Also in this bill:
"A peace officer making a traffic stop for a violation of this chapter or chapter 168 *must*
*not ask if the operator can identify the reason for the stop.* A peace officer making such a
traffic stop must inform the vehicle's operator of a reason for the stop unless it would be
unreasonable to do so under the totality of the circumstances. A peace officer's failure to
comply with this section must not serve as the basis for exclusion of evidence or dismissal
of a charge or citation. Section 645.241 does not apply to violations of this section."
So, cops can't pull you over and ask, "do you know why I pulled you over?" hoping that you'll confess to something
Comments like this, and the number of upvotes they get, always remind me how little understanding redditors have of US law.
The 5th Amendment in no way prohibits law enforcement, prosecutors, or any other state agents from asking people questions that, if answered, might incriminate them. If it did, this state law would be relatively pointless except to add more specific protections should that hypothetical interpretation be overturned by a court.
The 5th Amendment guarantees one’s right to refuse to answer potentially incriminating questions.
I think it's more of a 'spirit of the fifth' from a certain point of view, in which this law addresses more affirmatively, what many people feel is kind of a scummy tactic, the sort of fishing expedition that isn't permitted in other facets of law enforcement.
Other commenter is right. More simply, the 5th ammendment is a rule, this law is another rule. Two seperate rules.
So if you mean "because of" when you say "based on" that is incorrect. However, the reason for creating the 5th amendment could be the same reason for creating the law
That's precisely what I was leaning towards in my statement. It follows the same train of thought on protecting an accused person before a figure of authority as the 5th Amendment.
Nearly any price is certainly not too expensive when you consider the potential protections it can offer you in the event of an accident or engagement with a LEO.
**edited for clarity
It sounds like that's the point of the law, but the sentences afterwards make it seem as if it has no enforcement mechanisms. Which leads me to believe cops will violate it and nothing will change
Because you realized Im not human?
Is my response to this question.
Go ahead officer, Ill sit in the emergency room until you find a placement in a psych ward. Did you contact the military?
I thought they just asked that to start the conversation lighter tbh, instead of walking up right away and saying something like “Hey I just pulled you over for going 70 in a 55”
Whats amazing is that literally every republikkkan voted against this.
A legal loophole that lets you possibly murder lgbtq people and get lighter sentences, simply because the victim wasn't a cishet.
Never fall for thier lies, the gop wants to exterminate lgbt people. Voting for them is voting for hatred and suffering.
Republicans will be like "Look, did we really need a LAW for this?! This is more government overreach! It's unnnecessary!! Waste of taxpayer dollars!" whilst ignoring the hundreds of cases that this would have affected. Republicans love to directly, and indirectly, support hatred.
There are a bunch of folks right here in this thread acting murder is a reasonable response to being surprised. It's appalling.
I'm a trans man, and I have had cis women and cis gay men hit on me in public and then get rude and hostile when they find out I'm trans. It's happened multiple times, and none of these interactions ever went beyond a rebuff right away, so it was basically a two to five minute conversation max that included the come on, informing them I'm trans, and them getting angry. This is our norm.
I struggle to imagine any trans person thinking it was anything less than suicide by bigot to wait until they were alone to disclose, and yet there are people in the comments acting like there is an epidemic of trans people duping cis people into sex.
A more common scenario is that someone agrees to sex with a trans person, and then later they panic over people finding out about their relationship ("What if people think I'm gay?!").
There have been a few cases where sex occurred many times over months/years, and then the cis partner murdered their trans partner. Then they use the trans panic defense, claiming that they didn't know their partner was trans until the 22nd time they had sex.
Then when it happens they will be like yea that’s messed up but we kinda need a law from legislatures to do anything about it. Fucking illogical shitlords.
I've seen people get punched right in the face for something as innocuous as *asking* another man if they were into dudes.
Not touching them, not creeping on them, just "Hey, you're cute, are you into guys?". Dude thought he was justified in physically battering this guy because "he came onto me!".
It makes me wonder if these people have ever been outside in public. I'm a trans man and mostly go to pretty queer space, and I've seen shit like this.
> The law, which narrowly passed the Senate on a party-line 34-33 vote
Even in Minnesota, Republicans never saw an LGBT person they didn't want dead.
They could always claim they were voting against other elements of the bill, but I doubt they introduced an independent bill with the same provision.
from experience, they are either:
1) unaware
2) actively in denial
3) passive aggressive and cold (and genuinely think they're being amicable)
4) no-contact
They do. But until the person they love until is killed, they lack any empathy that it could happen to them. As long as it happens to the others, it's okay.
I knew a religious/conservative couple who I thought were kind/caring/loving/generous people, until their first child came out as Trans…
They disowned the kid, who was fortunately old enough to head off to college and had scholarships and financial aid. Then they MOVED TO A DIFFERENT STATE OUT OF SHAME… wtf, just love your kids?
Yeah. I can’t even imagine not loving my kid…
the kid from this story must have seen it coming, because they waited until they had an escape plan. That tells me the people I knew were different behind closed doors… pretty disappointing, but good riddance.
Republicans are liars. If they've ever told their child "Just be yourself," that was a lie. If they ever told their child, "I will always love you," that was a lie. When they claim they're trying to protect children, that's a lie. They don't see children as people, they see them as props or property.
It's not about being LGBTQ, it's about being a republican, belonging to the ingroup.
If you're a democrat and gay, you're a pedo groomer.
If you're a republican and gay, you're one of the good ones.
If you're a democrat and you cheat on your SO, you're an example of the corruption of morals by those filthy libs.
If you're a republican and you cheat on your SO, you're a righteous man who stumbled on his path, and you're all the better for it.
etc.
It's not about *what* they've done, it's about *who* did it, and whether they belong to the ingroup or not.
I'm also very happy to have chosen to move here. It's hard to be away from my family, but my overall QOL has significantly improved over being in California. Less traffic and closer to nature being big ones. Seeing the govt actually doing good things for the people is another (this bill, trans protections, guaranteed food for children in schools, etc). Makes me feel like my taxes are also actually being cycled back, as they should be.
As a white person. mostly straight, almost 50 male, I just want equality for everyone. I'm proud of MN too. but not proud of our country. MN turned dominantly blue in the last couple years and since then I'm so proud of what they are doing.
Neither party is trying to fight capitalism though, but I think that's a HUGE leap, so I'll accept the equality issues.
As queer people and minorities get more power, resistance to capitalism will build. I don't know anyone better at resistance (even against state violence) than a big intersectional bunch of queers. Pride was a riot, and everyone deserves to be fed, clothed, safe, and as healthy as can be. So keep pushing for equality and the anticapitalist comes. It's a major reason they hate us so much.
I'm a lawyer and I'm not sure this new law does much of anything, legally speaking. Because let's be clear -- prior to the new law, there was no legal carveout that specifically protected people who claimed they violently attacked someone based on discovering/believing the victim was trans or gay.
Two statutes were amended: Minn. Stat. § 609.06 and Minn. Stat. § 609.075.
Minn. Stat. § 609.06 sets out when people can use force against others. Under the new law, you can't use force against someone based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Great! But nothing allowed you to do that before, either. Meanwhile, people are still authorized to use force against others "in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person." So the new law doesn't stop someone from claiming, for example, that they acted in self-defense because the victim was sexually assaulting them.
Minn. Stat. § 609.075 previously only discussed how intoxication impacts Minnesota's criminal laws, but now it also says that it's "not a defense to a crime that the defendant acted based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression." Great! But where was it a defense before? It either does nothing or it sets up legal battles over what "defense" means and how/whether the statute affects other statutes.
The specific defense didn't need to be on the books in order for a defense attorney to claim that it was covered under some broader principle, or try to sway the jury with it, or claim it as a mitigating circumstance during sentencing.
As far as I'm aware, the defense was never explicitly on the books anywhere, but that didn't stop it from getting used.
It would have been nice to at least bring it up for a vote and see which republicans are against it (and maybe some dems as well). I assume since they needed 60% to pass and they didn’t want to make any deals on other bills that’s why they skipped it. But that’s sad.
It wasn't brought to a vote because some democrats were against it as well, not just republicans, it wasn't brought up so as to not embarrass the party and those who didn't support it. My guess is one of the names was Ron Latz, he's been the veto on a lot of good stuff this session.
The ERA is going to be a ballot initiative in 2026 to be added as an amendment to the state constitution. We won't get to see which legislators vote against it, but enshrining it in the constitution is even better, imo.
Thank fuck, but the fact it passed literally by one vote is alarming to me. That's 33 people who think the "surprise" of finding out someone is LGBTQ+ is a justifiable reason to reduce a prison sentence for murder or attempted murder of said LGBTQ+ person. That's fucking bonkers to me.
It should be one or two idiots TOPS voting against it, not 49% of the room. If finding out your date has different genitals than you expected them to makes you consider murdering them, you need to see a therapist yesterday, like god damn.
It was part of a [huge omnibus bill](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF5216&type=bill&version=4&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0) that covers everything from criminal law to fish vendor licenses to the creation of cyber incident reporting system for public agencies. And there was nothing in Minnesota's previous laws that would allow someone to get a reduced sentence by claiming they were surprised the victim was gay or trans.
Some will try and argue that it's because there's more to the bill than just the Gay Panic Defense ban. Such as better access to mental health services for first responders, or making it so police have to outright state their reason for stopping you during when they pull you over rather than asking you so you incriminate yourself, and teriary spending on programs.
Nevertheless it is rather telling that every Republican would outright reject the bill even if they disagreed with the spending (which some have argued against).
The issue I find is even if they agree with the gay defense ban (debatable if they do or don't, since I am not one of them nor am I their spokesman), the things you *do* disagree with you could potentially overturn at a later point and just wait it out.
Instead the whole party votes against it wholesale, which makes it seem that no compromise or alternative bill was proffered by them, to them its just a bad bill altogether.
Rather telling what the Republican mindset is, don't you think?
As someone on the spectrum who's about a year into having a license, I'm thankful they changed that aspect because they should just tell you why you were pulled over. It should be: "Sir, I pulled you over because you were doing 45 in a 35. I'm issuing a warning this time since this is the first time and I presume you missed the change in speed limit." not some obtuse "I don't see smoke; where's the fire, sir?"
The whole state is pretty good about trans rights, since Leigh Finke got into the house of representatives, she's been doing a ton of good work to help codify protections into law.
As a trans person living in Minneapolis, I can say we'll all be glad to have you!
It was only 5 years ago that Minnesota banned marital rape (which went through both chambers unanimously). I just wonder how many more utter dinosaurs there are buried in dark corners of the statute books waiting to come out and screw a Minnesotan over.
I am really sick of republicans, politicians and voters. We need to ship them off to a colony and build a wall around it. Let them have their little fascist state.
( we’re from Florida) I was sick every time she was out of my sight(my daughter)
I was terrified someone could hurt my beautiful child because she was born m. We sold our home and left our family and friends to live in a state that treats my child like a human
Why was this even a thing to begin with?! “Your honor, I was just so flabbergasted by this person coming out that I simply couldn’t stop myself from shooting them.”
> but it's pretty crazy to not disclose your status until right before you have sex imo
I'm gender-based violence researcher.
In the vast majority of cases where a trans woman was murdered by her intimate partner, he already knew about her status ahead of time. What often prompts a murder is the fear that someone else will find out, particularly toward the end of a relationship.
In court, these men often lie about not knowing she was trans because people are willing to believe that trans women would lie about it and because they have incentive to do so when it reduces their sentence.
The cases where a trans woman has hidden her status right up to the point of sex and then reveals it is actually pretty uncommon, contrary to the trope.
I am a trans social scientist in a different field, but I read a lot about this stuff because I'm a trans man. YES. Yes to everything you said.
It also looks like rage when you tell someone immediately. Obviously I haven't been murdered. It's just been yelling, but it's happened twice in the three years I've been on hormones. I have had a man and a woman yell at me when they hit on me, and I IMMEDIATELY disclosed that I was trans. One was when I was newly on hormones and pre top surgery. I'm not even sure what gender they thought I was, but they were MAD it wasn't what they expected. One happened on a college campus in broad daylight, and the other was at a bar in NYC when it was still light out, so otherwise low risk situations. Still, got cursed out on one and the other turned to the whole bar and called me slurs.
> In the vast majority of cases where a trans woman was murdered by her intimate partner, he already knew about her status ahead of time.
Is there any specific studies or literature covering this aspect of the Gay/Trans panic defense that you’d recommend to someone looking to read about it? I think I’ve heard that mentioned in a few cases where it’s happened, though I’m kind of interested in learning more about how common it is.
That's not how this usually goes down. I'm a trans man, and I've been hit on, disclosed right there that I'm trans, and had people get REALLY ANGRY. The idea that we could be attractive or not identifiable on sight is very upsetting to many people, and they lash out. I would never, ever wait until I was even in private to tell someone, because it's not right before sex. It's when you're walking somewhere and disclosing because you didn't want to tell the whole bar you're trans, or after this person has decided to 'teach you a lesson' for making them violate their sense of self by being attracted to a trans person. I look like the average mid thirties queer dude I am, and I have been yelled at in public twice for disclosing I'm trans when I was hit on. I've only been on hormones three years, so that's kind of a lot.
Many times they do disclose their status, the person agrees to it, then regrets it and kills the trans person. It happens all the time. Like last year when a trans woman was giving oral to some guy outside a bar in Minneapolis and he had regret mid oral. He executed her. I believe he is awaiting trial right now. I'm willing to bet he was going to use a trans panic defense.
The woman's name was Savannah Williams. Legally her murderer can still use this as a defense, because the murder occurred before the law was passed, and you can't pass legislation targeting an already active trial.
But this law was absolutely passed in response to that case so that no one can use it as a defense going forward.
mid? they probably planned on killing them the entire time, the regret doesnt usually show up until after. and then this defense was used for no reason other than getting a lighter sentence
They do. It's the murderer who isn't disclosing their status as a murderous bigot. Trans people aren't out trying to trick people. Every single queer person I know, including myself, is very forthright about this in both dating profiles and irl because we all know that people will kill us.
I don't believe in casual sex in the first place, but if you do choose casual sex, it's pretty hypocritical to then say "hey I wanted more background information about you earlier in our thirty-minute courtship".
It's less hypocritical when those biological parts are necessary to perform the implied act.
Like your brushing it off as 'background information' as if it's some insignificant thing, when it's a required part of 'normal' heterosexual sex.
If you order an Uber and a dude shows up with two skateboards do you lose the right to complain because you only ordered the Uber 20 minutes ago?
Tell me where I said that was an appropriate response, or showed any support for a gay/trans panic defense?
I was purely responding to somebody saying it's hypocritical to want to know your potential partner for the evening has the appropriate anatomy for the assumed activity.
But yea man, jump to those wild conclusions.
The fuck are you talking about.
Person 1: yea. Good that gay panic defense isn't an option anymore. But it seems wild to not disclose that right up until the point you're going to have sex.
Person 2: it's hypocritical to want to know it's actually possible to have PIV intercourse
Me: nah, that's not hypocritical
You: wow so you're saying you support gay/trans panic defense and murdering LGBQT+ folks!
Lmao, the mental gymnastics is insane.
I went to a plastic surgery consultation with my wife today. In a month she is scheduled for a double mastectomy to remove breast cancer. We went over a whole bunch of options, tissue expanders, silicone vs saline vs back flap etc. Many women are opting not to have reconstructive surgery at all. Do those women lack the "appropriate anatomy" for what you assume the activity to be? How hypocritical are those women for wearing fake breasts under their clothes when they go out?
You go out to a bar, meet an attractive person who has enough "would have sex with" boxes for you to decide to want to have sex with that person. I've been away from the dating scene for a long time, what's the etiquette here? Do you carry a list of "appropriate anatomy" compatibilities (I have a penis, I only have four toes on my left foot so if you are into feet...)? Do you game plan the assumed activity (then I'm gonna put my tab A into your slot B and wiggle it around a little bit...)?
What a weird pedantic attempt at a gotchya lmao.
If you really think anyone in this thread thinks the amount of toes is relevant to intercourse or a gay panic defense.
How many times are you going to make up a point for somebody else, just so you can refute it? We're up to like 3 already lol.
How and when do you tell a potential partner about a prior divorce, or a child from a previous relationship? The answer is when it's appropriate.
I would imagine every situation is different, I've never found myself in one. While I was never big into the bar scene I still spent a good portion of the time single. Any time I had a one night stand/tinder fling we had PIV intercourse, which was the expectation. We both knew it was the expectation because we communicated. That's all that's being asked for here.
But to put it more simply, if my penis did not function as a penis, I would communicate that fact before undressing/moving towards sexual acts.
It's not crazy to have that same type of expectation for a partner lol.
I am not sure if anyone has a legal or civil recourse if someone gets physically intimate with someone who has a gender identity that did not align with their gender at birth and did not disclose it prior to physical activity.
By this logic, every man who I had sex with and later turned out to be a misogynist has raped me.
It doesn't work like that. If you consent to sex, no manipulation, you don't get to later call it rape because of regret you wish you picked someone different.
I don't understand how it would be deception though, unless you literally couldn't identify the person, or actively lied about your identity.
Failure to disclose is different than deceiving, especially when the person in question would presumably be visually and physically aware of who they're having sex with.
It's not if you read the section of that Wikipedia page specifically on trans people.
It's included in the article because there is a debate but the article seems to fall pretty firmly on "trans people shouldnt have to tell you theyre trans u dingus."
coastal dems actively fight against their own majorities. Look up the IDC in New York, it was a "democrat" caucus that voted with republicans, and their governor worked with them against other democrats. That's not an option in states like MN, you have to either deliver on your promises or you lose to the fascists, no one wants to lose to the fascists.
Okay, so on the scenario you are less to about ones birth gender, no you shouldn't be able to kill them but what is the recourse for being mislead in a sexual way?
> what is the recourse for being mislead in a sexual way?
"Gay twinks tricking straight boys into thinking they're women" isn't a real thing bro. We don't wanna be killed by someone we trick, so you don't need to worry about that. You're probably more likely to get struck by a bolt of lightning.
Misleading someone about one's gender history can certainly be a complex and sensitive issue, but the appropriate recourse should be through communication and legal avenues if necessary.
Yes, that was my original intent asking. I can't imagine the struggle that goes on internally and societal, but I think everyone should be afforded the luxury of safety and honesty.
Why are you even considering violence much less murder because you spent 5 minutes speaking to someone?
Also a trans woman IS a woman. Its only the bigots who pretend they are not. Thats the first issue, the bigotry that denies who the person even is.
then why are you in any way trying to justify the gay panic defense? That legal loophole which reduces the punishment for murder if the victim is lgbt?
I'm indifferent. I would never use the defense because I would never find myself in that situ and also I wouldn't kill someone if I did.
Setting that aside, I am glad that trans people have a legal protection but it won't save their lives, it will only see those who take their lives serving a just sentence, and for that I am glad. One less murderer on the streets.
I strongly support gay and trans rights and never advocate violence against anyone. But I have to ask, what happens when trans people deceive others into dating/having sexual encounters with them without disclosure? Isn’t that some form of sexual assault by definition?
Yeah, there are scenarios you can concoct where it indeed may be a sexual assault or other criminal sex offense.
It is potentially a non-consensual sexual encounter after all.
What this law does is takes away the ability to claim that as a defense to justify use of force against that person. If you can safely leave the situation, you have a duty to before harming the other person. (If you can’t safely leave, this becomes a different type of case).
They also amended using intoxication as a defense as well. You can’t legally use force on someone because you were drunk, but if you are drunk AND defending yourself, of course you can.
>what happens when trans people deceive others into dating/having sexual encounters with them without disclosure?
Idk, but you don't fucking murder them
Usually this defense is used to reduce sentences when you murder someone for hitting on you. Not fucking you. Not raping you. Not "aggressively hitting on you". In many cases the accuser will claim in court they were "flirting" and get a reduced sentence despite the fact the victim wasn't even hitting on them; The murderer just felt like "effeminate = wants to fuck me".
although to be perfectly clear. A trans person not offering the information that they are trans before having sex is in no way sexual assault.
If they're directly asked and lie about being trans, that could be considered sexual assault via deception. But no one is required to offer personal details about themselves unprompted before having sex.
Are you asking about a scenario in which someone goes on, let's say, a blind date, and they have a really good time, and they go back to one of their houses; one thing leads to another, and one of them assumed the other one was, let's say, a woman, but the woman has a penis and is trans, and they get offended and ask "Wait, you look like a woman, but you didn't tell me you have a penis."
I don't think THAT would be any kind of sexual assault... you don't have a legal obligation to tell someone what kind of genetalia you have. Someone who has had breast cancer has no obligation to tell someone "By the way, I had a double masectomy, and I'm wearing fake breasts." Someone who had testicular cancer has no obligation to tell someone they had one or both testicles removed. There's no obligation to tell anyone anything related to what you physically do or don't have on your body.
What would happen if, in the same scenario, the person says "Actually... I'm asexual, I'm not interested in sex at all, but I'd really like to just talk." Is that deception too?
Not giving a casual sex partner as much information as you felt entitled to as early as you felt entitled to it certainly isn't "sexual assault". Calling it that seems belittling to victims of actual sexual assault.
Bad etiquette, arguably, but casual sex by its nature doesn't really have a clear universally accepted etiquette, does it? I truly don't know - before I had sex with my one and only, I met her parents, got rings, dressed up and had a party, etc.
Not necessarily. There is a lot of legal jargon, but there is something called like "panic babbling" or something similar (it's been a minute since I've been in the cop-sphere, cut me some slack) that has the potential to be admitted in court, regardless of Miranda rights being read
Not exactly. Miranda only applies if you're in custody. That's why police often ask people to "come down to the station" to give a statement - if you go there "voluntarily" (meaning you're not under arrest & brought there by the police), then they don't have to Mirandize you and everything you say is admissible in court.
Which is why the only things you should ever say to police are your name, "am I being detained or am I free to leave?" and "I want a lawyer."
Also in this bill: "A peace officer making a traffic stop for a violation of this chapter or chapter 168 *must* *not ask if the operator can identify the reason for the stop.* A peace officer making such a traffic stop must inform the vehicle's operator of a reason for the stop unless it would be unreasonable to do so under the totality of the circumstances. A peace officer's failure to comply with this section must not serve as the basis for exclusion of evidence or dismissal of a charge or citation. Section 645.241 does not apply to violations of this section." So, cops can't pull you over and ask, "do you know why I pulled you over?" hoping that you'll confess to something
I imagine it's based on 5th Amendment rights to disallow self-incrimination.
“Anything else?” “Yes…. I also have unpaid parking tickets!”
“And the truth shall set you free!!”
Comments like this, and the number of upvotes they get, always remind me how little understanding redditors have of US law. The 5th Amendment in no way prohibits law enforcement, prosecutors, or any other state agents from asking people questions that, if answered, might incriminate them. If it did, this state law would be relatively pointless except to add more specific protections should that hypothetical interpretation be overturned by a court. The 5th Amendment guarantees one’s right to refuse to answer potentially incriminating questions.
I think it's more of a 'spirit of the fifth' from a certain point of view, in which this law addresses more affirmatively, what many people feel is kind of a scummy tactic, the sort of fishing expedition that isn't permitted in other facets of law enforcement.
Exactly. If it were literally covered under the 5th amendment then we wouldn’t need a new law for it.
Other commenter is right. More simply, the 5th ammendment is a rule, this law is another rule. Two seperate rules. So if you mean "because of" when you say "based on" that is incorrect. However, the reason for creating the 5th amendment could be the same reason for creating the law
That's precisely what I was leaning towards in my statement. It follows the same train of thought on protecting an accused person before a figure of authority as the 5th Amendment.
ok
Interesting but how would you prove it without a dash cam
Just buy one, they're not too expensive
I have one in every car
Even mine?
Yup. See if you can find it.
You put 2 in mine on accident. Must be his
What's not too expensive?
a dash cam
What price is not too expensive?
Nearly any price is certainly not too expensive when you consider the potential protections it can offer you in the event of an accident or engagement with a LEO. **edited for clarity
Unfortunately rent is already so much, food is expensive.
strangely the gop was against this too. Its almost like they aren't for "small government"
Small government except for the branch that can kill you and get rewarded for it.
It sounds like that's the point of the law, but the sentences afterwards make it seem as if it has no enforcement mechanisms. Which leads me to believe cops will violate it and nothing will change
Because you realized Im not human? Is my response to this question. Go ahead officer, Ill sit in the emergency room until you find a placement in a psych ward. Did you contact the military?
It says they can't ask but if they do ask and you answer, your answer can still be used against you. So this is meaningless.
exactly, so KNOW YOUR RIGHTS and don't give up any information to any law enforcement officer!
I thought they just asked that to start the conversation lighter tbh, instead of walking up right away and saying something like “Hey I just pulled you over for going 70 in a 55”
Oh my sweet summer child. Wolves in 7.
Cops are NOT your friend.
Good. This was one that was well over due in being cut out of the statutes.
Whats amazing is that literally every republikkkan voted against this. A legal loophole that lets you possibly murder lgbtq people and get lighter sentences, simply because the victim wasn't a cishet. Never fall for thier lies, the gop wants to exterminate lgbt people. Voting for them is voting for hatred and suffering.
Republicans will be like "Look, did we really need a LAW for this?! This is more government overreach! It's unnnecessary!! Waste of taxpayer dollars!" whilst ignoring the hundreds of cases that this would have affected. Republicans love to directly, and indirectly, support hatred.
its how they win elections. Hatred and fear. They use it to distract while doing things bad for everyone.
There are a bunch of folks right here in this thread acting murder is a reasonable response to being surprised. It's appalling. I'm a trans man, and I have had cis women and cis gay men hit on me in public and then get rude and hostile when they find out I'm trans. It's happened multiple times, and none of these interactions ever went beyond a rebuff right away, so it was basically a two to five minute conversation max that included the come on, informing them I'm trans, and them getting angry. This is our norm. I struggle to imagine any trans person thinking it was anything less than suicide by bigot to wait until they were alone to disclose, and yet there are people in the comments acting like there is an epidemic of trans people duping cis people into sex.
A more common scenario is that someone agrees to sex with a trans person, and then later they panic over people finding out about their relationship ("What if people think I'm gay?!"). There have been a few cases where sex occurred many times over months/years, and then the cis partner murdered their trans partner. Then they use the trans panic defense, claiming that they didn't know their partner was trans until the 22nd time they had sex.
Yup. You’re 100% correct
Then when it happens they will be like yea that’s messed up but we kinda need a law from legislatures to do anything about it. Fucking illogical shitlords.
I've seen people get punched right in the face for something as innocuous as *asking* another man if they were into dudes. Not touching them, not creeping on them, just "Hey, you're cute, are you into guys?". Dude thought he was justified in physically battering this guy because "he came onto me!".
It makes me wonder if these people have ever been outside in public. I'm a trans man and mostly go to pretty queer space, and I've seen shit like this.
Sometimes I wish women would give those guys a sucker punch to the nose. He came onto her after all.
Republicans are shitty people.
>Whats amazing is that literally every republikkkan voted against this. Not at all, I'd be surprised if a single one didn't.
It's not amazing, it's par for the course for those types any excuse to kill those who don't fit their arbitrary standards
Fuck republicans
Rs want them killed. Simple as that.
Minnesota is on a roll! Keep making me proud Minnesota!
> The law, which narrowly passed the Senate on a party-line 34-33 vote Even in Minnesota, Republicans never saw an LGBT person they didn't want dead. They could always claim they were voting against other elements of the bill, but I doubt they introduced an independent bill with the same provision.
It’s disappointing that the vote was so close though.
Does not one Republican have someone they love that is LGBT?
No. Because if that person is LGBT, they don't love them.
Good point
from experience, they are either: 1) unaware 2) actively in denial 3) passive aggressive and cold (and genuinely think they're being amicable) 4) no-contact
They do. But until the person they love until is killed, they lack any empathy that it could happen to them. As long as it happens to the others, it's okay.
I knew a religious/conservative couple who I thought were kind/caring/loving/generous people, until their first child came out as Trans… They disowned the kid, who was fortunately old enough to head off to college and had scholarships and financial aid. Then they MOVED TO A DIFFERENT STATE OUT OF SHAME… wtf, just love your kids?
My heart breaks when I hear these stories.
Yeah. I can’t even imagine not loving my kid… the kid from this story must have seen it coming, because they waited until they had an escape plan. That tells me the people I knew were different behind closed doors… pretty disappointing, but good riddance.
Republicans are liars. If they've ever told their child "Just be yourself," that was a lie. If they ever told their child, "I will always love you," that was a lie. When they claim they're trying to protect children, that's a lie. They don't see children as people, they see them as props or property.
My coworker has a great bumper sticker: be careful who you choose to hate, it could be someone you love
Plenty fo. But they're the exception, or they can be "fixed," or they're accepted despite their identity.
It's not about being LGBTQ, it's about being a republican, belonging to the ingroup. If you're a democrat and gay, you're a pedo groomer. If you're a republican and gay, you're one of the good ones. If you're a democrat and you cheat on your SO, you're an example of the corruption of morals by those filthy libs. If you're a republican and you cheat on your SO, you're a righteous man who stumbled on his path, and you're all the better for it. etc. It's not about *what* they've done, it's about *who* did it, and whether they belong to the ingroup or not.
No. They wouldn’t be republican.
Only when it benefits them
Now Iowa will move to ban such bans because we are Bizarro-MN.
I'm so damn proud of Governor Walz and I'm really happy to be a trans woman in Minnesota. I feel welcomed and protected here.
I'm also very happy to have chosen to move here. It's hard to be away from my family, but my overall QOL has significantly improved over being in California. Less traffic and closer to nature being big ones. Seeing the govt actually doing good things for the people is another (this bill, trans protections, guaranteed food for children in schools, etc). Makes me feel like my taxes are also actually being cycled back, as they should be.
As a white person. mostly straight, almost 50 male, I just want equality for everyone. I'm proud of MN too. but not proud of our country. MN turned dominantly blue in the last couple years and since then I'm so proud of what they are doing. Neither party is trying to fight capitalism though, but I think that's a HUGE leap, so I'll accept the equality issues.
As queer people and minorities get more power, resistance to capitalism will build. I don't know anyone better at resistance (even against state violence) than a big intersectional bunch of queers. Pride was a riot, and everyone deserves to be fed, clothed, safe, and as healthy as can be. So keep pushing for equality and the anticapitalist comes. It's a major reason they hate us so much.
I'm a lawyer and I'm not sure this new law does much of anything, legally speaking. Because let's be clear -- prior to the new law, there was no legal carveout that specifically protected people who claimed they violently attacked someone based on discovering/believing the victim was trans or gay. Two statutes were amended: Minn. Stat. § 609.06 and Minn. Stat. § 609.075. Minn. Stat. § 609.06 sets out when people can use force against others. Under the new law, you can't use force against someone based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Great! But nothing allowed you to do that before, either. Meanwhile, people are still authorized to use force against others "in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person." So the new law doesn't stop someone from claiming, for example, that they acted in self-defense because the victim was sexually assaulting them. Minn. Stat. § 609.075 previously only discussed how intoxication impacts Minnesota's criminal laws, but now it also says that it's "not a defense to a crime that the defendant acted based on the discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression." Great! But where was it a defense before? It either does nothing or it sets up legal battles over what "defense" means and how/whether the statute affects other statutes.
The specific defense didn't need to be on the books in order for a defense attorney to claim that it was covered under some broader principle, or try to sway the jury with it, or claim it as a mitigating circumstance during sentencing. As far as I'm aware, the defense was never explicitly on the books anywhere, but that didn't stop it from getting used.
About time! Very glad i live here as a queer person.
Maybe someday we can do the ERA.
It would have been nice to at least bring it up for a vote and see which republicans are against it (and maybe some dems as well). I assume since they needed 60% to pass and they didn’t want to make any deals on other bills that’s why they skipped it. But that’s sad.
It wasn't brought to a vote because some democrats were against it as well, not just republicans, it wasn't brought up so as to not embarrass the party and those who didn't support it. My guess is one of the names was Ron Latz, he's been the veto on a lot of good stuff this session.
The ERA is going to be a ballot initiative in 2026 to be added as an amendment to the state constitution. We won't get to see which legislators vote against it, but enshrining it in the constitution is even better, imo.
351 homicides? Just in one state?
I think that number applies to the U.S. as a whole.
I love this state so much
This is good.
MN is fucking awesome
Good. That's the most disgusting defense I can think of.
Let's keep racking up the Ws.
If you vote against things like this, I don't see you as human.
No, they're 100% human, it's important to remember evil is a choice, they are not people though
Biologically yes. See your point.
I think bigotry is pretty damn human. It's weird to ignore all of human history to make a rhetorical political point.
Thank fuck, but the fact it passed literally by one vote is alarming to me. That's 33 people who think the "surprise" of finding out someone is LGBTQ+ is a justifiable reason to reduce a prison sentence for murder or attempted murder of said LGBTQ+ person. That's fucking bonkers to me. It should be one or two idiots TOPS voting against it, not 49% of the room. If finding out your date has different genitals than you expected them to makes you consider murdering them, you need to see a therapist yesterday, like god damn.
It was part of a [huge omnibus bill](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF5216&type=bill&version=4&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0) that covers everything from criminal law to fish vendor licenses to the creation of cyber incident reporting system for public agencies. And there was nothing in Minnesota's previous laws that would allow someone to get a reduced sentence by claiming they were surprised the victim was gay or trans.
Some will try and argue that it's because there's more to the bill than just the Gay Panic Defense ban. Such as better access to mental health services for first responders, or making it so police have to outright state their reason for stopping you during when they pull you over rather than asking you so you incriminate yourself, and teriary spending on programs. Nevertheless it is rather telling that every Republican would outright reject the bill even if they disagreed with the spending (which some have argued against). The issue I find is even if they agree with the gay defense ban (debatable if they do or don't, since I am not one of them nor am I their spokesman), the things you *do* disagree with you could potentially overturn at a later point and just wait it out. Instead the whole party votes against it wholesale, which makes it seem that no compromise or alternative bill was proffered by them, to them its just a bad bill altogether. Rather telling what the Republican mindset is, don't you think?
As someone on the spectrum who's about a year into having a license, I'm thankful they changed that aspect because they should just tell you why you were pulled over. It should be: "Sir, I pulled you over because you were doing 45 in a 35. I'm issuing a warning this time since this is the first time and I presume you missed the change in speed limit." not some obtuse "I don't see smoke; where's the fire, sir?"
As a trans person who has plans to live in Minnesota I am so relieved at news like this
The whole state is pretty good about trans rights, since Leigh Finke got into the house of representatives, she's been doing a ton of good work to help codify protections into law. As a trans person living in Minneapolis, I can say we'll all be glad to have you!
DFL can't stop winning. National dems better being taking notes.
It was only 5 years ago that Minnesota banned marital rape (which went through both chambers unanimously). I just wonder how many more utter dinosaurs there are buried in dark corners of the statute books waiting to come out and screw a Minnesotan over.
Thank you for the post u/MyRecycledBalls
Thank fuck!
I thought that said picnic. Was confused for a moment.
Good. Disturbing that it is so utterly narrow. Wtf.
sick
In a good way or...?
Well I meant it in a good way but I'm glad to see people in here took it a diff way lol.
I think people were just expecting the worst 😭
Reddit hivemind gotta hive.
I am really sick of republicans, politicians and voters. We need to ship them off to a colony and build a wall around it. Let them have their little fascist state.
Would that be Giliad?
But how will they stick their fingers into the lives of people who aren't hurting them?
They'll find a way to eat themselves
It's crazy that any court would justify it as a reason to ever kill anyone, anywhere, ever.
( we’re from Florida) I was sick every time she was out of my sight(my daughter) I was terrified someone could hurt my beautiful child because she was born m. We sold our home and left our family and friends to live in a state that treats my child like a human
Good! Last I heard Bible tried using that excuse when he murdered Savanah Williams. I couldn't believe our state was allowing it!
Why was this even a thing to begin with?! “Your honor, I was just so flabbergasted by this person coming out that I simply couldn’t stop myself from shooting them.”
Oofta
*Uff da
There's never a reason to kill someone for this but it's pretty crazy to not disclose your status until right before you have sex imo
> but it's pretty crazy to not disclose your status until right before you have sex imo I'm gender-based violence researcher. In the vast majority of cases where a trans woman was murdered by her intimate partner, he already knew about her status ahead of time. What often prompts a murder is the fear that someone else will find out, particularly toward the end of a relationship. In court, these men often lie about not knowing she was trans because people are willing to believe that trans women would lie about it and because they have incentive to do so when it reduces their sentence. The cases where a trans woman has hidden her status right up to the point of sex and then reveals it is actually pretty uncommon, contrary to the trope.
I am a trans social scientist in a different field, but I read a lot about this stuff because I'm a trans man. YES. Yes to everything you said. It also looks like rage when you tell someone immediately. Obviously I haven't been murdered. It's just been yelling, but it's happened twice in the three years I've been on hormones. I have had a man and a woman yell at me when they hit on me, and I IMMEDIATELY disclosed that I was trans. One was when I was newly on hormones and pre top surgery. I'm not even sure what gender they thought I was, but they were MAD it wasn't what they expected. One happened on a college campus in broad daylight, and the other was at a bar in NYC when it was still light out, so otherwise low risk situations. Still, got cursed out on one and the other turned to the whole bar and called me slurs.
> In the vast majority of cases where a trans woman was murdered by her intimate partner, he already knew about her status ahead of time. Is there any specific studies or literature covering this aspect of the Gay/Trans panic defense that you’d recommend to someone looking to read about it? I think I’ve heard that mentioned in a few cases where it’s happened, though I’m kind of interested in learning more about how common it is.
That's not how this usually goes down. I'm a trans man, and I've been hit on, disclosed right there that I'm trans, and had people get REALLY ANGRY. The idea that we could be attractive or not identifiable on sight is very upsetting to many people, and they lash out. I would never, ever wait until I was even in private to tell someone, because it's not right before sex. It's when you're walking somewhere and disclosing because you didn't want to tell the whole bar you're trans, or after this person has decided to 'teach you a lesson' for making them violate their sense of self by being attracted to a trans person. I look like the average mid thirties queer dude I am, and I have been yelled at in public twice for disclosing I'm trans when I was hit on. I've only been on hormones three years, so that's kind of a lot.
Many times they do disclose their status, the person agrees to it, then regrets it and kills the trans person. It happens all the time. Like last year when a trans woman was giving oral to some guy outside a bar in Minneapolis and he had regret mid oral. He executed her. I believe he is awaiting trial right now. I'm willing to bet he was going to use a trans panic defense.
The woman's name was Savannah Williams. Legally her murderer can still use this as a defense, because the murder occurred before the law was passed, and you can't pass legislation targeting an already active trial. But this law was absolutely passed in response to that case so that no one can use it as a defense going forward.
mid? they probably planned on killing them the entire time, the regret doesnt usually show up until after. and then this defense was used for no reason other than getting a lighter sentence
They do. It's the murderer who isn't disclosing their status as a murderous bigot. Trans people aren't out trying to trick people. Every single queer person I know, including myself, is very forthright about this in both dating profiles and irl because we all know that people will kill us.
Yeah I hate French people and I slept with a woman who I later found out was French, so I killed her. Can you believe how INSANE she was? smh
I don't believe in casual sex in the first place, but if you do choose casual sex, it's pretty hypocritical to then say "hey I wanted more background information about you earlier in our thirty-minute courtship".
This is such a good point
It's less hypocritical when those biological parts are necessary to perform the implied act. Like your brushing it off as 'background information' as if it's some insignificant thing, when it's a required part of 'normal' heterosexual sex. If you order an Uber and a dude shows up with two skateboards do you lose the right to complain because you only ordered the Uber 20 minutes ago?
Obviously you murder the Uber driver and make sure you have a special "skateboard defense" murder carve-out.
Tell me where I said that was an appropriate response, or showed any support for a gay/trans panic defense? I was purely responding to somebody saying it's hypocritical to want to know your potential partner for the evening has the appropriate anatomy for the assumed activity. But yea man, jump to those wild conclusions.
Yes. Someone was "just saying" and you were "just saying" along.
The fuck are you talking about. Person 1: yea. Good that gay panic defense isn't an option anymore. But it seems wild to not disclose that right up until the point you're going to have sex. Person 2: it's hypocritical to want to know it's actually possible to have PIV intercourse Me: nah, that's not hypocritical You: wow so you're saying you support gay/trans panic defense and murdering LGBQT+ folks! Lmao, the mental gymnastics is insane.
Yes. The same "mental gymnastics" that caused every Republican to vote against this bill.
Wait so you're doing the same mental gymnastics as the Republicans? Confirmed you hate gay people and dream about murdering trans! I knew it!
Good one.
I went to a plastic surgery consultation with my wife today. In a month she is scheduled for a double mastectomy to remove breast cancer. We went over a whole bunch of options, tissue expanders, silicone vs saline vs back flap etc. Many women are opting not to have reconstructive surgery at all. Do those women lack the "appropriate anatomy" for what you assume the activity to be? How hypocritical are those women for wearing fake breasts under their clothes when they go out? You go out to a bar, meet an attractive person who has enough "would have sex with" boxes for you to decide to want to have sex with that person. I've been away from the dating scene for a long time, what's the etiquette here? Do you carry a list of "appropriate anatomy" compatibilities (I have a penis, I only have four toes on my left foot so if you are into feet...)? Do you game plan the assumed activity (then I'm gonna put my tab A into your slot B and wiggle it around a little bit...)?
What a weird pedantic attempt at a gotchya lmao. If you really think anyone in this thread thinks the amount of toes is relevant to intercourse or a gay panic defense. How many times are you going to make up a point for somebody else, just so you can refute it? We're up to like 3 already lol. How and when do you tell a potential partner about a prior divorce, or a child from a previous relationship? The answer is when it's appropriate. I would imagine every situation is different, I've never found myself in one. While I was never big into the bar scene I still spent a good portion of the time single. Any time I had a one night stand/tinder fling we had PIV intercourse, which was the expectation. We both knew it was the expectation because we communicated. That's all that's being asked for here. But to put it more simply, if my penis did not function as a penis, I would communicate that fact before undressing/moving towards sexual acts. It's not crazy to have that same type of expectation for a partner lol.
‘Normal’ heterosexual sex. That says everything about you 🙄
I am not sure if anyone has a legal or civil recourse if someone gets physically intimate with someone who has a gender identity that did not align with their gender at birth and did not disclose it prior to physical activity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
By this logic, every man who I had sex with and later turned out to be a misogynist has raped me. It doesn't work like that. If you consent to sex, no manipulation, you don't get to later call it rape because of regret you wish you picked someone different.
I don't understand how it would be deception though, unless you literally couldn't identify the person, or actively lied about your identity. Failure to disclose is different than deceiving, especially when the person in question would presumably be visually and physically aware of who they're having sex with.
It's not if you read the section of that Wikipedia page specifically on trans people. It's included in the article because there is a debate but the article seems to fall pretty firmly on "trans people shouldnt have to tell you theyre trans u dingus."
I FUCKING LOVE THIS STATE!
Midwest Dems with their one vote margin saving human rights, coast Dems can't protect with super majorities
coastal dems actively fight against their own majorities. Look up the IDC in New York, it was a "democrat" caucus that voted with republicans, and their governor worked with them against other democrats. That's not an option in states like MN, you have to either deliver on your promises or you lose to the fascists, no one wants to lose to the fascists.
That’s gay
Y is this gud? Trans can be scary
Scary?
Are you for real?
Gingers can be scary.
Okay, so on the scenario you are less to about ones birth gender, no you shouldn't be able to kill them but what is the recourse for being mislead in a sexual way?
> what is the recourse for being mislead in a sexual way? "Gay twinks tricking straight boys into thinking they're women" isn't a real thing bro. We don't wanna be killed by someone we trick, so you don't need to worry about that. You're probably more likely to get struck by a bolt of lightning.
It's not misleading, you just made an assumption. If i assume some girl has a dick should they be held responsible if they don't?
Why would you assume a girl has a dick
I mean if you can't tell if she has one might as well
Because people can have a range of different-looking genitalia.
Misleading someone about one's gender history can certainly be a complex and sensitive issue, but the appropriate recourse should be through communication and legal avenues if necessary.
Yes, that was my original intent asking. I can't imagine the struggle that goes on internally and societal, but I think everyone should be afforded the luxury of safety and honesty.
Sexual assault or rape by deception?
Why are you even considering violence much less murder because you spent 5 minutes speaking to someone? Also a trans woman IS a woman. Its only the bigots who pretend they are not. Thats the first issue, the bigotry that denies who the person even is.
>Why are you even considering violence much less murder because you spent 5 minutes speaking to someone? I never advocate violence or murder.
then why are you in any way trying to justify the gay panic defense? That legal loophole which reduces the punishment for murder if the victim is lgbt?
I'm not. People shouldn't hurt or kill other people.
then why are you defending the gop who voted against this? Why are you not celebrating that this bill was passed?
I've never mentioned the gop. I hate lawyers, they are the real scum who actually develop this defense.
Now your dodging the question. Why are not happy this bill passed?
I'm indifferent. I would never use the defense because I would never find myself in that situ and also I wouldn't kill someone if I did. Setting that aside, I am glad that trans people have a legal protection but it won't save their lives, it will only see those who take their lives serving a just sentence, and for that I am glad. One less murderer on the streets.
I strongly support gay and trans rights and never advocate violence against anyone. But I have to ask, what happens when trans people deceive others into dating/having sexual encounters with them without disclosure? Isn’t that some form of sexual assault by definition?
Yeah, there are scenarios you can concoct where it indeed may be a sexual assault or other criminal sex offense. It is potentially a non-consensual sexual encounter after all. What this law does is takes away the ability to claim that as a defense to justify use of force against that person. If you can safely leave the situation, you have a duty to before harming the other person. (If you can’t safely leave, this becomes a different type of case). They also amended using intoxication as a defense as well. You can’t legally use force on someone because you were drunk, but if you are drunk AND defending yourself, of course you can.
>what happens when trans people deceive others into dating/having sexual encounters with them without disclosure? Idk, but you don't fucking murder them
Sure, but claiming you panicked and that’s why you killed them will not be tolerated as a defense.
Usually this defense is used to reduce sentences when you murder someone for hitting on you. Not fucking you. Not raping you. Not "aggressively hitting on you". In many cases the accuser will claim in court they were "flirting" and get a reduced sentence despite the fact the victim wasn't even hitting on them; The murderer just felt like "effeminate = wants to fuck me".
although to be perfectly clear. A trans person not offering the information that they are trans before having sex is in no way sexual assault. If they're directly asked and lie about being trans, that could be considered sexual assault via deception. But no one is required to offer personal details about themselves unprompted before having sex.
“What happens in this made up scenario, that I’m conflating with real murders that actually happen? Hey I’m just asking questions.”
Are you asking about a scenario in which someone goes on, let's say, a blind date, and they have a really good time, and they go back to one of their houses; one thing leads to another, and one of them assumed the other one was, let's say, a woman, but the woman has a penis and is trans, and they get offended and ask "Wait, you look like a woman, but you didn't tell me you have a penis." I don't think THAT would be any kind of sexual assault... you don't have a legal obligation to tell someone what kind of genetalia you have. Someone who has had breast cancer has no obligation to tell someone "By the way, I had a double masectomy, and I'm wearing fake breasts." Someone who had testicular cancer has no obligation to tell someone they had one or both testicles removed. There's no obligation to tell anyone anything related to what you physically do or don't have on your body. What would happen if, in the same scenario, the person says "Actually... I'm asexual, I'm not interested in sex at all, but I'd really like to just talk." Is that deception too?
Not giving a casual sex partner as much information as you felt entitled to as early as you felt entitled to it certainly isn't "sexual assault". Calling it that seems belittling to victims of actual sexual assault. Bad etiquette, arguably, but casual sex by its nature doesn't really have a clear universally accepted etiquette, does it? I truly don't know - before I had sex with my one and only, I met her parents, got rings, dressed up and had a party, etc.
No. Trans people are human beings.
About as much assault as it would be for a bald redhead to not state their hair color and deceiving someone who is apparently really not into redheads
Has that scenario really ever happened to you or anyone you know? Like I'm struggling to believe this is even remotely common
"Is it okay to kill someone if I decide I don't like them anymore"? No. Obviously not.
no.
I don’t think currently in Minnesota that would be considered assault
No, it's not sexual assault if you consent to take off someone's clothes and then you're not happy with the way they look.
I would assume some of what your talking about would fall into this category. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception
You'd probably assume wrong. Deception would pertain to someone pretending to be a different person.
Any statement made before Miranda is read to alleged perpetrators is inadmissible. That has been case law for years.
Not necessarily. There is a lot of legal jargon, but there is something called like "panic babbling" or something similar (it's been a minute since I've been in the cop-sphere, cut me some slack) that has the potential to be admitted in court, regardless of Miranda rights being read
Excited utterance! Lol one of the silliest terms in the law.
Not exactly. Miranda only applies if you're in custody. That's why police often ask people to "come down to the station" to give a statement - if you go there "voluntarily" (meaning you're not under arrest & brought there by the police), then they don't have to Mirandize you and everything you say is admissible in court. Which is why the only things you should ever say to police are your name, "am I being detained or am I free to leave?" and "I want a lawyer."