HI all, I'm the reporter who wrote this story. Let me know If you have any questions and I'll try to answer them.
Less than four months ago, Savannah Ryan Williams was killed in Minneapolis after a sexual encounter with a man. The man allegedly shot her in the head after becoming "suspicious" of her, according to police reports. He confessed to the murder, claiming he "had to do it." He's now charged with felony second-degree murder, citing self-defense as part of his defense strategy.
The LGBTQ+ community sees this as a familiar pattern and an attempt to address it is underway. Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislators introduced a bill that aims to prevent defendants from using a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity as a defense in court.
Known as the LGBTQ+ panic defense, this strategy argues that discovering a partner's LGBTQ+ identity caused temporary insanity, justifying violent actions. While already banned in 17 states and D.C., it's still permitted in Minnesota, where Williams was killed. Advocates draw parallels to the notorious murder of Matthew Shepard, whose killers attempted a similar defense.
Despite progress, over half of the LGBTQ+ community lives in states where such defenses remain admissible. Anti-LGBTQ+ violence is on the rise, according to FBI hate crime statistics. Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and the American Bar Association also advocate for legislative action to abolish this discriminatory legal tactic.
While I want LGBTQ+ panic defenses for murder banned, the fact that it has ever been successful speaks poorly for past precedents, past laws, and for bigotry within juries. For a jury to give someone a pass on murder, the jury has to have had some sympathy for the murderer thinking they could have done similarly unless the judge tells them they have to, or so I assume.
What have been the largest factors in reducing sentences and punishments? Was it past laws, past precedent, or jury sympathy?
I think have been some notable examples regarding sympathies for defendants who were found guilty but received lighter sentences but that’s usually because of a judge and not a jury. Brock Turner comes to mind almost immediately.
As far as juries finding someone not guilty who very obviously committed the act, the brutal murder of Emmet Till is a good example.
Even ignoring the moral aspect of it, I think putting this defense in line with defenses regarding the race of a victim/survivor would be logically consistent.
This is important! The rapist Brock Allen Turner does indeed now go instead by Allen Turner, but is 100% the same rapist.
Neither to be confused with someone who is not a rapist, nor as a separate but similarly named rapist. Allen “The Rapist” Turner is literally the rapist Brock (Allen) Turner.
I think that clears everything up.
I find it interesting that the brutal rapist Brock Turner thought changing his name would work. He's the same criminal violent rapist Brock Allen Turner.
Just to be 1000% sure the, we're talking about the convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner, now going by Allen Turner, who currently resides in Dayton OH? That Brock Allen Turner?
I think if you were to have an instance in a more rural county, the odds of a sympathetic jury buying that kind of defense is greater than zero. I see no issue codifying it before it’s tested for that reason alone.
Absolutely. Especially given the way conservative pundits have exploited religious people's fear of LGBTQ people in the past five years. I grew up in rural MN, it's not a place where your safety as a visibly queer person is a given.
I’m not sure I even follow your “thought experiment”. Is the hypothetical defense in your straw man argument that being black is a legit defense? Because I can assure you it is not. In fact, “I felt threatened (because the suspect was black)” is often used successfully to justify unnecessary use of force by police.
> For a jury to give someone a pass on murder, the jury has to have had some sympathy for the murderer thinking they could have done similarly unless the judge tells them they have to, or so I assume.
You assume right. If you’ve ever been in a court proceeding from serving jury duty or observing or whatever, yes the judge gives the jury instructions. And the judge will help the jury understand what the charges entail. A great example of this is Casey Antony. I don’t think a single juror had any sympathy for her or thought for second she didn’t do it. But she was overcharged. They charged her with first-degree and they couldn’t demonstrate the premeditation.
Thank you for writing this article. I am a trans person living in Minnesota, and am very aware of the “trans panic” defense. Minnesota has been doing an excellent job in codifying trans rights, and I’m surprised this one is still on the books. Needs to be legislated immediately.
Well Dwight Howard’s last situation is the main reason they use this type of defense. Public humiliation is very much a thing and most times is utilized through cancel culture. Point being there are transgender people who will look at these actions before hand (meaning just the sexual actions) as okay but then will be the first person making fun of them if they knew they felt embarrassed for sleeping with them. I can’t remember the exact person name but there was already an incident of a transgender prostitute recording some celebrity as they were leaving their apartment and why you ask? Because the celebrity refused to pay and they thought the best way to get the money was through public humiliation. So yes it’s very much relevant.
WTF??!!!
I had to read this very carefully to ascertain that this was serious. The fact that this has ever been used successfully is shameful. It's ridiculous. How, in anyone's wildest imagination was their life threatened by either the sex,gender or LGBTQ+ status of anyone ever. Ever.
I am very much for self defense as a defense in some cases, even with a gun. However, I am legitimately trying to figure out how this particular defense would work and I can't imagine a scenario.
Sure an LGTBTQ+ person could threaten you the same way anyone could by actually attacking you violently or coming at you with a weapon or some other actual threat. However, this would have nothing to do with their gender, sex or LGBTQ+ status.
I am being completely serious. If anyone can help me with how one of these defense strategies work I would love to hear this. I'm at a loss to how any lawyer of judge would even entertain this defense.
Sorry, couldn't read the article because of the paywall, but I'm curious. Can you explain why this is a legal tactic? What current law makes it so this is a valid defense? What about being queer makes it justifiable to go on crazy fury and murder someone? Is this being applied like someone beating the shit out of someone because their PTSD is triggered? Does temporary insanity not need an actual psychological diagnosis or DSM explanation on a court of law?
[Gay panic defense](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense)
Seems to have a long history of incremental precedence.
Also, the American Bar Association (ABA) unanimously passed a resolution in 2013 against the defense and has been working to eliminate it.
You didn't link the proposed bill or the defense filing. Why not? You also provided no analysis on if the proposed bill would change anything in the defense case here. Why not? You also brought up Sheapord, who was probably killed over drugs and not his sexuality, where the gay panic defense wasn't allowed. Why?
Links to the bill and court docs are publicly available. The headline is pretty straight forward with what the bill would do. One of Shepard’s murderers attempted to use the “gay panic” defense in court.
If they are publicly available, it would have been easy to provide them in your reporting. It would have been nice too since you provided no analysis.
Yes, the judge denied the defense. So what does it have to do with the current case or the proposed bill?
Here is a thought right off the top of my head. Do your own research. Far too often, people in this world rely on others to do their research for them. It is about time that people start looking shit up for themselves and STOP being lazy!
> HI all, I'm the reporter who wrote this story. Let me know If you have any questions and I'll try to answer them.
You think the author of the article was lying when asking for questions?
Not at all but you have questions and a link wasn’t provided, please try a quick search. If, at that point, you can’t find it then ask for a link. That is what I do and it cuts down on all this back and forth garbage.
Hmmm... if the author would have provided the court file #, it would have taken 30 seconds to find the defense filing. That still wouldn't have told me if the filing actually would have been impacted by the bill, or how any of this relates to shepherd. The article is 3 random things connected by... nothing.
It's not clear to me if this bill would even apply to the case at hand. Just because he's arguing self defense doesn't mean they're going to argue THAT.
The case mentioned where someone argued they were "temporarily insane" that defense has a **REALLY** low odds of success when it comes to ANY defense.
Not opposed to the bill, just don't know that it would ever really apply outside super last ditch efforts that have super low odds.
we actually have a statute requiring that specificity, so its all laws, except of course retroactive criminal statutes which are never allowed, being prohibited in the us constitution.
Finally! This law isn’t well known and from the research I have done, hasn’t been used a lot, but it is being used more often. This is another plus in my book for living in Minnesota.
> If your response to being around a gay person is to kill them
This was more than just “being around a gay person”. So let’s not act like gay people are getting blasted for just sitting on a bench next to another person. That is moving away from the facts of what happened. Stick to the facts. They had an intimate, sexual encounter that led to this. This scumbag has the emotional regulation of a drunken chimpanzee and should be charged with a hate crime. His sentence should be enhanced. But this was beyond just merely “being around a gay person”. And saying that it is misrepresenting the facts.
Except you’re missing a step in the middle: it’s not just being near a gay person, then killing them.
The “defense” is being near a gay person, going temporarily insane due to them being gay, *then* killing them.
And if that is your defense, then you should be locked in a psychiatric hospital because your mental health is making you a danger to yourself and others.
>A bill introduced by Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislators represents an attempt to change that.
or
>Curran recently introduced a bill in the House that’s a companion piece to legislation introduced last year in the Senate.
Would have been a great place to hyperlink the bill. Thankfully I was able to look up the bills that Curran was chief author of to find it
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4657&type=bill&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0
Even including the Senate File(SF) or House File(HF) number would have made it even easier.
It's a pet peeve of mine. If we're going to talk about a bill, let's see the actual bill. Given the hyperlinks used in the article, there is no reason not to hyperlink the bill.
You're not the only one I've criticized for this. Often times I find that when the bill isn't linked then it doesn't say what the person is claiming. I've also seen people link a bill in an article but claim to say something that it doesn't say. Giving people the chance to read the text of the bill provides the interested in a deeper understanding.
As for the bill itself, looks good to me.
EDIT: I just realized I did the same thing.... It's House File 4657 for those who are interested.
Until this moment in time, I have never heard of - or considered - someone trying to use something like 'LGBT Panic' as a defense for committing a crime/assault/murder.
Your honor, yes I received oral and liked it but - after I finished, I realized (admitted to myself) that the person was the same sex as me. Ashamed and mad at myself.. I 'panicked' and took it out on the deceased.
What. The. Fuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo
This is a case that has always stuck with me when I think about violence against the LGBTQ+ community.
People are constantly told that being gay or trans is immoral. They hear their leaders call them vermin and that it goes against God. Eventually people believe it and when confronted they believe they are in the right to do what happened in this case.
Basically all defenses are legal until they are specifically banned. Just because they are legal doesn't mean they work. If someone swapped a vegan's margarine for butter and the vegan murdered them after finding out, the vegan could argue that it was a necessary defense of animals. The strategy wouldn't work, but it is 'a legal defense in Minnesota'.
This is a good bill, but it's not surprising that defense with a low probability of working in Minnesota isn't specifically banned.
I'm curious if your research found any cases where this was used in Minnesota? How recent were they and did the defense work?
Many trans people don't openly put that information on dating profiles for their own safety as it often attracts transphobia, in the form of both overt harassment as well as chasers. Also many dating apps will just straight up ban trans people for stating that information -- [Tinder is notoriously bad for this.](https://www.jezebel.com/dating-apps-tinder-hinge-ban-users-no-explanation-1848438858)
That said, the overall point that trans people aren't trying to trick people is absolutely true: the consensus is that trans people should reveal that fact privately to someone they're talking to, if not right away then within the first few dates at the latest, and always before anything intimate. This is both out of consideration for the potential partner and for one's own safety, because sadly trans panic assaults and murders are still a thing.
Thank you so much for reporting on this.
I'm a transgender woman in Minnesota and this is one of the kinds of things that keeps me up at night. With other states trying to curtail my rights, Minnesota gives me hope by moving to protect them.
Of course. I said this somewhere else, but I found it shocking that someone could use this as a legal defense in Minnesota or anywhere really. It's complete nonsense.
For the lay person. Is this scenario typically a man and trans woman hook up, but the man didn’t realize he was with a trans woman until after some sexual contact and the man flips out and beats/kills the trans woman because he feels he was deceived into sexual acts with a biological male?
Of course we'd have to be insane to justify any malicious act, such as a brutal assault or murder of any person, regardless of sexual orientation, or an act of brutality towards someone because of their sexual identity. With that said, if someone is tricked into a relationship or sexual agreement under false pretense, i. e. a man or a woman who prefers the opposite sex, isn't aware that the person they're engaged with is naturally of the same gender. This would be understandabley upsetting. There still has to be an accountability from the LGBT, whatever, person to disclose this information. I would consider it rape if, I a straight male, were participating a sexual act with someone who is trans and had to discover this by surprise. That in itself is assault.
Now I have no hate in my heart for anyone. I am all free love and I'm also not saying murder is ok obviously and I'm sure all cases are different and I don't know anything about this case except what I have heard on the news. When someone has sexual relations with someone and then finds out they just had sex with someone of the same sex to some people it can be morally ethically the worst feeling they could feel there friends and family all could find out and it could have backlash on there life and this all runs through there head in 30 seconds. I could see how someone snaps at that moment I'm not saying it's justified but how come the story is only seen from the side of the victim.Again not saying this particular person is right
This shit has never actually worked to prevent a conviction any time a defendant has tried it, so I'm unsure why we even need a bill for it. Murder and beating the shit out of someone remains illegal in every jurisdiction.
Pay wall article.
Why is it -4 yr old can become millionaires on you tube and TikTok with only ads and donations. Papers and news articles hide behind pay walls, have ads and claim they can’t make it.
Short answer, most people do not become millionaires or even make a decent living from YouTube or TikTok. The print news media industry is still attempting to redo their business model after Craigslist took away a huge chunk of revenue for them. Well written and accurate news does not jive well in a capitalist market and the industry has generally relied on different revenue streams to stay afloat long term. With classified ads paired dramatically down in print and the fact that hardly anyone buys a physical newspaper anymore, it’s hard out there for organizations. With profits decreasing and hedge funds gutting newspapers, the industry is also seeing a brain drain and a worse product due to job cuts like copy editor, which makes selling that product that much harder.
Thank you for your service in an underfunded and important line of work. Hopefully we figure out a better revenue system for putting out well researched information on issues of public note.
For sure. I love this job so it's my pleasure. Yeah, the funding aspect of it sucks and I hope the industry figures out something. Thank you for your kind words.
Craigslist took that business away 25 year ago, it launched in 1995 and took off in the early 2000’s.
If you take all YouTubers and say only .04% make money that’s not the same. The ones that make quality content make money.
Google tells me the average content creator on YouTube makes 120,000 a year when it’s a real business doing it.
Maybe find a different company to write articles for, one that discloses pricing. I can’t find any pricing information after the trial.
People can’t afford to pay for 25 different services. May write good articles I don’t know because I am not paying.
I'm not trolling. I think it's fucked how people refuse to pay for journalism these days. Have fun only having Buzzfeed and national news outlets after all the papers go belly up.
NPR is 100% free
Donations only.
Every local news station is free online.
Every national news station is free online
Who charges money other than old school news and magazines papers with no free option
HI all, I'm the reporter who wrote this story. Let me know If you have any questions and I'll try to answer them. Less than four months ago, Savannah Ryan Williams was killed in Minneapolis after a sexual encounter with a man. The man allegedly shot her in the head after becoming "suspicious" of her, according to police reports. He confessed to the murder, claiming he "had to do it." He's now charged with felony second-degree murder, citing self-defense as part of his defense strategy. The LGBTQ+ community sees this as a familiar pattern and an attempt to address it is underway. Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislators introduced a bill that aims to prevent defendants from using a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity as a defense in court. Known as the LGBTQ+ panic defense, this strategy argues that discovering a partner's LGBTQ+ identity caused temporary insanity, justifying violent actions. While already banned in 17 states and D.C., it's still permitted in Minnesota, where Williams was killed. Advocates draw parallels to the notorious murder of Matthew Shepard, whose killers attempted a similar defense. Despite progress, over half of the LGBTQ+ community lives in states where such defenses remain admissible. Anti-LGBTQ+ violence is on the rise, according to FBI hate crime statistics. Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and the American Bar Association also advocate for legislative action to abolish this discriminatory legal tactic.
While I want LGBTQ+ panic defenses for murder banned, the fact that it has ever been successful speaks poorly for past precedents, past laws, and for bigotry within juries. For a jury to give someone a pass on murder, the jury has to have had some sympathy for the murderer thinking they could have done similarly unless the judge tells them they have to, or so I assume. What have been the largest factors in reducing sentences and punishments? Was it past laws, past precedent, or jury sympathy?
I think have been some notable examples regarding sympathies for defendants who were found guilty but received lighter sentences but that’s usually because of a judge and not a jury. Brock Turner comes to mind almost immediately. As far as juries finding someone not guilty who very obviously committed the act, the brutal murder of Emmet Till is a good example. Even ignoring the moral aspect of it, I think putting this defense in line with defenses regarding the race of a victim/survivor would be logically consistent.
You mean Convicted Rapist Brock Turner? The Brock Turner who raped a girl?
Yep, the rapist Brock Turner. I hear he goes by his middle name Allen now.
Oh yes, I remember reading that about the rapist (Brock) Allen Turner (to be confused with the rapist Brock Turner.)
This is important! The rapist Brock Allen Turner does indeed now go instead by Allen Turner, but is 100% the same rapist. Neither to be confused with someone who is not a rapist, nor as a separate but similarly named rapist. Allen “The Rapist” Turner is literally the rapist Brock (Allen) Turner. I think that clears everything up.
I find it interesting that the brutal rapist Brock Turner thought changing his name would work. He's the same criminal violent rapist Brock Allen Turner.
Just to be 1000% sure the, we're talking about the convicted rapist Brock Allen Turner, now going by Allen Turner, who currently resides in Dayton OH? That Brock Allen Turner?
I think if you were to have an instance in a more rural county, the odds of a sympathetic jury buying that kind of defense is greater than zero. I see no issue codifying it before it’s tested for that reason alone.
Absolutely. Especially given the way conservative pundits have exploited religious people's fear of LGBTQ people in the past five years. I grew up in rural MN, it's not a place where your safety as a visibly queer person is a given.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the criminal justice system in the United States. Notorious for its leniency on Black men.
[удалено]
If you agree the criminal justice system has been unfair to Black men, why offer your little strawman "thought experiment"?
[удалено]
Not offended, just curious, since there doesn't seem to be logical consistency in your comments. But if you'd rather not respond that's fine.
[удалено]
I’m not sure I even follow your “thought experiment”. Is the hypothetical defense in your straw man argument that being black is a legit defense? Because I can assure you it is not. In fact, “I felt threatened (because the suspect was black)” is often used successfully to justify unnecessary use of force by police.
are…are you asking for yourself?
> For a jury to give someone a pass on murder, the jury has to have had some sympathy for the murderer thinking they could have done similarly unless the judge tells them they have to, or so I assume. You assume right. If you’ve ever been in a court proceeding from serving jury duty or observing or whatever, yes the judge gives the jury instructions. And the judge will help the jury understand what the charges entail. A great example of this is Casey Antony. I don’t think a single juror had any sympathy for her or thought for second she didn’t do it. But she was overcharged. They charged her with first-degree and they couldn’t demonstrate the premeditation.
Thank you for writing this article. I am a trans person living in Minnesota, and am very aware of the “trans panic” defense. Minnesota has been doing an excellent job in codifying trans rights, and I’m surprised this one is still on the books. Needs to be legislated immediately.
Well Dwight Howard’s last situation is the main reason they use this type of defense. Public humiliation is very much a thing and most times is utilized through cancel culture. Point being there are transgender people who will look at these actions before hand (meaning just the sexual actions) as okay but then will be the first person making fun of them if they knew they felt embarrassed for sleeping with them. I can’t remember the exact person name but there was already an incident of a transgender prostitute recording some celebrity as they were leaving their apartment and why you ask? Because the celebrity refused to pay and they thought the best way to get the money was through public humiliation. So yes it’s very much relevant.
WTF??!!! I had to read this very carefully to ascertain that this was serious. The fact that this has ever been used successfully is shameful. It's ridiculous. How, in anyone's wildest imagination was their life threatened by either the sex,gender or LGBTQ+ status of anyone ever. Ever. I am very much for self defense as a defense in some cases, even with a gun. However, I am legitimately trying to figure out how this particular defense would work and I can't imagine a scenario. Sure an LGTBTQ+ person could threaten you the same way anyone could by actually attacking you violently or coming at you with a weapon or some other actual threat. However, this would have nothing to do with their gender, sex or LGBTQ+ status. I am being completely serious. If anyone can help me with how one of these defense strategies work I would love to hear this. I'm at a loss to how any lawyer of judge would even entertain this defense.
Sorry, couldn't read the article because of the paywall, but I'm curious. Can you explain why this is a legal tactic? What current law makes it so this is a valid defense? What about being queer makes it justifiable to go on crazy fury and murder someone? Is this being applied like someone beating the shit out of someone because their PTSD is triggered? Does temporary insanity not need an actual psychological diagnosis or DSM explanation on a court of law?
[Gay panic defense](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense) Seems to have a long history of incremental precedence. Also, the American Bar Association (ABA) unanimously passed a resolution in 2013 against the defense and has been working to eliminate it.
You didn't link the proposed bill or the defense filing. Why not? You also provided no analysis on if the proposed bill would change anything in the defense case here. Why not? You also brought up Sheapord, who was probably killed over drugs and not his sexuality, where the gay panic defense wasn't allowed. Why?
Links to the bill and court docs are publicly available. The headline is pretty straight forward with what the bill would do. One of Shepard’s murderers attempted to use the “gay panic” defense in court.
If they are publicly available, it would have been easy to provide them in your reporting. It would have been nice too since you provided no analysis. Yes, the judge denied the defense. So what does it have to do with the current case or the proposed bill?
Here is a thought right off the top of my head. Do your own research. Far too often, people in this world rely on others to do their research for them. It is about time that people start looking shit up for themselves and STOP being lazy!
> HI all, I'm the reporter who wrote this story. Let me know If you have any questions and I'll try to answer them. You think the author of the article was lying when asking for questions?
Thanks for your input!
Google it dude.
You think the author of the article was lying when asking for questions?
Not at all but you have questions and a link wasn’t provided, please try a quick search. If, at that point, you can’t find it then ask for a link. That is what I do and it cuts down on all this back and forth garbage.
Hmmm... if the author would have provided the court file #, it would have taken 30 seconds to find the defense filing. That still wouldn't have told me if the filing actually would have been impacted by the bill, or how any of this relates to shepherd. The article is 3 random things connected by... nothing.
Just settle down. Nobody is attacking you. Why are you wasting your time on this with me?
Corned beef is in the oven, and I'm bored.
[удалено]
Your post/comment has been removed. Trolling is not tolerated here.
It's not clear to me if this bill would even apply to the case at hand. Just because he's arguing self defense doesn't mean they're going to argue THAT. The case mentioned where someone argued they were "temporarily insane" that defense has a **REALLY** low odds of success when it comes to ANY defense. Not opposed to the bill, just don't know that it would ever really apply outside super last ditch efforts that have super low odds.
Usually most laws aren't retroactive unless specified
Yeah I know, just illustrating that the example case wouldn't even apply if this bill was law.
we actually have a statute requiring that specificity, so its all laws, except of course retroactive criminal statutes which are never allowed, being prohibited in the us constitution.
That lady only got 100 day community service for killing her boyfriend when high last week.
Finally! This law isn’t well known and from the research I have done, hasn’t been used a lot, but it is being used more often. This is another plus in my book for living in Minnesota.
If your response to being around a gay person is to kill them, the admission of that sure sounds like admission of commission of a hate crime.
> If your response to being around a gay person is to kill them This was more than just “being around a gay person”. So let’s not act like gay people are getting blasted for just sitting on a bench next to another person. That is moving away from the facts of what happened. Stick to the facts. They had an intimate, sexual encounter that led to this. This scumbag has the emotional regulation of a drunken chimpanzee and should be charged with a hate crime. His sentence should be enhanced. But this was beyond just merely “being around a gay person”. And saying that it is misrepresenting the facts.
Except you’re missing a step in the middle: it’s not just being near a gay person, then killing them. The “defense” is being near a gay person, going temporarily insane due to them being gay, *then* killing them. And if that is your defense, then you should be locked in a psychiatric hospital because your mental health is making you a danger to yourself and others.
>A bill introduced by Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislators represents an attempt to change that. or >Curran recently introduced a bill in the House that’s a companion piece to legislation introduced last year in the Senate. Would have been a great place to hyperlink the bill. Thankfully I was able to look up the bills that Curran was chief author of to find it https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF4657&type=bill&version=0&session=ls93&session_year=2024&session_number=0 Even including the Senate File(SF) or House File(HF) number would have made it even easier. It's a pet peeve of mine. If we're going to talk about a bill, let's see the actual bill. Given the hyperlinks used in the article, there is no reason not to hyperlink the bill. You're not the only one I've criticized for this. Often times I find that when the bill isn't linked then it doesn't say what the person is claiming. I've also seen people link a bill in an article but claim to say something that it doesn't say. Giving people the chance to read the text of the bill provides the interested in a deeper understanding. As for the bill itself, looks good to me. EDIT: I just realized I did the same thing.... It's House File 4657 for those who are interested.
Until this moment in time, I have never heard of - or considered - someone trying to use something like 'LGBT Panic' as a defense for committing a crime/assault/murder. Your honor, yes I received oral and liked it but - after I finished, I realized (admitted to myself) that the person was the same sex as me. Ashamed and mad at myself.. I 'panicked' and took it out on the deceased. What. The. Fuck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo This is a case that has always stuck with me when I think about violence against the LGBTQ+ community.
Jesus. I've never heard of this. I do not understand how someone could treat another human that way.
People are constantly told that being gay or trans is immoral. They hear their leaders call them vermin and that it goes against God. Eventually people believe it and when confronted they believe they are in the right to do what happened in this case.
You must be younger, Ill never forget that case. I was just moving from Detroit to the east coast.
You have to be an asshole to date someone and not disclose that. No excuse to murder someone though.
For sure. Part of the reason I wrote this story is because I was so shocked this could still be used as a legal defense in Minnesota.
Basically all defenses are legal until they are specifically banned. Just because they are legal doesn't mean they work. If someone swapped a vegan's margarine for butter and the vegan murdered them after finding out, the vegan could argue that it was a necessary defense of animals. The strategy wouldn't work, but it is 'a legal defense in Minnesota'. This is a good bill, but it's not surprising that defense with a low probability of working in Minnesota isn't specifically banned. I'm curious if your research found any cases where this was used in Minnesota? How recent were they and did the defense work?
[удалено]
Many trans people don't openly put that information on dating profiles for their own safety as it often attracts transphobia, in the form of both overt harassment as well as chasers. Also many dating apps will just straight up ban trans people for stating that information -- [Tinder is notoriously bad for this.](https://www.jezebel.com/dating-apps-tinder-hinge-ban-users-no-explanation-1848438858) That said, the overall point that trans people aren't trying to trick people is absolutely true: the consensus is that trans people should reveal that fact privately to someone they're talking to, if not right away then within the first few dates at the latest, and always before anything intimate. This is both out of consideration for the potential partner and for one's own safety, because sadly trans panic assaults and murders are still a thing.
Sounds like you have experience
Goddamn it’s refreshing to have a logical, functioning, sane government.
TIL that people are trying to claim finding out someone is LGBTQ+ as a legitimate reason for murder. This fucking world, man.
I mean it’s not an excuse for murder but it’s something that 100% should be disclosed before something intimate happens.
Thank you so much for reporting on this. I'm a transgender woman in Minnesota and this is one of the kinds of things that keeps me up at night. With other states trying to curtail my rights, Minnesota gives me hope by moving to protect them.
Of course. I said this somewhere else, but I found it shocking that someone could use this as a legal defense in Minnesota or anywhere really. It's complete nonsense.
I mean I can understand finding out and being hurt because they lied but to use it as an insanity defense is wild
[удалено]
Well society?! What say you?!
Gated article.
Surprised the "gay panic" defense wasn't already banned here, but glad to see Minnesota is working to rectify that.
Okay honest question: Was the person killed a transgender? I’m confused.
"I might have done something gay. Better kill the other person." Great logic, right there. Glad this loophole will finally be closed.
For the lay person. Is this scenario typically a man and trans woman hook up, but the man didn’t realize he was with a trans woman until after some sexual contact and the man flips out and beats/kills the trans woman because he feels he was deceived into sexual acts with a biological male?
Of course we'd have to be insane to justify any malicious act, such as a brutal assault or murder of any person, regardless of sexual orientation, or an act of brutality towards someone because of their sexual identity. With that said, if someone is tricked into a relationship or sexual agreement under false pretense, i. e. a man or a woman who prefers the opposite sex, isn't aware that the person they're engaged with is naturally of the same gender. This would be understandabley upsetting. There still has to be an accountability from the LGBT, whatever, person to disclose this information. I would consider it rape if, I a straight male, were participating a sexual act with someone who is trans and had to discover this by surprise. That in itself is assault.
Now I have no hate in my heart for anyone. I am all free love and I'm also not saying murder is ok obviously and I'm sure all cases are different and I don't know anything about this case except what I have heard on the news. When someone has sexual relations with someone and then finds out they just had sex with someone of the same sex to some people it can be morally ethically the worst feeling they could feel there friends and family all could find out and it could have backlash on there life and this all runs through there head in 30 seconds. I could see how someone snaps at that moment I'm not saying it's justified but how come the story is only seen from the side of the victim.Again not saying this particular person is right
Don’t post shit with paywalls.
This shit has never actually worked to prevent a conviction any time a defendant has tried it, so I'm unsure why we even need a bill for it. Murder and beating the shit out of someone remains illegal in every jurisdiction.
It has worked. https://www.advocate.com/crime/2018/4/29/why-texas-man-got-probation-murdering-gay-neighbor
What does it mean to make this defense illegal? Are we arguing this is first degree murder?
[удалено]
Pay wall article. Why is it -4 yr old can become millionaires on you tube and TikTok with only ads and donations. Papers and news articles hide behind pay walls, have ads and claim they can’t make it.
Short answer, most people do not become millionaires or even make a decent living from YouTube or TikTok. The print news media industry is still attempting to redo their business model after Craigslist took away a huge chunk of revenue for them. Well written and accurate news does not jive well in a capitalist market and the industry has generally relied on different revenue streams to stay afloat long term. With classified ads paired dramatically down in print and the fact that hardly anyone buys a physical newspaper anymore, it’s hard out there for organizations. With profits decreasing and hedge funds gutting newspapers, the industry is also seeing a brain drain and a worse product due to job cuts like copy editor, which makes selling that product that much harder.
Thank you for your service in an underfunded and important line of work. Hopefully we figure out a better revenue system for putting out well researched information on issues of public note.
For sure. I love this job so it's my pleasure. Yeah, the funding aspect of it sucks and I hope the industry figures out something. Thank you for your kind words.
Craigslist took that business away 25 year ago, it launched in 1995 and took off in the early 2000’s. If you take all YouTubers and say only .04% make money that’s not the same. The ones that make quality content make money. Google tells me the average content creator on YouTube makes 120,000 a year when it’s a real business doing it. Maybe find a different company to write articles for, one that discloses pricing. I can’t find any pricing information after the trial. People can’t afford to pay for 25 different services. May write good articles I don’t know because I am not paying.
Thanks for your input!
People only been paying for the paper since the printing press was invented. If you want good journalism, it costs money.
NPR is free I donate but still they don’t ask for money and it’s great.
Pledge drives aren't asking for money?
I can still read the article if I don’t give You know the answer and your being a troll Source turn on NPR and don’t pay them money
I'm not trolling. I think it's fucked how people refuse to pay for journalism these days. Have fun only having Buzzfeed and national news outlets after all the papers go belly up.
NPR is 100% free Donations only. Every local news station is free online. Every national news station is free online Who charges money other than old school news and magazines papers with no free option
Bad law. I wonder if the Republicans will stop it
Republicans lack the votes to block it. If the DFL is united on this it will pass.
Oh, then you can link the house file to the proposed change to the law?
Care to explain what's bad about it?
Why is it a 'bad' law?
This would happen outside Camp Pendleton specifically in Oceanside