Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat May 03, 2025 4:15 pm



Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
 Matthew Shepard - Hate Crime? 
Author Message
A very honest-hearted fellow
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Posts: 4767
Post Matthew Shepard - Hate Crime?
Quote:
ABC Investigation Claims Matthew Shepard May Not Have Been Hate Crime Victim
by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com New York Bureau

Posted: November 11, 2004 2:01 pm ET


(New York City) ABC news is preparing an investigative report that claims Matthew Shepard may not have been the victim of a hate crime, but rather a robbery that went terribly wrong.

The report is scheduled to air on 20/20 on Nov. 26. The network has not provided advance copies to the media.

Shepard, a 21 year old University of Wyoming student was kidnapped by two men he met in a bar in October 1998. He was pistol-whipped, robbed and left tied to a fence on a rural snow swept country road outside Laramie. He died five days later in hospital from massive head injuries.

Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney are serving double life sentences for the killing.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/111104matthewABC.htm


I'll add my comments later. I have to go to class.


Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:31 pm
Profile WWW
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
I doubt it. During the trial didn't someone testify that they could tell he was "gay" and wanted to get him for it. I think one of the girlfriends broke down and admitted something along those lines too. It was a few years back and I think was pretty clear.

article wrote:
n statements to police and in plea bargains to avoid the death penalty both men admitted murdering Shepard and said they had targeted him because he was gay.


It seems, from the article at least, that the two men admitted to the killing because they thought it would get them shorter sentences.

article wrote:
"There were the statements of the murders at the time and the defense even argued 'gay panic' claiming that Shepard had come onto them."


6 years is a long time to stand by a story don't you think. This isn't one of those cases where from the start the men stood by their innocence and/or a different motive.

This issue, which I know some people have, is whether there should be anything considered a "hate-crime," but if one agrees that there should be, I really don't see how one could argue this wasn't one.

-Dolce


Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:12 pm
Profile
Post 
Is it 1984 yet? ;-)


Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:14 pm
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
Well, there seems to be a Bush in office, so possibly. :wink:

-Dolce


Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:37 pm
Profile
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
Well, there seems to be a Bush in office, so possibly. :wink:

-Dolce

A bush is better than a TV.


Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:38 pm
Forum General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:16 pm
Posts: 6499
Location: Down along the dixie line
Post 
dolcevita wrote:
Well, there seems to be a Bush in office, so possibly. :wink:

-Dolce



:lol:

_________________
Image


Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:39 pm
Profile
La Bella Vito
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:56 pm
Posts: 9146
Post 
This is bullshit. He was killed for the fact that he was gay. I can't believe people would actually believe it wasn't a hate crime. :roll:


Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:08 pm
Profile YIM WWW
Extra on the Ordinary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:50 pm
Posts: 12821
Post 
Anyone can attack me for my opinion...but.. :wink:

So why do hate crimes happen? Because theres stupid ignorabt people who have their own set of preconceived notions and are too close-minded to listen to anything else that might be out there, and that jsut maybe their wrong about their ideas. (Not just that but that's part of it.)

So when something is being re-examined and there's the possibility that something that was believed was wrong and there's new evidence for it, what happens? It's bullshit. And people won't hear anything else.

THAT' BS and hypocricy, when you say that before you have even seen the show and hear their arguement they might have.

With that, said, after having seen the show, I do think it kinda exploits (was looking for Mel Gibson's name in the end credits :wink:)the subject in that the network is just doing it for the ratings, but it wasn't biased or anything...mayben the reporters kinda played devil's advocate a couple of times but that's it.

And because of that it's a waste of time, it's jsut interviews, there are no reasons to believe the people being interviewed are being truthful, and MANY to believe they are lying, including contradictions and things that jsut don't make sense?

You don't actually hit the victim and you think not revealing that kind of information might be better for you? That's pretty stupid. So it didn't change my mind in any way, but does it ultimately matter? What was done has no excuse wether it was done under the influence of drugs, to rob him, or because he was gay, it's the same thing and the way they are viewed shouldn't changed, even if it wasn't actually done because of his sexual orientation, which I don't think is true.

_________________
Image

Best Actress 2008


Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:13 pm
Profile WWW
I'm Batman

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:53 pm
Posts: 5554
Location: Long Island
Post 
Aren't most crimes out of hate in some way shape or form.


Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:16 am
Profile
Extraordinary
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts: 16061
Location: The Damage Control Table
Post 
BTTF, no. Hate crimes are specific and targetted due to particular discussions adressing a cultural and/or ethnic group. All crimes are violent, not necessarily hate crimes. And beyond that, many crimes involve personal animosity, but not consistent violence targetted at an entire group. There is a difference between robbing a house, freaking out, and shooting someone, than there is with specifically killing someone because they are gay, and encouraging a discourse about targetting gays in specific.

Now, should that necessarily come out in the sentence of the individual who is responsible for the crime? Some argue no, because, as you said, either way the victim is hurt of dead. But I do think there needs to be some broader information and approach to hate crime and hate crime discourse. By bringing these issues up in court, it is at least a warning that we, as a society, do not advocate violence against a certain group just because of the color of their skin or who they like to kiss. Basically, we need to discourage that, and while I'd love to think that their are no ears that would listen to this kind of crap, there clearly are many. How do we disuade that kind of discussion?

Maybe not through individual trials, maybe yes. I lean towards yes right now because the court is one of the only spaces that does care to make this distinction, and people still listen to these cases. I guess if someone could find an alternative was of spreading consciousness about hate crimes/ consciousness, then you could just trial everyone on murder of 1st degree. Until then, I maintain that it should be included if the crime was a hate crime or not.

They can argue it wasn't, and maybe they'll get off, but even if they do, I hope this doesn't turn around the incorporation of sexual orientation related agression as a potential crime.


Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:37 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 10 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.