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

[garbon]

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.

You are right, I'd like if I was murdered that my killer gets away because he was afraid of my homosexuality.

[Malthus]

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.

You are right, I'd like if I was murdered that my killer gets away because he was afraid of my homosexuality.

Getting away with murder because of the homosexuality of one's victim would indeed be unjust.

We need the "garbon panic" defence. 

[sbr]

Gross, but not illegal.  What surprises me is that they've released the names of the guys.  There are plenty out there who will remain "skeptics" to the end and refuse to believe these guys aren't sex offenders, so I don't think releasing their names has done them any favors.

Very common though; the media will always protect the "victim's" identity and report on who got arrested; no one sees the retraction on page 2 a few months later when the charges are dropped.  See this case, the Duke Lacrosse scandal, Ben Roethlisberger.

I know with the internet it is pretty pointless, but I would like to see the "real" media protect the identities of the accused in sexual assault and rape cases as well, at lest until there is more proof than a silly drunk girl's accusations.

[Barrister]

Very common though; the media will always protect the "victim's" identity and report on who got arrested; no one sees the retraction on page 2 a few months later when the charges are dropped.  See this case, the Duke Lacrosse scandal, Ben Roethlisberger.

I know with the internet it is pretty pointless, but I would like to see the "real" media protect the identities of the accused in sexual assault and rape cases as well, at lest until there is more proof than a silly drunk girl's accusations.

You know you picked some ridiculously bad examples there.  The retraction got far more coverage in both of those cases than the initial complaint ever did.

[grumbler]

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).

I would suggest that you learn facts about the case you are discussing before jumping so high on that horse that you pass out from lack of oxygen.

For instance, the jury simply found that there was insufficient evidence presented at the trial to convict Biedermann of first-degree murder.  It didn't endorse the "gay panic" defense.  Biedermann was released because the jury lacked the power to find him guilty of any crime less than first-degree murder (for whatever reason).

[dps]

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

All temporary insanity claims are highly suspicious.

Yep.

[Martinus]

Anyway, I was going to post how it sucks to be a horny straight man, but then thought that you guys have it easy. At least chicks do not murder you and then get acquitted on gay panic grounds. 

I take it you're not familiar with the "battered wife" defence then.

I don't think it features that often in random bar pick-ups.

[Martinus]

Lawsuit. $$

Correct.

Who would you sue?

I saw a news article that reported this was a complete fabrication, but then listed the guys' names anyway. Not a classy move imo, but I'd think the paper has the right to do so.

The authorities for releasing their names (assuming that's how they went public). I don't think the papers have done anything illegal (unless there is a law in Canada - this is in Canada, right? can't be arsed to go back and check - that prohibits releasing names of suspects, which is the case in some Western countries).

[citizen k]

(unless there is a law in Canada - this is in Canada, right?

Hofstra is a university in New York.

[Martinus]

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.

Exactly. The website you checked probably lists only the cases where "gay panic" was used in its most blatant manner ("I freaked out because I found out the guy was gay").

It is unlikely it lists all the cases where there was an acquittal or a significant reduction of sentence because the perp successfully claimed that he was either propositioned by a gay or a transsexual person, had sex with a transsexual person thinking he is a woman, or the victim allegedly attempted to take sexual advantage of the perp in some way.

[Martinus]

Anyway, I was going to post how it sucks to be a horny straight man, but then thought that you guys have it easy. At least chicks do not murder you and then get acquitted on gay panic grounds. 

I take it you're not familiar with the "battered wife" defence then.

At least, criteria to allow a defence based on battered wife syndrome are much more stringent than for gay panic. Only a minority of spouses who murder their abusive husbands get to benefit from this defence, anyway.

As for gay panic, it is only a heteronormative, gay-bashing version of the Twinkie defence, as the victim is obviously almost never an imminent threat to the perpetrator and thus presents no justification whatsoever for homicide, even in self-defence. On that, for once, I agree with Mart.

How judges could allow the latter as a legally acceptable defence even to be argued is beyond me. By the same logic, can I claim "hooker panic syndrome" if I kill a prostitute because she was sollicitating me for sex on the streets and I panicked?

Fun fact: Twinkie defense actually is the defense that was used to defend the murderer of Harvey Milk - so like in "gay panic" situations, the fact that the victim was gay probably played into the "Twinkie defense" being "successful."

[Martinus]

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).

I think his point is not as irrelevant as you seem to make of it.

Provocation of some sorts is often used by gay bashers, because the murderer is usually defending himself by saying he was provoked by, for example, being propositioned or otherwise sexually assaulted by the victim (this usually being cases of intimacy, there aren't any witnesses around).

And I don't think it would be unfair to assume that juries (especially in more homophobic countries/times) are willing to accept such defense more often than it would be warranted by facts. I'd say this is a travesty of justice, and I'd say this is pretty close to "gay panic" (even if the crime is just reduced from murder to manslaughter).

[Martinus]

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

Why are these always the most ugly, disgusting and un-sexy men that worry about being sexually assaulted by gays? 

[Martinus]

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).

I would suggest that you learn facts about the case you are discussing before jumping so high on that horse that you pass out from lack of oxygen.

For instance, the jury simply found that there was insufficient evidence presented at the trial to convict Biedermann of first-degree murder.  It didn't endorse the "gay panic" defense.  Biedermann was released because the jury lacked the power to find him guilty of any crime less than first-degree murder (for whatever reason).

Still that doesn't change the fact that the jury's homophobia may have played a role in them reaching their verdict.

Actually, crimes committed against vilified minorities are one of those areas where jury system really fails, imo, because it only perpetrates the society's prejudices.

[Razgovory]

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

Why are these always the most ugly, disgusting and un-sexy men that worry about being sexually assaulted by gays? 

I'm not worried about gays, I'm worried about you!  You ain't no prize pig either you filthy Pole!