- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/2089998
Archived version: https://archive.ph/X5D30
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230830081318/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66654134
I don't know what these things are. Are you suggesting that there's an exception for crimes committed against these people?
by the police? absolutely
Police don't need exceptions for anyone.
the police are the exception
So then we agree this is nothing to do with 2SLGBTQI+ people?
the relevant states have made a legal push to criminalize being queer in public
Removed by mod
Lobotomized level of take
You literally just misquoted me. If your intention was to completely misrepresent my position for the purposes of...? Good job!
Hmm who enforces legal shit?
But it's not legal. And as we've already covered, they don't need it to be.
they enforce the laws
See my other reply.
Total exceptions? No. But many states still allow people to get reduced sentences via the gay panic defense for killing LGBTQ people. That, and some politicians are encouraging hate crimes against them with hateful rhetoric about them being "groomers" and whatnot.
You say that like it's explicitly allowed by the state. It isn't. It's a legal defense lawyers use in court. Whether or not it's legitimate is determined by a jury.
gAy PaNiC is never legitimate.
Tell that to the jury. What are you expecting to happen?
Wow, it is almost like a place where juries let people off on the gay panic defense is a place that is unsafe to be as a trans person.
weird how "gay panic" is a defense allowed by the courts, but an appeal to jury nullification is not.
Curious
Do other countries not have juries?
Are other countries juries exposed to our media ecosystem (in the same way) which the US government supports and which pushes vile transphobia constantly?
Some other countries (and just a couple US states) explicitly ban the gay panic defense.
I'll tell em you're gay and I panicked
If you don't have any interest in a good faith discussion, you can just go ahead and stop replying to me please.
good faith is being obtuse
Good faith? I'm sorry, could you be more specific? What do you mean?
the state, inside and outside courtrooms, to shut down hate crimes.
Well that's a very easy thing to say but I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific.
funny how we can defend property through a system of laws and enforcement but that's not specific enough to stop hate crimes
Okay so you don't know then? It's ok to just say that.
You need to learn that whether something is explicit or not doesn't matter as much as what is happening in effect.
But that "effect" has nothing to do with the US...
Yes, because no jury members live in the US corporate media ecosystem which pushes vile transphobia constantly with the support of the US government.
There are no jury members outside the US? That's your position?
You aren't able to read a one sentence reply? Is that your position?
Or is it that you dont want to engage with the content and are just saying bullshit instead of being thoughtful?
Not only am I able, but I did. Anything else you'd like to fabricate about me?
It is. Keeping it a valid legal defense is a policy choice. Some states banned it, they chose to. Other states have not, they decided not to. That's politics.
But it's not a valid legal defense. You cannot ban a lawyer from putting it forward as a legal defense.
Except you actually can, and many states have
Show me, please
You literally can, just like any number of other valid bases for objections to arguments put forward. If the judge rules it to be such a defense, it would be struck from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it, and if the lawyer keeps on it, they would be held in contempt of court. Furthermore, if it is plainly a case of such a defense and the judge lets it fly, the prosecution can claim mistrial.
Perhaps there are other ways of banning it, but that is the obvious one in the American framework.
There literally is in most states, depending on the judge:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense
There literally is not. That's a legal defense that lawyers use. It doesn't instantly exonerate the crime.
To treat it as a valid legal defense is an abomination and judges have countless times ruled in favor of the perpetrator on just the basis of that defense.
That's not a legal exception, that's just a corrupt judge. Do you not have those in Canada?
Do you understand how precedent works in the US court system? I mean, I fully agree that US judges and laws are corrupt, but it doesn't change the fact that those laws and judges are still upheld by the state
Yes I understand. I asked a question, would you like to answer it? Did you not notice that people use this same defense in other countries?
Yes, there are homophobic laws elsewhere as well, it doesn't change the status quo in US
We've already been over this several times now, there are no homophobic laws in the US.
The topic of conversation is a warning to "queer" people about going into the US, as if it is more dangerous than the country they're leaving. So yes, it matters.