New York Blade: Lesbian gang wrong to attack over verbal assault
magstheaxe
EDITORIALS
Vigilante Justice?
Lesbian gang wrong to attack over verbal assault
Aug. 28, 2006
When Wayne Buckle hit on Patreese Johnson early last Friday on a West
Village street, she rejected him because she was a lesbian.
That should have been the end of that. But Buckle allegedly spit on
Johnson, called her homophobic slurs and told Johnson and her six
lesbian friends that he would f--k them all.
The Newark, N.J., gang retaliated by beating Buckle with belts, kicking
him, punching him and then allegedly stabbing him in the stomach. An
employee at a nearby newsstand had to call 911.
Since then, all seven of the women were arraigned on charges of
attempted murder, assault and gang assault, according to The New York
Daily News.
In no way would we imply that Buckle had a right to harass Johnson. What
he did was wrong. Period. If offended by Buckle, the women could have
reported the incident to the authorities. And Buckle should be held
accountable for his actions.
But lashing back with violence — to a degree that involves stabbing
someone — is unacceptable. This should be obvious.
Yet Garden State Equality, a New Jersey group for LGBT rights, released
a press statement with the following lead: "Garden State Equality stands
in solidarity with seven Newark lesbians who were attacked last weekend
in a hate crime — shockingly, authorities have charged them, not their
attacker with a crime."
The statement continues: "Astonishingly, the New York Police Department
did not arrest the homophobic attacker, but instead arrested the woman
victim and her six friends. Her friends came to her defense and
allegedly stabbed the thug when he would not stop his monstrous tirade —
a tirade that could have led to his murdering the women within moments."
Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, is quoted as saying,
"Has society not learned anything from the senseless murders of Sakia
Gunn and Shani Baraka? How dare the police treat this vile, homophobic
attacker as a victim rather than the perpetrator? What were the women
supposed to do, wait to see if the attacker would make good on his
promise to cause them bodily harm?"
Um, the women could have run away. Without knowing the specific events
that transpired before the attack, we cannot state whether they were in
physical danger. We can relate to their frustration at being harassed.
And yes, Buckle should be held responsible for his tirade.
It is an outrageous proposition to state that Buckle’s yelling at the
women could have lead to his murdering them, and therefore the seven
lesbians were justified in beating and stabbing him.
Anti-gay epithets do not justify vigilanteism.
No 33 Secretary
6dncL8P5TjyWXZn...@insightbb.com:
> http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/8-28/viewpoint/editorials/edit.cfm
>
> EDITORIALS
>
> Vigilante Justice?
> Lesbian gang wrong to attack over verbal assault
>
> Aug. 28, 2006
>
> When Wayne Buckle hit on Patreese Johnson early last Friday on a West
> Village street, she rejected him because she was a lesbian.
>
> That should have been the end of that. But Buckle allegedly spit on
> Johnson,
That's not a verbal assault. That's a criminal assault. He belongs in
prison. Or dead.
> called her homophobic slurs and told Johnson and her six
> lesbian friends that he would f--k them all.
>
> The Newark, N.J., gang retaliated by beating Buckle with belts, kicking
> him, punching him and then allegedly stabbing him in the stomach. An
> employee at a nearby newsstand had to call 911.
>
> Since then, all seven of the women were arraigned on charges of
> attempted murder, assault and gang assault, according to The New York
> Daily News.
>
> In no way would we imply that Buckle had a right to harass Johnson.
What
> he did was wrong. Period. If offended by Buckle, the women could have
> reported the incident to the authorities. And Buckle should be held
> accountable for his actions.
>
> But lashing back with violence — to a degree that involves stabbing
> someone — is unacceptable. This should be obvious.
It is also obvious that spitting on someone is not a verbal assault. Only
a homophobe would claim otherwise. Only someone trying to justify a
criminal assault would claim otherwise. Given how many diseases can be
transmitted by spitting on someone, the fucker got exactly what he
deserved.
>
> Yet Garden State Equality, a New Jersey group for LGBT rights, released
> a press statement with the following lead: "Garden State Equality
stands
> in solidarity with seven Newark lesbians who were attacked last weekend
> in a hate crime — shockingly, authorities have charged them, not their
> attacker with a crime."
Couldn't agree more.
>
> The statement continues: "Astonishingly, the New York Police Department
> did not arrest the homophobic attacker, but instead arrested the woman
> victim and her six friends. Her friends came to her defense and
> allegedly stabbed the thug when he would not stop his monstrous tirade
—
> a tirade that could have led to his murdering the women within
moments."
And he spit on one of them, which is a criminal assault.
>
> Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, is quoted as saying,
> "Has society not learned anything from the senseless murders of Sakia
> Gunn and Shani Baraka? How dare the police treat this vile, homophobic
> attacker as a victim rather than the perpetrator? What were the women
> supposed to do, wait to see if the attacker would make good on his
> promise to cause them bodily harm?"
>
> Um, the women could have run away. Without knowing the specific events
> that transpired before the attack, we cannot state whether they were in
> physical danger.
He spit on one of them. That is a criminal assault. It does not seem to
be in dispute tha he spit on one of them.
> We can relate to their frustration at being harassed.
> And yes, Buckle should be held responsible for his tirade.
And put in prison for his criminal assault.
>
> It is an outrageous proposition to state that Buckle’s yelling at the
> women
And spitting on one of them. Why is it that homophobes are so determined
to ignore that criminal assault?
> could have lead to his murdering them, and therefore the seven
> lesbians were justified in beating and stabbing him.
They were. Pity they didn't kill the fucker.
>
> Anti-gay epithets do not justify vigilanteism.
>
Criminal assault, however, does justify self defense.
--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin
magstheaxe
> That's not a verbal assault. That's a criminal assault. He belongs in
> prison. Or dead.
No, spitting on someone is simple assault at best. A misdemeanor, too,
not even a felony.
> It is also obvious that spitting on someone is not a verbal assault. Only
> a homophobe would claim otherwise. Only someone trying to justify a
> criminal assault would claim otherwise. Given how many diseases can be
> transmitted by spitting on someone, the fucker got exactly what he
> deserved.
> And spitting on one of them. Why is it that homophobes are so determined
> to ignore that criminal assault?
You do realize that what I posted was an editorial from the New York
Blade, a weekly GLBT newspaper that's served the GLBT community of New
York for ages? Since when are they homophobes?
>> could have lead to his murdering them, and therefore the seven
>> lesbians were justified in beating and stabbing him.
>
> They were. Pity they didn't kill the fucker.
>> Anti-gay epithets do not justify vigilanteism.
>>
> Criminal assault, however, does justify self defense.
When talking about self-defense, there is something in the law known as
"proportionate response". That means your response in defense of
yourself may not be more violent or injurious than the attack, like
someone yelling at someone else, and that someone else stabbing the
yeller. Or getting punched in the mouth and shooting the puncher.
This guy is vermin, to say the least, but the response was WAAAAYYYY out
of proportion to his offense against the women. They're still up and
around, with only hurt feelings to show for it. He's in intensive care,
unable to open his eyes for the swelling, and requires oxygen to breathe.
There is no way that these women will be able to effectively argue, in a
court of law, that they felt that their lives were in mortal danger,
(thus making their actions proportionate). Did the man display any
weapons or other devices that clearly indicated his intent to use deadly
force? Nothing in the press coverage mentions that*. And threats of
violence or threats to use of deadly force are not the same thing as
actually wielding deadly force. He threatened, they wielded.
The man needs to be punished for his crimes against these women, no
question. But based on what we know thus far, these women committed even
worse crimes, completely out of proportion to the threat presented.
This women weren't in a Matthew Shepherd situation--ultimately, they
were the ones who did the bashing.
*If there's a revelation later that the man did have and display a
weapon, then the women have a defense.
No 33 Secretary
news:9_GdnTYvJbJ-9WXZ...@insightbb.com:
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> That's not a verbal assault. That's a criminal assault. He belongs in
>> prison. Or dead.
>
>
> No, spitting on someone is simple assault at best. A misdemeanor,
> too, not even a felony.
It's not hard to imagine it being ADW, given the number of fatal diseases
that can be transmitted that way.
You certainly wouldn't want me on any jury that gets hold of this.
>
>
>
>
>> It is also obvious that spitting on someone is not a verbal assault.
>> Only a homophobe would claim otherwise. Only someone trying to
>> justify a criminal assault would claim otherwise. Given how many
>> diseases can be transmitted by spitting on someone, the fucker got
>> exactly what he deserved.
>
>> And spitting on one of them. Why is it that homophobes are so
>> determined to ignore that criminal assault?
>
>
> You do realize that what I posted was an editorial from the New York
> Blade, a weekly GLBT newspaper that's served the GLBT community of New
> York for ages? Since when are they homophobes?
Since writing this article, apparently.
>
>
>
>
>>> could have lead to his murdering them, and therefore the seven
>>> lesbians were justified in beating and stabbing him.
>>
>> They were. Pity they didn't kill the fucker.
>>> Anti-gay epithets do not justify vigilanteism.
>>>
>> Criminal assault, however, does justify self defense.
>
> When talking about self-defense, there is something in the law known
> as "proportionate response".
If someone with, say, AIDS, spits on you, aiming for an open wound, what
would be a proportional repsonse?
Are you willing to bet your *life* that this retard didn't have AIDS?
Robbing someone with a toy gun is still armed robbery. Threatening
someone with a toy gun is still assault with a deadly weapon. It is the
threat the victim can reasonably infer that makes it a deadly weapon.
Someone who spits, IMO, can reasonably be infered to have some reason to
think this is a dangerous act. I'm willing to take them at face value,
and respond appropriately.
> That means your response in defense of
> yourself may not be more violent or injurious than the attack, like
> someone yelling at someone else, and that someone else stabbing the
> yeller. Or getting punched in the mouth and shooting the puncher.
>
> This guy is vermin, to say the least, but the response was WAAAAYYYY
> out of proportion to his offense against the women. They're still up
> and around, with only hurt feelings to show for it. He's in intensive
> care,
> unable to open his eyes for the swelling, and requires oxygen to
> breathe.
Has he been tested for AIDS, and any other disease that can be
transmitted by spitting? If not, why not? And how would his victims know
he's not trying to infect them with something deadly? Spitting on people
is *not* reasonable behavior, and we live in an age when it *can* be
deadly. It's not different than a toy guy.
>
> There is no way that these women will be able to effectively argue, in
> a court of law, that they felt that their lives were in mortal danger,
Unless, of course, the guy *is* HIV positive, or his behavior gave them
some reason to believe the might have been. Was he screaming "I HAVE AIDS
AND I'LL INFECT YOU" as he was spitting? You have no idea.
> (thus making their actions proportionate). Did the man display any
> weapons or other devices that clearly indicated his intent to use
> deadly force?
Spit can, indeed, be a deadly weapon.
>Nothing in the press coverage mentions that*.
So you have no idea, and yet, you make judgements that cannot possibly be
made without knowing.
>And
> threats of violence or threats to use of deadly force are not the same
> thing as actually wielding deadly force. He threatened, they wielded.
Generally speaking, wielding is more serious, but not necessarily that
much more. And reasonable response generally starts with moving to one
step above the attacker's behavior. Taking him down in response to
violent threats during behavior that is clearly out of control and
escalating is perfectly reasonable.
And his spitting makes it more so.
>
> The man needs to be punished for his crimes against these women, no
> question. But based on what we know thus far, these women committed
> even worse crimes, completely out of proportion to the threat
> presented.
Based on what we know - which isn't much - I disagree. Someone spits on
me, and they'll be lucky to wake up in intensive care, or ever.
>
> This women weren't in a Matthew Shepherd situation--ultimately, they
> were the ones who did the bashing.
>
Not until they were spit on.
>
>
>
>
> *If there's a revelation later that the man did have and display a
> weapon, then the women have a defense.
>
He displayed, and used, his own saliva. Were I on the jury, I'd find it
perfectly reasonable to assume that he was either mentally ill in a
violent fashion, and thus, it was prefectly reasonable to ensure he was
not capable of escalating his behavior even further, or that he wanted
them to believe (whether it was true or not is irrelevant, only that he
wanted them to believe) that he could infect them with something deadly
by spitting on them. There really aren't a lot of other reasons why any
human being would spit on someone. And both of those possibilities make
their response quite reasonable. Ensure he cannot continue to be a
threat, and ensure that he cannot escape until after he's been tested for
AIDS and other diseases.
Knowledge of actual facts, which you do not have either, could change
this, of course.
magstheaxe
I didn't get a chance to reply before I had to leave town for the
holiday, but I want to clarify something:
No 33 Secretary wrote:
> If someone with, say, AIDS, spits on you, aiming for an open wound, what
> would be a proportional repsonse?
>
> Are you willing to bet your *life* that this retard didn't have AIDS?
I am willing to bet my life. You know why? Check this out:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record2.html?record=8
That's a statement from Lambda Legal, a gay civil rights organization.
But if their word isn't good enough for you (since the guys at the Blade
are now homophobes in your estimation, then Lamdba Legal may be as
well--hope someone tells these women before they ask Lambda to represent
them), look at the National Institutes of Health info:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tutorials/aids/hp249101.pdf#search=%22aids%20transmit%20spit%22
And here's the CDC's info as well:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa37.htm
There's a ton of other links from medical and gay-rights sites, but you
get my point. HIV and AIDS are not transmitted by spit. In fact, some
researchers claim that human saliva's low salt content may neutralize or
disable the AIDS virus:
http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/CAB9B3B6BB8034E985256714004F678F
If these women are planning to defend themselves in court by claiming
the man's spit put then at risk for HIV exposure, they're in for a very
ugly surprise.
> So you have no idea, and yet, you make judgements that cannot possibly be
> made without knowing.
I clearly know more than you, at least about how HIV and AIDS are
transmitted.
> He displayed, and used, his own saliva. Were I on the jury, I'd find it
> perfectly reasonable to assume that he was either mentally ill in a
> violent fashion, and thus, it was prefectly reasonable to ensure he was
> not capable of escalating his behavior even further, or that he wanted
> them to believe (whether it was true or not is irrelevant, only that he
> wanted them to believe) that he could infect them with something deadly
> by spitting on them. There really aren't a lot of other reasons why any
> human being would spit on someone.
Spitting on someone is one of the world's oldest insults. It's a
universal symbol of anger, hatred, and/or contempt. From everything we
know from the press coverage--and as I said before, you and I can only
base our beliefs on what the press has told us; we may have to alter
them as more facts emerge--the man was doing with his saliva what he was
doing with his vocabulary. He was using it to express his rage at the
women for refusing his advances.
There is absolutely no indication (again, from the press coverage) that
he was attempting to use his spit as a weapon.
There's also no indication that the women felt that he was spitting at
them in an effort to infect them with a disease or otherwise cause them
physical harm. From the NY Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/444871p-374546c.html
"She's my girl, and no one hits on my girl!" one of the women yelled
during the bloody beatdown, a police source said.
"He called us [homophobic slur] and he said he was going to f- us all,"
one of the women said hours later as cops led the seven suspects out of
the 6th Precinct stationhouse.
"He spit on us and threw a cigarette," another woman said. "This is a
hate crime."
Yeah, you can tell HIV exposure was really paramount in their minds.
And both of those possibilities make
> their response quite reasonable.
Except that they aren't possibilities at all.
> Knowledge of actual facts, which you do not have either, could change
> this, of course.
You now have the facts showing that HIV isn't transmitted by spit; I
hope you change accordingly.
No 33 Secretary
news:1LOdnQ-f2JzyVWDZ...@insightbb.com:
>
> I didn't get a chance to reply before I had to leave town for the
> holiday, but I want to clarify something:
>
>
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> If someone with, say, AIDS, spits on you, aiming for an open wound,
>> what would be a proportional repsonse?
>>
>> Are you willing to bet your *life* that this retard didn't have AIDS?
>
>
> I am willing to bet my life. You know why? Check this out:
>
> http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/documents/record2.html?record=8
>
>
> That's a statement from Lambda Legal, a gay civil rights organization.
Aside from any vested interest such an organization might have in the
issue, I will repeat: ADW is based on perception of the victim, not
reality. Brandishing a realistic looking toy gun, or inert plastic
replica, will still get you charged with assualt with a deadly weapon, if
you do so with the intention of making your victims think it is a real
firearm.
This isn't about medical fact, it's about the law.
And you have no idea at all what the guy was screaming while he spit at
his victims.
Also, and this is not a rhetorical question, and if you insist on
continuing to defend this psychotic asshole, are you claiming that there
are *no* life-treatening diseases that can be transmitted by saliva?
Zero? None? Be sure to cite sources on that, as well.
> But if their word isn't good enough for you (since the guys at the
> Blade are now homophobes in your estimation, then Lamdba Legal may be
> as well--hope someone tells these women before they ask Lambda to
> represent them), look at the National Institutes of Health info:
>
>
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/tutorials/aids/hp249101.pdf#search=%
> 22aids%20transmit%20spit%22
>
>
> And here's the CDC's info as well:
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/qa37.htm
>
>
> There's a ton of other links from medical and gay-rights sites, but
> you get my point. HIV and AIDS are not transmitted by spit. In fact,
> some researchers claim that human saliva's low salt content may
> neutralize or disable the AIDS virus:
>
> http://www.docguide.com/dg.nsf/PrintPrint/CAB9B3B6BB8034E985256714004F6
> 78F
>
>
> If these women are planning to defend themselves in court by claiming
> the man's spit put then at risk for HIV exposure, they're in for a
> very ugly surprise.
Unless, of course, he was screaming death threats at them concerning HIV
infection.
>
>
>
>
>> So you have no idea, and yet, you make judgements that cannot
>> possibly be made without knowing.
>
> I clearly know more than you, at least about how HIV and AIDS are
> transmitted.
And you clearly know nothing about the law. But that's hardly a surprise.
>
>
>
>
>> He displayed, and used, his own saliva. Were I on the jury, I'd find
>> it perfectly reasonable to assume that he was either mentally ill in
>> a violent fashion, and thus, it was prefectly reasonable to ensure he
>> was not capable of escalating his behavior even further, or that he
>> wanted them to believe (whether it was true or not is irrelevant,
>> only that he wanted them to believe) that he could infect them with
>> something deadly by spitting on them. There really aren't a lot of
>> other reasons why any human being would spit on someone.
>
>
> Spitting on someone is one of the world's oldest insults. It's a
> universal symbol of anger, hatred, and/or contempt. From everything
> we know from the press coverage--and as I said before, you and I can
> only base our beliefs on what the press has told us; we may have to
> alter them as more facts emerge--the man was doing with his saliva
> what he was doing with his vocabulary. He was using it to express his
> rage at the women for refusing his advances.
Or, given that he's clearly a psychotic homophobe, perhaps *he* believed
he could infect them with some disease he carries, and was screaming that
death threat at them while spitting.
>
> There is absolutely no indication (again, from the press coverage)
> that he was attempting to use his spit as a weapon.
There is also absolutely no indication that he wasn't.
>
> There's also no indication that the women felt that he was spitting at
> them in an effort to infect them with a disease or otherwise cause
> them physical harm. From the NY Daily News:
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/444871p-374546c.html
>
> "She's my girl, and no one hits on my girl!" one of the women yelled
> during the bloody beatdown, a police source said.
And? Do you really think that's anything near a complete story?
>
> "He called us [homophobic slur] and he said he was going to f- us
> all," one of the women said hours later as cops led the seven suspects
> out of the 6th Precinct stationhouse.
Sounds like a threat to rape them all. As in, violent, felony rape. That
is the *only* possible way to interpret that, unless the man is so
profoundly retarded that he literally needs to be locked up for his own
good. Because he clearly *knew* they were lesbians, and thus,
uninterested in sexual intercourse with him or any other man, but still
threatened them with sexaual assault.
Again, the fucker got no more than he deserved.
>
> "He spit on us and threw a cigarette," another woman said. "This is a
> hate crime."
So he's also throwing cigarettes? If you think that's not assault, in all
seriousness, you should let me throw cigarettes at you. If you do not
*immediately* volunteer to be a target, then you're just a hypocrite. Or
a 'tard, which amounts to the same thing.
>
>
> Yeah, you can tell HIV exposure was really paramount in their minds.
It's a news article. Only a fucking retard would think they can get an
accurate picture of what happened from it. Do you believe you got an
accureate picture of what happened from it?
>
>
>
>
>
> And both of those possibilities make
>> their response quite reasonable.
>
>
> Except that they aren't possibilities at all.
Except they are, unless you claim to know what happened. Since you
weren't there, and have no source of what happened other than news
articles (which are very likely all drawing from the same news wire
story), you can't possibly know what happened. Are you retarded enough to
believe otherwise?
>
>
>
>> Knowledge of actual facts, which you do not have either, could change
>> this, of course.
>
> You now have the facts showing that HIV isn't transmitted by spit; I
> hope you change accordingly.
>
I did mention other diseases, as well. Why do you pretend otherwise? Is
is deliberate dishonesty on your part - and you're too cowardly to just
outright lie - or are you really that fucking stupid?
And, again, ADW does not depend on real threat, only on a reasonable
perception of threat on the part of the victim. Plus, of course, throwing
cigarettes - are you ready to let me throw cigarettes at you? - and the
apparent threat of forcible rape.
All in all, it still looks to me like the fucker got no more than he
deserved.
If you won't want to be beaten in to intensive care, you should avoid
screaming threats at people, and throwing cigarettes and spitting at
them. In California, the fucker would be facing "sentencing
enhancements" for a hate crime, since this was clearly motivated by
homophobia. The women would probably get their own reality TV show, with
prizes awarded to contestents for artistic bruise patterns when they beat
someone down. Hell, that would be better than Survivor: Turkish Prison.
magstheaxe
> Aside from any vested interest such an organization might have in the
> issue, I will repeat: ADW is based on perception of the victim, not
> reality. Brandishing a realistic looking toy gun, or inert plastic
> replica, will still get you charged with assault with a deadly weapon, if
> you do so with the intention of making your victims think it is a real
> firearm.
>
> This isn't about medical fact, it's about the law.
Okay, fine, we'll ignore admissible evidence (fortunately for justice in
this country, the courts won't) and focus on the law.
All the women have to do is state that they believed his spit was
dangerous, so the man can be charged. When have they done so? I've
not seen anything yet in the press coverage to indicate they've made
such charges.
You'd think by now we'd've heard such an allegation. Usually people
arrested for assault against the person trying to kill them are pretty
quick to file charges against the person trying to kill them.
> And you have no idea at all what the guy was screaming while he spit at
> his victims.
Actually, I do, based what some of them women themselves told reporters.
They were there, so they probably know what he said. And they talked
directly to the press. I'm also assuming that the women are telling the
truth about what happened, a generous statement given that one of them
claims they were victims of a "hate crime."
> Also, and this is not a rhetorical question, and if you insist on
> continuing to defend this psychotic asshole,
Please go back and read the parts of my message where I said this man
needed to be prosecuted for his crimes. I'm not defending this asshole,
I'm saying he didn't deserve to be nearly killed for aggressive
name-calling.
> are you claiming that there
> are *no* life-treatening diseases that can be transmitted by saliva?
> Zero? None? Be sure to cite sources on that, as well.
I made no such claim and you know it. You kept bringing up AIDS as the
major threat from the saliva, and I showed you were wrong about that.
There are, of course, a number of life-threatening diseases that can be
spread via saliva. Maybe this man wanted to infect these women with
Polio? The common Cold (hey, if it develops into pneumonia, it could be
deadly!)? Heptatis A? Hand-Foot-and-Mouth disease? Herpes simplex?
The mumps? Meningitis? Not a complete list, but all potentially
disabling or deadly if you have absolutely no access to medical care.
Plenty of options here (well, except for polio) that, if left utterly
neglected, could be deadly--which one do you think this man was trying
to infect them with? What part of his statements (as reported by the
press) leads you to believe he was trying to infect them? And how do
you think he would've managed to keep the women from receiving the
medical care that would keep the disease from becoming fatal? (That's
the part of the plan that would be really impressive).
>> If these women are planning to defend themselves in court by claiming
>> the man's spit put then at risk for HIV exposure, they're in for a
>> very ugly surprise.
>
> Unless, of course, he was screaming death threats at them concerning HIV
> infection.
And so far, the women have made no such claim that this was the case.
Where are you hearing that they've done so? I haven't found a press
report alleging that the man said anything about having HIV or AIDS, nor
that the women accuse him of doing such a thing.
You'd think the women's legal counsel would be all over that, and
hollering to the press about it.
> Or, given that he's clearly a psychotic homophobe, perhaps *he* believed
> he could infect them with some disease he carries, and was screaming that
> death threat at them while spitting.
I've checked the news aggregators again, and can find no press reports
indicating that he screamed death threats. The police haven't alleged
this, the witnesses haven't alleged this, and most importantly, the
women who nearly killed this man haven't alleged it. The women haven't
even claimed self-defense as justification for their actions, just that
they were "victims" of a "hate crime".
Nowhere in the press is there any indication that women have once said,
"We were afraid for our lives, this man was trying to kill us" or
anything of that nature.
>> There is absolutely no indication (again, from the press coverage)
>> that he was attempting to use his spit as a weapon.
>
> There is also absolutely no indication that he wasn't.
That doesn't mean you can assume he was. As you said before, "it's
about the law", and innocent until proven guilty is still the law.
Until the women file charges saying that they believed his spit was
dangerous and he tried to harm them with it...well, you're just making
things up about the man.
> And? Do you really think that's anything near a complete story?
The complete story will come out in court. My point is that I'm making
my assertions based on statements made by the women to the press. They
aren't making allegations even close to what you're arguing. You seem
to pulling your assertions out of thin air.
> Sounds like a threat to rape them all.
Sounds like an insult. Unless the women believed that he was incredibly
fast, strong, and powerful, to be able to rape a group of seven of them
all by himself, without any sort of weapon.
> So he's also throwing cigarettes? If you think that's not assault, in all
> seriousness, you should let me throw cigarettes at you.
One of the women who was attacked said he threw _a_ cigarette--as in,
ONE cigarette--at them. We don't even know from her statement if the
cigarette was lit.
> If you do not
> *immediately* volunteer to be a target, then you're just a hypocrite. Or
> a 'tard, which amounts to the same thing.
No facts, so you resort to insults. <rolls eyes>
Sure, through away. I've had enough lit cigarettes fall on my, or
accidentally been in the path of one being thrown away, that I
completely understand how insignificant a threat that represents.
When do you want to come over to my place and throw a cigarette at me?
Hell, I'll spring for the pack, and the matches, too. I can't do it
this weekend, I'm having guests in from out of town, but I'm off on
Friday afternoon. Shoot me an e-mail, we'll make arrangements.
>> Yeah, you can tell HIV exposure was really paramount in their minds.
>
> It's a news article. Only a fucking retard would think they can get an
> accurate picture of what happened from it. Do you believe you got an
> accurate picture of what happened from it?
I believe that I'm working with the facts at hand. You, on the other
hand, are coming up with "OMG HIS SPIT IS FILLED WITH HIV AND THE POOR
LESBIANS WERE AFRAID FOR THEIR LIVES EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SEVEN ON ONE AND
HE WAS TRYING TO RAPE THEM AND HE THREW CARTONS OF CIGARETTES TOO HE
SHOULD DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!", none of which has any basis in what we know
so far.
> Except they are, unless you claim to know what happened. Since you
> weren't there, and have no source of what happened other than news
> articles (which are very likely all drawing from the same news wire
> story), you can't possibly know what happened. Are you retarded enough to
> believe otherwise?
I'm at least reading the press reports. You haven't claimed that you
were present at the attack, but you're utterly confident that this man
was trying to infect them with HIV via his spit, attempted to rape them
(because seven women could not possibly stop one unarmed man from raping
all of them), and that the women were terrified for their lives. What's
YOUR source?
>> Knowledge of actual facts, which you do not have either,
So you admit that you don't have any facts.
could change
>>> this, of course.
>> You now have the facts showing that HIV isn't transmitted by spit; I
>> hope you change accordingly.
>>
> I did mention other diseases, as well.
No, actually, you didn't. You ranted about HIV/AIDS. Which isn't
transmitted by spit.
> And, again, ADW does not depend on real threat, only on a reasonable
> perception of threat on the part of the victim.
And we know that the women believed he was a real threat to call of them
because...?
> Plus, of course, throwing
> cigarettes - are you ready to let me throw cigarettes at you?
Sure, why not? I'm in Kentucky, I've been around cigarettes my whole
live. Hell, I've helped bring in tobacco--a nasty, nasty process. I
have no fear of cigarettes.
Just do what one of the women claimed was done to them: _ONE_ cigarette
at me. And please note she didn't even say it was lit; but we'll assume
it was, and that it wasn't even burned down significantly. You can have
one cigarette, light it, take three or four puffs of it to work up a
good head of heat, then stand within five feet of me and throw it at me.
Honestly, unless these women were soaked in gasoline, they didn't have a
lot to fear from ONE cigarette.
(I suddenly have this image of seven tough, butch lesbians running
screaming into the night, like vampires fleeing from crosses, because
someone threw one unlit cigarette in their general direction....)
> All in all, it still looks to me like the fucker got no more than he
> deserved.
He got _way_ more than he deserved. He got a beat down far out of
proportion with what he dished out. Those women will spend the rest of
their lives paying his medical and disability bills, plus whatever
compensation for emotional damages the judge decides to hand out.
Which is a shame, because there's one thing you and I do agree on, which
is that this man is a complete and utter asshole. Unfortunately,
because of the way these women reacted to his assholish-ness, he'll
probably take every dime they have while at least a couple of them do
time in jail.
No 33 Secretary
news:YYCdnTNucZLtJWPZ...@insightbb.com:
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> Aside from any vested interest such an organization might have in the
>> issue, I will repeat: ADW is based on perception of the victim, not
>> reality. Brandishing a realistic looking toy gun, or inert plastic
>> replica, will still get you charged with assault with a deadly
>> weapon, if you do so with the intention of making your victims think
>> it is a real firearm.
>>
>> This isn't about medical fact, it's about the law.
>
> Okay, fine, we'll ignore admissible evidence (fortunately for justice
> in this country, the courts won't) and focus on the law.
>
> All the women have to do is state that they believed his spit was
> dangerous, so the man can be charged.
Not really, now.
When you can explain why that's so, we can continue this discussion.
Until then, you're just an idiot.
MagsTheAxe
No 33 Secretary wrote:
> magstheaxe <magst...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:YYCdnTNucZLtJWPZ...@insightbb.com:
>
> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >> This isn't about medical fact, it's about the law.
> > Okay, fine, we'll ignore admissible evidence (fortunately for justice
> > in this country, the courts won't) and focus on the law.
> >
> > All the women have to do is state that they believed his spit was
> > dangerous, so the man can be charged.
>
> Not really, now.
>
> When you can explain why that's so, we can continue this discussion.
C'mon, toots, you're brighter than that.
Spitting on someone is simple assault, not criminal, because spit
doesn't automatically harm someone. Therefore, the state has not
automatically charged this man with ADW.
If the women want this man's charges to include assault with a deadly
weapon, they're going to have to tell police that they had reason to
believe his spit was a deadly weapon. Otherwise, the state has no
reason to assume anything beyond simple assault, as far as the spit is
concerned.
The state can (and will, I have not doubt) get this guy on a number of
other charges-- terroristic threatening, public disturbance, probably
battery for the cigarette (if it hit someone), and so forth. But the
state won't have a case for ADW unless the women provide it.
> Until then, you're just an idiot.
I take it back--you ARE that stupid.
You claim HIV is spread via spit. You accuse me of knowing nothing
about the law while dismissing the legal important concept of
proportionate response. You freely admit you have no facts, but you
instantly assume that the man has AIDS, was trying to infect those
women with HIV, and attempted to rape this group of seven women--one of
whom was armed with a four-inch knife.
And, of course, when I show how your arguments are incorrect, or at
least don't take into account the facts that we have from the press,
you curse me and call me names instead of coming back with anything
resembling intelligent argument.
After your public demonstration of stupidity, being called an idiot by
the likes of you is a great compliment. With every post you make, with
its insults, ignorance of the law, curse words, and pitiful attempts at
reason, you make me look more intelligent and erudite than you could
ever dream of being.
Thanks _very_ much for the compliment.
Bailey Legull
> Spit can, indeed, be a deadly weapon.
That's why the Blade defending this guy doesn't make sense.
New York is trying to make it a felony for prison inmates to spit on
guards. "[Prison guards wonder] if they'll bring home hepatitis, HIV
or tuberculosis to their families," an assemblyman said. (Cite:
http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/local_story_244064300.html )
Missouri has also introduced a similar bill. "The bill would allow
Class D felony charges - punishable by up to four years in prison - for
inmates who expose others to bodily fluids." (Cite:
http://ww2.aegis.com/news/ap/2005/AP050406.html )
But now folks want to claim it's no big deal to spit on lesbians on the
street?
Spitting is an assault, and frankly I think it's offensive to quibble
over the VICTIMS' right to retaliate. They could punch the guy? Hit
him with their handbags? Stabbing him, though, is just flat-out wrong?
You worry about over-reacting the next time somebody attacks YOU while
you're minding your own business on a New York street.
No 33 Secretary
news:1157561979.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> magstheaxe <magst...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:YYCdnTNucZLtJWPZ...@insightbb.com:
>>
>> > No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> >> This isn't about medical fact, it's about the law.
>
>
>> > Okay, fine, we'll ignore admissible evidence (fortunately for
justice
>> > in this country, the courts won't) and focus on the law.
>> >
>> > All the women have to do is state that they believed his spit was
>> > dangerous, so the man can be charged.
>>
>> Not really, now.
>>
>> When you can explain why that's so, we can continue this discussion.
>
>
> C'mon, toots, you're brighter than that.
In other words, you have no idea why that's wrong.
>
> Spitting on someone is simple assault, not criminal,
Simple assault *is* criminal, retard. Misdemeanor, yes, but still
criminal.
Like I said, when you can explain why the above statement is wrong, we
can continue this discussion. Until then, you're obviously incapable of
any kind of rational discussion.
No 33 Secretary
news:1157563445....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> Spit can, indeed, be a deadly weapon.
>
> That's why the Blade defending this guy doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense, if you consider the possibility that he's a
fucking moron. There are other possibilities, as well.
>
> New York is trying to make it a felony for prison inmates to spit on
> guards. "[Prison guards wonder] if they'll bring home hepatitis, HIV
> or tuberculosis to their families," an assemblyman said. (Cite:
> http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/local_story_244064300.html )
>
> Missouri has also introduced a similar bill. "The bill would allow
> Class D felony charges - punishable by up to four years in prison - for
> inmates who expose others to bodily fluids." (Cite:
> http://ww2.aegis.com/news/ap/2005/AP050406.html )
>
> But now folks want to claim it's no big deal to spit on lesbians on the
> street?
Not to mention throwing cigarettes (presumably still lit) at them.
>
> Spitting is an assault, and frankly I think it's offensive to quibble
> over the VICTIMS' right to retaliate. They could punch the guy? Hit
> him with their handbags? Stabbing him, though, is just flat-out wrong?
I believe they put him in intensive care, at any rate. The information
presented in the news articles, assuming it has *any* relationship to
reality, of course, is easy to interpret either way. We do not have any
context, because the news media simply isn't reliable, and is very, very
prone to simply lying. There's a big difference between the guy flicking
a cigarette butt in the general direction of some women he's arguing
with, and spitting (with, perhaps poor aim) to emphasize a point, and the
same guy trying to light someone's clothes on fire with a lit cigarette,
while screaming "I'VE GOT AIDS AND I'M GONNA KILL YOU WITH IT YOU FUCKING
QUEERS!" while spitting at them. The former is little more than bad
manners, the latter entirely justifies him being beaten mostly to death.
Apparently, the idea of context is beyond "MagsTheAxe"'s comprehension.
But then, apparently, so are a lot of simple things.
Bailey Legull
> The information
> presented in the news articles, assuming it has *any* relationship to
> reality, of course, is easy to interpret either way. We do not have any
> context, because the news media simply isn't reliable, and is very, very
> prone to simply lying. There's a big difference between the guy flicking
> a cigarette butt in the general direction of some women he's arguing
> with, and spitting (with, perhaps poor aim) to emphasize a point, and the
> same guy trying to light someone's clothes on fire with a lit cigarette,
> while screaming "I'VE GOT AIDS AND I'M GONNA KILL YOU WITH IT YOU FUCKING
> QUEERS!" while spitting at them. The former is little more than bad
> manners, the latter entirely justifies him being beaten mostly to death.
Hey, terrific post! You're right -- the media should be held
accountable for the discrepancies in these stories. Just posted on
another board about Ellen Degeneres' car accident. 99% of the news
media says she was with a 30ish female companion. One percent says
that "companion" was her PARTNER, Portia de Rossi. Whether it's poor
reporting or homophobia or just plain stupidity, there's obviously
something wrong here.
In this case, I'm totally voting against the guy, because of the
blatant lies he's told. He claimed he was an "independent film
producer." The reality? HE SELLS BOOTLEG DVDS ON THE STREET. Then he
claims he wasn't even *rude*: just said something like, "Hey, ladies!
What's happening?" and like psychopaths they came at him with a knife.
I'll write off everything he says after this and pretty much give the
women -- you know, the VICTIMS -- the benefit of the doubt.
No 33 Secretary
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>> The information
>> presented in the news articles, assuming it has *any* relationship to
>> reality, of course, is easy to interpret either way. We do not have
>> any context, because the news media simply isn't reliable, and is
>> very, very prone to simply lying. There's a big difference between
>> the guy flicking a cigarette butt in the general direction of some
>> women he's arguing with, and spitting (with, perhaps poor aim) to
>> emphasize a point, and the same guy trying to light someone's clothes
>> on fire with a lit cigarette, while screaming "I'VE GOT AIDS AND I'M
>> GONNA KILL YOU WITH IT YOU FUCKING QUEERS!" while spitting at them.
>> The former is little more than bad manners, the latter entirely
>> justifies him being beaten mostly to death.
>
> Hey, terrific post! You're right -- the media should be held
> accountable for the discrepancies in these stories.
For the most part, the media should be taken out behind the barn and
sodomized to death by a goat, then buried in a shallow compost heap. With
live video, to set an example.
The only accountability, unfortunately, is to not buy their product. And
we, the consumer, are not their customer, the advertisers are.
> Just posted on
> another board about Ellen Degeneres' car accident. 99% of the news
> media says she was with a 30ish female companion. One percent says
> that "companion" was her PARTNER, Portia de Rossi. Whether it's poor
> reporting or homophobia or just plain stupidity, there's obviously
> something wrong here.
They probably don't really know, if this is recent. But they're too
stupid to just admit it.
>
> In this case, I'm totally voting against the guy, because of the
> blatant lies he's told. He claimed he was an "independent film
> producer." The reality? HE SELLS BOOTLEG DVDS ON THE STREET. Then
> he claims he wasn't even *rude*: just said something like, "Hey,
> ladies! What's happening?" and like psychopaths they came at him with
> a knife. I'll write off everything he says after this and pretty much
> give the women -- you know, the VICTIMS -- the benefit of the doubt.
>
Of course, you're still relying on the news media for the claim that he
was lying. The only thing we can really count on is that there was an
altercation, and he ended up in the hospital. Everything beyond that is
speculation (on our part) or likely fabrication (on the newsies part).
But I'm inclined to agree with you. I suspect he hit on one of them, and
she (or her partner) said something very rude, probably questioning his
manhood. And from there, he escalated it from words to violence. But
that's still speculation. The only thing I'd trust at all is a transcript
of the trial, and that I'd take with a grain of salt because it won't be
the whole story.
Fantasia_Burro
>
> I'll write off everything he says after this and pretty much give the
> women -- you know, the VICTIMS -- the benefit of the doubt.
Hah! Idiots like you are brainwashed into proclaiming every gay person who
does anything wrong whatseover, is a "victim".
Pluto, you're fucking pathetic.
No 33 Secretary
news:j656qnnhdc9t.1j...@40tude.net:
Sock puppet homophobe.
Bailey Legull
> Fantasia_Burro wrote:
> > Pluto, you're fucking pathetic.
> Sock puppet homophobe.
Plus, you know, "Fantasia Burrito" would have been a better name.
No 33 Secretary
You've never heard of the Tijuana donkey show?
Bailey Legull
> "Bailey Legull" <pl...@quentincrisp.com> wrote in
> > Plus, you know, "Fantasia Burrito" would have been a better name.
> You've never heard of the Tijuana donkey show?
You're kidding me. Hell, it's embarrassing enough to have to perform
three times a night in front of a crowd; they gave the donkeys stupid
NAMES too? (And maybe this is obvious but, er, weren't the donkeys the
GUYS?)
No 33 Secretary
Frankly, I doubt there's a permutation that you can think of that's new.
"The police spokesman would not comment on whether the blue negligee was
for the suspect, or for the sheep."
MagsTheAxe
No 33 Secretary wrote:
> In other words, you have no idea why that's wrong.
No, I explained it very clearly. Go back and re-read.
> Simple assault *is* criminal, retard. Misdemeanor, yes, but still
> criminal.
You've insulted me again--once again, you don't have an intelligent
response. Further proof that I'm right.
> Like I said, when you can explain why the above statement is wrong,
...which I did. Go back and re-read.
> we
> can continue this discussion. Until then, you're obviously incapable of
> any kind of rational discussion.
*snort* You respond to rational argument with yet _another_ insult.
Guess what: I just won the thread!
No 33 Secretary
news:1157581195.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> In other words, you have no idea why that's wrong.
>
> No, I explained it very clearly. Go back and re-read.
>
>
>> Simple assault *is* criminal, retard. Misdemeanor, yes, but still
>> criminal.
>
> You've insulted me again--once again, you don't have an intelligent
> response. Further proof that I'm right.
>
>
>> Like I said, when you can explain why the above statement is wrong,
>
>
> ...which I did. Go back and re-read.
Liar.
>
>
>
>> we
>> can continue this discussion. Until then, you're obviously incapable
of
>> any kind of rational discussion.
>
> *snort* You respond to rational argument with yet _another_ insult.
> Guess what: I just won the thread!
>
You still haven't explained why your statement was wrong. And you won't,
because you don't know.
Jhones
"magstheaxe" <magst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:YYCdnTNucZLtJWPZ...@insightbb.com...