crime and punishment be the same as the villain who intentionally burns the same house cause he doesn't like the owner? Of course not and there is a distinction in the act and should be in the punishment and that has been the law in most jurisdictions for hundreds of years. INTENT IS PARAMOUNT in crime. That's what separates many criminal cases from civil cases--same consequences to a victim, but the crime had an intentional element proven whereas the civil case was just negligence. A gay man should feel much more comfortable thinking that his mugging was not gay related, and thus much more random than he would feel if there were a spat of gay related crimes in his neighborhood. One is random and the other not.

 

The crime of random assault is equally heinous whether committed on a gay or a straight--BUT IT IS WITHOUT QUESTION, more heinous for it to target a victim as opposed to some random act of violence--then you have an additional element of INTENT and MALICE introduced into the equation. Many crimes would not be crimes if it were not for the intent--burglary would not be burglary but for the intent to commit the crime before you entered the premises. 1st degree murder would not be murder, except for the intent.

 

Why you have a problem accepting these same distinctions when it comes to hate crimes comes not from a lack of understanding, I suspect, but probably more from your own insecurities and having to prove something to yourself and others:+

[dick_nyc]

While I was tending to Dom's point of view, your explanation of intent makes a lot of sense. The only problem I can see is that if I were the arresting officer, how would I make the determination of intent. It seems as though it could most of the time be a very gray area and if you prosecuted for intent and the perpetrator could make a case for it not being intent, what would be the result. Would the police therefore be more likely to use the common garden variety rather than the hate crime because if there was a problem with proving intent, the suspect could walk?

[+ Lucky]

"This has virtually never succeeded. In fact, most criminal defendants who have tried it are sitting behind bars, where they belong."

Dude, you have just proven your ignorance. This is a very successful defense, even in San Francisco.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>The act of targeting an individual based on belief's, color,

>status, gender, etc., is an ACT OF EXTREME PREMEDITATION not

>present in the ordinary mugging for someone's (anyone's)

>wallet. If a gay man and a str8 man were both mugged and

>injured the same with the same (for money) motivation, then

>the crime is the same and so should be the punishment. Not so

>if the gay man was targeted cause he was gay, however--then

>there is a more animus premeditation.

 

This is ludicrous. Many "hate crimes" are committed on the spur of the moment, while other types of crimes - which are LESS SEVERELY PUNISHED UNDER HATE CRIME LAWS - are extremely premediated?

 

EXAMPLE 1: I hate you because you are skinny and I think that's a sign of Satan. So, for weeks, I plot and plan and scheme to find you in an isolated place, where I proceed to beat your skull in with a baseball bat.

 

EXAMPLE 2: I am walking down the street one day, minding my own business. Suddenly, I see you, and think that you are the swishiest fag I have ever seen. So, I grab a heavy stick on the ground, run up to you, and bash your skull in, while calling you a "fag."

 

CLEARLY - The crime in Example 1 is far more premediated. But, the crime in Example 2 will be punished far more severly under "hate crime" laws.

 

How can you justify that? You'll have to find some other way than "premediation," since often, "hate crimes" are highly impetuous and not at all planned.

 

 

>If I am burning brush in my yard, and the fire accidentally,

>albeit negligently, goes out of control and burns my neighbors

>house down, should my crime and punishment be the same as the

>villain who intentionally burns the same house cause he

>doesn't like the owner?

 

 

NO - but that is an irrelevant comparision. All crimes, BY DEFINITION, are intentional. ALL ASSAULTS AND BATTERIES, by definition, are comprised of the INTENTIONAL act of harming another person through physical or bodily means.

 

WHO CARES WHAT THE MOTIVE IS? The crimes are both intentional, and should be punished identically.

 

Of course not and there is a

>distinction in the act and should be in the punishment and

>that has been the law in most jurisdictions for hundreds of

>years. INTENT IS PARAMOUNT in crime.

 

You are confusing INTENT and MOTIVE.

 

INTENT is whether or not someone INTENDS to harm anotehr.

 

MOTIVE is the reason WHY they do so.

 

In determining whether or not something is a crime, the law has ALWAYS examined intent - i.e., did the person INTENTIONALLY cause harm to another?

 

In determining whether or not something is a crime, the law has NEVER looked at MOTIVE - i.e., why did the person harm another?

 

Intent matters; motives don't. When "motives" start determining whether or not a crime has been committed, then you are allowing courts to sit as Thought Police.

 

Also - how can you justify that a crime due to hatred of homosexuals is a "hate crime," but a crime due to hatred of tall people is not? It makes no sense, except to make certain people politically more valuable than others and "more equal" under the law.

 

>The crime of random assault is equally heinous whether

>committed on a gay or a straight--BUT IT IS WITHOUT QUESTION,

>more heinous for it to target a victim as opposed to some

>random act of violence--then you have an additional element of

>INTENT and MALICE introduced into the equation.

 

You don't think MALICE is present when someone walks up to you on the street and bashes your skull in so that he can take your wallet? That sounds pretty malicious to me. And I wouldn't really mind that any less than having someone walk up to me on the street and bash my skull in because I was gay. They are equally violent, destructive and repulsive crimes.

 

How about if someone bashes your skull in because you are tall, or because you look like their father, or because they think that you are wearing clothes from a company that does evil - and they single you out for one of those reasons and bash your skull in for that. Is all of that better than doing it because you are gay?

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>While I was tending to Dom's point of view, your explanation

>of intent makes a lot of sense. The only problem I can see is

>that if I were the arresting officer, how would I make the

>determination of intent. It seems as though it could most of

>the time be a very gray area and if you prosecuted for intent

>and the perpetrator could make a case for it not being intent,

>what would be the result. Would the police therefore be more

>likely to use the common garden variety rather than the hate

>crime because if there was a problem with proving intent, the

>suspect could walk?

 

Proving intent is just a matter of evidence, like proving anything else in court. What statements did the person make when committing the crime, why did he choose the victim, etc.?

 

But why should the law punish a criminal worse who bashes your skull in because you are gay than if, say, he bashes your skull in because you are tall and he hates tall people, or because you are a conservative, or because he thinks you are spawned from Satan, or because he thinks that you are wearing clothes from a fascist corporation, or because he hates people who part their hair the way you do?

 

Why should the law only punish crimes committed due to the first motive, but not any of the others I just described.

 

If one person bashes your skull in without any justification at all, what possible rationale is there for punishing him LESS than the next person who does so?

 

This is all just about politicizing crimes, and using the criminal law to make certain groups favored "victim" groups. It's amazing how many people are so eager to be labelled as such.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>"This has virtually never succeeded. In fact, most criminal

>defendants who have tried it are sitting behind bars, where

>they belong."

>Dude, you have just proven your ignorance. This is a very

>successful defense, even in San Francisco.

 

Dude, you're an imbecille. This "homosexual panic" defense is rarely invoked, and when it is, it fails in the majoirty of cases to result in an acquittal.

 

It was invoked in the Matthew Shephard case, where it failed; it was invoked in the most of the military court martials where gay service members were killed, where it almost always fails; amd it is invoked sometimes in hate crime prosecutions of defendants who murder gay men, where juries resoudingly reject it due to their sympathy for the victim and the obvious disparity between a "homosexual advance" and a murder.

 

Spewing inaccuracies as facts may fool people who don't know better, but other than that, there's no purpose to it, so you should just stop.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>1. What is the current state of hate crimes legislation in

>Florida and did the judge follow the law?

 

Judges have discretion within a range when sentencing, and the sentence this Judge issued fell within that range. Given the defendant's age and sentence, I'll bet he's a first-time offender.

 

First-time offenders convicted of similar crimes, particularly where (as here) the injuries are neither permanent nor life threatening, usually don't even get 2 years of house arrest; they get probation. This defendant got what most similarly situated criminals get.

 

Usually, such sentences aren't discussed - and certainly, you won't find lenient criminal sentences being protested in most gay discussion forums. But here, the victims were gay and teh defenadnt didn't like gay people - so everything is different. It suddenly becomes worse than the tens of thousands of other victims of crime whose assaulters are routinely set free or given even more lenient sentences without a word of protest.

[Flower]

>While I was tending to Dom's point of view, your explanation

>of intent makes a lot of sense. The only problem I can see is

>that if I were the arresting officer, how would I make the

>determination of intent. It seems as though it could most of

>the time be a very gray area and if you prosecuted for intent

>and the perpetrator could make a case for it not being intent,

>what would be the result. Would the police therefore be more

>likely to use the common garden variety rather than the hate

>crime because if there was a problem with proving intent, the

>suspect could walk?

  [font color = "green"

]

Well, you've zeroed right in on what makes cases involving intent tough sometimes. The arresting officer doesn't make the decision, however--it is the prosecutor after a close evaluation of the evidence. If there is not any evidence to show a hate crime as opposed to just the underlying act of violence, then it's a tough sell to a jury and he usually won't go for it, but take the easier road and allege (in this example) assault or assault w/ GBI.

 

However, if he thought there was evidence to convince a jury of the hate crime, then he alleges the greater crime--and if the jury doesn't buy it, they are instructed to also consider the lesser included crime of assault w/GBI or just assault--the jury has several options so if the hate crime is not proven, but the others are, they can choose from the others also--so from the prosecutor's standpoint, the best of both worlds.

 

Often times a prosecutor will "overcharge" a crime, by alleging a higher crime he knows he cannot prove and hoping to avoid trial by agreeing to settle for a lesser included--happens all the time, and it also works with juries. The jury, sometimes wishing to compromise, will feel they are doing both parties a favor by taking away the prosecutor's highest alleged crime charged and going for a lesser included--which is all the prosecutor really wanted in many cases anyway,

[Flower]

>>"This has virtually never succeeded. In fact, most criminal

>>defendants who have tried it are sitting behind bars, where

>>they belong."

>>Dude, you have just proven your ignorance. This is a very

>>successful defense, even in San Francisco.

>

>Dude, you're an imbecille. This "homosexual panic" defense is

>rarely invoked, and when it is, it fails in the majoirty of

>cases to result in an acquittal.

 

>Spewing inaccuracies as facts may fool people who don't know

>better, but other than that, there's no purpose to it, so you

>should just stop.

>

[font color="green"

] To comment as briefly as possible, I agree with Lucky on this.

 

But that is not to say I am actually going to be brief as possible, is it? :+

 

First, "DUDES", Lucky is absolutely right, so Dom is overruled.

 

Secondly, I have no idea where Dom comes from, since I can't see where he's told us, but the gay panic defense is alive and well in most conservative states and even has a 50% shot in California. Hard to tell if Dom is an attorney or not, but with his undeserved arrogance, I'd say probably. In which case I'd suggest he check various judicial counsel statistics on criminal defenses and the rate of success. Probably even a Google search would turn up the data.

 

Criminal juries as a whole have very little if any sympathy for the gay man and certainly do him no favors, whether victim or defendant. Further, I have seen the gay man demeaned by police officers, prosecutors, judges and juries, and I'm here to tell you, we at the present time, need what little help the politicians are starting to give us. While it is too bad we need the protection of hate crimes, I for one welcome them for the time being, and look for the day when we gays, as a group, need no special law for protection of either our person or our tights...er, rights :+.