Topic: About fucking time a State does something.
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #36,172
This was literally an excuse to get away with fucking murder.
http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/08/28/california-takes-stand-against-gay-and-trans-panic-defenses-criminal-cases
This literally made me wonder if I killed a black man if I could make the "Black-Panic Defense" in court and if they would allow me to get off all the same. Probably not thankfully.
http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/08/28/california-takes-stand-against-gay-and-trans-panic-defenses-criminal-cases
This literally made me wonder if I killed a black man if I could make the "Black-Panic Defense" in court and if they would allow me to get off all the same. Probably not thankfully.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #494,744
Black men used to get killed for hitting on white women.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,753
Wow. If only he could pass a bill that bars cops from using the "race panic" defense when shooting minorities and their dogs. Perhaps we could look into preventing the "I'm-a-trigger-happy-dipshit-indulging-in-a-limp-dick-power-trip" defense. That would be nice.
And seriously, what's up with the double standard for dogs? If my dog is defending my home and police shoot it down, it's... self-defense? But if I happen to push a police dog off me it's all-of-a-sudden "assaulting an officer"? Please, the dog doesn't fucking know what it's doing beyond what you've trained it to do. It's not an officer. Police officers don't try to bite me. Dogs are people when they are yours and not mine? I seriously think this is some fucked up logic.
</rant>
And seriously, what's up with the double standard for dogs? If my dog is defending my home and police shoot it down, it's... self-defense? But if I happen to push a police dog off me it's all-of-a-sudden "assaulting an officer"? Please, the dog doesn't fucking know what it's doing beyond what you've trained it to do. It's not an officer. Police officers don't try to bite me. Dogs are people when they are yours and not mine? I seriously think this is some fucked up logic.
</rant>
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,755
Anonymous C replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,757
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,764
@494,753 (C)
Dogs are a "weapon". Can't have civillians think they have the same rights regarding weapons as the state, can we?
Dogs are a "weapon". Can't have civillians think they have the same rights regarding weapons as the state, can we?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,768
Well, it's a catchy phrase but doesn't seem particularly different from various other mitigation/state-of-mind defenses that are used all the time: I caught my wife cheating on me, I was provoked, etc. I'm confused that this is being specifically outlawed while tons of other sexist, racist flavors of this kind of defense are still perfectly allowable, but... it's California.
> This was literally an excuse to get away with fucking murder.
What? When was it ever successfully used to let people get away with murder? I wouldn't be surprised if it's worked to mitigate a murder down to a lesser conviction, but that's a long way away from what you're claiming.
> This was literally an excuse to get away with fucking murder.
What? When was it ever successfully used to let people get away with murder? I wouldn't be surprised if it's worked to mitigate a murder down to a lesser conviction, but that's a long way away from what you're claiming.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,769
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Yeah, doesn't a murder charge require that the act was premeditated?
Yeah, doesn't a murder charge require that the act was premeditated?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,770
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 12 years ago, 13 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,772
@494,769 (G)
Depends on the state. At common law: murder requires only 'malice aforethought,' some kind of evil, basically (not pre-planned). Deliberate planning/premeditation would typically kick it up to aggravated murder (first-degree murder in other words).
But mitigating factors, like witnessing infidelity or being in the throes of some other passion that made you unable to control yourself, or you were in a fight and overreacted with deadly force, can knock it down to a lesser charge like voluntary manslaughter. The state can charge you with murder AND the lesser charge, and then the jury gets to decide which charge is appropriate under the circumstances.
From the wiki it looks like this is how gay panic typically works. I don't find that any more offensive than the overall fact that mitigation defenses have historically been a great way for privileged white men to get reduced charges for killing members of any number of marginalized groups.
Depends on the state. At common law: murder requires only 'malice aforethought,' some kind of evil, basically (not pre-planned). Deliberate planning/premeditation would typically kick it up to aggravated murder (first-degree murder in other words).
But mitigating factors, like witnessing infidelity or being in the throes of some other passion that made you unable to control yourself, or you were in a fight and overreacted with deadly force, can knock it down to a lesser charge like voluntary manslaughter. The state can charge you with murder AND the lesser charge, and then the jury gets to decide which charge is appropriate under the circumstances.
From the wiki it looks like this is how gay panic typically works. I don't find that any more offensive than the overall fact that mitigation defenses have historically been a great way for privileged white men to get reduced charges for killing members of any number of marginalized groups.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,843
@494,753 (C)
You should be thankful those brave heroes in body armor and ski masks put their lives on the line every day tear gassing protesters, and serving no-knock warrants for possession of weed.
You should be thankful those brave heroes in body armor and ski masks put their lives on the line every day tear gassing protesters, and serving no-knock warrants for possession of weed.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,857
@494,753 (C)
Gay panic is not justified, but negroes are 250x more likely to assault a white person than the other way around.
Gay panic is not justified, but negroes are 250x more likely to assault a white person than the other way around.