Matthew Shepherd
October 12, 1998
Laramie, Wyoming
They tied him to a fence and beat him to death

Matthew Shepherd
October 12, 1998
Laramie, Wyoming
They tied him to a fence and beat him to death

Selective enforcement has always been their strategy. That's why all the POC MAGAs think they'll get a free pass.
When really one needs look no further than the disparity within cannabis possession sentencing to see that it's by design.
Let's say they get what they want and put her away for 15 years. That's right about the same amount of time as a manslaughter charge. They seem to be actively arguing for just shooting the aggressor since the charge is the same.
The lives of homophobes are worth less by the day.
The law is not equal. It's that protect the in crowd and bind the outsiders that is mentioned all the time.
That's why the wealthy never really seem to face consequences even when convicted of felonies. They just brush it off and get elected president and pardon anybody willing to bribe them or undertake illegal actions against our constitution on their behest.
That's justice today. I wonder who has been manipulating the judicial branch decisions and warping justice even further? Must be some society starting with F...
So these dudes antagonize her, approach her, and push her down.
She pulls a gun and doesn't even shoot.
Alright I'm with it so far...
They run off...and call the cops?
And the cops arrest...her?
Drawing the weapon was clearly defensive. There's no "malicious intent" if you're in a marginalized group and carrying a legal weapon.
Had she not drawn her weapon she probably would been raped, or worse.
She pulls a gun and doesn't even shoot.
Can't speak for other states, but in Connecticut you'd have more legal protection if you actually shot the aggressor. Here a gun should only leave it's holster if deadly force is the only way to protect yourself. If you can eliminate the threat by simply brandishing, you weren't in a position where self defense applies.
I've taken a concealed carry course and the way it was explained to me was that if you do draw your gun you have to fire. Not firing is taken as indication that you don't actually find the threat serious enough to have drawn it. At least that's how it can be argued in court. Basically it's illegal to draw your gun if you don't feel you have to fire.
That's bullshit, it completely ignores escalation of force. If drawing the weapon causes your attackers to back down and run away, it worked as intended and no further escalation is needed.
Any laws intended to compel one to fire is stupid beyond measure.
You are absolutely right. But you forgot a tiny detail, we are talking about the US of A. Which law there is not stupid beyond measure?
The thought behind "always shoot to kill if you draw" comes from 2 main places. One is a misunderstanding, and the other is sociopathic bullshit.
The first is that you should only draw on someone if you have already made the decision to use lethal force to defend yourself, which is absolutely correct. Drawing without intent to shoot the assailant is aggravated assault, not self-defense. And if you don't intend to kill someone you shouldn't be shooting them.
But that logic skips the part where situations can change rapidly. You can decide to use lethal force and change your mind before pulling the trigger.
The second place the mindset comes from is a legal liability standpoint. If you draw on them and don't kill them, you may be prosecuted for aggravated assault. If you kill them you can claim you feared for your life, and they won't be able to testify against you. That's the sociopath version.
I said it below and I'll say it again...
Most "self defense" trainers are conservative and implicitly have no idea how the law actually works and just expect it to be out to get them, specifically.
Part of the problem with the world is all the conservatives talking confidently and authoritatively out their ass.
If there ceases to be a threat, no. Yes, you should only draw your weapon if you intend to use it. But if the attacker runs away once you draw, you don't shoot them in the back. That would just be murder.
Just because you initially felt threatened enough to draw your weapon doesn't mean you have to shoot.
Draw because you are willing to use it. Let the other party reevaluate whether they feel it is necessary to continue.
Thank you, yes that is better phrasing.
I've taken a nuclear weapons course and the way it was explained to me was that if you build nuclear weapons and place them in silos you have to fire. Not firing is taken as indication that you don't actually find the threat serious enough to have built them. At least that's how it can be argued in court. Basically it's illegal to build nuclear weapons if you don't feel you have to fire.
I've heard that a million times and it's wrong.
Yes, you are only supposed to draw when you've already made the determination that you have to use lethal force to protect yourself, but things can change.
I drew my gun one time. I was hiking in New Mexico by myself when I was attacked by a homeless Native American. I shoved him away and drew my pistol, and as soon as the gun came out he started running away.
I had drawn intending to fire, but when he instantly retreated, I decided not to shoot.
I was once told in a self-defense class that when using force to defend yourself, you were on legally better ground if you killed the other person than just injured them, because if they survived they could try to sue you for medical bills. I do not know if this is advice that an actual lawyer would back up, but either way, everything about it saddens me greatly.
I once (and perhaps more) heard the absolutely insane argument that in some US states if someone injured themselves on your property, it's better to shoot them dead and claim trespass, because then they can't sue you and you automatically win.
Told by who
One of the instructors.
Most "self defense" trainers are conservative and implicitly have no idea how the law actually works and just expect it to be out to get them, specifically.
Part of the problem with the world is all the conservatives talking confidently and authoritatively out their ass.
Sounds like you found the copaganda juice and took a big sip, friend.
What mental gymnastics are going on that they claim "unlawful intent" if the intent to was to stop the man from assaulting her. How is intending to stop someone from continuing a hate crime unlawful?
Friendly reminder that SCOTUS, in an opinion authored by none other than Neil Gorsuch, ruled that discrimination by sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently discrimination by sex. If a set of behaviors is allowed by a cisgender person, but their biological sex does not match their gender, you are discriminating by sex.
Likewise, if Alex's husband comes to the company Christmas party and that is only acceptable if Alex is short for Alexandra, a woman, your discrimination by sexual orientation is also discrimination by sex.
A surprisingly brilliant ruling that has yet to be Constitutionally Calvinballed.
They are literally charging her with 1 count of surviving.
This is fucking evil.
I really think we need to revoke Wyoming status as a state. They don't have enough of a population to justify statehood.
Do trans people have rights in conservative strongholds?
Ask a Nazi if Jews have rights and you'll get your answer.
If George Zimmerman can successfully claim self defense, anyone should be able to. What, do you need to kill the other person for it to count?
You have to be a straight, white, cisgender, conservative man.
If Kyle Rittenhouse can travel state lines with an assault rifle and shoot at protesters and claim self defense, anyone should be able to.
But remember the conservative axiom:
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
And that's why you don't stop at fascism. Conservatism will inadequately reinvent fascism for a new age, all while its sycophants want you to thank it for eighties punk (context: some naïve, usually younger conservatives unironically think Reagan legalized self-expression, because "individualism").
I mean, dead men tell no tales. 😐
But seriously, the prosecution will probably say the situation wasn't dire or else the defendant would've fired.
What fuckwad prosecutor would even take this case?
Personal bias? Maybe the prosecutor has a deep loathing of the LGBT population and thinks that Leviticus 20:13 ( If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death – their bloodguilt is upon them) overrides that.
This is why judges and the judicial system do not deserve the automatic and unconditional respect they demand.
And this is why you don't want a "mental illness" check for owning a firearm. They would absolutely label all LGBTQ+ people "mentally ill" and bar them from owning a firearm. It's also why a national registry is how you allow criminals to keep their firearms and make a list of all LGBTQ+ people who would own firearms...that list should never exist.
An armed minority is harder to oppress.
And if you don't think they've already set the stage for the same maneuver with Democrats in general you're living under a rock. They don't want civil war two, they want another Rwanda.
That's such a silly argument. You want to stop good legislation just because someone might use it wrong. Let me point out the entirety of government to you I guess?
That's not good legislation, not even close. You're logic is saying your ok with the current regime to dictate who is labeled mentally ill or not.
No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter what the law says the current regime will twist it to their will. Not putting out gun restrictions just because you think that they will use it poorly is denying the fact that they use any law poorly.
On this planet or in this country?
top 100 comments