politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It might not be the justification used in the ruling but it's what the defense argued.
And, for the record, defendants can't speak about all kinds of things to the jury. "Dangerous precedent" lmao buddy.
It's an attempt to legalize trans panic as a legal defense, no more and no less.
That all said these things are complicated. The initial judge was worried the TN jury would be too bigoted to treat a trans woman as a victim, the defense clearly thought so too, but you could also argue that all the accused would be doing was admitting that it was actually a hate crime to a "reasonable jury."
It's not a trans panic case if defendant was fucking trans woman over and over and over again. This is not a situation where defendant suddenly discovered the victim was trans.
This defendant liked fucking trans women. And apparently, he was scary to some of them, allegedly. That means he was creepy and possessive possibly, it does not mean he didn't realize she was trans, found out, and panicked, thereby removing culpability somehow.
Defendants not being able to speak about all kinds of things to a jury is EXACTLY what is wrong with society. A defendant, on the stand, should be able to say whatever the hell they want, especially in cases that carry decades in prison. If the defendant is guilty, the DA should be able to bring that out on cross.
I also already think jurisprudence in the USA has gone down a dangerous path where more and more rights of defendants are systematically being removed. You see this all the time in cases: defendants can't argue this, they aren't allowed to present that, anyone on the jury pool who is black is removed, anyone who knows someone close who has been arrested gets removed, defendants rights are violated over and over and it's "harmless." The only jury left supports police and is a certain kind of jury and the only arguments that can be made to a jury are former-DA-turned-judge approved. It's atrocious. (And please don't tell me removing black jurors is actually illegal; it happens anyway all the time.)
I didn't say we aren't already on the path.