New York Bans WHAT?

"Your Honor, I hit the car that cut me off because I realized it wasn't a Camaro, it was a Trans Am.

What? I can't use that defense? Um, ok, I'm going with I was in fear for my paint job."

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheRedneck

How did this become a defense?

I thought murder was murder? Why should we make it more illegal somehow for this reason? Are gays and transpeople that more special why they get murdered?

I'm assuming it's like the insanity plea .

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you can't kill someone if you find out they aren't what they said they were. This only protects gay and trans-gendered individuals which isn't a good thing. No one group of people should be more protected than any other. When will people wake up and stop the lunacy of far left liberal sjw limp wristed policies that will eventually destroy freedom itself ? When will sane individuals ban morons from holding power in New York ? Why are people so d@#n dumb ? These questions may never be answered.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TheRedneck

How did this become a defense?

I thought murder was murder? Why should we make it more illegal somehow for this reason? Are gays and transpeople that more special why they get murdered?

I'm assuming it's like the insanity plea .

A defendant might be better off trying to use the insanity defense instead of 'gay panic' defense.
Even so, I believe it is the defendant's right to use what defense they want in court. It all should come down to the jury to decide.
If I was sitting on such a jury, I would not be inclined to acquit a person using a gay panic defense.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I can understand.

If you hired a hooker who you thought was a woman (because it clearly says so on her profile) but she turned to be a trans.... wouldn't you get very angry and posibly kill her/him? If you saw something down there that weren't meant to be there?

Or if you picked someone up at a bar who looked like a woman, so you chat her up and it turns out to be a trans when you got home?

Not sure how far I'd go but there would be some repercusions of sorts.

I assume this is essentially a variation on the Twinkie Defense.

"I suffered diminished capacity because I was surprised by a penis. Please don't send me to jail Mr. Judge."

I'm not sure I agree with limiting a person's ability to mount a defense. At the same time, if the state is pretty much saying that such a defense will never work, it saves the courts time and everyone money. So in that way I'm for it.

EDIT:

I would probably go all redneck on their rear and land them in the hospital.[/quote]

BTW: I'm surprised you chose this time to come out to us all.

edit on 6/20/2019 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Is it okay for a woman to beat/kill a man that lied about the size of his dick? Is it okay for a man to attack a woman that lied about her age? What about a woman that agreed to sleep with a man because he claimed he was rich but barely had a dime to his name?

Where do you draw the line on where it's acceptable to kill or viciously attack someone because they didn't tell you the whole truth?

Looks like a "butter em up" effort to prepare people for the next onslaught....

Hate-Thought Detection (all scientifically meaningful) 😎

a reply to: Xcalibur254

it saves the courts time and everyone money. So in that way I'm for it.

Imagine how much money and time could be saved if the state limited a defendant to pleading guilty.

a reply to: StoutBroux

I don't see why there should be any seperation of specifics of committing the act of murder based on who you kill. If it isn't self defense and you intentionally kill someone else, it's murder.

That's the way I look at it, too.

Have perpetrators actually attempted to justify murder based on their response to discovering a victim's sexual orientation, gender identity or related characteristics? Better yet, has it actually worked in their defense?
And that is my exact question.

I know this does happen; an engineer I worked with once was telling us about this woman in the local red light district that he was interested in and who was coming on to him. Another engineer broke out into laughter. Turns out, the "woman" he described was well-known for being a man in drag. I think it had something to do with him looking for action with other gay men, and the drag was there so his partner didn't have to "come out of the closet."

I can actually understand that. But it's also a dangerous gambit if someone chooses the wrong "John" who just so happens to be very straight. People get angry when you try to trick them, and I know I would consider that a tricking if the dude in drag didn't indicate to me he was a dude somewhere early in the conversation.

Still, though, it's not something I would consider sufficient to kill someone over. How this defense could succeed is beyond me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: butcherguy

A law against using words in court before a jury of one's peers in a legal defense?

Not sure I agree wit that.

I say leave it up to a jury as to whether or not your defense is adequate.

While I understand your point, I have to agree that this is not a legitimate defense and should not be allowed, especially since it covers only murder. Assault? Yeah,I can see assault, and if sitting on a jury I would have compassion for the guy who was tricked. But murder? Sorry, no, that's overboard and not a reasonable response.

The law can provide for or deny defenses; it does so in several cases. It doesn't prevent the defense from offering the reasoning; it simply states that those reasons by themselves are not a defense to murder. If discovering someone is actually tricking you starts a chain of events that go beyond the "gay panic" defense, say for instance, he prevents you from leaving or tries to rape you, then that is still a defense. But if you killed him because you found out you were tricked, and he did nothing else, sorry, no. I wouldn't acquit based on that, and thus there is no reason for wasting the court's time.

That's usually what this kind of law is about, anyway... too many people wasting time trying to use unreasonable defense arguments.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly. It's not so much that they're preventing people from using the defense as much as it's them telling people this defense won't work. No matter how much the trans person may trick you, murder is never justified.

If the best you and your JD holding lawyer can come up with as a defense is "trans panic," then you're f***ked and you need a better lawyer.

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

If you hired a hooker who you thought was a woman (because it clearly says so on her profile) but she turned to be a trans.... wouldn't you get very angry and posibly kill her/him? If you saw something down there that weren't meant to be there?

Jack their jaw? Sure, I'd probably do that. But kill them? No, not unless they tried to force me into something physically, and that would be outside the scope of this law (as well as quite rare). Typically, the situation is

• Flirt and get some interest
  
• Head out to my place or theirs
  
• Go through a little social intimacy
  
• Head in for home base.

At some point, you figure it out. Maybe that's the moment you reach to nether regions and realize there's more there than you thought, but that's the point were you stand up and yell "WTF, dude! Get the ^&%*^&^ out!" and possibly punch the guy. It's an affront to the male ego, yes, but if you're hanging around seedy bars and red light districts, you're probably gonna have it happen eventually.

(And before anyone gets the wrong idea, no, it's never happened to me. It's happened to a few people I have known well, though; I just don't tend to hang out in seedy bars and red light districts. Too many pests humans.)

Hell, in Thailand the "lady-boys" are accepted and expected! If anyone is planning a trip there for some fun, look for adam's apples! Kill one and you're going to wind up in prison for a very very long time, though, and that is well and proper. Killing someone over here just because you found out the plumbing was different is just not reasonable either.

TheRedneck

a reply to: butcherguy

Give me a scenario where murder is justified if you get tricked in to having sex with a gay or trans person. No other extenuating circumstances. Simply you thought they were a woman, you had consensual sex, and they turned out to be a man.

Seriously, if you think this is such a horrible move then you must be able to provide one single example.

We live in a country where rape victims get convicted of murder for killing their rapist. Do you really think, "Oh, they had a penis." is grounds for ending another person's life?

EDIT:

Jack their jaw? Sure, I'd probably do that.

More of that dirty talk. You're just letting it all hang out today. Aren't you?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I wouldn't acquit based on that, and thus there is no reason for wasting the court's time.

I wouldn't acquit either...
But passing a law against the accused using a defense that they choose is not what our judicial system is supposed to be about, especially when it is to save time or money.
Want to save time... limit everyone to pleading guilty. Hell we wouldn't even need courts or judges then.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's actually been happening for a while. Not New York, but here you go: Alleged 'gay panic defense' in Texas murder trial stuns advocates This was last year by the way

A jury recommended that the defendant, James Miller, 69, receive 10 years probation for killing his neighbor, 32-year-old Daniel Spencer. The judge added the maximum six months jail time, required Miller to complete 100 hours of community service, and made Miller pay almost $11,000 in restitution to Spencer's family.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

BTW: I'm surprised you chose this time to come out to us all.

Come out as what? Straight? Dude... if you thought I wasn't straight, you have some serious issues. Most guys seem to be at least bi-curious to some extent... I have never once even entertained the notion. And really, all that is fine. I certainly don't care who someone does with what when, as long as I don't have to hear the details. The only thing about this issue that interests me is how people seem to react to it. I like to know my enemy, and there's no animal more dangerous than a human.

But will I get angry for being tricked? Yeah... if someone tries to sell me a Dodge Challenger that turns out to be a plastic shell around a used-up Yugo, I'll likely hit them too. Redneck don't like being tricked.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: butcherguy

Give me a scenario where murder is justified if you get tricked in to having sex with a gay or trans person. No other extenuating circumstances. Simply you thought they were a woman, you had consensual sex, and they turned out to be a man.

Seriously, if you think this is such a horrible move then you must be able to provide one single example.

We live in a country where rape victims get convicted of murder for killing their rapist. Do you really think, "Oh, they had a penis." is grounds for ending another person's life?

EDIT:

Jack their jaw? Sure, I'd probably do that.

More of that dirty talk. You're just letting it all hang out today. Aren't you?

I never said that it is justified.You are just making stuff up if you think that I did.
I am saying that an accused person has the right to a defense.... even if the one they pick is an extremely stupid one.
It is not the place of the government to limit the accused person's right to mount their defense as they see fit.
Edit to address your edit:

More of that dirty talk. You're just letting it all hang out today. Aren't you?

What the hell is this?
I didn't say this... you must be quoting someone else, or making it up.

a reply to: butcherguy

But passing a law against the accused using a defense that they choose is not what our judicial system is supposed to be about, especially when it is to save time or money.
Want to save time... limit everyone to pleading guilty. Hell we wouldn't even need courts or judges then.

I don't think you're fully grasping the fine legalities here.

No law can limit what is said in a courtroom. Even with this law on the books, a defense lawyer can still claim the "gay panic" defense. All that will happen is that the judge will stop him, inform him that unless he is going somewhere else, that is not a defense and instruct the jury as to the law. The same thing would happen if a defense lawyer tried to claim the killing were justified because the victim was black... that's not a defense either. I'm not sure, but I'd bet at one time there were state laws about that as well.

TheRedneck

They never should have been able to use gay panic as justification for beating up someone or killing them. Gays should not be able to use their gay card improperly either. If a gay jerk starts harrassing someone he should not be able to sue someone who hits them because they hit them first. I knew a few gay girls that liked to start fights, and if they lost, they would have used the gay card because it is being used these days.