Forums

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Of course you will.

Forgive me. Another fight with you over non-issues like whether your message about the "recent" show implied you had seen it seemed like a waste of time.

Are you forgetting that these guys attacked another group of people right after the Shepard incident - in exactly the same manner [pistol-whipping]? It was because of this second attack that they got caught.

None of them ended up tied up or dead, but certainly that gives some credence to the new story by the murderers. But, in my personal view, not enough under the circumstances.

Which sounds to me like nothing more than a bullshit lawyer trying to get them off on an insanity defense.

Again, that's possible. But to me the current story, presented in a context where they are seeking to reduce their sentence, is more likely the one cooked up by the lawyer. It just seems less likely that a lawyer would cook up the "gay advance" theory without the killer even mentioning the victim's gayness, than that the lawyer would cook up the idea of retracting that story in order to boost the resentencing petition.

You believe they were lying then, I believe they were lying now. I think that means that we have a difference of opinion. I'm not sure what you think -- do you conclude that I'm just another liberal bullshit party line spouter?

I don't accept it as gospel.

Your original statement, way back when, asserted as fact that this was a meth deal gone bad, and not an anti-gay attack. If you've changed that view and are simply saying that the murderer and his girlfriend are retracting that story, coincidentally at a time when retracting that story might serve to reduce his sentence, and that this creates a basis to give this another look, fine.

However, I never liked how certain people - both gay and straight - took this case and made it the poster case for the advance of ludicrous "hate" crimes legislation.

It's pretty easy to understand why this case became the marquee case for such legislation, don't you think?

I'm not sure why you consider using the motivation for a crime as a basis for sentence enhancement to "ludicrous." While I'm not the biggest fan of such legislation, I can certainly see merit to the arguments that (1) assaulting someone because he is black or gay or whatever is more reprehensible, and thus more deserving of punishment, than assaulting him for some other reason, or for no reason at all; and (2) that a person who targets members of a particular group for crimes is more likely than other criminals to be a repeat offender, and thus a greater deterrent/longer imprisonment is appropriate.

I also always found it odd that the judge in this case imposed a gag order on the defendants after the trial. I've never heard of such a thing.

It's pretty odd, no doubt. But didn't the Johnny Taliban also have a gag order imposed? Is the difference that his was specifically part of a plea deal and theirs was not.