User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 18

  1. #1
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default "Gay Panic" Homicide Defense

    Quote Originally Posted by www.change.org
    A loophole in Queensland law allows people accused of murder to defend themselves in court by claiming “gay panic” -- that is, if someone who they think is gay “comes onto” them, the sheer panic they feel is partial justification for murder.

    This law belongs in the dark ages -- but it was enshrined in Queensland law in 1997, when a man responded to “gentle touching” by ramming his victim’s head against a wall until he was unrecognisable, then stabbed him to death.

    Uh, I'm never sure at what extent to believe anything anymore when it comes to the internet... but this seems somewhat odd.


    Full story here:

    https://www.change.org/petitions/eli...gaypanic#share

  2. #2
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    What good can possibly come from this thread?

  3. #3
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    What good can possibly come from this thread?

    Well, there is a link to petition and some agency's phone number listed to harass them, if anyone'd be inclined to do so...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    The added link makes a difference. The discussion here, if it does come to pass, will still be pointless.

  5. #5
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    The change.org site doesn't clearly state that the law has resulted in anyone being acquited of murder. the way it's written makes it appear that they are insinuating that is what happened, but my guess is that if I wanted to bother digging up the case I would find that wasn't the case.

    Apparently the amendments make it harder to use the defense. As long as it's properly applied and applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals then I don't have a problem with it. If a man harasses a woman and she has a knee jerk reaction of kicking him in the nuts then I don't have a problem with her getting off.

    This article explains the government opted for amending the law instead of scrapping it.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/b...-1226427364778
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  6. #6
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    The added link makes a difference. The discussion here, if it does come to pass, will still be pointless.
    But, really... isn't everything pointless to you?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Uh, I'm never sure at what extent to believe anything anymore when it comes to the internet... but this seems somewhat odd.


    Full story here:

    https://www.change.org/petitions/eli...gaypanic#share
    Yeah, the internet is odd but there's odd laws too, like the ones on the english statute books about it being lawful to shoot scots or welsh who approach a major english settlement on a sunday or something but I couldnt see those obscure laws being applied, is this one applied or just something strange which remains on the books?

    It would not seem like reasonable force or proportionality was involved in the instance that you describe but I'm wary because I know that stories like these are invaluable as propaganda to individuals or groups who need them as such.

    I dont think anyone should be subject to violence, gay or straight, but I also dont believe that sexual harrassment is fine either and I wouldnt give a pass to any behaviour on the part of homosexuals because of the political status of homosexuality which I would find objectionable in heterosexuals. I know that's going to get dismissed or minimised but that's a problem, in the UK there have already been sex offenders who've tried to exploit homosexual welfare groups or pressure groups as cover, its not something that anyone seems really able to look at.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    The change.org site doesn't clearly state that the law has resulted in anyone being acquited of murder. the way it's written makes it appear that they are insinuating that is what happened, but my guess is that if I wanted to bother digging up the case I would find that wasn't the case.

    Apparently the amendments make it harder to use the defense. As long as it's properly applied and applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals then I don't have a problem with it. If a man harasses a woman and she has a knee jerk reaction of kicking him in the nuts then I don't have a problem with her getting off.

    This article explains the government opted for amending the law instead of scrapping it.
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/b...-1226427364778
    I agree with that.

    I find it hard to have common ground with anyone who has to do some work and present it vaguaries in order to convince others they are subject to ongoing oppression and injustice, I've really go to question what good that serves and whether it'd not be a greater good if that behaviour was questioned instead of supported.

  9. #9
    WALMART
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Yeah, the internet is odd but there's odd laws too, like the ones on the english statute books about it being lawful to shoot scots or welsh who approach a major english settlement on a sunday or something but I couldnt see those obscure laws being applied, is this one applied or just something strange which remains on the books?

    Well, this one set precedence in 1997, so...


    It would not seem like reasonable force or proportionality was involved in the instance that you describe but I'm wary because I know that stories like these are invaluable as propaganda to individuals or groups who need them as such.

    I dont think anyone should be subject to violence, gay or straight, but I also dont believe that sexual harrassment is fine either and I wouldnt give a pass to any behaviour on the part of homosexuals because of the political status of homosexuality which I would find objectionable in heterosexuals. I know that's going to get dismissed or minimised but that's a problem, in the UK there have already been sex offenders who've tried to exploit homosexual welfare groups or pressure groups as cover, its not something that anyone seems really able to look at.

    Yes, I was thinking the same thing, hence my apprehension at claiming full comprehension. This is the only source I have investigated for its integrity; as Beorn has mentioned, there are variables not directly mentioned that could paint a different perception of the subject.


    I know what you mean on the second part, too. I wonder how the man was assaulted to cause such a violent response, but I can almost guarantee the two were not proportional.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Well, this one set precedence in 1997, so...





    Yes, I was thinking the same thing, hence my apprehension at claiming full comprehension. This is the only source I have investigated for its integrity; as Beorn has mentioned, there are variables not directly mentioned that could paint a different perception of the subject.


    I know what you mean on the second part, too. I wonder how the man was assaulted to cause such a violent response, but I can almost guarantee the two were not proportional.
    I dont think either behaviour is permissable, the harrassment nor the violent response, even if the violent response is disproportionate, as I suspect it was.

    However, perhaps there was a real element of panic, an otherwise totally peaceable and law abidding individual who isnt likely to ever be violent again behaves in that manner there has to be some kind of explanation, whether or not it should be allowed to excuse the behaviour is another question.

    I know some individuals who've sought to explain away some pretty unprofessional conduct with reference to blood sugars and diabetes or other health complaints they've made known to their employers in the spirit of the employers duty of care to their employees but that's a bad scenario to be in when you begin to medicalise behaviour in a way which could prove permissive.

    One thing I would say is that this kind of behaviour is something which I would associate with homophobia, the violence not the law, in the true and I'd suggest limited sense of the word as opposed to widespread political and prejorative use of it to mean anyone who's not on message with what the gay lobby is thinking this week.

Similar Threads

  1. Eliminate the ‘gay panic’ defence from Queensland law
    By Nijntje in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-10-2012, 09:38 PM
  2. Colorful Sayings/Quotes
    By ladypinkington in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 05-10-2010, 06:28 PM
  3. Words of Wisdom, Inspiring Quotes, etc
    By rivercrow in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-21-2008, 06:39 PM
  4. [MBTItm] Quote on Intution
    By heart in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 01:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO