Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
2 Men Acquitted Under New US Gay Hate Crime Law
27 views
Skip to first unread message
J
Oct 26, 2012, 10:41:52 PM10/26/12
to
A horrible crime was committed, kidnapping, and proof was presented that
led to the conviction of these two men. No doubt that they will now be
properly punished. The fact that the victim was a homo should never have
been an issue in the legal proceeding and thankfully the jury saw this.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2-men-acquitted-under-new-us-gay-hate-crime-law
LONDON, Ky. (AP) — The first U.S. prosecution under a new federal law
against anti-gay violence ended with a Kentucky jury acquitting two
cousins of hate-crime charges while finding them guilty of kidnapping in
a 2011 attack on a gay man.
Prosecutors had argued that Anthony Ray Jenkins and his cousin David
Jason Jenkins attacked 29-year-old Kevin Pennington at a rural state
park because of Pennington's sexual orientation, violating a hate crime
law that was expanded in 2009 to cover assaults motivated by bias
against gays, lesbians and transgender people.
It was not clear why jurors late Wednesday rejected that argument. They
were whisked away immediately after delivering the verdicts and did not
make any comments.
Anthony Jenkins' attorney, Willis Coffey, said after the trial that
jurors didn't find Pennington's account of the events credible.
"You'd like to have an acquittal on all counts, but he's happy he was
found not guilty of a hate crime," Coffey said of his client. "So am I."
--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com
http://www.americandecency.org/
led to the conviction of these two men. No doubt that they will now be
properly punished. The fact that the victim was a homo should never have
been an issue in the legal proceeding and thankfully the jury saw this.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/2-men-acquitted-under-new-us-gay-hate-crime-law
LONDON, Ky. (AP) — The first U.S. prosecution under a new federal law
against anti-gay violence ended with a Kentucky jury acquitting two
cousins of hate-crime charges while finding them guilty of kidnapping in
a 2011 attack on a gay man.
Prosecutors had argued that Anthony Ray Jenkins and his cousin David
Jason Jenkins attacked 29-year-old Kevin Pennington at a rural state
park because of Pennington's sexual orientation, violating a hate crime
law that was expanded in 2009 to cover assaults motivated by bias
against gays, lesbians and transgender people.
It was not clear why jurors late Wednesday rejected that argument. They
were whisked away immediately after delivering the verdicts and did not
make any comments.
Anthony Jenkins' attorney, Willis Coffey, said after the trial that
jurors didn't find Pennington's account of the events credible.
"You'd like to have an acquittal on all counts, but he's happy he was
found not guilty of a hate crime," Coffey said of his client. "So am I."
--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com
http://www.americandecency.org/
Syd M.
Oct 27, 2012, 1:28:11 PM10/27/12
to
On Oct 26, 10:42 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> A horrible crime was committed, kidnapping, and proof was presented that
> led to the conviction of these two men. No doubt that they will now be
> properly punished. The fact that the victim was a homo should never have
> been an issue in the legal proceeding and thankfully the jury saw this.
>
>
Just like a bully supporter.
> A horrible crime was committed, kidnapping, and proof was presented that
> led to the conviction of these two men. No doubt that they will now be
> properly punished. The fact that the victim was a homo should never have
> been an issue in the legal proceeding and thankfully the jury saw this.
>
>
Can't get at the reason for the assault, just that it happened.
Zacharias Mulletstein
Oct 27, 2012, 4:43:57 PM10/27/12
to
You all know I have nothing against gays, but "hate crime" laws are
ridiculous. All crimes are hate crimes. Have you ever heard of a "love
crime?"
ridiculous. All crimes are hate crimes. Have you ever heard of a "love
crime?"
deadrat
Oct 27, 2012, 6:24:24 PM10/27/12
to
of particular groups. Society has deemed such crimes as more corrosive
to its fabric and punishes them more harshly.
In fact, most crimes aren't hate crimes. Greed, anger, revenge, among
other feelings motivate crime.
I think hate crimes are a bad idea. I don't like the gov criminalizing
people's motivations in any context, but at least I know what a hate
crime actually is.
Bill Graham
Oct 27, 2012, 7:21:31 PM10/27/12
to
think I would want the (my) police to hunt for my attacker just as hard as
they would hunt down someone who attacked me because I was the color I am or
the race I am? I pay taxes for my police just like everybody else, and I
don't want them to discriminate against me in any way. I deserve my place on
their "crimes to solve" list. and shouldn't be bumped for someone else
because they are of some minority race.
linuxgal
Nov 3, 2012, 2:07:06 PM11/3/12
to
of that.
--
Monopolistic Ignominious Corporation Resolute On Squeezing Out Fair Trade
Zacharias Mulletstein
Nov 3, 2012, 3:21:57 PM11/3/12
to
"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:KpidnchP8-7AwAjN...@giganews.com...
> Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>> You all know I have nothing against gays, but "hate crime" laws are
>> ridiculous. All crimes are hate crimes. Have you ever heard of a "love
>> crime?"
>
> There's some working girls turning some on Pac Highway that have heard of
> that.
Prostitution is a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime.
>> You all know I have nothing against gays, but "hate crime" laws are
>> ridiculous. All crimes are hate crimes. Have you ever heard of a "love
>> crime?"
>
> There's some working girls turning some on Pac Highway that have heard of
> that.
Bill Graham
Nov 3, 2012, 7:23:03 PM11/3/12
to
Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
> Prostitution is a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime.
I agree 100% A longshoreman sells his muscles, which are a part of his body,
> Prostitution is a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime.
by loading flats with goods on them all day down at the docks, and he is
admired for his hard work. But if his sister sells herself, she is vilified
for being a prostitute. What exactly is the difference? Why is her body
different than her brothers? This makes no sense.
K Wills
Nov 4, 2012, 5:32:53 AM11/4/12
to
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:23:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
wrote:
From a moral standpoint I find prostitution reprehensible.
However, if the woman and the man, or the woman and woman,or man and
man, are consenting, I don't see why the law should care.
--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
wrote:
However, if the woman and the man, or the woman and woman,or man and
man, are consenting, I don't see why the law should care.
--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
Bill Graham
Nov 4, 2012, 6:12:52 PM11/4/12
to
K Wills wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:23:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>
>>> Prostitution is a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime.
>>
>> I agree 100% A longshoreman sells his muscles, which are a part of
>> his body, by loading flats with goods on them all day down at the
>> docks, and he is admired for his hard work. But if his sister sells
>> herself, she is vilified for being a prostitute. What exactly is the
>> difference? Why is her body different than her brothers? This makes
>> no sense.
>
> From a moral standpoint I find prostitution reprehensible.
> However, if the woman and the man, or the woman and woman,or man and
> man, are consenting, I don't see why the law should care.
I don't even find it morally reprehensible. Massage parlor workers,
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:23:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>
>>> Prostitution is a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime.
>>
>> I agree 100% A longshoreman sells his muscles, which are a part of
>> his body, by loading flats with goods on them all day down at the
>> docks, and he is admired for his hard work. But if his sister sells
>> herself, she is vilified for being a prostitute. What exactly is the
>> difference? Why is her body different than her brothers? This makes
>> no sense.
>
> From a moral standpoint I find prostitution reprehensible.
> However, if the woman and the man, or the woman and woman,or man and
> man, are consenting, I don't see why the law should care.
Doctors, restaurant cooks, and other similar workers give pleasure to
people. Why is sexual pleasure different from any other kind? I am not a
religious person. I don't believe that some creature in the sky created us
and gave us a set of rules to live by. Why would I seperate one pleasure out
from the rest and give/take away from it some special value or rules that
differentiate it from any other pleaqsure? This makes no logical sense. What
is it about sexual pleasure that makes it any different from any other kind
of pleasure? Bar tenders give you pleasure by destroying your liver, but
nobody castigates them. These distinctions are totally man-made, and as
such, I have no respect for them. It's like memorizing that the name of the
mountain is Jones mountain. And then, Jones is overthrown by
Smith, and he changes the name of the mountain to Smith mountain. And you
expect me to rememorize that the mountains name is Smith mountain? - Give me
a break. That's why I studied Math instead of geography. My knowledge, at
least, has some permanance. My 1950 algebra text book read almost exactly
like my mothers 1915 one did, and the new ones today, (2012) read almost the
same, too. In any enlightened country, sex is no different from a good steak
dinner. Only religious nuts would think differently.
deadrat
Nov 4, 2012, 6:59:55 PM11/4/12
to
On 11/4/12 5:12 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
<snip/>
> In any enlightened country, sex is no
> different from a good steak dinner. <snip/>
You're doing it wrong.
<snip/>
> In any enlightened country, sex is no
You're doing it wrong.
Message has been deleted
Bill Graham
Nov 6, 2012, 2:08:42 AM11/6/12
to
K Wills wrote:
> my skeletal muscles, not to have sex. Although I've heard, but never
> confirmed, one can get both at some locations.
> If I'm visiting my doctor, it's likely not for sex. While I think
> my doctor is a great guy, I don't see either of us having sexual
> desires for the other. I don't actually know his sexual orientation,
> but nothing he's ever said or done has given me reason to think he's
> sexually attracted to me. I know I am not so attracted to him.
> When I visit a restaurant, it's probably to consume food, not to
> have sex.
>
> [snip of irrelevant items]
> would think there is no difference between a steak and sex.
I simply listed things other than sex that gave one physical pleasure. I
never said they were all sexual. I am still trying to figure out what,
exactly, sets sex apart from these other things in some way as to make it
illegal or somehow deserving of being regulated more closely6 that the other
things by our society. Logicaslly, it should be no different from any other
physical pleasure. One can misuse it in a dangerous fashion, but so one use
the others in some dangerous way. You can eat/drink yourself to death, (for
example) so why should sex be set apart as being illegal, or immoral?
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:12:52 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> K Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:23:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Prostitution is a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime.
>>>>
>>>> I agree 100% A longshoreman sells his muscles, which are a part of
>>>> his body, by loading flats with goods on them all day down at the
>>>> docks, and he is admired for his hard work. But if his sister sells
>>>> herself, she is vilified for being a prostitute. What exactly is
>>>> the difference? Why is her body different than her brothers? This
>>>> makes no sense.
>>>
>>> From a moral standpoint I find prostitution reprehensible.
>>> However, if the woman and the man, or the woman and woman,or man and
>>> man, are consenting, I don't see why the law should care.
>>
>> I don't even find it morally reprehensible.
>
> That's fine.
> wrote:
>
>> K Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:23:03 -0700, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Zacharias Mulletstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Prostitution is a sin, but it shouldn't be a crime.
>>>>
>>>> I agree 100% A longshoreman sells his muscles, which are a part of
>>>> his body, by loading flats with goods on them all day down at the
>>>> docks, and he is admired for his hard work. But if his sister sells
>>>> herself, she is vilified for being a prostitute. What exactly is
>>>> the difference? Why is her body different than her brothers? This
>>>> makes no sense.
>>>
>>> From a moral standpoint I find prostitution reprehensible.
>>> However, if the woman and the man, or the woman and woman,or man and
>>> man, are consenting, I don't see why the law should care.
>>
>> I don't even find it morally reprehensible.
>
>
>> Massage parlor workers,
>> Doctors, restaurant cooks, and other similar workers give pleasure to
>> people. Why is sexual pleasure different from any other kind?
>
> If I visit a massage parlor, I'm likely there to get a massage of
>> Massage parlor workers,
>> Doctors, restaurant cooks, and other similar workers give pleasure to
>> people. Why is sexual pleasure different from any other kind?
>
> my skeletal muscles, not to have sex. Although I've heard, but never
> confirmed, one can get both at some locations.
> If I'm visiting my doctor, it's likely not for sex. While I think
> my doctor is a great guy, I don't see either of us having sexual
> desires for the other. I don't actually know his sexual orientation,
> but nothing he's ever said or done has given me reason to think he's
> sexually attracted to me. I know I am not so attracted to him.
> When I visit a restaurant, it's probably to consume food, not to
> have sex.
>
> [snip of irrelevant items]
>
>> In any enlightened country, sex is no different from a good steak
>> dinner.
>
> You must have a very bad sex life.
>> In any enlightened country, sex is no different from a good steak
>> dinner.
>
>
>> Only religious nuts would think differently.
>
> Only a real nut, or someone who has had a horrible sex life,
>> Only religious nuts would think differently.
>
> would think there is no difference between a steak and sex.
I simply listed things other than sex that gave one physical pleasure. I
never said they were all sexual. I am still trying to figure out what,
exactly, sets sex apart from these other things in some way as to make it
illegal or somehow deserving of being regulated more closely6 that the other
things by our society. Logicaslly, it should be no different from any other
physical pleasure. One can misuse it in a dangerous fashion, but so one use
the others in some dangerous way. You can eat/drink yourself to death, (for
example) so why should sex be set apart as being illegal, or immoral?
Message has been deleted
0 new messages