Lesbian's brutal gang rape investigated in Calif.

[BloodEclipse]

Blood Eclipse...I'm fairly confident that Metro40 is familiar with the phrase "knucledraggers thru the double helix" if it offends your sensibilities you have no idea what is being referred to.
Good Night, Gentlemen.

Not that it offends, it doesn't add anything to the conversation. It is talking down, as in your opinion is correct and no further discussion is required. If you wasn't inferring something than why make the statement?

 

[CarmelHP]

Blood Eclipse...I'm fairly confident that Metro40 is familiar with the phrase "knucledraggers thru the double helix"

I have 3 graduate degrees and I don't see the supposedly obvious non-offensive content. Perhaps Metro40 will explain it for us.

 

[Bill of Rights]

And from the other side of the argument, frankly, no one will likely ever be able to convince me that people actively choose to be gay. I know I couldn't wake up one day and make that choice. I have always liked my toast buttered on the Hetero side and cannot begin to imagine any other choice.

And that is what is great about America, how people like their toast buttered is really no one else's business!

(Yeah, I fully expect the 1,094 posts about how XYZ is making ABC their business...)

Have to agree with you. There is no way I could look at some guy's hairy :moon: and feel any kind of attraction. I am heterosexual because that's how I was born.

Additionally... with all the jokes made about and the crimes committed against GLBTs, who in their right mind would possibly choose that life??

Like you, I know there will be objections to my post. You who disagree with me are welcome to do so. I don't say you have to agree with me. I do insist on the same respect for my opinions you would like for yours, though.

Blessings,
B

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I would like to point out something that I noticed in the article. I did only kind of skim the previous arguments, so I may have missed this. But...

The men, who ranged from their late teens to their 30s, made comments indicating they knew her sexual orientation, said Richmond police Lt. Mark Gagan.

Authorities are characterizing the attack as a hate crime but declined to reveal why they think the woman was singled out because of her sexual orientation.

It seems to me that they perpetrators never actually stated anything conclusively that they were targeting her due to her sexual orientation (or persuasion, or preference, or whatever). I would go ahead and make the assumption that they, like any one deciding to pick on someone else, made their comments simply due to the fact that it was obvious.

She stated she was unaware of their identities and that, furthermore, she had a gay pride sticker on her car. That's about as simple as someone seeing a black person, deciding they want to beat the crap out of them, and calling them some racial slur or another.

I would conjecture that they didn't care one way or another as to her sexual orientation, but that they felt she was an easy enough target and to insult her sexuality was demeaning and demoralizing, and therefore simple to do. It's, honestly, elementary psychology. It makes them feel better about themselves, and what they're doing. A sort of rationalization. Does that make it a "hate" crime? I wouldn't say so.

Of course, my personal stand on hate crimes is that the term is useless. If a man murders a black man because he is black, that is a hate crime, sure. If a man murders a white man because his wife was cheating on him with the second man, that too is a hate crime. There was malice and intent. As far as I'm concerned, both deserve equal punishment. Likewise with the raping of a straight or gay woman.

My issue with the "hate crime" ideology is this: it does not reverse around. A white man murdered because he is white, was not murdered due to a hate crime. Just the same as a man, in the state of Indiana (so far as I have come to understand it), cannot be raped. The most anyone can be charged of is sexual assault and battery, but the actual terms for rape; and the harsher penalties involved; is that the victim must be a woman. That is unfair, just as unfair as hate crime ideology.

And, to the unrelated debate of sexual orientation and preference...
There have been studies linking certain physiological traits to sexual orientation. Gay people often have hair that curls to the right, they often have ring fingers that are longer than their pointer fingers. For males, often their voices are higher pitched and they will develop lisps more naturally. Of course, correlation does not prove causation, but that does not mean there are not links between the two. I would guess that there is a certain genetic propensity toward heterosexual and homosexual behavior.

I have known quite a few gay men, and am roommates with one who recently decided to be bi-sexual. That's right, I did say 'decided'. Their are two mindsets towards homosexual behavior, and one is that gay people are born gay, and the other is a choice... sure. But the majority of gay people have stated they knew something was up, and they discovered (rather than decided) that they were gay. Now, for the case of my roommate, he was born in a strict Christian household, and during his rebellious teenage years decided he was not Christian, not conservative (being very liberal, and a staunch supporter of Obama), and decided he was gay. While I did not know him at the time, he has attested that these were decisions on his part. He does display some of the qualities of gay people that are stereotypical, but to a small degree. Now, however, after getting into college and being away from such a strict family, he has decided to become a conservative person (being a Libertarian and voting for Bob Barr), and had decided to be bi-sexual.
Now, my personal opinion is that he was never actually gay, but is straight and only was being rebellious. However, like Metro 40 said, often time peoples will act a certain way just because society says so, or to get something they want. I believe he just wanted the attention and to be heard, so he acted against his nature to the point of believing it himself. And, only after a certain amount of time, and a few experiences that possibly changed his mind, he came back on that decision.

Anyway, point of that whole thing was this. I believe it could be both. I'd say that people who come out later in life are likely gay the entire time, as are people who are gay for life. But, seriously, you think all of these college girls here in Bloomington who are "experimenting" are hard-wired lesbians? I seriously doubt it.

 

[96harley]

Ouch! Would someone please pass me a bandaid. My 72 inch length sleeves are red from bloody knuckles.

 

[Turtle]

The following rant is my response to the article. Not any INGO coments.

1st off I don't HATE..... HATE is an Ugly word. Me and the wife have gay and lesbian friends. (I am not gay or ever have beem) just a small FYI. But I'm not homophobic, or raciest. I just dont care. And I know neither is contaigious.
My lesbian army friend Is going gun shopping soon. She wants an XD-9 and a 22lr pistol for her Girlfriend. I hope she never has to use it. But stories like this worry me.

P.S. She deploys in march. So any one that hates gays and lesbians. Just remember They fight and defend your country. While you bicker over guns and watch your big TV.

 

[esrice]

This is a great and civil debate. Please refrain from pointless posts and name-calling.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...a man, in the state of Indiana (so far as I have come to understand it), cannot be raped. The most anyone can be charged of is sexual assault and battery, but the actual terms for rape; and the harsher penalties involved; is that the victim must be a woman. That is unfair, just as unfair as hate crime ideology.

I suggest that you are slightly incorrect in the above understanding:


IC 35-42-4-1
Rape
Sec. 1. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who knowingly or intentionally has sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite sex when:
(1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;
(2) the other person is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring; or
(3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to sexual intercourse cannot be given;
commits rape, a Class B felony.
(b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(3) it results in serious bodily injury to a person other than a defendant; or
(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.36; P.L.320-1983, SEC.23; P.L.16-1984, SEC.19; P.L.297-1989, SEC.1; P.L.31-1998, SEC.3.

<A name=IC35-42-4-2>IC 35-42-4-2
Criminal deviate conduct
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally causes another person to perform or submit to deviate sexual conduct when:
(1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;
(2) the other person is unaware that the conduct is occurring; or
(3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to the conduct cannot be given;
commits criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony.
(b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A felony if:
(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(3) it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant; or
(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.


IC 35-41-1-26
"Sexual intercourse" defined
Sec. 26. "Sexual intercourse" means an act that includes any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.

IC 35-41-1-9
"Deviate sexual conduct" defined
Sec. 9. "Deviate sexual conduct" means an act involving:
(1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.

"Rape" cannot be committed by any person against a person of the same gender, that is true, however, the penalty for "criminal deviate conduct" is identical, so yes, a man can be the physical, direct victim of the act in question and his attacker, when caught, would be charged under 35-42-4-2, rather than 35-42-4-1. I don't think it much matters if it's called a "rape" or not, so long as the crime can be prosecuted and the penalty identical. It matters not if you call a spade a spade, either way, it's still a f***ing shovel.

On another note, does it bother anyone else that our criminal code uses the wrong form of the word? A person's conduct may deviate from some norm but that would make his or her conduct deviant.

Either way, whether some crime is motivated by hate or not, the fact is that the motivation does not change either the fact that someone was victimized nor the severity of injuries, thus, "hate crimes" are a misnomer and designed to do nothing but control thought.

Blessings,
B

 

[techres]

I just don't see how raping her because she's lesbian (which I don't believe they did, I think she was a convenient victim) is any worse than raping for any other reason.

Looking up on the gang that just snatched you off the street despite your protection plan, stripped and beat you, then crammed a ______ up your _____ repeatedly and while doing so told you that they wanted you simply because they wanted to teach you and the other whitey's a lesson that only _____ men could be real men and not crackers.

Would that have an impact on the crime individually or communally? That they wanted you because you were white and they wanted to teach all whites a lesson?

I would think that would have a bearing on your experience during and after the crime.

I also think that would have a HUGE extra impact on you as well as the community around you and that would follow with the intent.

I ALSO think that you would take them at their word and not simply write it off as a coincidence, etc.

(I am of course makning an assumption of your gender and race. You can modify as needed to make the analogy work)

Hope that helps without overly turning up the volume too much.

 

[esigler]

My opinion for what its worth? If it was my wife that was raped instead of a Lesbian, why isnt she as important? Why isnt rape a "hate" crime against whom ever it is comitted? It is a crime of violence, not passion! I also think the time should fit the crime, why is drug dealing near a school longer than murder, rape or etc? Why isnt rape a life offence anyway? It was no accident, it is premetitated, the person should be punished then others may be think about the consequence?

 

[jsharmon7]

My opinion for what its worth? If it was my wife that was raped instead of a Lesbian, why isnt she as important? Why isnt rape a "hate" crime against whom ever it is comitted? It is a crime of violence, not passion!

I agree with you completely, a rape is a rape regardless of motive. The reason someone committed a crime against you does not give you any solace; you suffered regardless. The only reason we're seeing this story is because the media is only after ratings, readers, etc. and knows that sexual preference is a hot button issue in America. This was a horrible crime and I do not contend that this was an unimportant crime, but ANY rape is horrible without needing the "hate crime" label. Look back at the Matthew Shepard case. People were outraged at what those people did to him "just because he was gay." We should have been outraged that someone could commit such a crime against ANYONE, regardless of their motive. Labeling something a "hate crime" only serves to distance the gap between the two sides of an issue through anger and fear and our media exploits that in the name of ratings.

 

[techres]

Why isnt rape a life offence anyway? It was no accident, it is premetitated, the person should be punished then others may be think about the consequence?

I agree with you there! Many of those instrumental behind the "hate crimes" laws did so because of a perception that crimes against certain groups were intentionally not being punished. I.E. beating a gay person were excused since the victim must have XYZ, or that whites had free range to murder blacks, etc.

So frankly, if enforcement of murder and rape been severe and universal I suspect that these laws would never have been passed. The real question, and place for a win for all, is in making the bridge of under-enforcement at all levels. I.E. spend less time criticizing others when they want greater enforcement for this or that instance and instead use that instance as a beginning point for talking about greater enforcement at all levels. As long as you focus on their reason for greater enforcement you miss your opportunity and get into an argument about groups instead of a useful conversation about punishment and criminals.

As for gang rape situations like this, so long as they get due process of law, I am hard pressed to see a penalty that is too severe.

 

[4sarge]

The "Win" is Fair & Equal Justice for All, NOT Justice for Some or More Justice for Others. Exclusionary Justice isn't Justice for Anyone. Justice Must Be Fair & Impartial

The Blind Lady of Justice is almost always draped in flowing robes, mature but not old, no longer commonly known as Themis, she symbolizes the fair and equal administration of the law, without corruption, avarice, prejudice, or favor.

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Well, Bill, as usual you have everyone beat when it comes to the law here.

I'll stand corrected, as I did not actually reference anything except hearsay. It is entirely possible that the way I interpreted it, or the way it was interpreted to me, was that rape was impossible upon a man. Which, as it could be considered, is not entirely true but far less likely than 'deviate sexual conduct'. As the penalties are the same, it doesn't matter to me what they call it. My only concern, to that point, was that the penalties were different.

Furthermore, I agree with you about calling it a misnomer... 'Hate crime' is useless terminology, and ought to be done away with. A crime is a crime, regardless of intent. If one was committed, knowingly, by any party--regardless of intent or purpose--and they are found guilty, they should be penalized. There should be a strict penalty. So far, I agree with the Arizona chain-ganger thing that was mentioned either here or in another topic. It teaches folks a lesson. It doesn't teach them that they can do a crime, sit it out in prison for a year or so, and then hop back on their little playground. It's just ridiculous.

Anyway, thanks for correcting me. Always good to learn something new.

 

[haldir]

I agree with you there! Many of those instrumental behind the "hate crimes" laws did so because of a perception that crimes against certain groups were intentionally not being punished. I.E. beating a gay person were excused since the victim must have XYZ, or that whites had free range to murder blacks, etc.

So frankly, if enforcement of murder and rape been severe and universal I suspect that these laws would never have been passed. The real question, and place for a win for all, is in making the bridge of under-enforcement at all levels. I.E. spend less time criticizing others when they want greater enforcement for this or that instance and instead use that instance as a beginning point for talking about greater enforcement at all levels. As long as you focus on their reason for greater enforcement you miss your opportunity and get into an argument about groups instead of a useful conversation about punishment and criminals.

As for gang rape situations like this, so long as they get due process of law, I am hard pressed to see a penalty that is too severe.

I have tried to avoid this conversation as generally they go nowhere (most of us believe that homosexuality is immoral and wrong because we were taught that way and we feel the Bible clearly states it is an abomination, I feel no compulsion to argue that with anyone and have no desire to change my mind or change anyone else's). But I wanted to respond to some of this.

You say part of the reason for hate crime legislation is the perception that these crimes may not be punished as much as similar crimes to straight people. But even though we have new laws don't we have the same legal system that may feel the person was asking for it. You have the same elected prosecutor and Sheriff that is answerable to the local citizens that may not like these people. Isn't it the same jury that might not really want to punish these boys for trying to straighten out a girl like this (intentionally phrasing it this way to imitate the types of people that you seem to feel aren't doling out even handed justice).

So we end up with laws that may make some people feel better but that may not really do anything (reminds me of gun laws in that regard).

 

[techres]

So we end up with laws that may make some people feel better but that may not really do anything (reminds me of gun laws in that regard).

Won't argue you there. That is also why they go federal with hate crimes - i.e. civil rights. That way they get a new load of people to see if anything more will be done.

And there is the key. You want to win this fight? Build a bridge that helps the very people who want these laws, and will be dissappointed by them, that all the laws have been rather dissappointing. Get them to that point and you can get some real solutions started.

Those who simply keep hammering about how gays only want to be more special, etc. will never get anywhere useful...

 

[CarmelHP]

Looking up on the gang that just snatched you off the street despite your protection plan, stripped and beat you, then crammed a ______ up your _____ repeatedly and while doing so told you that they wanted you simply because they wanted to teach you and the other whitey's a lesson that only _____ men could be real men and not crackers.

Would that have an impact on the crime individually or communally? That they wanted you because you were white and they wanted to teach all whites a lesson?

I would think that would have a bearing on your experience during and after the crime.

I also think that would have a HUGE extra impact on you as well as the community around you and that would follow with the intent.

I ALSO think that you would take them at their word and not simply write it off as a coincidence, etc.

(I am of course makning an assumption of your gender and race. You can modify as needed to make the analogy work)

Hope that helps without overly turning up the volume too much.

Have you ever been targeted as a victim because of your race? I have (but I had that little .380 Mustang that calmed things down) on several occasions and still don't think it makes a damn bit of difference. Some groups will be favored by the powers that be and others will have a blind eye turned which just ratchets up the racial, or whatever, divide. I just don't think you know what you're talking about so I doubt we're going to agree on this.

 

[techres]

Have you ever been targeted as a victim because of your race? I have (but I had that little .380 Mustang that calmed things down) on several occasions and still don't think it makes a damn bit of difference. Some groups will be favored by the powers that be and others will have a blind eye turned which just ratchets up the racial, or whatever, divide. I just don't think you know what you're talking about so I doubt we're going to agree on this.

Actually I have. I was part of the 10% off white kids at my first High School and was chosen for shakedowns specifically because I was white. And in my neighborhood there was the bike that was taken by the group of kids who chose me and my friends because we were not from their group, and the time I was held at knifepoint, and the time the racially other gang kids were looking for anyone who might be Klan members that had written stuff on the bathroom wall (that last one I was more angry at the Klan kids than I was the gang kids for being such stupid little....).

So, yeah, I have some experience with it thanks to IPS and growing up at 38th and Post. No experience was nearly what I wrote up above, but they were enough to give me some experiences and the reason I spent a year of high school carrying a knife with me every day.

 

[haldir]

Thought this thread got shut down?