http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/18/crimesider/entry5319636.shtml
Quote
Cell Phone Sex Video Unravels Hofstra Gang Rape Case
Posted by Ryan Smith
(CBS)
MINEOLA, N.Y. (CBS/AP) She was a Hofstra University freshman who had claimed she was raped by five men in a dormitory bathroom, but she has now changed her story after prosecutors confronted her with the revelation that a video of the encounter may have been recorded, a prosecutor said Thursday.
The recantation on Wednesday night led to the immediate release of four men, including one student at the Long Island college, who had been arrested on rape and other charges. Police had been seeking to arrest a fifth man when the charges were dropped.
The sex did occur in a bathroom but was consensual, a prosecutor said. Authorities could decide within weeks whether to charge the 18-year-old woman for making up the story.
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said Thursday that the woman, whom she would not identify, was interviewed Wednesday night by two senior prosecutors as a routine part of a follow-up investigation.
The woman first told police she was lured to the dormitory and raped early Sunday after her cell phone was stolen by a man she had met at a dance party, Rice said. She said she was bound with rope while the five men took turns sexually assaulting her in a men's bathroom stall.
Almost immediately, Rice said, the woman's story began to unravel with "significant inconsistencies," but she declined to elaborate. "The turning point was when she was confronted with the fact that there may exist a video of some or all of the incident," Rice said.
"Her actions and demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help," the prosecutor said.
An attorney for one of the accused men, 20-year-old Kevin Taveras, said he was shown a copy of the cell phone video and said it confirmed reports that the woman was not attacked.
"It looks more like a porn movie," Victor Daly-Rivera said. "It showed just the opposite of what the allegations were. There was no tying up, there was no bruising, there was no screaming."
The four young men who were falsly accused say the experience was traumatizing.
"I was really scared. I couldn't believe what was basically going through my mind. It was like a big nightmare, and I thought I was going to do time for something I didn't do," 20-year-old Kevin Taveras said on Headline News network's "Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell" on Friday, Sept. 18.
The woman who filed the accusation has been suspended from school until a disciplinary hearing is held, a Hofstra spokeswoman said. Melissa Connolly also said a suspension against Rondell Bedward, the only Hofstra student among the five men implicated, had been lifted.
Two of the men who were released said outside the Nassau County jail on Wednesday night that said they had feared the possibility of serving 25 years to life for a felony rape conviction.
"It's crazy; the system is supposed to prevent these things from happening," Taveras said outside the jail late Wednesday.
"It's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent," he said. "Inside I thought I was going to do a bit for something I didn't do."
Bedward, 21, declined to comment after he was released.
On campus, students shook their heads at the latest twist in the case.
"It's definitely a shock," said Megan Michler, a junior from Penargyl, Pa. "I guess she completely lied about it and it's not fair to the guys that were involved. Everyone was shaken up by the whole thing, and now we were shaken up for nothing."
Hofstra, a private university of 12,600 students, played host to the final presidential debate of the 2008 election.
The rape report "just really gave the university a bad name," said Dani Frank, a print journalism major from Easton, Conn. "I really wish there hadn't been conclusions jumped to because it put the boys in a negative light, it put Hofstra in a negative light, and people will give her a lot less credibility in the future."
"Use protection" used to mean condoms. Now it's cell phone cameras.
BB would prosecute anyway.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:40:12 PM
BB would prosecute anyway.
:yes: Crimes against morality.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 22, 2009, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:40:12 PM
BB would prosecute anyway.
:yes: Crimes against morality.
I just recommended someone be charged with voyeurism today. :menace:
I do have to say that if some girl is willing to take you and your four buddies on in a bathroom stall you perhaps shouldn't be surprised when she turns out to be crazy...
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
I just recommended someone be charged with voyeurism today.
:huh: Was it consensual for all parties, or a peeping-tom?
Quote from: Habbaku on September 22, 2009, 12:53:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
I just recommended someone be charged with voyeurism today.
:huh: Was it consensual for all parties, or a peeping-tom?
The definition of voyeurism in the Criminal Code requires that is be "surreptitiously", so therefore it can't be consentual and constitute voyeurism.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
I just recommended someone be charged with voyeurism today. :menace:
When BB and a bunch of us went to the Art Gallery of Ontario a couple months ago, there was a painting on display depicting a pre-pubescent girl getting out of the bathtub.
We were all worried that if we looked at it, BB was gonna prosecute. :lmfao:
:shifty:
Quote from: Josephus on September 22, 2009, 01:10:56 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
I just recommended someone be charged with voyeurism today. :menace:
When BB and a bunch of us went to the Art Gallery of Ontario a couple months ago, there was a painting on display depicting a pre-pubescent girl getting out of the bathtub.
We were all worried that if we looked at it, BB was gonna prosecute. :lmfao:
It's outside my jurisdiction. There's nothing I can do to stop filth from being displayed in Ontario. :(
One of the guys still should have stopped it.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 01:22:18 PM
One of the guys still should have stopped it.
:yes:
Now obviously if the video contradicts her version, and supports consentual sex, then these guys shouldn't be charged with rape. But I don't think there's any version of events where these guys come off looking good.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 01:38:32 PM
Now obviously if the video contradicts her version, and supports consentual sex, then these guys shouldn't be charged with rape. But I don't think there's any version of events where these guys come off looking good.
It depends on how well hung the guys were I would guess.
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:40:12 PM
BB would prosecute anyway.
Not automatically. The same kind of shit happened in Montreal a few years ago.
A bunch of black dudes gang-raped a young girl for days and had filmed the whole thing. She went to the police afterwards, which arrested the guys for sexual assault.
However, the parents of one of the suspects said to the press that it was consensual, basically that she was a ho and she was all into it, and that the film showed that she was loving it. Even a Montreal one-guy Black lobby group took their defence, despite the young girl adamantly protesting that she was raped.
Even with the movie in hand the DA decided not to prosecute, and the guys went scoff free.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 01:38:32 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 01:22:18 PM
One of the guys still should have stopped it.
:yes:
Now obviously if the video contradicts her version, and supports consentual sex, then these guys shouldn't be charged with rape. But I don't think there's any version of events where these guys come off looking good.
Why?
If some people want to have group sex in a dorm, what's the harm? And why are the *guys* looking worse than *her*?
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 02:27:08 PM
If some people want to have group sex in a dorm, what's the harm? And why are the *guys* looking worse than *her*?
The harm is I'm willing to bet the girl was drunk or high at the time, even if it was consentual. And if you see absolutely nothing wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom, well, then you and I just don't see eye to eye on this.
If it's consentual the girl looks just as bad as the guys. But the girl doesn't look bad if it's gang-rape.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 02:27:08 PM
If some people want to have group sex in a dorm, what's the harm? And why are the *guys* looking worse than *her*?
The harm is I'm willing to bet the girl was drunk or high at the time, even if it was consentual. And if you see absolutely nothing wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom, well, then you and I just don't see eye to eye on this.
If it's consentual the girl looks just as bad as the guys. But the girl doesn't look bad if it's gang-rape.
What if both the guys and the girl were equally drunk/high?
And what's wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom? Please explain.
Quote from: Martinus on September 22, 2009, 02:34:27 PM
What if both the guys and the girl were equally drunk/high?
And what's wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom? Please explain.
Like I said:
QuoteAnd if you see absolutely nothing wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom, well, then you and I just don't see eye to eye on this.
And again, if they're all drunk and high, well, again no one iscoming out of this looking good.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
The harm is I'm willing to bet the girl was drunk or high at the time, even if it was consentual. And if you see absolutely nothing wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom, well, then you and I just don't see eye to eye on this.
Stuff like this doesn't even always start out as a five way. Anyone walking in could have joined the train and many chicks would not be able to stop them from climbing on as well.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 02:27:08 PM
If some people want to have group sex in a dorm, what's the harm? And why are the *guys* looking worse than *her*?
The harm is I'm willing to bet the girl was drunk or high at the time, even if it was consentual. And if you see absolutely nothing wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom, well, then you and I just don't see eye to eye on this.
If it's consentual the girl looks just as bad as the guys. But the girl doesn't look bad if it's gang-rape.
I thought the presumption was that it wasn't rape. Obviously if it was rape the guys look bad.
What if everyone was drunk?
I think a gang-bang in a washroom is kinda gross, but that's not the point: if someone's kink turns in that direction, I'd not think any less of them (though I'd prefer they not do it in a
public washroom - particularly if I needed to shit in it at the time. ;) )
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 02:49:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
The harm is I'm willing to bet the girl was drunk or high at the time, even if it was consentual. And if you see absolutely nothing wrong with a five-way in the men's bathroom, well, then you and I just don't see eye to eye on this.
Stuff like this doesn't even always start out as a five way. Anyone walking in could have joined the train and many chicks would not be able to stop them from climbing on as well.
To my mind if the chick started off having sex with one guy and others joined in against her will, that's clearly rape.
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 03:13:54 PM
particularly if I needed to shit in it at the time. ;)
I think less of people that do this. :x
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 03:13:54 PM
particularly if I needed to shit in it at the time. ;)
I think less of people that do this. :x
You think less of people who
shit?
I suppose your plan is to gradually swell up and eventually explode? :D
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 03:31:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 22, 2009, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 03:13:54 PM
particularly if I needed to shit in it at the time. ;)
I think less of people that do this. :x
You think less of people who shit?
I suppose your plan is to gradually swell up and eventually explode? :D
C-section.
Quote from: Malthus on September 22, 2009, 03:31:16 PM
You think less of people who shit?
I suppose your plan is to gradually swell up and eventually explode? :D
Cropped too much. Should have been:
public washroom - particularly if I needed to shit in it at the time.
I actually can the girl didn't consent to this, and was afraid to say no. But I'm not sure why that's the guys' problem.
Can the girl get in trouble for being in the men's room?
Quote from: Faeelin on September 22, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
I actually can the girl didn't consent to this, and was afraid to say no. But I'm not sure why that's the guys' problem.
Because if the consent was coerced, through words or actions, then it is not valid. If her consent was not validly obtained, it is very much their problem.
What's the rationale for keeping the girl's identity hidden after they decided to drop the rape charges?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2009, 05:27:12 PM
What's the rationale for keeping the girl's identity hidden after they decided to drop the rape charges?
First I don't think they've dropped the rape charges, at least yet. The article says they are released, not that charges are dropped. I've done that before too - new information comes to light, we are no longer all that sure what happened. We consent release the accused, and then try to come to a decision what to do next.
Second, if what happens is merely that no charges are pursued, the police as a matter of policy don't release names of people who merely give statements that don't lead to charges.
Third, if she is charged you can bet her name will be released.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 05:48:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 22, 2009, 05:27:12 PM
What's the rationale for keeping the girl's identity hidden after they decided to drop the rape charges?
First I don't think they've dropped the rape charges, at least yet. The article says they are released, not that charges are dropped. I've done that before too - new information comes to light, we are no longer all that sure what happened. We consent release the accused, and then try to come to a decision what to do next.
Second, if what happens is merely that no charges are pursued, the police as a matter of policy don't release names of people who merely give statements that don't lead to charges.
Third, if she is charged you can bet her name will be released.
The article at least claims the charges were dropped.
QuoteThe recantation on Wednesday night led to the immediate release of four men, including one student at the Long Island college, who had been arrested on rape and other charges. Police had been seeking to arrest a fifth man when the charges were dropped.
Her name: Danmell Ndonye
And there are going to be charges---they're charging her. Also, Tim's cousin Jesus is off the hook.
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/106094/rape-accuser-to-likely-face-charges/Default.aspx
Quote
The Hofstra University freshman who accused four Bronx men and one Long Island man of gang raping her will likely face charges for her actions.
A law enforcement source told Newsday that the 18-year-old will likely be charged within days, although the source would not say what charges she would face.
Law enforcement sources have identified the woman as Danmell Ndonye of Washington Heights.
Prosecutors say Ndonye recanted her rape accusations after being told the incident may have been recorded on a cell phone camera. As a result, prosecutors have dismissed all charges against Rondell Bedward, Jesus Ortiz and Stalin Felipe of the Bronx, and Kevin Taveras of Long Island.
Hofstra officials say the woman has been suspended from school pending a disciplinary hearing.
Edit: Clearly the tape must be pretty damning for her, at least from a "she didn't want it" perspective. The cop must not have been kidding when he said it was like a porn movie.
Needs more pics.
I agree with BBoy :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 01:38:32 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 01:22:18 PM
One of the guys still should have stopped it.
:yes:
Now obviously if the video contradicts her version, and supports consentual sex, then these guys shouldn't be charged with rape. But I don't think there's any version of events where these guys come off looking good.
Are you kidding? My estimation of them is quite high.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 22, 2009, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:40:12 PM
BB would prosecute anyway.
:yes: Crimes against morality.
I just recommended someone be charged with voyeurism today. :menace:
I do have to say that if some girl is willing to take you and your four buddies on in a bathroom stall you perhaps shouldn't be surprised when she turns out to be crazy...
yeah no shit, eh. there's a stable gal you can build a life with.
Daddy wants this movie.
Well I wouldn't have imagine Jesus and Stalin being part of a gangbang in school bathroom.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 22, 2009, 10:05:40 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 12:46:03 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 22, 2009, 12:43:32 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 22, 2009, 12:40:12 PM
BB would prosecute anyway.
:yes: Crimes against morality.
I just recommended someone be charged with voyeurism today. :menace:
I do have to say that if some girl is willing to take you and your four buddies on in a bathroom stall you perhaps shouldn't be surprised when she turns out to be crazy...
yeah no shit, eh. there's a stable gal you can build a life with.
Yeah, just remember...there's a reason why girlfriends and wives don't talk about their college years.
"Oh, you know, just college stuff."
Quote from: Jaron on September 23, 2009, 04:27:25 AM
Daddy wants this movie.
Danmell Ndonye...sounds African, so probably an interracial flick. Better stuff coming out of the Congo. At least those rape flicks have
motivation.
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 22, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
I actually can the girl didn't consent to this, and was afraid to say no. But I'm not sure why that's the guys' problem.
Because if the consent was coerced, through words or actions, then it is not valid. If her consent was not validly obtained, it is very much their problem.
No, I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out I can legitimately see a world where the guys did not think it was coerced, but she, as a girl alone in a bathroom with five guys, regretted her decision but was afraid to say no.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 23, 2009, 07:04:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 05:20:46 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on September 22, 2009, 05:07:35 PM
I actually can the girl didn't consent to this, and was afraid to say no. But I'm not sure why that's the guys' problem.
Because if the consent was coerced, through words or actions, then it is not valid. If her consent was not validly obtained, it is very much their problem.
No, I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out I can legitimately see a world where the guys did not think it was coerced, but she, as a girl alone in a bathroom with five guys, regretted her decision but was afraid to say no.
I suspect, given the lies, that it may have been more like 'woman eagerly participates in sex play many (see: BB) find questionable at best; word gets around; to counter negative impression, woman invents story about being raped, which makes her out to be a sympathetic victim rather than a "slut" ... '
Quote from: Barrister on September 22, 2009, 01:38:32 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 22, 2009, 01:22:18 PM
One of the guys still should have stopped it.
:yes:
Now obviously if the video contradicts her version, and supports consentual sex, then these guys shouldn't be charged with rape. But I don't think there's any version of events where these guys come off looking good.
:huh:
They had consensual sex with a woman. How can they look bad? Because it was several at once? Because it was in a bathroom stall? Please. Kind of icky, sure, but certainly nothing that constitutes them looking "bad".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 23, 2009, 06:06:36 AM
Yeah, just remember...there's a reason why girlfriends and wives don't talk about their college years.
"Oh, you know, just college stuff."
I have no idea what you're talking about. :goodboy:
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 22, 2009, 09:10:28 PM
Her name: Danmell Ndonye
An insane black chick claiming to have been raped, eh? Quick Comissioner Gordon, turn on the Sharpton Signal! :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 07:38:58 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 22, 2009, 09:10:28 PM
Her name: Danmell Ndonye
An insane black chick claiming to have been raped, eh? Quick Comissioner Gordon, turn on the Sharpton Signal! :cool:
His jogging suit is at the cleaners.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 23, 2009, 07:40:12 AMHis jogging suit is at the cleaners.
"To the Pimpmobile!"
*doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-dooh dooh-dooh dooh-dooh dooh-dooh*
SHARPTON
*doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-dooh dooh-dooh dooh-dooh dooh-dooh*
SHARPTON
*doo-doo doo-doo doo-doo doo-dooh dooh-dooh dooh-dooh dooh-dooh*
SHARPTON! SHARPTON! SHARPTON!"
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 23, 2009, 07:36:29 AM
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.
Lawsuit. $$
Anyway, I was going to post how it sucks to be a horny straight man, but then thought that you guys have it easy. At least chicks do not murder you and then get acquitted on gay panic grounds. <_<
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:51:34 AM
Anyway, I was going to post how it sucks to be a horny straight man, but then thought that you guys have it easy. At least chicks do not murder you and then get acquitted on gay panic grounds. <_<
He was hitting me!!!
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:51:34 AM
Anyway, I was going to post how it sucks to be a horny straight man, but then thought that you guys have it easy. At least chicks do not murder you and then get acquitted on gay panic grounds. <_<
I take it you're not familiar with the "battered wife" defence then. :huh:
That doesn't feed into his need to feel victimized. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2009, 04:40:54 AM
Well I wouldn't have imagine Jesus and Stalin being part of a gangbang in school bathroom.
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 07:51:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:50:15 AMLawsuit. $$
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.
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:51:34 AM
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. :huh:
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? :huh:
Is this 'gay panic" thing generally successful?
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Is this 'gay panic" thing generally successful?
Wiki lists 4 US cases. Only it one of the cases was it successful. n=4 :)
Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2009, 10:57:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Is this 'gay panic" thing generally successful?
Wiki lists 4 US cases. Only it one of the cases was it successful. n=4 :)
That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 10:58:31 AM
That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.
Many things are, what's your point?
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 10:58:31 AM
That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.
All temporary insanity claims are highly suspicious.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2009, 11:02:58 AM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 10:58:31 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2009, 11:01:49 AM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 10:58:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:17:04 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:20:39 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2009, 11:19:43 AM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:17:04 AM
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? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:12:25 AM
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).
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 11:23:44 AM
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? :huh: 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.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:23:14 AM
And because viciated justice happens all the time, the gay panic syndrome should be validated as a legitimate and acceptable excuse by the judiciary? :huh:
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2009, 11:39:09 AM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:23:14 AM
And because viciated justice happens all the time, the gay panic syndrome should be validated as a legitimate and acceptable excuse by the judiciary? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:23:14 AM
And because viciated justice happens all the time, the gay panic syndrome should be validated as a legitimate and acceptable excuse by the judiciary? :huh:
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?
If Marty tried to touch my feet I might kill him. I don't want foot herpes.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:45:33 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2009, 01:17:24 PM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:45:33 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 23, 2009, 07:36:29 AM
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.
Quote from: sbr on September 23, 2009, 03:20:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:29:16 AM
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).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 23, 2009, 11:02:58 AM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 10:58:31 AM
That is has been successful even once is gross in itself.
All temporary insanity claims are highly suspicious.
Yep.
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:51:34 AM
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. :huh:
I don't think it features that often in random bar pick-ups.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 23, 2009, 10:39:27 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 07:51:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:50:15 AMLawsuit. $$
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).
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 01:53:36 AM(unless there is a law in Canada - this is in Canada, right?
Hofstra is a university in New York.
Quote from: garbon on September 23, 2009, 11:21:07 AM
Quote from: Caliga on September 23, 2009, 11:20:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 10:48:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:51:34 AM
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. :huh:
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? :huh:
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."
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 11:23:44 AM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:12:25 AM
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).
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2009, 12:15:58 PM
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? :x
Quote from: grumbler on September 23, 2009, 05:13:00 PM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 11:29:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 02:08:25 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 23, 2009, 12:15:58 PM
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? :x
I'm not worried about gays, I'm worried about you! You ain't no prize pig either you filthy Pole!
You can count on Marty to march in to a thread about a girl being gangbanged and steer it so he can ramble about homophobia.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 01:58:46 AM
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.
Is wiki now considered a secret website?
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 02:00:21 AM
Quote from: Drakken on September 23, 2009, 10:48:04 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 23, 2009, 10:32:55 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 23, 2009, 07:51:34 AM
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. :huh:
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? :huh:
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."
Hence my reference to Dan White and Castro Street gay community to my reply to Garbon.
But the twinkie defence as we know it is a fallacy. It was merely used in passing at the trial to describe White's state of mind at the time of the crime. He was in a depressed, stressed-out state due to his constant dejection due to refused to have back his job on the City Board coupled with the need to find a job to feed his family. All of this fueled by bad habits like lack of sleep and eating a sugar-filled diet, including Twinkies. Nowhere did the counsel argue that him eating Twinkies made him unbalanced enough to kill Moscone and Milk on its own.
Plus, I have trouble to describe Milk's murder as a strictly homophobic crime. While it might have subconsciously played a part in fueling White's frustration towards Milk, and White surely had some prejudices against gay people in general, Dan White was not your typical gay-hating WASP. In fact, he worked closely with Milk over several issues while they were city councillors and, despite White's intransigent, politically naive nature they seemed to get along fine personally even if White certainly didn't agree with Milk's lifestyle. Dan White did not kill Milk because he was gay, but because he was angry at what he saw as backstabbing from someone he thought he had support from, when in fact it was Milk who advised Moscone not to give White his job back as a board member.
What really made the difference was that the prosecution was mediocre and half-hearted, and that his counsel succeeded in depicting White as a "normal" Joe Schmoe to a jury of
his peers : white, Catholic low-to-middle class people who had prejudices against both politicians and gays. He even succeeded in having the jury buy that, as an ex-cop it was perfectly normal for someone like him to sneak a gun into the City Hall for protection. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 02:00:21 AM
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."
Fun fact: White also killed the mayor of San Francisco who was not gay.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 10:52:38 AM
Fun fact: White also killed the mayor of San Francisco who was not gay.
Therefore, he is not important. :)
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 10:52:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 02:00:21 AM
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."
Fun fact: White also killed the mayor of San Francisco who was not gay.
In fact, if Milk hadn't been gay chances are White would have killed him anyway. He was just too instrumental in him losing his job.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 01:53:36 AM
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).
[Professor Beeb]It is against the
Youth Criminal Justice Act to publish the name of any youth charged with a crime. Other than that there are provisisions in the
Criminal Code , in particular s. 486.4 and s. 486.5 which, upon application, the judge may prohibit the publication of anything that might identify the victim of a sexual offence, or of an other victim or witness. In certain circumstances (namely familial crime) that may include a ban on publishing the name of the accused.
Otherwise though, we have a system of an open court, and a free press. The media is free to report when people are charged with crimes.
Where the system can occasionally break down however is where the police, occasionally, are a little too quick to arrest, when they should instead continue their investigation.
[/Professor Beeb]
And Judges uses those provisions way too often.
Guy Laliberté! Damn it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 12:03:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 01:53:36 AM
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).
[Professor Beeb]It is against the Youth Criminal Justice Act to publish the name of any youth charged with a crime. Other than that there are provisisions in the Criminal Code , in particular s. 486.4 and s. 486.5 which, upon application, the judge may prohibit the publication of anything that might identify the victim of a sexual offence, or of an other victim or witness. In certain circumstances (namely familial crime) that may include a ban on publishing the name of the accused.
Otherwise though, we have a system of an open court, and a free press. The media is free to report when people are charged with crimes.
Where the system can occasionally break down however is where the police, occasionally, are a little too quick to arrest, when they should instead continue their investigation.
[/Professor Beeb]
I guess there is a different concept of the free press in Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 02:00:21 AM
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."
Dan White is my hero.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 24, 2009, 12:06:33 PM
And Judges uses those provisions way too often.
Guy Laliberté! Damn it.
Ssh, don't get Languish in trouble. It's supposed to remain secret. ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on September 24, 2009, 12:16:10 PM
I guess there is a different concept of the free press in Europe.
Especially in that European country of Canada.
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2009, 10:54:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 10:52:38 AM
Fun fact: White also killed the mayor of San Francisco who was not gay.
Therefore, he is not important. :)
I'm glad at least one person here at least makes an attempt to understand and emphasize with the sensibilities of the GLBT community. :)
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
I'm glad at least one person here at least makes an attempt to understand and emphasize with the sensibilities of the GLBT community. :)
You turned me against the homo.