Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(   Tennessee man shot after being mistaken for being gay   ( divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

3166 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Aug 2001 at 10:41 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

165 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-08-07 10:46:27 AM  
Cute tab up top, "Dykes Domain"
2001-08-07 10:48:45 AM  
Gay man shot after being mistaken for a tennessean.
Kinda obvious, I know, 1 cup of coffe so far.
2001-08-07 10:50:12 AM  
"holding his fiancé`s purse and helping a blind male friend in a public restroom"
i suppose he acidently fell on the gerbil while bending over in the shower

however it is a scary/sad story
2001-08-07 10:55:48 AM  
It's too bad Hitler gave eugenics a bad name; some of these cavemen need to be weeded out of the gene pool.
2001-08-07 10:58:12 AM  
Cormee: You're right on the mark. The setup is too good to resist, but the actual events are sad. Not that it would be an excuse for murder, but the victim wasn't even doing anything to instigate.
2001-08-07 10:59:14 AM  
Aw, hell! I shouldn't have read the article. Now my company's Ministers of IT will think I'm a homo sapien or something.
2001-08-07 11:04:02 AM  
Ok, This is bad. Very bad. But man, you never, EVER, hold a woman's purse. When will they learn??? It goes under the arm.
2001-08-07 11:04:14 AM  
They aren't sure whether it was a hate crime or not? Boy, they have some really swift law enforcement in TN don't they. But, that brings up the sore subject of hate crimes laws. Why should it matter why you killed the guy. You still killed him for no understandable reason. I mean, unless the blind guy was the shooters gay lover and he shot the other guy in a fit of jealous rage why should it matter . Murder is Murder whether you kill someone because they are gay green purple or just annoying (though in some extreme cases the last of those could be justifiable homocide.)
2001-08-07 11:07:02 AM  
unbelievable. or, at least, i WISH these kinds of things were unbelievable, so that they wouldnt happen.
2001-08-07 11:08:02 AM  
I don't know bigpeeler. I carried my girlfriends purse for a while and I kinda liked it. You can carry all sorts of things. Like bricks and other manly things. when will the world allow me to have my own purse? when? *sniffle*
2001-08-07 11:08:34 AM  
Another argument for gun control. I don't want guns in the hands of people who are out of control (and yes, that includes out of control cops).
2001-08-07 11:10:06 AM  
I agree Appie. Gun control is a well balanced mind and a steady hand.
2001-08-07 11:10:12 AM  
Take this scum out back and execute him in whatever method the victim's family chooses. End of story.
2001-08-07 11:21:21 AM  
Oh damn... this thread is poised to explode...

Gun Control...
Death Penalty...

Might as well top it off... Did you see the linked video of Britney Spears and the Bush daughters mud wrestling over the existence of God?
2001-08-07 11:26:07 AM  
I wonder if that excuse will get you aquitted in a Tennesee court?
2001-08-07 11:26:09 AM  
MojoMonkey: Were they in a pro-PETA riot outside Scientologist's compounds?
2001-08-07 11:26:37 AM  
MojoMonkey: Were they in a pro-PETA riot outside a Scientology compound?
2001-08-07 11:27:03 AM  
I'll just go ahead and cross Tennessee off of my list of places to take a vacation.

This is the kind of thing that makes me lie awake at night, just wondering about the world, and about how much actual humanity is still in it.

As an end note, maybe someone can help me out here. I admit I haven't read any of the Bible in a very long time, but isn't that whole love thy neighbor as thyself passage still in there? Or did they change that in the last decade?
2001-08-07 11:27:16 AM  
Egads! Look what I do when mod_perl catches up.
2001-08-07 11:29:43 AM  
Damn gay links. There are more all the time. That's gonna look good on the proxy log.

Drew please dont let fark turn into a gay site!
2001-08-07 11:30:41 AM  
mojo monkey, good point.
Tonite on RAW, a triple tag team cage match !,
Neal and Bob, the flaming fireballs!
Earl and Bubba, the bad boyz club!
and a special appearance by
Jesse Helms and Rush Limbaugh, the Executioners!.
The losers will either be anally raped !, hunted for sport !, or summarily executed in the NEW WWF Electric Chair!
2001-08-07 11:31:43 AM  
Chilly, um, you can not click on them...
2001-08-07 11:33:28 AM  
... classified as an "honest mistake" ... acquittal ...

... coroner's report reads "death through misadventure" ...

Nah. I think the hate crime laws will have to stick around a bit.
2001-08-07 11:43:18 AM  
How could they not classify it as a hate crime? Because the guy killed a homosexual but the victim was straight.
The irony here is that this guy will go to jail and become somebody's biatch. Which I think is worse than the death penalty.
Instead of the killing Tim McVay they should have rotated in different "cellmates" everynight, for the rest of his life.
2001-08-07 11:51:50 AM  
Note that gay people get killed for being gay all the time, but it doesn't make the news hardly at all. Only a few cases ever do.


Are you familiar with how sentancing works? In sentancing a person, they have to make a determination on how bad of an act the committal of the crime was. For example, 1st degree murder vs. manslaugher carries a huge list of possibilities. How does one decide? Well, it depends on their personal convictions. Its hardly equitable at all. I've read about cases such as a brutal rape and murder of a transsexual - dozens of stab wounds across the body *and* gunshots to the head - with the person being convicted of "manslaughter" and getting near the minimum sentence (there actually was a similar murder case where the person was convicted of "assault" only, but that ruling was overturned, thank god). With another judge, such a case could have been worth the death penalty. Its hardly an equitable system.

There have been a few systems proposed to deal with this problem, ranging from hate crimes legislation to developing a system for measuring "evil" (I'm not joking!). Hate crimes legislation sets a minimum sentence for if the person committed a crime out of hate (as opposed to passion or accident). Its not thought policing or anything like that, any more than our current system of sentencing is - we *already* weigh, based on the picture of how things went during the crime, why the person did it, what was going through their mind, how dangerous a mind like this is to have loose, et al. Hate crimes legislation shows them how to sentence based on that weighing, instead of an arbitrary standard depending on who is sentancing. Its just designed to be a more unified standard, something that is badly needed.

-= rei =-
2001-08-07 12:04:37 PM  
2001-08-07 12:06:07 PM  
Rei: Yes I understand how sentencing works in legal system. I just tend to disagree with you that he should receive a more harsh sentence because he believed this person to be of a protected class than had he simple become annoyed with a straight man in the bathroom and murdered him. I find random killings much more frightening than people that kill out of hate.

Yes, hate crimes are a horrible thing. I just don't believe they should need special sentencing rules. It is a shame that our legal system has become so screwed up that you have to sentence someone to over 700 years (this actually has happened) to ensure that they will not be paroled in their lifetime. The primary problem here is that in this country we have a legal system not a justice system. Justice has nothing to do with what goes on in a courtroom anymore.

If we truly had a justice system in this country, then I believe the sentence would e something along the lines of what DrDave suggested. This scumbag definitely deserves a slow horrible death. I'm just against any law that can be perverted as easily as hate crimes legislation.

As a white male, I have seen similar rules perverted before. In a decade or so, any crime perpetrated against a member of a protected class by someone who is not a member of that protected class will be instantaneously construed as a hate crime.

While in college, a saw a friend of mine raked over the coals and eventually suspended from school for a semester for a fight that was claimed to be racially motivated. He was white, the other guy was black and he beat the shiat out of him. No one wanted to pay attention to the fact that my friend had been threatened with a knife. it was all just "racially motivated". that is why I hate hate crimes laws. No pun intended.
2001-08-07 12:06:46 PM  
Maybe we're all forgetting something. This dude is deranged. He'll end up getting off on an insanity plea.

If you hate gay men, and really have to kill one, be sure that you never go to jail, or else you'll be rather intimate with some friendly cellmate.

THIS is the mental capacity of the general US population, sadly. And though I don't support disenfranchising the stupid from running the world, it's a damn shame that this type of person is the common man, for whom George W Bush is making decisions, as is the entirety of the conservative wing.

Pisses me off - like how they make a road 25 mph when it can be safely navigated by most drivers at a faster speed. But some dumbass can't drive, so they lower the speed limit. Why not REVOKE THE DAMN LICENSES of the IDIOTS?

Sorry, ranted... calming down... pulse lowering...
2001-08-07 12:08:18 PM  
Of course this is a hate crime and the killer deserves to be staked out in a swamp and left to the gators but being more or less part of the south and in the bible belt, the jury just might decide the shooter was justified because he was provoked by a male carrying a purse. Another reason I left that end of the country. Far fewer closed minds in the PacNW.
2001-08-07 12:12:58 PM  
Qermaq, you bring up yet another wonderful flaw in our system. In most cases, the insanity plea is a total crock of crap; especially claims of temporary insanity. I could buy Guilty by reason of insanity but not not guilty. If the person is so deranged that they can not tell right from wrong then they clearly need to be detained.

Oh well, apparently his mistake was making the guy remarks before shooting. If he had kept his mouth shut then he would simply be being charge with regular murder instead of a hate crime. See how hard it is to determine the motive for a crime.
2001-08-07 12:15:22 PM  

You have a deceptive view of the legislation. Again, it isn't "against a certain group". Its if there was hate involved - a black man killing a white man for fun would fall under the exact same laws. Random killings , if they're done because the person sees the ones they're killing as less than human, falls under this. If they're just random because the person's crazy, they'll be sentanced the same as any normal crazy killer. If you think they need a new "Insanity Crimes" law, that's fine by me, but don't try to derail legislation designed to clarify sentencing procedures from the appalling range they have now just because you're worried that somehow it'll be used against you (again, in the *current* situation, if someone thought you had committed a crime, and it was motivated by hate, you might get off with manslaugher, you might get off with first degree murder - all at the discretion of who you're being tried by. This doesn't change whether they *think* you did it for hate. This helps unify the sentences for such crimes).

-= rei =-
2001-08-07 12:18:13 PM  
Yup Walkman the Bible belt is a fairly intolerant place for a region that claims to be full of "good Christians". It's always baffled me. I must have gotten a messed up copy of the bible because mine certainly must not say the same thing theirs does. I mean, even if you go in for the God hates sodomites view, you would think you might remember the "vengence is mine sayeth the lord" part or maybe, "Judge not lest Ye be judged." Oh well, selective reading and interpretation has been around longer than any religious tome.
2001-08-07 12:19:01 PM  
Well, I think it's generally known that homosexual men are non-violent, and non-aggressive. I guess it's a hate crime, because it's like killing a child. It was only motivated by hate. Not money/revenge/random.
The only place you're going to see "threatening" homosexual men is in PRISON.
2001-08-07 12:21:45 PM  
Rei, I just don't believe the law ever will be applied to anyone crime that is not perpetrated against a member of a protected class. I have not once yet heard of these new laws being applied to a crime committed against a non-minority individual. If I am incorrect, then I appologize. I understand what the legislation was intended to do. It is just a very poor patch on a severly broken system. If the sentencing laws are flawed then rewrite them. Don't complicate them further.
2001-08-07 12:25:16 PM  
Soylent, Good lord man haven't you been reading the news. Children are no longer a good example of non-violent non-agressive behavior. Stop badmouthing those poor homosexuals with your malicious comparisons hehe. This is completely tongue in cheek so please take it that way. I believe I am getting way to heavy on this thread. It's time to lighten up I guess.
2001-08-07 01:17:03 PM  

There are no "protected classes" in any piece of hate crimes legislation, proposed or enacted, that I have ever read. They all refer to crimes committed because of actual or percieved gender, race, sexuality, gender identity, et al, without specificing a particular group. Thus, they apply equally to, say, a white man who kills a black man because he thinks blacks are less than human, as to a black man who kills a white man because he thinks they're less than human. In both cases, they both deserve a harsh sentence, since that is a dangerous mindset, and on their own, they'd probably do it again with no remorse. Is it the most dangerous mindset out there? Of course not. Random, remorseless killings are worse. Does hate crimes legislation try to make it the worst? Certainly not. There's little problem with random, remorseless killings getting roughly equal sentencings - the top end of the sentencing spectrum. Likewise, there's little problem with accidental, remorseful killings having a light sentence. The problem comes when you have a trial in KKK country, or black panther country, on remoreseless killings against a particular group. There's a huge disparity of sentences depending on where you were tried.

Yes, its a patch, and its far from perfect. I'll definitely agree - our system is broken (especially sentencing). But, anything we can do to help is better than nothing. If an airplane had trouble with its wings occasionally falling off, well, I'd prefer that they replace that plane with a better one, but if there was no way that was going to happen, I'd definitely support the people out there nailing them on as well as they can :)

-= rei =-
2001-08-07 01:33:49 PM  
Aahh! These posts have too many words!
2001-08-07 01:43:07 PM  
I agree Mex.
Posts should be short and sweet and to the point.
And please don't group all Christians in the same category as those J*ck Ch*cks and murderous shiat-bags that we read about today.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
2001-08-07 01:44:05 PM  
2001-08-07 01:44:08 PM  
There's a problem with mandatory sentencing. OR has a 3 strikes law and required sentences for specific crimes. What usually happens is a jury will find a defendent not guilty because they don't want him or her sent to jail for a "minor" 3rd strike or they think a required sentence is too harsh.
2001-08-07 01:45:32 PM  
I can't remember the passage where Jesus said it was OK to hate something. Can anyone help me out here and show me where Jesus uses the word "hate"?
2001-08-07 01:48:58 PM  

how do you determine a person has a hate for a group? guessing? using Miss Cleo to figure out about the person? If this is enacted, a criminal with a smart lawyer would just plead the 5th to all questions about his motive and then appeal if he got a harsher sentance because of what they thought the motive was.

The 5th involves being able to not incriminate yourself and with these laws, criminals will not tell you their likes or dislikes or else they will be busted.

Rei, would you support a woman getting alot of jail time for killing a man out of hatred of him being male or a male killing a woman out of hatred for him being female?

If they have a trial in "KKK county", they can just determine that the person who committed the crime was innocent so they wouldn't get hate crimes deals. Plus, I don't think the constitution will let you put the people in jail if they are acquitted.

Rei, if an Athiest kills a Christian because he hates Christianity, should that person be sentanced under hate crime laws?

Highrider said stuff about '"Judge not lest Ye be judged."'. Remember that can also apply to say 'If you wanna judge, don't whine about being judged'. It does not say 'Don't judge people', just 'Do not judge and expect to not be judged'.

2001-08-07 01:50:28 PM  
Here it is,
John 12:43
"Love thy neighbor, unless thy neighbor a Butte Pirate be"
2001-08-07 01:53:47 PM  
Charlie: Thanks for looking that up for me. I can now sleep soundly.
2001-08-07 01:54:39 PM  
of course, my favorite verse is "Jump on the bandwagon, I didn't mean that stuff about sins taking you to hell and sins being bad. Sin!"

Zeb 5:55-57
2001-08-07 01:58:22 PM  
Uh, Do you people have jobs?
2001-08-07 02:00:08 PM  
Of course, I put just as much faith into what Buddha, Zeus, or Mohammad might have said, but hey, I'll pretend what the Bible might or might not say might interrupt my sleeping patterns.
2001-08-07 02:00:56 PM  

As soon as you can defend your premise, I'll answer your post:

How is the procedure used to determine how malevolent a criminal was any more "mind reading" under hate crimes laws than without them? Does the act of "determining the intent" change even remotely, given that hate crimes laws only cover sentencing?

The problem is that the motive is the *exact thing* that sentencing already exists to determine. What varies is how its *weighed*. Hate crimes legislation does not change this.

I will, however, address one part of your post.

Rei, if an Athiest kills a Christian because he hates Christianity, should that person be sentanced under hate crime laws?

I'll rephrase the question:

"Rei, if an Athiest kills a Christian because he hates Christians, should that person be sentanced under hate crime laws?"

That is a dangerous mindset to see another human as being less than human, remorseless, more worthy of killing, and should be punnished accordingly - but not as highly as a random remorseless killing, naturally.

-= rei =-
2001-08-07 02:01:40 PM  
RobbieFal (aka CC):
I would think it would be pretty easy to determine if a crime is a hate crime.
Does the killer/bomber/attacker:
a. Belong to hate group.
b. Own literature that would indicate that they were obsessing over a certain group. This would include tattoos.
c. Has anyone witnessed angry actions or rantings from that person about the hated group.
Does the victim fit the profile of what the target group.
I don't think they have to bring in Mr. Spock to mind meld. These jerks leave an ugly trail.
2001-08-07 02:02:18 PM  
"Police have stopped short of saying the shooting could be classified as a hate crime."

"Hate Crime" Really? Gosh, this type of crime is gonna give LOWLIFE MURDERING F*CK HEADS a bad name.

-Mr. Kill EVERONE and let-GOD-sort-them-out.
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.