If you're gonna gang up on a girl in the bathroom, make sure you film it.

[garbon]

That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.

Many things are, what's your point?

[Caliga]

Who would you sue?

Da MAN. 

[Eddie Teach]

That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.

All temporary insanity claims are highly suspicious.

[Drakken]

That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.

All temporary insanity claims are highly suspicious.

I can see a defence of provocation having some degree of legitimacy on a case to case basis. Finding your wife in bed with your best friend and rubbing your nose in it can lead to some nasty murderous reactions. Likewise if your neighbor goes nuts in an argument and screams time and time again that he will kill you and your family.

But then again, most people who discover the infidelity of their spouse do not commit murder, or kill their neighbors in a heated argument. So either it is premeditated or the victim has a set of conditions or defects that helped him or her do it, like brain damage or a personality disorder. Thus why it cannot lead to acquittal, but remain only mitigating circumstances. And most times, the defence doesn't work unless the accused gains some level of sympathy with the jury.

[Drakken]

That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.

Many things are, what's your point?

My point that to acquit someone of murder on the basis on a silly "panic syndrome" is a travesty of justice. It is the judiciarization of gay bashing as a valid excuse for criminal behavior.

And why just gays? Why not prostitutes, drug addicts, pedophiles, even women or Jehovah Witnesses? What a convenient excuse for homicide it would be if the basis of this defence was universally applied. And if it is accepted jurisprudence to murder a gay man because he was hitting on you, even once, it opens the door to the use of a similar defence for crimes of that kind against other unwanted or vicitimized social groups who enter in contact with you.

[garbon]

My point that to acquit someone of murder on the basis on a silly "panic syndrome" is a travesty of justice. It is the judiciarization of gay bashing as a valid excuse for criminal behavior.

And why just gays? Why not prostitutes, drug addicts, pedophiles, even women or Jehovah Witnesses? What a convenient excuse for homicide it would be if the basis of this defence was universally applied. And if it is accepted jurisprudence to murder a gay man because he was hitting on you, even once, it opens the door to the use of a similar defence against other unwanted or vicitimized social group.

Okay? Travesties of justice occur all the time.

[Caliga]

Is the successful case the one from Colorado where that dude got oral from a tranny and then when he found out she was a he he beat the guy/girl to death?

[garbon]

Is the successful case the one from Colorado where that dude got oral from a tranny and then when he found out she was a he he beat the guy/girl to death?

You can look it up yourself.

And no.

[Drakken]

My point that to acquit someone of murder on the basis on a silly "panic syndrome" is a travesty of justice. It is the judiciarization of gay bashing as a valid excuse for criminal behavior.

And why just gays? Why not prostitutes, drug addicts, pedophiles, even women or Jehovah Witnesses? What a convenient excuse for homicide it would be if the basis of this defence was universally applied. And if it is accepted jurisprudence to murder a gay man because he was hitting on you, even once, it opens the door to the use of a similar defence against other unwanted or vicitimized social group.

Okay? Travesties of justice occur all the time.

And because viciated justice happens all the time, the gay panic syndrome should be validated as a legitimate and acceptable excuse by the judiciary?

Perhaps the gays of Castro Street should have scanded the same when Dan White got off lightly thanks to his Twinkie Defence... thank God they didn't.

[Barrister]

I can see a defence of provocation having some degree of legitimacy on a case to case basis. Finding your wife in bed with your best friend and rubbing your nose in it can lead to some nasty murderous reactions. Likewise if your neighbor goes nuts in an argument and screams time and time again that he will kill you and your family.

But then again, most people who discover the infidelity of their spouse do not commit murder, or kill their neighbors in a heated argument. So either it is premeditated or the victim has a set of conditions or defects that helped him or her do it, like brain damage or a personality disorder. Thus why cannot lead to acquittal, but remain only mitigating circumstances. And most times, the defence doesn't work unless the accused gains some level of sympathy with the jury.

You're getting yourself into trouble by mentining provocation.  Provocation is a specific, and limited defence.  It applies only to murder, and if you can show you were provoked it reduces a murder charge to manslaughter.  Nothing more.

It has little to do with any kind of "gay panic" defence, nor with the battered wife defence (which is actually a version of the self-defence argument).

[Drakken]

You're getting yourself into trouble by mentining provocation.  Provocation is a specific, and limited defence.  It applies only to murder, and if you can show you were provoked it reduces a murder charge to manslaughter.  Nothing more.

It has little to do with any kind of "gay panic" defence, nor with the battered wife defence (which is actually a version of the self-defence argument).

Huh, wha? Where do I contradict myself? I was speaking on two separate subjects. My reply on provocation by Peter Wiggin was only to comment on his assertion that "all temporary insanity defences are highly suspicious".

I did not put gay panic syndrome nor battered wife syndrome under the defence of "provocation", for exactly the reasons you present. Of course I know that. Provocation only reduces murder charges to manslaughter and thus mitigate sentencing, while people can get actually acquitted on that silly gay panic syndrome defence, and IIRC two women got straight acquitted under a BWS-based defence in Canada (Lavallée and Staudinger).

Perhaps you should read more closely what I write, because I never linked those two subjects.

[garbon]

And because viciated justice happens all the time, the gay panic syndrome should be validated as a legitimate and acceptable excuse by the judiciary?

Perhaps the gays of Castro Street should have scanded the same when Dan White got off lightly thanks to his Twinkie Defence... thank God they didn't.

Who said that it should be valid?

While they didn't kill anyone, they did riot.

[Drakken]

And because viciated justice happens all the time, the gay panic syndrome should be validated as a legitimate and acceptable excuse by the judiciary?

Perhaps the gays of Castro Street should have scanded the same when Dan White got off lightly thanks to his Twinkie Defence... thank God they didn't.

Who said that it should be valid?

While they didn't kill anyone, they did riot.

You seemed to imply that because travesties of justice happen all the time, nothing should or needs to be done about it. Which, to me, is alike to tacit consent.

[DGuller]

And because viciated justice happens all the time, the gay panic syndrome should be validated as a legitimate and acceptable excuse by the judiciary?

Perhaps the gays of Castro Street should have scanded the same when Dan White got off lightly thanks to his Twinkie Defence... thank God they didn't.

Are you saying that it's never justifiable to murder someone after you shockingly find out that they're gay?

[Razgovory]

If Marty tried to touch my feet I might kill him.  I don't want foot herpes.