The defense attorney for accused hate attacker Clayton Garzon asserted Monday that the March beating of another Davis man was not fueled by anti-gay sentiment.So if you grow up in Davis, you're less likely to be a bigot than if you grow up on Salt Lake City or Omaha. Did you catch that? But let's continue:
Garzon, 20, faces three felony assault charges and hate crime allegations connected to the beating of Lawrence "Mikey" Partida early March 10 near Third and I streets in Davis. The attack occurred outside a birthday party for Partida that was across the street from where Garzon lives...
The attorney called Brigham Young University linguistics professor William Eggington, who testified that slurs targeted at Partida were "more consistent with challenging someone's masculinity," than with hate speech.
The professor also said that a tolerant upbringing at home in a liberal community "would lower the possibility that this would be a gender- related crime."
"I walked out and saw Mikey covered in blood," Cooper said. "Clayton was walking away. He said, 'Your (gay slur) cousin, was talking (expletive). I had to (expletive) him up.' "Why isn't it bad enough that he beat the man to death? Is it better, or worse, to have beaten the man to death because he's gay rather than because Garzon wanted to rob him or because the victim shot his mouth off at Garzon?
This stuff is too Orwellian for me. Hate crime = thought crime.
(I've addressed this before--scroll to the bottom of the page and type 'hate crime', without the quote marks, into the search box.)
5 comments:
Darren,
Ironic thing is this community of tolerant leftists seem to look down upon us in Texas. We don't do much on thought crime but if you commit another felony with the murder we generally return the favor by at the very least locking you up for 30+ years if not sticking a needle in your arm.
But in all seriousness, if had done this in Harris County I'll lay money this waste of sperm would be looking at more serious time than in Davis.
Agreed. Crime is crime ... motive is absolutely unimportant, and unprovable.
If you beat a guy up because he bumped into you in line or looked at your girlfriend or you're drunk, that's assault. If you do it because he is black or Jewish or gay, that's something altogether different. And if you don't see the difference, D., then you don't understand how something like the Holocaust or slavery happened. And that's not only sad, but also disturbing. Especially for someone charged with the welfare of children.
That's not an argument, that's nonsensical emotional drivel. If you'd accept that kind of crap as an argument in your students' essays...see, I can attack YOU as a professional, too. We should probably avoid that, though, and try to maintain something akin to a firm grip on reality.
mazenko ...let me get this straight... either way, you've just beat up the guy standing in line next to you. What exactly makes 'looking at your girlfriend' more reasonable than 'being jewish'? Either way, you're an a-hole.
Post a Comment