"At best, this is a case about passion," Kundelius said. "When (Zapata) smiled at him, this was a highly provoking act, and it would cause someone to have an aggressive reaction."Today's Battle : combating this idea.
From the Denver Post Forum:
Post by cboyd62 on Yesterday, 7:45 am"An interesting jury to be on". Right.
Totally agree cheating on his girlfriend was wrong, killing this person was wrong, but the victim is at fault here too. You have an obligation to be honest with other people, especially when you are being "intimate". Any reasonable man would be disturbed to find the gender he expected in a partner was different than portrayed. Even a gay man would have problems with this switcheroo. This would be an interesting jury to be on.
Post by ZoeB on Yesterday, 8:27 amcboyd62 is not alone in her opinion. There's more of the same over at the Greeley Tribune. And more of my replies.
I agree completely with cboyd62. Why, her deception was just as bad as an African-American "passing for white" in the Deep South in the 1920's. I mean, any reasonable fine upstanding white man would be upset, and take violent action under those circumstances, right?
It's as bad as one of the Aryan Brotherhood finding out his date was Jewish. Maybe they should be made to wear stars or something just so they don't deceive purebred Aryans. I mean, you can understand how upset he'd be. Especially if she provoked him to violence by smiling at him.
Oops, forgot the <sarcasm> tags.
The trouble is, the world is full of cboyd62's. It would only take one on the jury who "understands" how upset a guy would be after sexually assaulting his robbery victim - by grabbing her crotch, as he's admitted doing - and revealing the secret she was so at pains to hide. And this guy would walk.
Most such murder/robberies of transgendered people are by killers who know the victim's status beforehand. They stalk them as they're vulnerable, and the killers also know that such "understanding" people as cboyd62 exist, and at worst, they'll get 5 years for "voluntary manslaughter" if just one is on the jury. That's if they don't get away with it completely.
And I'm sure the killer revealed his criminal record and homicidal homophobia to the victim beforehand, there would have been no deception there, right? Oops, forgot the <sarcasm> tags again.
And that is why I fight Today's Battle. And tomorrow's and tomorrow's and tomorrow's. These ideas cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged, as they have done in the past. It's not that I object to people expressing these views: quite the contrary, if I had my way they would be publicised far and wide, the stone upturned so we know what foul memes wriggle and slither underneath. They should be fully exposed to the harsh glare of publicity, so like the Shadow, we too would know "what evil lurks in the hearts of men".
And they should be answered, refuted with logic, and with humanity, and yes, with passionate outrage at the injustice they represent. As do Bird of Paradox, and Feministe, and an increasing number of others.