Judge doesn't punish gaybashers

[Guest Derek Ross]

>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.

 

 

I agree with you that everyone should be treated equally under law, but that only exists in a perfect world. On this planet, we are not all the same; we never will be and we will never treat each other the same. Equality is a fallacy. I'm not a pessimist, nor am I a supremacist. And I don't see myself as a victim. Our society, our world, our existence is based on groupings: we are grouped, segregated, alienated, separated, divided, marked in everything we do throughout our lives. Society doesn't think of everyone as equal. From day one, we treat girls differently than boys. We treat beautiful people differently than ugly people. Wealthy people differently than poor people. The list goes on.

 

I do feel that the punishment for a crime should be equal regardless of who the victim(s) is/are. But we cannot assume that the perpetrator of the same crime will be given equal punishment in each case because there are no laws governing specific punishment in the sentencing of the guilty; there are only guidelines to follow, and those guidelines do not assure equality. Therefore, the decision of severity of punishment is dependent upon the will of human nature.

 

We cannot assume that all humans will all feel the same about the fact that three fags got busted up as they would about three women getting beaten. Or three children. Better yet, how about one woman who's pregnant with twins?

 

If we were to have equality in crime and punishment, the only way to achieve that would be an eye for eye punishment. You kill someone, you shall be killed. You rape, you will be raped. You break someone's skull, your skull will be broken. I don't believe there can truly be equality in law and punishment since we as humans are neither treated as nor taught that we are equals. We as humans also choose to separate or group ourselves. How can we make all people believe that we are equal?

 

Historically, crimes against gays and lesbians have not been treated with the same seriousness as crimes against heterosexuals, for a number of reasons. Whether it be shame, social conditioning, religious conditioning or whatever, these crimes have either been ignored, believed justified or even encouraged. So, the problem becomes one of conditioning society. In the quest to see a society where all are treated equally, aren't education and conditioning necessary? We cannot make everyone believe we're all equal. Educating a society is a difficult and many aspected task. Sure, laws should not give certain groups special treatment, but can't they be used to try to level the field? Maybe only in an ideal world.

[Luv2play]

Come again??? The law NEVER looks at motive???? Motive is most definitely a consideration in many criminal investigations such as murder. When all the evidence is circumstantial, the investigators will consider motive to determine whether a suspect should be charged. The same is true if the alleged perpetrator is convicted, Did he have the motive to kill the victim?

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>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.

 

BOO HOO HOO - Everyone hates gay people - poor, poor us - we are such victims. We need protection from all the mean straight people. HELP US. PLEASE.

 

DO FUCKING EVER LISTEN TO YOURSELF???

 

>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.

 

YOU ARE A SICK INDIVIDUAL, because you have a deep need to be victimzed. Our society has canonized victims to such an extent that victimhood is, in many circles, the highest achievement possible. Hence, the rush to declare oneself the greatest victim.

 

We "need what little help the politicians are starting to give us" - maybe YOU need help, but don't fucking purport to speak for all gay people when spewing out your little self-pitying sermons and pleas for help.

 

YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL need help; YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL see yourself as a victim; YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL are a scared cunt who wants the law to see you as a particularly vulnerable bitch who needs special protection. Don't fucking go around using "we" to include gay people in your sick psychosis who don't share your need to be victimized.

 

>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 :+.

 

Addictions to victimhood and special rights never end. Your demands for these rights are directly contrary to the demands for EQUALITY which the gay movement was originally rooted in. You don't want that. You want to be taken care of and loved adn protected - and want the law to be based upon a view of gay people as sickly, needy, oppressed victims. The more you perpetuate that image, the truer it becomes.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>Come again??? The law NEVER looks at motive???? Motive is

>most definitely a consideration in many criminal

>investigations such as murder. When all the evidence is

>circumstantial, the investigators will consider motive to

>determine whether a suspect should be charged. The same is

>true if the alleged perpetrator is convicted, Did he have the

>motive to kill the victim?

 

You are ALSO confusing "motive" with "intent."

 

The law looks at "intent" - meaning: did he INTEND to cause the death of the other person. If the death was purely ACCIDENTAL (provided it wasn't reckless), then it is not a crime; it is mere negligence. If there was INTENT to cause harm, then it is a crime.

 

MOTIVE is completely different. MOTIVE asks "WHY did he intend to cause harm."

 

If you bash someone over the head with a baseball bat and intend to kill the person, then (excluding self-defense), it is a crime REGARDLESS OF MOTIVE.

 

IT DOES NOT MATTER whether you intended to kill hte person because he looked like your father or because you perceived that he slighted you at a bar or because you think the world has too many people in it or because you were angry at him for not giving you moeny or because you wanted his wallet.

 

Once it is established that you INTENDED to kill, tt is a crime REGARDLESS of MOTIVE - i.e., WHY you wanted that person dead.

 

Do you get this now?

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

Confess your stupidity, Flower

 

> To comment as briefly as possible, I agree with Lucky on

>this.

>

>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.

 

Few things get me sicker than ignorant anonymous assholes who run around the Internet authoritatively stating complete lies as facts.

 

Here's what the ASSOCIATED PRESS, on 10/27/99, said in its first paragraph when reporting on the trial of the defendant in the Matthew Shephard murder, who sought to invoke the "Homosexual Panic Defense":

 

"The alleged ringleader in the beating death of college student Matthew Shepard has adopted a 'gay panic defense,' a somewhat risky strategy that has had little success in recent years."

 

Any defense attorney knows that this defense is used only when completely desperate, as an act of absolute last resort - such as in the Shepard case - when no viable defense exists.

 

Courts frequently disallow it, and when they allow it, it is virtually never successful as a means of obtaining acquittal.

 

I know you desperately want to believe otherwise - you want to believe that the world is full of people who hate you and think that it's ok to kill you - that way, you can continue running around proclaiming yourself to be a needy weak little victim and begging for special rights to protect you.

 

The only problem with your need to proclaim that people aren't punished when killing gay men because they use this defense is that it is copletely false. I know that won't stop you, though. Your emotional need for victimhood outweighs reality.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Confess your stupidity, Flower

 

"Few things get me sicker than ignorant anonymous assholes who run around the Internet authoritatively stating complete lies as facts."

 

Which you just did when you assumed the AP story was true. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper you ignorant anonymous asshole. Many gay men know exactly what they are talking about here, as opposed to an anonymous AP reporter.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

RE: Confess your stupidity, Flower

 

>Which you just did when you assumed the AP story was true.

>Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper you

>ignorant anonymous asshole. Many gay men know exactly what

>they are talking about here, as opposed to an anonymous AP

>reporter.

 

 

LOLOLOLOL!!!!! This is the most revealing and hilarious post EVER!!

 

Two little anonymous liberals on the Internet are desperate to portray gay men as victims - so they come on and, with no basis and no citations, LIE and say that the Homosexual Panic Defense is frequently successful, and that people are free to kill homos because everyone hates us and will believe this defense.

 

In response, I post an article from the AP (which was published in most major newspapers in the country) which details that, in fact - just as I said -- this Defense almost always fails. The article is replete with quotes from GAY legal experts and think tanks detailing that this defense is an act of last-resort desperation which barely ever succeeds.

 

Rather than admit error, one of the 2 original propogators of this Lie crawls back and says: "Oh, forget the facts and the experts and what is reported by neutral journalists; we KNOW it's true in our little bellies, so believe us instead."

 

If I had wanted to illustrate the corruption and dishonesty of the "gays-are-always-victims" crowd, I couldn't have invented a post as good as Lucky's!!! Thank you !!

[phage]

>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?

 

I understand this argument as an intellectual exercise, but it’s taken to the extreme. At some point you have to bring reasonableness back into the argument. How many people are actually being targeted because they are tall or because of the way they part their hair? If tall people were actually targeted as often as gays then hate crime laws would (eventually) cover them too.

 

I’m not sure whether you are arguing against the very concept of hate crimes or just that gays should be included as a protected class. I can’t quite conceive of arguing that there is no such thing as a hate crime or that it shouldn’t be punished more severely. Could anyone beside axebahia argue that painting a swastika on a synagogue is mere vandalism and should be prosecuted as such?

 

If you accept the fact that hate crimes do exist and should be treated differently, it is only a question of whether gays should be covered. Since they are all too often targeted just for being gay, why in the world shouldn’t they be included? Why would you perceive that as some form of weakness?

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>I understand this argument as an intellectual exercise, but

>it’s taken to the extreme. At some point you have to bring

>reasonableness back into the argument. How many people are

>actually being targeted because they are tall or because of

>the way they part their hair?

 

Actually, there are far more completely senseless murders than there are murders motivated by demographic characteristics. Murders occur on a daily basis due to petty little perceived slights, or someone's irrational belief that the murder is justifiable, or because of some other completely worthless reason.

 

How can it be that a murder of this sort is less serious than a murder that is motivated by the equally worthless reason that someone is of a particular demographic group?

 

>If tall people were actually

>targeted as often as gays then hate crime laws would

>(eventually) cover them too.

 

Is the seriousness of a murder - and the punishment which it warrants -- determined by how frequently it occurs? That's a bizarre concept. In fact, the murders which usually get the severest punishment are the ones which are so infrequent that they are extreme in how appalling they are.

 

Why should the frequency of a crime - rather than how outrageous it is - determine the severity of the punishment?

 

>I’m not sure whether you are arguing against the very concept

>of hate crimes or just that gays should be included as a

>protected class.

 

I agree that if we say that crimes motivated by race, gender, religion, etc. for some reason deserve greater punishment than crimes motivated by other things, there is no justification for excluding sexual orientation from the little laundry list.

 

Hatred is not a crime. I would say that most crimes entail some element of hatred. Having the law view some forms of hatred as worse than others is just a way of trying to create political hierachies in the law, and to exploit the law to advance political agendas. The law should punish all criminal acts equally, regardless of how much "hatred" - or worse, what type of haterd - the criminal is secretely harboring in his thoughts when committing the crimes.

 

>Could anyone beside axebahia argue

>that painting a swastika on a synagogue is mere vandalism and

>should be prosecuted as such?

 

How about painting a Palestinean flag on a synagogue? Or a Black power symbol on a synagogue?

 

Should the content of the political view expressed during the crime really determine the punishment? You trust courts and juries to engage in those types of assessments? I don't.

 

>If you accept the fact that hate crimes do exist and should be

>treated differently, it is only a question of whether gays

>should be covered. Since they are all too often targeted just

>for being gay, why in the world shouldn’t they be included?

>Why would you perceive that as some form of weakness?

 

Yeah - as long as every other group is trying to get their little prizes, no reason that gay people shouldn't as well. But the whole concept of "hate crimes" is a completely foreign innovation in Anglo-American law, and is based upon nothing more than: (a) the desire to crimnialize CERTAIN TYPES of hatred; and (b) the notion that certain groups are uniquely weak and oppressed and vulnerable and thus deserving of extra special protection under the law.

 

The law already criminalizes bashing people over the head. To try to say that some victims who get bashed over the head are less deservign of protection than other victims - or that certain acts of bashing someone over the head are less deserving of punishment than other head-bashing acts - may be satisfying on a political level, but from the perspective of the criminal law, it makes absoltuely no sense.

[duke37]

I'm a little dubious about hate crime statutes and have said so before. To me its a daunting task to ask a human being to evaluate what was really the motive of another. So in any case we ask the judge to use his discretion.

 

Apparently the sentence given falls within the sentencing guidelines in the state of Florida. Unless of course there are more published reports that the judge abused his discretion in the past its tough for me to say the sentence is completely out of line. It sounds bad and someone thought it newsworthy enough to put it on the AP wire. But with the limited facts available in the piece its tough to make an opinion on the reasonableness of the sentence.

 

Circuit judges in Florida are an elected position and if Judge Tharp has a pattern of ignoring gay victims or plaintiffs than I hope he is challenged in the next election on that basis.

 

Jeff

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>I agree with you that everyone should be treated equally under

>law, but that only exists in a perfect world. On this

>planet, we are not all the same; we never will be and we will

>never treat each other the same. Equality is a fallacy.

 

You are confusing equal outcomes with equal treatment.

 

Equality under the law is easy. It says: "If you bash someone over the head without its being in self-defense, you will get X punishment, regardless of why you did it."

 

Inequality under the law says: "If you bash someone over the head without its being self-defense, you will get X punishment if you you picked your victim because he was C, Y punishment if you did it for reason D, and Z punishment if you had motive E."

 

I am for equality under the law. That's what our Constitution mandates as well. If you want to have inequality under the law - which you expressly advocate - then you need to change the Fourteenth Amendment before being allowed constitutionally to do so.

 

>And I don't see

>myself as a victim. Our society, our world, our existence is

>based on groupings: we are grouped, segregated, alienated,

>separated, divided, marked in everything we do throughout our

>lives.

 

If you believe this, then you reject the entire premise on which this country was founded: namely, that our Government should be structed to promote INDIVIDUAL liberty, so that everyone is free to pursue AS INDIVIDUALS their version of happiness and fulfillment. Some people may see you as a group member; you may see yourself that way.

 

But our law is based on the idea of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, not groups rights, and trying to base the law to give some groups different treatment than other groups - which you expressly advocate - is exactly what has led to the greatest collective crimes of the last centuy. Amazing that you can continue to advocate that - as long as the groups that are favored are changed so that the ones you are part of get the special treatment.

 

>Society doesn't think of everyone as equal. From day

>one, we treat girls differently than boys. We treat beautiful

>people differently than ugly people. Wealthy people

>differently than poor people. The list goes on.

 

Yeah, you are not entitled to be treated BY PEOPLE or BY SOCIETY with perfect equality. But THE LAW is supposed to treat people equally. As I said, if you disagree - and you made clear that you do - you not only have to change the Constitution, but you are rejecting the core premise on which our entire governmetn is based on which this country was founded.

 

>I do feel that the punishment for a crime should be equal

>regardless of who the victim(s) is/are. But we cannot assume

>that the perpetrator of the same crime will be given equal

>punishment in each case because there are no laws governing

>specific punishment in the sentencing of the guilty; there are

>only guidelines to follow, and those guidelines do not assure

>equality. Therefore, the decision of severity of punishment

>is dependent upon the will of human nature.

 

Well, then, if you dislike sentencing guidelines, just implement mandatory sentences so that the judge has no sentencing discretion. If you really think that's the problem, there's your solution. Mandating more severe punishment for crimes that are directed at some groups but not others is to enact Unequal treatment into the law.

 

>Historically, crimes against gays and lesbians have not been

>treated with the same seriousness as crimes against

>heterosexuals, for a number of reasons. Whether it be shame,

>social conditioning, religious conditioning or whatever, these

>crimes have either been ignored, believed justified or even

>encouraged. So, the problem becomes one of conditioning

>society.

 

Using these laws is an attempt to condition society that it is worse when a gay person is bashed over the head than when a straight person is. I don't believe that's true - do you?

 

>In the quest to see a society where all are treated

>equally, aren't education and conditioning necessary?

 

Yes - but the purpose of law is not to educate, and it never has been. Educating the public occurs by giving speeches, writing books, persuading, etc. The law is destroyed when it is used to propagandize. The law is intended to punish crimes, and is supposed to do so without regard to the criminal or the victim. When you try to exploit the law to advance your political agenda - and I commend you for admitting that this is what you are doing - then you are using the law for things that it is not intended to achieve.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Confess your stupidity, Flower

 

You are welcome. I stand corrected. If it was in the newspaper, it must have been right, despite what I know from personal experience.

I'll bet you work for the Justice Department, you are so smart.

[DaninWA]

Hairy,

 

My concern is that Criminal #2 would get a harsher sentence than Criminal #1. Is bashing three gay guys over the head with a baseball bat seen as okay or as less of a crime? Unfortunately, in many parts of this country, the answer is "yes".

 

I don't want special punishment for gay-bashers. They should get the same punishment as any other person who commits the same crime.

 

Dan

[DaninWA]

Hairy,

 

With one notable exception, I agree with you on the intent argument.

 

Negligence resulting in a death is not a crime? It is where I live.

 

Dan

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>With one notable exception, I agree with you on the intent

>argument.

 

That makes you a good boy.

 

>Negligence resulting in a death is not a crime? It is where I

>live.

 

In order for an act to be a crime, it requires INTENT to harm or intent to commit the act. In general, negligence is not considered to rise to the level of intent, although some states do have crimes such as "negligent homicide".

 

Generally, the only state of mind short of actual intent that is considered to rise to the level of criminal intent is "recklessness," which is the compelte disregard of the consequences of one's actions. That is considered to be tantamount to intent, and thus can result in an act being criminalized.

[taylorky]

RE: Confess your stupidity, Flower

 

If it was in the

 

newspaper, it must have been right,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROFLMFAO.............:7 taylor@22:42-04/23/03

[Flower]

RE: Confess your stupidity, Flower

 

>Few things get me sicker than ignorant anonymous assholes who

>run around the Internet authoritatively stating complete lies

>as facts.

 

[font color="green"

] Hairy Dom guy or Max as I guess you're called in your vids, I have been trying to figure out why you have been getting so worked up over this thread--like going seriously mental on us dude--and then I went to your profile and followed it thru to your video ads and realized that you are getting off each time you start yelling at us and calling your childish names--now it all makes sense--the more you fight and argue here the more you get your rocks off. Actually, you're not bad looking, if that is really you, but I'm not into hairy guys HairyStudsVideo.com/Max.htm

 

Max relies on the following:

[font color="blue"

] >Here's what the ASSOCIATED PRESS, on 10/27/99, said in its

>first paragraph when reporting on the trial of the defendant

>in the Matthew Shephard murder, who sought to invoke the

>"Homosexual Panic Defense":

>"The alleged ringleader in the beating death of college

>student Matthew Shepard has adopted a 'gay panic defense,' a

>somewhat risky strategy that has had little success in

>recent years."

 

[font color="green"

] First, MAX, what you neglected to tell the folks here, is that the gay panic defense was NOT USED IN MAT SHEPARD'S trial case since the trial judge disallowed it before trial

 

max relies on the following:[font color="blue"

] >Any defense attorney knows that this defense is used only when

>completely desperate, as an act of absolute last resort - such

>as in the Shepard case - when no viable defense exists. [font color="green"

] (says that reporter who knows the mind of not just one or two, but ANY defense attorney) ..... however, he just doesn't understand the defense or how it is used and apparently reasons that if it doesn't result in an acquital, then it is "useless", never dreaming that it is a very good tactic to lessen the punishment only...hmmmm....and this is the same reporter upon whom you rely?? Upon which you base your "IRREFUTABLE OPINIONS"--huh Max?

[font color="blue"

]

>Courts frequently disallow it, and when they allow it, it is

>virtually never successful as a means of obtaining acquittal.

[font color="green"

]

Well actually, this part of the story IS accurate, BUT THE DEFENSE IS NOT MEANT FOR AN ACQUITAL-- when you're talking about murder or assault with GBI, or a hate crime with a specific intent, the defense attorney who uses this defense, is not seeking an acquital, but trying only to eliminate the specific intent -- this is a variant of the defense of "temporary insanity"-- it only lessens the crime if the jury accepts the defense, but not meant to get an acquital. It is only used when other good defenses to the facts are not present--so maybe the reporter saying a defense of desparation not so inaccurrate, but I doubt he understood why.

 

I realize, that not being a lawyer you didn't know this, but you CANNOT reasonably ASSERT THE DEFENSE of gay panic UNLESS YOU ADMIT THE CRIME!! The gay panic defense is a defense of MITIGATION, Max--that is a defense ONLY USED TO LESSEN THE DEGREE of the crime to avoid a death penalty or mandatory prison sentence or to lower the seriousness of the crime to give the judge greater latitude in leniency for a softer sentence--it is not and never has been a defense to escape conviction. That's why lay people, such as your IRREFUTABLE reporter think this is a useless defense--they always see a conviction afterwards, so assume it didn't work--it works most of the time in conservative jurisdictions and a lot of the time in even liberal jurisdictions to LESSEN the severity of the crime--NOT FOR AN ACQUITAL!!

 

Which brings me to your quote:

 

[font color="blue"

] ">Few things get me sicker than ignorant anonymous assholes who

>run around the Internet authoritatively stating complete lies

>as facts."

 

[font color="green"

] Max, I have to give you credit for talking a good game--you might even be a law student, but obviously not a lawyer, or at least one who knows what he's talking about.

 

Therefore to recap: This is your brain x(

.........and this is your brain on drugs x(

...and, oh, yeah--I confess YOUR stupidity Max

[Luv2play]

I am not confusing intent with motive. I never said that intent to harm did not have to be proved. I am aware of the doctrine of "mens rea". In certain jurisdictions in the Western World, hate crimes are treated with harsher punishment. This is a result of their legislators having decided to punish these crimes more severely than other similar crimes lacking the element of hate. Just because certain jurisdictions don't make this distinction doesn't support your arguments. After all, some people are more enlightened than others. Some countries still execute murderers (although none of the western democracies except the USA). That's just the way things are. As societies, we are not all equally evolved. Some lag.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Confess your success, Flower

 

Good work, Flower. So the asshole's name is Max, huh? At least "professionally." I hate getting in conversations with people who have a little knowledge but think they have a lot. And hairy too? No wonder he is so aggressive and nasty. ( )

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

>I am not confusing intent with motive.

 

You did. You screeched that motive is used all the time in law, and your proof for this was your claim that the law always looks to see whether a person MEANT TO harm someone. That is to confuse motive and intent.

 

>In certain jurisdictions in the

>Western World, hate crimes are treated with harsher

>punishment. This is a result of their legislators having

>decided to punish these crimes more severely than other

>similar crimes lacking the element of hate. Just because

>certain jurisdictions don't make this distinction doesn't

>support your arguments. After all, some people are more

>enlightened than others.

 

Yeah - it's real "englightened" to think that some crimes are worse than others based exclusively on what group the victim belongs to. They had those laws in Nazi Germany, too - harming a business of an Aryan was punished far more severely than harming the business of a Jew. In the 1920s, rapes against white women were punished far more harsly than rapes against black women.

 

You like these classifications now because you happen to belong to a group, for the moment, which is given favorable advantages. That's not surprising; it's just basic selfishness and a base desire for short-term gain.

 

But what is surprising - even for this forum - is that you and others manage to convince yourself that laws which take the SAME CRIMINAL ACT OF BASHING SOMEONE OVER THE HEAD and punish them differnetly based on why the pesron got bashed over the head is somehow "enlightened." All it does is create groups who are more favored and groups who are less favored - which is the opposite of equality and about as unenlightened as it gets.

 

>Some countries still execute

>murderers (although none of the western democracies except the

>USA). That's just the way things are. As societies, we are not

>all equally evolved. Some lag.

 

The fact that you hate the United States and see it as a primitive unevolved society - particularly when compared to the oh-so-advanced and sophisticated Western European countries (who love to eat wonderful brie and sit around doing nothing except discussing Proust while genocide and tyranny flourish around them - how evolved) - is unsurprising, given that your desire to punish Thought which you dislike, and to create favored groups who are treated better under the law, is the exact antithesis of every political value on which this country was founded.

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

FLOWER LIES AGAIN

 

I have seriously never been involved in any Internet discussion - or any discussion, for that matter - where someone just keeps lying as nakedly as this "Flower" cretin does, all because he can't simply admit that the statement he originally made -- that the Homosexual Panic Defense succeeds frequently -- was just plain wrong.

 

So, rather than just admit that, Flower lies again in his last post when he said that the Homosexual Panic Defense isn't used for acquittals, but rather, only for mitigation.

 

I will keep posting authorities and proof that the statements Flower is making are complete lies, and no matter how much proof I post, he will never acknowledge error, because he is psychologically attached to being right. And this Lucky pygmy, who is more confused than anything, will stay in the background - cheerleading Flower -- all because they both said in the beginning that this Defense is frequently successful and I exposed that as a lie.

 

Here's Flower's latest lie:

 

>..... however, he just doesn't

>understand the defense or how it is used and apparently

>reasons that if it doesn't result in an acquital, then it is

>"useless", never dreaming that it is a very good tactic to

>lessen the punishment only...hmmmm....and this is the same

>reporter upon whom you rely??

 

>Welll actually, this part of the story IS accurate, BUT THE

>DEFENSE IS NOT MEANT FOR AN ACQUITAL -- when you're talking

>about murder or assault with GBI, or a hate crime with a

>specific intent, the defense attorney who uses this defense,

>is not seeking an acquital, but trying only to eliminate the

>specific intent -- this is a variant of the defense of

>"temporary insanity"-- it only lessens the crime if the jury

>accepts the defense, but not meant to get an acquital. It is

>only used when other good defenses to the facts are not

>present--so maybe the reporter saying a defense of desparation

>not so inaccurrate, but I doubt he understood why.

 

COMPLETE LIE.

 

From the Berkley Journal of Employment and Law, 18 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 56:

 

<<n. 155: The "homosexual advance" defense is distinct from the "homosexual panic" defense. The latter is an insanity or diminished capacity defense which asserts that the criminal defendant should be absolved of liability because an alleged homosexual advance by the victim purportedly caused the criminal defendant to lose his capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. Mison, supra note 121, at 135 n.6.>>

 

So, when Flower just rambled on and on about how the Homsexual Panic Defense is not used to obtain acquittals, but instead is used only to justify mitigation, he was outright lying.

 

And the sickest part of this is that the REASON he told this lie was because he wanted to find some way to belittle the SOURCE I posted -- an article from the Associated Press -- which proved that this defense virtually always fails. In other words, he told another lie because he was incapable of simply admitting that he was wrong when he claimed that the Homosexual Panic Defense frequently works.

 

This is how sick Flower is: He is so desperate to depict gay men as vulnerable victims - and is so eager to prove that the society hates gay men so much that it allows the murder of gay men, because HE feels hated and weak and wants someone to blame for those feelings - that he will simply MAKE UP CLAIMS and spew them as fact in order to prove how hated and despised gay men are.

 

Then, when those claims are proven false by citations to neutral, credible authorities, he will insist that he is right anyway, because he SO BADLY WANTS TO BE RIGHT -- Lucky even went so far as to say, in essence, "forget what the newspapers say; I know otherwise" - and then lie more and more and more in order to cover it up.

 

Flower has now been caught in 2 lies. He has made 2 statements which are outright false. Citations to authorities prove that. He has no citations. But he is not only a liar, but a humiliated coward incapable of admitting error, and so rather than an acknowledgement of his lies, what will follow is more screeching and more lies but no citation and no authorities -- with this sick Lucky freak in the background, equally humiliated at having been exposed as a liar, writing little YAY posts to him so that they can bond in their weakness and lies.

 

All this drama and lying just to avoid admitting that their original statement about the frequency of the success of the Homosexual Panic Defense was wrong.

[+ Lucky]

RE: FLOWER SIGHS AGAIN

 

Bra Boy you really need to get a life. You are on the website more than anybody, so anxious to prove your point, so ready to call people names. Who cares if you are right or not? Do you see a stampede of support for your points here? Nobody but Flower, me, and a couple of other pygmies are reading it. Lighten up!

[Guest HairyDomBraz27]

RE: FLOWER SIGHS AGAIN

 

>Bra Boy you really need to get a life. You are on the website

>more than anybody, . . .

 

That's quite a hilarious statement coming from someone who has posted on this thing almost 2,500 times.

 

By rather stark contrast, I've been here about 10 days. I admit that I'm engrossed by the pious, self-righteous sickness in which so many people here are drowning - matched only by their level of stupidity, and - in Flower's case - a sick willingness to lie.

 

At some point soon, the vile bacteria here will bore me, and then I'll be here no longer. You, however, will be here until you croak. So worry about yourself.

 

>Who cares if you are right or not? Do you

>see a stampede of support for your points here? Nobody but

>Flower, me, and a couple of other pygmies are reading it.

>Lighten up!

 

I'm not writing for an audience. I don't give a fuck who reads it. As I said, few things sicken me more than assholes who run around making false statements and then lying about them.

 

Just FUCKING ADMIT that you were wrong. Try this:

 

"When I originally posted that this defense succeeds frequently, I thought that was the case, but I now see that I was mistaken."

 

That's all. It won't hurt. It will make you a much better person. Try it, you sick pig.

[+ Lucky]

RE: FLOWER SIGHS AGAIN

 

When I originally began reading Bra Boy's posts, I thought he might be a rational, even nice human being. I was wrong.

 

Good enough?

[woodlawn]

RE: FLOWER SIGHS AGAIN

 

>>Bra Boy you really need to get a life. You are on the

>website

>>more than anybody, . . .

 

>That's quite a hilarious statement coming from someone who has

>posted on this thing almost 2,500 times.

 

It certainly is!

 

>At some point soon, the vile bacteria here will bore me, and

>then I'll be here no longer. You, however, will be here until

>you croak. So worry about yourself.

 

This message board is hardly unique in offering a bunch of people who like to talk about subjects of which they know relatively little. My favorite posts are the ones in threads about legal issues in which the poster starts with "I'm not a lawyer, but . . . ."

 

What this board does have to offer that is different from most others is the topsy-turvy value system of the posters, a value system in which escorts get flayed for breaking a promise to show up for a fuck date, but men are congratulated for breaking their marriage vows, to give just one example. Here we have people whose occupation requires them to tell a pack of lies just to stay out of jail, but who still think it's appropriate for them to lambaste others for being deceitful. Isn't that incredible? If you like irony and absurdity, you'll never be bored here.