Saturday, 2 August 2008

Today's Battle

A little late - posting to my blog was blocked due to a suspected TOS violation.

Anyway, I point out that it's not that Reparative Therapy has never been tried, just that it's never been successful, over at This isn't really my fight, it is about Sexual Orientation, not Gender Identity or Intersex conditions. But most people don't see the difference, and just because I'm not a Patagonian, Gay, or Taoist doesn't mean to say I should let ignorant persecution of Patagonians, Gays, or Taoists go unchallenged.

Over at the Greeley Tribune, I expound on the inhuman murder of Angie Zapata.
Let's look at the facts -

We have a professional criminal's confession.
He sexually assaulted a girl belonging to a persecuted minority group by grabbing her crotch.
He bashed the girl's head in.
He covered up the body while deliberately removing evidence of the crime
When the critically injured victim started moving, he deliberately finished her off
He stole the victim's car.
He stole and used the victim's credit card.
He stole other property of the victim which hasn't been recovered.

Now with those facts alone... how could anyone doubt that he'd be convicted of Murder in the First Degree?

Now suppose he was claiming that she duped him - he didn't know she was Jewish when he allowed her to bring him off. Hmmm, that just adds "hate crime" to the list, it's not an excuse.

Or suppose he was claiming that she duped him - he didn't know she was only "passing" for white. That excuse wouldn't work either.

Ah, but a Tranny! Oh well, murder was going a bit far...
Many of the other comments are what I would expect around 1920 if a teenager "passing for white" was brutally slain. Transsexuality - the new Black.

Over at Night Whispering, there's a blog who's having the same problems with blocking as I am. Hopefully my comment will have appeared by the time this post does, I've had a most delightful e-mail from the author. He's the type of pastor who gives Christianity a good name, and I urge anyone who thinks all those with doctrinal differences are bigoted to read his blog, and comment with respect and politeness. If you disagree, merely state your case rationally, and he may not agree, but he will listen, and reply. You should do the same for what he says too. Listen, with the thought in the back of your mind that you may be wrong. That's what he does. He also tries to help, it's not all talk.

More over at ABC News, where a large section of opinion is that transsexuals are not worthy of being classed as fully human, with equal human rights.


Sevesteen said...

As I think of this, I will change my vote back to murder. If she had died of the initial beating, and that's all he did, manslaughter would have been appropriate.

Finishing her off after a break is very difficult to justify as manslaughter.

Stealing the car could possibly be justified as the best way he could figure to escape the scene, while still in a panic.

Stealing and using the credit card turns it into "death during a felony", with no possible justification.

Battybattybats said...

I still wouldn't agree with manslaughter.

Not remotely. I just do not buy this notion of panic as a causation for violence at any time.

Panic should cause flight, screaming, horror.. not rage and destruction.

Unknown said...

Seventeen - Even if she would have died during the initial beating the charge should have been first degree with bias intent using the hate crime statue.

Reasoning: By his own admission the sex act occurred the night before. He chose to spend the night, and the next day while pondering before the beating, and then took the time to cover her before leaving with her belongings. Due to this statement it becomes premeditation.

Killing her for the reason of she was an "it" shows bias intent.

battybattybats - "Panic should cause flight, screaming, horror.. not rage and destruction." I agree to a point, but it can cause rage and destruction. Ex: in a self defense situation.

Battybattybats said...

I've done enough martial arts back when my disability was mild, and was attacked violently at school enough to feel pretty certain that in a self-defence situation panic does not cause rage and destruction unless someone is quite literally trapped in a corner with no possible place to flee.

Reflexive self-defence instincts are primal but are not panic, they feel very different, and most certainly are not triggered by groping others and finding an unexpected (or suspected) shape but instead by things like other peoples punches to your face.

These feelings are not triggered by ordinary fear or feeling of threat. People do not punch fire, they do not punch 'falling', other than Xerxes they do not try to cause the sea destruction or pain for causing drowning.

No, violence in my experience and witnessing comes from a decision or a reflexive response to violence. And that reflex is much more often to block and shove and push away to allow escape rather than to punch and pound and smash.

Sevesteen said...

You may be right that based on the hate crime statute, murder is the proper charge. I don't support the concept of hate crime as a separate category--Too close to thought crime. Genuine hate crime will have an underlying crime to prosecute. The more I learn about this case, the more I find that is true here. If there was a period of pondering, I would agree that first degree murder would be appropriate even had the victim died of her initial injuries.