Wow, This'll Piss Off Some Folks

[Guest MikeSC]

November 11, 2004 --  ABC is preparing a major investigation of the Matthew Shepard gay-bashing murder that contends it may not have been a hate crime — but a mugging gone wrong.

 

Friends and family of Shepard — who became a national symbol of the senseless violence against gays — as well as gay activists are upset about the report, scheduled to air on "20/20" later this month.

 

Shepard, 22, was a gay college student who was brutally beaten, tied to a fence and left to die on the outskirts of Laramie, Wyo., in 1998 by two locals.

 

The killers, Aaron McKinney and Russell A. Henderson, pleaded guilty and are each serving consecutive, double life sentences.

 

But in their first interviews since they were convicted, McKinney and Henderson claim anti-gay bias had nothing to do with the crime.

 

In a press release promoting the show, ABC promised "surprising revelations, including Laramie's underground world of methamphetamine use that may have contributed to the crime and whether or not Shepard knew his killers."

 

"ABC News' press release about this show definitely raised our eyebrows, and we'll be watching," said Joan M. Garry, Executive Director, Gay & Lesbian Alliance against Defamation.

 

According to one person who has seen a rough of the episode, "20/20" raises the possibility that Shepard was mugged for his money, not because he was gay.

 

"Does it make Aaron McKinney and Russell A. Henderson any less guilty of the crime that they committed? Absolutely not," says Romain Patterson, one of Shepard's close friends.

 

"You just don't kick someone in the crotch over and over again unless you have a real problem with their sexuality," she says. "To imply otherwise, in my opinion, is irresponsible, and I think it's irresponsible to be giving a voice to two very guilty men."

 

The interviews apparently violate the plea agreements the two men signed at their sentencing. According to reports, the men agreed never to talk to the media about the case as part of the agreement that spared them the death penalty.

 

Henderson's lawyer, Tim Newcomb, did not return calls yesterday.

 

ABC declined to make the piece, slated to air Nov. 26, available to The Post.

 

"The murder of Matthew Shepard was and is a heinous and viscous crime," ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider says.

 

"Exploring and re-examining the facts around that murder in a very thoughtful and in-depth way is the very essence of responsible journalism. This new information in no way diminishes the importance of the national conversation that took place after Matthew Shepard's murder."

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/33855.htm

Dumb of them to violate their gag rule --- but anything that pokes holes in the concept of hate crime is a good thing.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

I'll watch the special before I make a final judgment on it.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So the mugging was an act of love?...

[Guest Loss]

Also, I'm sure it'll get far more publicized than it has in the past now that he had AIDS when he was murdered.

[Guest MikeSC]

So the mugging was an act of love?...

Isn't ALL crime hate crime? Do you mug people you're fond of?

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Hate crime exists, but this case isn't a good example of it. If you're looking for a good example of a *gay* hate crime, the Jenny Jones trial is a good one.

 

The idea behind hate crime isn't that all crime is not hate crime, but that crimes that are committed for reasons of racism, homophobia, religious intolerance or bigotry should require an even tougher sentence. I don't know that I agree with that, but that's the philosophy.

 

Hell, terrorists crashing into the WTC on 9/11 was technically a religious hate crime.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hate crime exists, but this case isn't a good example of it. If you're looking for a good example of a *gay* hate crime, the Jenny Jones trial is a good one.

 

The idea behind hate crime isn't that all crime is not hate crime, but that crimes that are committed for reasons of racism, homophobia, religious intolerance or bigotry should require an even tougher sentence. I don't know that I agree with that, but that's the philosophy.

 

Hell, terrorists crashing into the WTC on 9/11 was technically a religious hate crime.

That's my beef. Why should what one thinks or feels while committing a crime be in consideration?

 

If you're assaulted by a homophobe, does that somehow make the assault WORSE?

-=Mike

...And it is odd that blacks who assault whites are NEVER charged with it...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Hate crime is utter bullshit. You don't punish someone for what they were thinking. The only time it even begins to apply is when you plan out how you're going to murder someone.

 

If you assault/kill someone why does it even matter at that point? You obviously committed a hateful act.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Something tells me that the killers aren't the most credible people. Maybe it's just me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Something tells me that the killers aren't the most credible people. Maybe it's just me.

But why should what killers "think" even matter?

 

If they kill a man because he's black, he's not MORE dead than if they kill him at random.

-=Mike

[Guest Loss]

Mike, I have to disagree on that point. Otherwise, why are there degrees of murder? Why is there manslaughter?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

There are different circumstances to murder though. There's a difference between losing your mind and carefully planning out someone's murder.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

So the mugging was an act of love?...

Isn't ALL crime hate crime? Do you mug people you're fond of?

-=Mike

There's crimes of passion.

 

And Shep. had AIDS? Damn...

[Guest Loss]

Which is why motive is important.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It's still different though. When you go into motive in a murder trial, which doesn't even have to be proven in a lot of areas, you're using it to convince the jury this person had a reason to kill them. The difference is in murder trials is passion vs. planning. Getting really pissed off and beating someone to death can be seen differently then say driving them somewhere and having a weapon in hiding and having it all planned out.

 

Hate crime is just silly. So you might've called the person you just beat or killed the n word. Does that suddenly mean they should be punished more because they said a bad word that witnesses heard or they're thought of as a racist?

[Guest Loss]

Hate crime is just silly.  So you might've called the person you just beat or killed the n word.  Does that suddenly mean they should be punished more because they said a bad word that witnesses heard or they're thought of as a racist?

In the eyes of some, yes, because you're killing someone for reasons that are a person's fundamental identity, things over which they have no control.

 

I'm undecided on the issue, but that's the mindset. My biggest complaint with it is the fear of lawyers using it to find loopholes to get sentences increased in cases of self defense. If it can be proven that a man hates blondes, for example, because he admits to hating at least three other blondes and he kills a blonde trying to break into his home, it could technically be called a hate crime under this law and the defendant could be subject to a harsher sentence.

 

I think the philosophy behind hate crime legislation is a good one, but I don't think it would ever work well in practice. I'm torn between my conscience and the pragmatic side of me.

[2GOLD 0]

All crime is hate. I don't care what you were thinking. Only time I find killing someone as mildly excuseable is in self defense. Otherwise, I don't give a rats ass WHY you did it. Someone is dead cause you got stupid.

 

Also, a mugging gone wrong?

Do most muggers tie their vitcims to a fence?

[Justice 0]

In the eyes of some, yes, because you're killing someone for reasons that are a person's fundamental identity, things over which they have no control.

That shouldn't matter. Your job makes up your identity. Your lover makes up your identity. Everything makes up who you are, so I can't understand why it should matter. Does it mean more that he killed me more for sleeping with his wife than me being black? It makes no sense.

 

I'm undecided on the issue, but that's the mindset. My biggest complaint with it is the fear of lawyers using it to find loopholes to get sentences increased in cases of self defense. If it can be proven that a man hates blondes, for example, because he admits to hating at least three other blondes and he kills a blonde trying to break into his home, it could technically be called a hate crime under this law and the defendant could be subject to a harsher sentence.

 

See, that's the point. What if he kills a brunette then? All the murders of blondes are harsher sentences because of the color of their hair! You are putting them over the brunette because of the color of their HAIR! Doesn't that seem absurd?

 

The degrees of murder do not involve motivation at all, they involve planning and circumstances. It's not a correct comparison. Motivation can be twisted into many different things, and in the end, it doesn't matter as someone is dead in the end. With circumstances, it might have been an acccident, it might have been in the heat of the moment, and it might have been planned. There is something to be said of that, but not motivation. To place more value on someone's life because they are of a different color or belief is just backwards thinking.

[The Czech Republic 0]

All crime is hate. I don't care what you were thinking. Only time I find killing someone as mildly excuseable is in self defense. Otherwise, I don't give a rats ass WHY you did it. Someone is dead cause you got stupid.

 

Also, a mugging gone wrong?

Do most muggers tie their vitcims to a fence?

Maybe this is some strange Wyoming-style mugging.

 

Yeah I don't believe it either

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, I have to disagree on that point. Otherwise, why are there degrees of murder? Why is there manslaughter?

That's based on circumstances. A murder that is planned out in advance indicates that the perp is more dangerous than somebody who accidentally killed or killed in the heat of passion.

 

Heat of passion is a rare circumstance and, arguably, makes the perp less of a threat to society. A well-planned out and calculated murder is a terrifying thing.

 

In the case of hate crime, there is zero difference in mugging a gay man because you're a homophobe and mugging a gay man randomly.

 

Hate crime, to me, is the first step in the entire concept of thought crime --- something Orwell brilliantly warned about.

-=Mike

[Guest Chris2005]

I am sorry but this is a hate crime. Those two bastards and waste of lives should be put to deaths. Especially since they went against their gag order. Anybody who can take what these two fuckers said as trush is an idiot. This guy was tied up to a fence and left to die. We should do the same with both of the killers. When they found Mathew he had streaks going down from his eyes over his bload ridden face. This is due to him crying to basically death before he died. I have zero sympathy for what the two murders had done and they should pay for their actions.

[Guest MikeSC]

I am sorry but this is a hate crime. Those two bastards and waste of lives should be put to deaths. Especially since they went against their gag order. Anybody who can take what these two fuckers said as trush is an idiot. This guy was tied up to a fence and left to die. We should do the same with both of the killers. When they found Mathew he had streaks going down from his eyes over his bload ridden face. This is due to him crying to basically death before he died. I have zero sympathy for what the two murders had done and they should pay for their actions.

They should be put to death for the cruel murder.

 

They should not be put to death due to hate crime statutes. Whether or not they hate gays means nothing.

-=Mike

[Lil' Bitch 0]

November 11, 2004 --  ABC is preparing a major investigation of the Matthew Shepard gay-bashing murder that contends it may not have been a hate crime — but a mugging gone wrong.

 

Shepard, 22, was a gay college student who was brutally beaten, tied to a fence and left to die on the outskirts of Laramie, Wyo., in 1998 by two locals.

 

Yup, that sure smells like a mugger's work to me.

[NoCalMike 0]

"Hate crime" can be argued and debated, however for these two scumbags to suggest this was a "mugging gone wrong" is ludicrous.

[2GOLD 0]

"Hate crime" can be argued and debated, however for these two scumbags to suggest this was a "mugging gone wrong" is ludicrous.

 

What is really ludicrous is ABC is buying it.

[Guest MikeSC]

"Hate crime" can be argued and debated, however for these two scumbags to suggest this was a "mugging gone wrong" is ludicrous.

 

What is really ludicrous is ABC is buying it.

Well, they missed out on a memogate-like debacle, so they needed something to fit in.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

I think hate crime legislation is designed as it is because if someone commits a crime for the reasons that would entail a "hate crime", they're more than likely to do it again, since they probably won't stop hating.

 

Thus, they are a clear threat to society. It's like, if they say they won't do it again, then we can cry bullshit, because you hate gay people, and the fact that they're gay makes you want to kill them. That plus booze makes you a threat. So you're going to jail LONGER than someone ...

 

Eh, thats where my reasoning breaks down. I guess if we're not talking murder here, but just vandalism or something else like that. Someone who draws swastikas on a temple is more likely a threat than someone who draws big smiley faces. They're both vandalism, but one displays a threat, and shows the perp is dangerous, at least mentally.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think hate crime legislation is designed as it is because if someone commits a crime for the reasons that would entail a "hate crime", they're more than likely to do it again, since they probably won't stop hating.

 

Thus, they are a clear threat to society. It's like, if they say they won't do it again, then we can cry bullshit, because you hate gay people, and the fact that they're gay makes you want to kill them. That plus booze makes you a threat. So you're going to jail LONGER than someone ...

 

Eh, thats where my reasoning breaks down. I guess if we're not talking murder here, but just vandalism or something else like that. Someone who draws swastikas on a temple is more likely a threat than someone who draws big smiley faces. They're both vandalism, but one displays a threat, and shows the perp is dangerous, at least mentally.

I just havea fundamental problem with the entire concept of thought crime --- which this does kind of resemble.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

but you admit that someone w/ a violent agenda such as violent racism, homophobia, sexism, errr any -ism is more likely to repeat an offence than one who doesn't have any of these things?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

but you admit that someone w/ a violent agenda such as violent racism, homophobia, sexism, errr any -ism is more likely to repeat an offence than one who doesn't have any of these things?

What about gang members? Shouldn't this be used on someone who attacks a rival member. It's the same thought process.