Matthew Shepard's murder not a hate crime?

[JasunStrikesBack]

I love how the conservative mainstream media fuckers are STILL trying to blame Matthew for his own murder.

Makes you sick how so many straight people still think that "well.. those homos DO kinda ask for it, ya know?"

 

[LatinCoffee]

Matthew was HIV positive and a meth user? They never mentioned that.

 

[LatinCoffee]

I meant in the past--they never discussed that part of him. Still--very sad! It happened last year with a young 19 yr old in Puerto rico that got mutilated and burned by this closetted freak. I have to find the story and post it on here for u guys! Very sad!!

 

[martin6]

That story really makes you feel bad for the drug-addicted murderers.

 

[fetaby]

You obviously didn't read the article which is fine. But don't fuck up my thread if you didn't. The people stating this aren't the killers. It was Matthew's friends.

$ure they are....

 

[fetaby]

lmao. Whatever.

And I think, in this "discussion," it would be wise to not only consider the motivations of the individuals involved in the crime, as you want. But to examine the motivations of everyone surrounding the murder. That includes the people reporting this. OR, whatever.

 

[SilverWolf]

In my mind this was a hate crime. If McKinney had not thought Shepard was not making a sexual advance, he would still be alive. I don't believe this was the drugs fault/influence.

 

[NineOfClubs]

It might well have been a hate crime.

Though from testimony, evidence, facts, it's also possible that it could have been about money, a drug deal gone wrong, or a falling out among users. The gay aspect could have contributed to the horrible killing, maybe enough to call this a hate crime.

We'll never know.

 

[saxaphonic]

2004 is the most recent coverage of this story? I didn't know that.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I don't think any sane person would say someone deserves to be killed that way because they are HIV+ and had a problem with meth. Just interesting how history has some quirks in it, something you should appreciate.

In my experience there are no quirks in history until individuals decide that it needs to be rewritten.

Everyone acts like Mathew Shephard was the first Gay to be beaten to death. EVER!

The facts are, and whatever the motivation if his assailants, he wasn't the first nor was he the last.

It disgusts me that anyone, gay or straight would attempt to read or ignore the facts of the trial that convicted the punks who murdered Mathew Shephard, and for their reasons why.

The article linked in this thread dates to November 26, 2004.

I've going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt here because there are circumstances that he's apparently just now realizing.

It's what came out during the trial and the conviction stage of that trial and the aftermath that matter most IMHO.

 

[saxaphonic]

Others say that it criminalizes thoughts.

 

[jasgood1]

Ultimately, the only thing that matters is what came out during the trial.

We'll probably never know the real reason Matthew was killed. I'd be surprised if the two convicts or even Matthew (if he was alive) could recall what led to the attack... all were probably too drunk and or high to know what the hell went down.

I find it very hard to believe that gay hatred was the sole motive, or even the main motive for the murder. I'm sure it was a factor, just as were robbery and drugs. Matthew got himself into a bad situation that night, and it cost him his life. Definitely not saying he deserved it, but palling around with someone tweaked out of his mind of meth , while under the influence of alcohol yourself, is not a recipe to get home safely.


As for hate crimes...

I prefer to call brutal murders what they are, brutal murders. What difference does motive make?

Also, since when was ABC news a voice box for the right wing conservaties, you gotta go to FOX or talk radio for that.

 

[Nomenclature]

Matthew was HIV positive and a meth user? They never mentioned that.

Yeah, that wasn't reported on television; They tried to make it seem like he was killed simply because he was gay, when that clearly wasn't the case. It's a shame that he died, but I believe it happened because he made some very bad choices in his life, NOT because of his sexuality.

Being gay won't kill you, but being into drugs and dealing with violent and shady people usually will.

 

[NineOfClubs]

^That's like saying 9/11 wasn't motivated by terrorism.

What, was Atta hanging out in bars with his victims?

Sharing drinks?

Knew his victims on a first name basis?

Jeesh.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Being gay won't kill you, but being into drugs and dealing with violent and shady people usually will.

My sister was killed after she entered the "drug community".

It happens frequently.

In her case it was no hate crime, just the result of hanging out with bad people, doing bad things.

 

[saxaphonic]

Criminalizing thoughts is not impossible. If a person commits murder and their beliefs/attitudes about the person plays a role in how they are convicted, it suggests that their thoughts are being judged as acceptable or unacceptable. Of course that is nothing new in the legal system. But I just thought of how it could be a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what kind of person should be protected? "......for who I am", you say. But actually everyone is somebody, but obviously not every kind of person is desirable. For example, if someone turned around a killed a person that killed a person for being gay, would they be charged with a hate crime if they did it because they hate people who hate gay people?

 

[saxaphonic]

You won't read where I said a hate crime is a thought. You'd see me saying that the thoughts [particularly those that can be defined as "hate"] of the person behind a hate crime is given individual attention and judged.

"The motivation of revenge is not a motivation of hate against a minority group"

Who says it cannot be both?


"Groups of hate criminals are not a protected minority".

And individuals of hate crimes? Why wouldn't they be protected for the aforementioned reason?

 

[winterknight]

I would just like to point out that (a) this article is five years old and (b) the guy who wrote it is apparently well known in journalistic circles for Making Shit Up.

 

[luminum]

That being said, even if there were more motivations for the killing, such as robbery and drugs, I don't think petty theft typically results in beating someone to near death and stringing them up to a fence. The brutality of the crime, particularly the way in which the perpetrators left the victim, suggests to me that something more than money and drugs fueled the crime.

In petty theft, I imagine someone gets injured or killed and ditched. And unless a drug killing is meant to set an example, I would figure that the body would be hidden, not strapped and propped.

Tying someone to a fence? Yeah, there's definitely an avenue to suggest another motivation and clearly the prosecution found it and was successful in supporting the argument.

As for Matthew Shepard himself, I've never considered him a "hero," since he didn't "do" anything other than be killed. However, I do consider him a symbol and face of an important movement that was much bigger than him and ultimately benefited from his tragedy. That deserves some thanks at least.

 

[bike10]

I still bet tears in my eyes when I see read or hear of the killing of matthew Sheppard.

Like many of us gay men young and old trying find our way into the world and be accepted for who we are not our sexuality.

Matt has become symbol for the gay community and well as has his parents. To show the injustice that was done to Matt.
Whether he was HIV + or - what was done Matt is and was a hate crime. To tie him and beat and leave him for dead was uncalled for by these men. You can thank Matt's dad for sparing there lives. They get wake up each day but Matt does not.