NationStates Jolt Archive

This is sorta oldish news, but anyway...
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/060305araujo.htm

Two important bits:
Magidson's attorney, Michael Thorman, conceded his client played a role in the death, but said the case was manslaughter, not murder. "Eddie Araujo was killed not for what he was but for what he did to unsuspecting heterosexual males," he said.
Earlier, Thorman said his defense isn't an attempt to shift blame to Araujo.

"Please don't misunderstand," he said. "I talk about deception and betrayal, but there is nothing Lida did that justified the brutal beating that she received and certainly not being killed. It was wrong. It is a crime and Mike Magidson is here to take responsibility for the acts that he committed.

"But the evidence will show you that the crime he committed was manslaughter, not murder."
If I'm understanding this correctly, it appears they are trying to reduce the murderers' sentences simply becaus Araujo was transsexual. I don't claim to be an expert on this case or the American court system, so I do hope that that interpretation is wrong.
But if it is true, I am damn angry. 'What she did to unsuspecting heterosexual males'? What, do we have to wear a fucking identification tag or something? Is it a crime to be the way you are?
Even if it was deceit, does that somehow make it less wrong to kill someone?

(Note that this is talking about the retrials that are going on currently, not the original trials.)

Even if it was deceit, does that somehow make it less wrong to kill someone?

If that's manslaughter, so is killing somebody for being irritating.



By the way, manslaughter is when you kill somebody unintentionally, right?

Ah, justice is being done once again.


I suppose it's what the defence lawyers have to do, using every dirty trick in the book to get their client the lightest sentence... I just hope(d?) that the judge ignored their pleas as... bullshit. Murder is murder.

I love the way they continue to refer to her as male, though. Gotta love that ol' time society.

If that's manslaughter, so is killing somebody for being irritating.



By the way, manslaughter is when you kill somebody unintentionally, right?


Yup, that's what it is.

Yup, that's what it is.

Hmm...I find the attorney's reasoning rather dubious. I think the argument is that the men attacked her in a blind rage, without meaning to actually kill her. Which is somewhat similar to shooting somebody, then arguing in court that you only meant to 'skim' them.

Thats the most ridiculous defence ive ever heard

I love the way they continue to refer to her as male, though. Gotta love that ol' time society.

That's the point. Referring to Gwen as a man makes the victim threatening, if only at a subconscious level. We tend to accept violence against men more easily than violence against women.

It's just another version of the "Gay Panic" defense, which is total bullshit. Maybe I should be excused for killing men that hit on me if I think they're creepy.

If that's manslaughter, so is killing somebody for being irritating.

By the way, manslaughter is when you kill somebody unintentionally, right?
There's such a thing as "voluntary manslaughter," although this case doesn't seem to fit that definition.

[ shoots Chicken pi for being irritating ] :D

That's the point. Refer to Gwen as a man makes the victim threatening, if only at a subconscious level. We tend to accept violence against men more easily than violence against women.

huh, really? I thought it was just a vain attempt to reinforce the "deception", and all that.

It just had the effect of making me less inclined to believe a word the defence had to say....

I hope it had that effect on the jury, or whoever it is in an retrials... are there juries there? or just a judge. I dunno.

By the way, manslaughter is when you kill somebody unintentionally, right?
Depends on the locale. Some places differ between Murder 1 & 2 and manslaughter, while others just have murder 1 and manslaughter. Murder 1 is premeditated and murder 2 is heat of the moment.

There's such a thing as "voluntary manslaughter," although this case doesn't seem to fit that definition.




I don't understand. What on Earth is voluntary manslaughter? Is that like, you shoot the victim, and then they go "nah, the emergency services are for wimps."?

Manslaughter covers a wide range of offenses, from killing someone accidentally while doing something you shouldn't have been doing (vehicular manslaughter, for instance), to killing someone unintentionally while commiting another violent offense (as in this case, assault and battery with manslaughter). What usually seperates manslaughter from murder is a degree of planning. If you buy a gun and go shoot someone and they die, then you committed murder. If you wrestle the gun away from a robber and kill him in the process, you (might) be prosecuted for manslaughter.

If I'm understanding this correctly, it appears they are trying to reduce the murderers' sentences simply becaus Araujo was transsexual. I don't claim to be an expert on this case or the American court system, so I do hope that that interpretation is wrong.
But if it is true, I am damn angry. 'What she did to unsuspecting heterosexual males'? What, do we have to wear a fucking identification tag or something? Is it a crime to be the way you are?
Even if it was deceit, does that somehow make it less wrong to kill someone?

(Note that this is talking about the retrials that are going on currently, not the original trials.)

It would appear that the defense is pursuing every possible avenue on behalf of the defendant. What is wrong with that?

Without more information though it is impossible to really say what is going on. I would imagine that the defense is suggesting that the shock from discovering that Araujo was transexual, the defendant lacked the capacity to form the requisite mens rea to sustain a murder charge, and instead is only guilty of manslaughter.

That seems on the up and up.

There's such a thing as "voluntary manslaughter," although this case doesn't seem to fit that definition.

[ shoots Chicken pi for being irritating ] :D

*falls over and bleeds on an expensive carpet, in an annoying way*


Another thing: aren't there hate crime laws which would come into play here? Or is that only in certain states?

Without more information though it is impossible to really say what is going on. I would imagine that the defense is suggesting that the shock from discovering that Araujo was transexual, the defendant lacked the capacity to form the requisite mens rea to sustain a murder charge, and instead is only guilty of manslaughter.

That seems on the up and up.
*goes to look up 'mens rea'*
Okay, that would make some sense, I suppose.

*falls over and bleeds on an expensive carpet, in an annoying way*

Another thing: aren't there hate crime laws which would come into play here? Or is that only in certain states?
Only in states that have passed them. I'm not sure if a "hate crime" law would cover this set of circumstances.

BTW ... thanks for ruining a perfectly good carpet, you ingrate! And to think that I just had it steamcleaned! Tsk! :D

I read about this in Rolling Stone... those guys should go to life for what they did.

Manslaughter, my ass. They meant to kill her, and they did it because she was a transgender.

Only in states that have passed them. I'm not sure if a "hate crime" law would cover this set of circumstances.

BTW ... thanks for ruining a perfectly good carpet, you ingrate! And to think that I just had it steamcleaned! Tsk! :D

Meh. I hope he doesn't get off lightly with manslaughter, though. I'm sure it doesn't count as 'heat of the moment' if you bury the body in the woods afterwards.


And your carpet? What about me, now my favourite shirt has a hole in it!

*goes to look up 'mens rea'*
Okay, that would make some sense, I suppose.
I don't think that you're going to get away with them not having malice (involuntary manslaughter), they might be going for justified murder (eg, murder with mitigating circumstances), voluntary manslaughter.

Only in states that have passed them. I'm not sure if a "hate crime" law would cover this set of circumstances.

BTW ... thanks for ruining a perfectly good carpet, you ingrate! And to think that I just had it steamcleaned! Tsk! :D
You better believe there are 'hate crime' laws involved. I live in the area where this is all going down, and believe me, the local press play it gets is just ugly. The gay/bisexual/transgender community wants to hamstring the guys through the 'hate crime' laws, the liberal techies are wondering why these boys were doing anything with her in the first place, and the conservatives up in Almaden want to pretend nothings even happening.
Doncha just love the Bay Area? :headbang: