Reply #69: "Straight panic" [View All]

[kevinbgoode]

Plain and simple. After all, hasn't the judicial system recognized "gay panic" as a legit defense before?

Why wouldn't someone take preventative measures to protect themselves from a member of a group known for a history of violent attacks? Are straight white men the only people in this country entitled to be treated as individuals? Why shouldn't they get a chance to be subjected to their own minority status?

Isn't that the same rationale introduced in courtrooms every time a gay man is beaten to death by a group of heterosupremacists? They were just protecting the golden peepee? And that defense would never be introduced if there wasn't a history of some success with it - it used to be universally successful. Maybe not always enough for an acquittal, but surely enough for a reduction of sentence and/or a reduction in the charge.

I've lived and watched that history. When a judge rules in our favor, he/she is labeled as "activist." When the perpetrator gets off with a reduced charge, the judge is considered "moral."

Well, a system set up like that should be able to use the same successful legal arguments if the target group is changed.

Talk about slippery slope - this country allowed the justice system to take that slope from the beginning. It's just those who were victimized were justified by claiming they weren't citizens or were less than moral citizens - always defined by those who had all the power. Now you advocate that we "understand and educate" those who beat us to death, and then understand that it might take decades to convince those stacked in our legal system that we are supposed to be protected by the Constitution, too. Bullshit.

That dominant group tossed that Constitution aside for the rest of us a long time ago, and they are whining every step of the way when we ask for the recognition and the protection of the laws which are our inherent right as Americans.