Illinois Court gives Homosexuals Right to Harass You, Without Self-Defence

See, it really doesn’t matter what happens….queers and their allies will always…I mean ALWAYS do something freakin’ stupid and ignorant (as if these are two different words…they are not…not when referring the “gaystapo”) so they use some kind of “hate crime” defense that is most likely going to be a lie to start with. <ADMIN>

Gay panic defense ban

When 21-year-old Matthew Shepard was punched, pistol-whipped, tied to a fence and left to die in 1998, his killers’ attorneys said the attackers were triggered by Shepard making sexual advances toward them.

When a 14-year-old California boy gunned down his gay classmate in 2008, his attorneys argued that it was because the victim provoked him by flirting with him.

And after a 21-year-old transgender woman in Harlem was beaten to death in 2013, one of her attackers said he hurt her out of “blind fury” after he flirted with her and then realized she was transgender.

For decades, LGBTQ people have been brutally attacked or killed and then blamed for their own deaths in cases where attorneys attempt, sometimes successfully, to use a “gay panic” or “trans panic” defense.

Starting Monday, attorneys in Illinois will be barred from using the approach after a state law passed — without a single “no” vote in either the state House or Senate — making it the second state in the country to ban the defense in the courtroom.

Anthony Michael Kreis, who drafted the Illinois legislation, said the passage of the “gay panic” defense law has boosted efforts in other states to enact similar bans.

Kreis has heard from advocates in Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Jersey, among others, asking for help pushing their own bills. Similar legislation has been discussed by lawmakers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Other states where the defense has been allowed include, Maryland, Texas and Washington.

Kreis said because the LGBTQ community is at higher risk for violence, the law comes at an important time.

This year marked the deadliest year on record for the transgender community, with at least 28 people shot and killed across the United States, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

“It sends an important message to the LGBTQ community that the state will protect them equally and the courts will not be allowed to entertain these types of defenses, which victimize victims again,” Kreis said of the new Illinois law.

There isn’t an exact definition, but a gay or trans panic defense is essentially when someone doesn’t realize they’re interacting with an LGBTQ person and becomes so overcome with rage when they realize it that they physically attack the person in the heat of the moment.

It’s estimated that gay and trans panic defenses have been used in at least 23 states since the 1960s, according to the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law.

Gay and trans panic defenses have allowed people accused of killing LGBTQ people to receive lesser sentences, and in some cases, avoid any punishment, according to the institute.

California was the first state to ban the defense, in 2014, and the American Bar Assn. pushed for a ban in 2013.

In Washington state, a bill banning gay and trans panic defenses is expected to be introduced in the coming weeks for the next legislative session.

“It’s a defense that allows people to perpetuate hate crimes,” said Monisha Harrell, Equal Rights Washington chairperson. “It is saying you’re surprised that somebody might be different than you, whatever that difference is, and that that would allow you to initiate violence, and in some cases, lethal violence. That should never be a defense.”

Cynthia Lee, a criminal law professor at George Washington University, said although she understands the underlying sentiment supporting the passage of these types of bans, there could be unintended consequences.

In her research on gay and trans panic defenses, Lee has found that in most cases, the usage of the defense is “reprehensible,” largely playing off stereotypes about gay men or transgender women.

However, a legislative ban might not be the best solution, she said.

Social science research has shown that juries can be affected by attorneys calling out racial stereotypes and bigotry. There is less research on what happens when LGBTQ stereotypes are used, but it brings up an interesting argument, she said.

For example, if a defense attorney makes an argument largely based on racial stereotypes, and a prosecutor calls that out, research has found that a jury will often respond by treating a black defendant the same as they would a white defendant, she said.

If attorneys were properly trained on how to respond to a gay or trans panic defense when it was brought up, it could potentially help a jury see the problems in making that argument.

“Instead of banning these arguments, confront them head on and challenge them in court,” Lee said. “The prosecution should be aware of the bias. Whenever the defense tries to make these kinds of arguments, [prosecutors] should try to challenge them head on.”

Advocates say that the sentiment behind panic defenses is a problem, even outside the courtroom.

Lou Weaver, transgender programs coordinator with Equality Texas, said one example was the reaction of law enforcement to the recent killing of Brandi Seals, a 26-year-old transgender woman, in Houston.

After Seals was killed, Detective Fil Waters of the Houston Police Department, told a local TV station: “The fact that we have a man in women’s clothing, the speculation is he’s been working the street, that someone picks up and then realizes he’s not what he’s representing himself to be and take this kind of ultimate action.”

Weaver said the detective assumed Seals was a sex worker because she was transgender and didn’t have information to actually prove that was her profession.

Regardless, his comments had a “trans panic” argument within them, and are an example of how transgender women continue to be misunderstood and stereotyped, Weaver said.

“Unfortunately, I think it will still be seen as a valid reason for hurting somebody,” he said. “Defense attorneys are ruthless, and they have one job — to prove their client is not guilty, and they will do whatever it takes.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-lgbtq-gay-panic-defense-20171228-story.html

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Illinois Court gives Homosexuals Right to Harass You, Without Self-Defence

  1. Reisen says:

    They want to stop gay and trans stereotypes of them not preying on normal straight men when there are scores of videos on trans ‘women’ fooling men and then getting angry when their boyfriends find out they have dicks.

    It’s nothing but an emotional rollercoaster and these people know how to use it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. notChristian says:

    This article omits alot of things and see problems associated with this law because this topic is much more complicated and complex and can see many problems here. But many things to say. When I read a gay (transexuals are mutilated gays/lesbians and they must abolish sex changes) bashing case in the news, I wonder what the journalist view reporting this on homosexuality/lesbianism ? I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, are they setting aside their bias and reporting the news with no problems ? I do not trust news that I get from Daily Kos or the Huffington Post on their coverage of gay bashing cases because they predictably make the homosexual look like an innocent victim no matter what wrong the gay does. But here are things the article (possibly written by a pro-gay/lesbian journalist) and the commenters are omitting.

    -stalking, harassment, indecent exposure, assault & battery (forceplay), etc. are crimes just by themselves. But they can easily worsen to something more violent. If a gay grabs a man’s butt, groin, etc. against will, the homosexual is committing assault & battery or forceplay even if people use mild words such as unwanted….. If a homosexual man is trying to commit a more serious crime such as pedophilia, the first things a gay does is that assault & battery or forceplay. That means that if a homosexual or transexual is trying to molest a boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit indecent exposure, stalking, before the homosexual molests. It’s dishonest to suggest that indecent exposure, stalking, etc. is the only crime.

    -If the gay (some cases lesbian) is high on drugs such as cocaine & or meth while committing indecent exposure, stalking, etc., then the homosexual can commit a more violent crime incl. murder in a drug rage after committing indecent exposure. Stalking, indecent exposure, etc. may not be the only crime which the homosexual intends esp. if he is high on drugs. Again when gays & lesbians commit sex abuse, the first thing they do is commit indecent exposure, grab a person’s genitals against will before doing something more violent.

    Proposing (straight or gay) in your house, singles bar or @ a private party is in most cases legal. The right thing to do is say no and leave. If a man is a guest in a gay man’s house and the gay man proposes, the right thing to do is say no and leave because it is the gay man’s house and the gay man did not commit a crime when he did the proposal so the right thing to do is leave the house. However, repeatedly proposing after some1 has said no is criminal harassment.

    If gay man repeatedly proposes such as follow the man around after no has been said, then the homosexual is committing criminal stalking and the man has a right to end this abuse. If a homosexual is going to commit indecent exposure, then it’s a crime and there is no need for a man to say no to a crime the homosexual had no right to do. & there is no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is proposing to him in a public restroom because public restroom is not a house or a bar and it’s illegal to ask others for sex in public restroom. Public restroom is the place to use toilet and wash up not a place for sex.

    Again if it’s true homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. before men reacted violently, then the fact the homosexual committed a crime before he was bashed must be decided by jury in deciding if gay basher(s) used reasonable or excess force. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay.

    Like

  3. notChristian says:

    Just to show other problems, even pro-gay sites Huffington Post & Queerty admit that gays, lesbians & transexuals (mutilated gays/lesbians) are more likely to be drug junkies as you can see these 3 links
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-gay-men-do-crystal-meth_us_5704023ee4b083f5c60929b5

    https://www.queerty.com/whats-behind-the-enduring-allure-of-crystal-meth-for-gay-men-20160405

    https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160201/west-village/meth-is-overlooked-problem-transgender-gay-communities-experts

    Those links unsurprisingly omit-violent crimes gays, lesbians & transexuals commit while high on drugs. If the gay (some cases lesbian) is high on drugs such as cocaine & or meth while committing indecent exposure, stalking, etc., then the homosexual can commit a more violent crime incl. murder in a drug rage after committing indecent exposure. Stalking, indecent exposure, etc. may not be the only crime which the homosexual intends esp. if he is high on drugs.

    This law is a bad idea and says is that you don’t have a right to defend yourself if a homosexual, transexual or some cases a lesbian stalks you, commits indecent exposure, etc. This law by the language says that if a homosexual stalks you, commits indecent exposure, assault and battery, etc. then you don’t have a right to protect yourself from the crimes the homosexual is committing though the gay, transexual or some cases lesbian could commit a violent crime or even potentially kill you especially if the homosexual, lesbian or transgender is high on drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc. while committing stalking, indecent exposure, etc.

    Indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, assault & battery again are crimes just by themselves & they are not mutually exclusive. If a homosexual pedophile is let’s say trying to molest a 15 year old boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit crimes such as indecent exposure, before he commits molestation. It’s the same way that if a man is trying to rape a 15 year old girl, the first thing he often does is commit indecent exposure, etc.

    Assault and battery or murder case including gay bashing cases, unless there is a plea bargain (which happens in most cases) juries decide after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer. Juries decide what is reasonable & excess because each case is different and must be judged individually. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. Prosecutors can argue why they think it was excess force and defense lawyer can argue why it was justified force. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force.

    Like

  4. notChristian says:

    My 3d comment on this topic deals with what you had in the 1st paragraph, where the journalist (who likely has a pro-gay/lesbian and transgender view) said regarding the 1998 Metthew Wayne Shepard case. In the 2nd paragraph of the article, the journalist talks of the 2008 Lawrence Fobes King shooting in class and in both cases, the journalist (who again likely has a pro-homosexual/lesbian and transgender bias) omitted information. My post after this will be about the Lawrence Fobes King case.

    1. Metthew Wayne Shepard (1976-1998) was not the innocent as he has been portrayed by Laramie Project or films like Shepard is a Friend of Mine. Metthew Wayne Shepard was a junky who assoc. with drug dealers in both Colorado & Wyoming, was possibly a drug dealer himself (Methew Wayne Shepard could also possibly have been a drug courier or a lookout, but whether or not he was a drug dealer he did assoc. with drug dealers) & when he was 15 years old, he was arrested for molesting 2 boys & he got counseling by Natrona County Juvenile Court for molesting 2 boys. Metthew Wayne Shepard had himself been a victim of child molestation by 3 different people when he was a boy & if he had not been a victim of homosexual pedophiles would he have turned out straight instead of gay?

    No matter why the murder happened, the idea that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard were strangers who did not know eachother until that day is rubbish. There are many witnesses-Doc O’ Connor’s ex girlfriend, Elaine Baker (bartender), M.K. Rohrbacher (drug dealer), Tristan (Ted) Henson (Methew W. Shepard’s former lover) & others who saw them together.

    Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. Methew W. Shepard went into bars where drugs were sold and he did associate with drug dealers-we know that he went to bars named Tornado, Ranger, Library & other bars in Wyoming and Colorado where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard’s friend Tina LaBrie expressing concerns about Methew W. Shepard’s drug and $ problems. We know that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine).

    Now was Methew W. Shepard’s assocation with drug dealers and going into bars where drugs were sold more than buying drugs ? Was Methew W. Shepard a drug dealer or a drug courier? Stephen Jimenez thinks so and he believes it was the Denver circle. No, Stephen Jimenez does not know it all but his conclusions are sincere and honest. While homosexual groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated and possibly not a hate crime, that is incidental-main reason homosexual groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. You don’t always know the secrets friends and family have. If a person is a drug dealer, then they are usually not going to tell their friends and family that they do this. Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.

    Like

  5. notChristian says:

    In my 4th and find comment on this article, I will comment on the 2nd paragraph where again the journalist named Jaclyn Cosgrove (who likely has a pro-gay/lesbian and transgender agenda) omits with regard to the 2008 Lawrence Fobes King shooting in an Oxnard classroom. Here are the facts about that case and I believe it’s manslaughter.

    Here’s what predictably the Daily Kos and other media including LA Times journalist Jaclyn Cosgrove left out. Lawrence Fobes King exposed himself and harassed other boys for sex in the bathroom. When complaints were made about Lawrence Fobes King, the lesbian VP Joy Epstein refused to expel him. 1 boy who had enough of Lawrence Fobes King’s harassment shot and killed him in class in February 2008.

    Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) harassed Brandon James McInerney (Brandon) by stalking Brandon such as following Brandon wherever Brandon went, even when Brandon asked him to stop following him. An eg. would be Lawrence stalking Brandon as Brandon was playing basketball.

    We know what was reported. It can easily be that Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) also committed physical abuse (assault & battery) against Brandon James McInerney (Brandon), only that Brandon did not report this. If the school had expelled Lawrence Fobes King when complaints were made, his February 2008 killing would likely not have happened-they should have tried to help cure Lawrence Fobes King of transexuality.

    Lawrence Fobes King exposing himself and harassing others and Lawrence Fobes King masturbating in front of other in public restroom among other things. We know what was reported about Lawrence Fobes King exposing himself and harassing others but it would not surprise me if Lawrence Fobes King molested children only that it went unreported as most do.

    Like

  6. notChristian says:

    I have yet a 5th and final comment on this because there are dishonest comments. Comment sometimes people make is that if a man makes ‘unwanted ….’ to a woman, should she have a right to attack or kill a man & or that women don’t have a right to make this defense. When this comment is made I wonder if the person believe this or do they say this knowing it’s false hoping that if it’s repeated many times unchallenged that it’s believed? There are many cases where women have attacked or killed men & in their trials used the defense that the man was abusing the woman, when it was the opposite. If you watched the 2013 Jodi Ann Arias Murder trial, that’s just 1 eg.

    Jodi Ann Arias stalked her boyfriend and 1 day she murdered him by stabbing him to death and cutting his throat. During the murder trial, Jodi Ann Arias said that her boyfriend abused her when she abused her boyfriend. Travis Victor Alexander did nothing wrong other than be involved with Jodi Ann Arias a woman with Borderline Personality Disorder and in the end that got him murdered & during the murder trial, he is accused of abusing her when it’s other way round. & long before Jodi Ann Arias met Travis V. Alexander, she had a violent history going back years such as Jodi Ann Arias kicking a dog when she was a teenager. Travis Victor Alexander reported Jodi Ann Arias stalking him and slashing his tires.

    But it’s possible Jodi Ann Arias committed assault & battery on Travis V. Alexander or even threatened him with a knife only Travis V. Alexander didn’t report this. Men are more likely to tolerate women stalking them and Travis V. Alexander figured that because he was a risk taker and bigger than Jodi Ann Arias, he could handle Jodi Ann Arias abusing him. Don’t be surprised if Jodi Ann Arias had even tried to stab Travis V. Alexander before only that he had stopped it, except this time, she murdered him.

    Another thing to say with gay bashings is that when there’s a case of let’s say a 16 year old boy who bashes or kills a 34 year old gay man, must wonder if the 34 year old gay man was a victim of unprovoked attack or was the 34 year old gay man committing a crime such as harassing the 16 year old boy before the boy reacted violently? Does the gay man who was bashed or killed have an unreported history of stalking, harassing or molesting teenage boys ? Again if it’s true homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. before men reacted violently, then the fact the homosexual committed a crime before he was bashed must be decided by jury in deciding if gay basher(s) used reasonable or excess force.

    Like

  7. notChristian says:

    I thought I was done but I have a 6th and yet another comment to make about this. It’s a chat I had in 2013 when I chatted with a young man who told me about why he once reacted violently against a homosexual and here’s what happened. This young man had been @ a party and the homosexual proposed to him. The young man told the homosexual ‘no thanks’. This should have ended that, but then this happened.

    The young man later was getting harassing phone calls @ home by who he believes was the homosexual who he told no to. The young man then told me that he thinks that the homosexual man had on @least 1 occasion, followed the young man to the college and workplace. 1 day, the young man had some1 ring his door. When the young man opened the door, it was the homosexual man who entered his house and started touching and kissing the young man against his will (assault and battery). After this happened, the young man reacted by bashing the homosexual man.

    The homosexual man in this case committed several crimes-harassment (leaving the obscene phone messages), stalking (following the young man to his workplace and school), trespassing (entering the young man’s house against will) and assault & battery (kissing the young man against his will and touching him). This young man bashed the homosexual in reaction to crimes the homosexual did.

    If the young man did not react, he would likely have ended up being molested and or even more violently attacked by the homosexual man. This homosexual likely has a history of harassing young men for sex and then attacking them when he didn’t get what he wanted only in this case, the young man fought back.

    Under the language of the law, this young man does not have a right to defend himself against this would be pedophile and the law’s language unsurprisingly has these legal problems, especially as it’s written by gay/lesbian and transgender activists whose intent is to support the right of homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders (mutilated gays/lesbians) to commit indecent exposure, stalking to other violent crime and to not have the right to defend/protect yourself. This law is a bad idea and says is that you don’t have a right to defend yourself if a homosexual, transexual or some cases a lesbian stalks you, commits indecent exposure, etc. This law by the language says that if a homosexual stalks you, commits indecent exposure, assault and battery, etc. then you don’t have a right to protect yourself from the crimes the homosexual is committing though the gay, transexual or some cases lesbian could commit a violent crime or even potentially kill you especially if the homosexual, lesbian or transgender is high on drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc. while committing stalking, indecent exposure, etc.

    Indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, assault & battery again are crimes just by themselves & they are not mutually exclusive. If a homosexual pedophile is let’s say trying to molest a 15 year old boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit crimes such as indecent exposure, before he commits molestation.

    Like

  8. notChristian says:

    I was looking up the law which La Times journalist Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove (who likely has a pro-gay/lesbian and transgender agenda) wrote and here is the law: Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that a non-violent sexual advance, nor the discovery, knowledge, or perception of a person’s sex or sexual orientation, including under circumstances in which the defendant and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship, cannot be mitigating factors relevant to the imposition of the death penalty for first degree murder (no effect unless the death penalty is reinstated for the offense). Also provides that the same conduct does not constitute serious provocation for second degree murder.

    Senate Floor Amendment No. 2
    Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 2012. Provides that that an action that does not otherwise mitigate first degree murder cannot qualify as a mitigating factor for first degree murder because of the discovery, knowledge, or disclosure of the victim’s sexual orientation. Provides that the same conduct does not constitute serious provocation for second degree murder.

    This law’s language which was written by a homosexual lawyer has problems for reasons as already said. If a homosexual, lesbian or transgender is trying to commit sex abuse or other violent crime, the first crime they often do are indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. This law unsurprisingly means that if a homosexual is committing a ‘non-sexual advance’ such as stalking you, committing indecent exposure, etc. that you don’t have a right to self-defense. Indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, assault & battery again are crimes just by themselves & they are not mutually exclusive, as they can worsen to something more violent such as rape/sex abuse.

    If a homosexual pedophile is trying to molest a 15 year old boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit crimes such as harassment, stalking,indecent exposure, before he commits molestation. Same way that if a homosexual, lesbian or transgender is high on drugs such as Meth and or Cocaine while committing indecent exposure, stalking, etc. Under this law’s language, you could not protect yourself from a homosexual, lesbian or transgender committing indecent exposure, stalking, etc. while high on drugs and thus risk getting violently attacked or even killed in a drug rage such as Meth or Cocaine by a homosexual who is high on this. These situations are a matter of think fast and act fast, because if you don’t, then you could end up being molested, attacked or even killed.

    This law’s language also can possibly create problems for police officers arresting gays, lesbians and transgenders with excess force accusations and here’s how-let’s say that police are arresting a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure in a bathroom and the homosexual is again high on drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc., resists arrests and gets wounded by the police after which homosexual says excess force. The way the law’s language is written, it could be interpreted that the police officers could not argue the fact the homosexual was committing indecent exposure while high on drugs as a defense to excess force charges.

    Anyhow, if you or any1 else has thoughts to the posts I have written here, then please do so, but it’s not easy and simple and is quite complicated and complex.

    Like

    • Millard says:

      Still going to come out as “special rights”….always has and probably always will. They whine too much.

      Like

      • notChristian says:

        When I read a gay (transexuals are mutilated gays/lesbians and they must abolish sex changes) bashing case in the news, I wonder what the journalist view reporting this on homosexuality/lesbianism ? I also wonder if the journalist is a homosexual or lesbian and if so, are they setting aside their bias and reporting the news with no problems ? I do not trust news that I get from Daily Kos or the Huffington Post on their coverage of gay bashing cases because they predictably make the homosexual look like an innocent victim no matter what wrong the gay does. But here are things the article (possibly written by a pro-gay/lesbian journalist) and the commenters are omitting.

        -stalking, harassment, indecent exposure, assault & battery (forceplay), etc. are crimes just by themselves. But they can easily worsen to something more violent. If a gay grabs a man’s butt, groin, etc. against will, the homosexual is committing assault & battery or forceplay even if people use mild words such as unwanted….. If a homosexual man is trying to commit a more serious crime such as pedophilia, the first things a gay does is that assault & battery or forceplay. That means that if a homosexual or transexual is trying to molest a boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit indecent exposure, stalking, before the homosexual molests. It’s dishonest to suggest that indecent exposure, stalking, etc. is the only crime.

        -If the gay (some cases lesbian) is high on drugs such as cocaine & or meth while committing indecent exposure, stalking, etc., then the homosexual can commit a more violent crime incl. murder in a drug rage after committing indecent exposure. Stalking, indecent exposure, etc. may not be the only crime which the homosexual intends esp. if he is high on drugs. Again when gays & lesbians commit sex abuse, the first thing they do is commit indecent exposure, grab a person’s genitals against will before doing something more violent.

        Propositioning (straight or gay) in your house, singles bar or @ a private party is in most cases legal. The right thing to do is say no and leave. If a man is a guest in a gay man’s house and the gay man proposes, the right thing to do is say no and leave because it is the gay man’s house and the gay man did not commit a crime when he did the proposal so the right thing to do is leave the house. However, repeatedly proposing after some1 has said no is criminal harassment.

        If gay man repeatedly proposes such as follow the man around after no has been said, then the homosexual is committing criminal stalking and the man has a right to end this abuse. If a homosexual is going to commit indecent exposure, then it’s a crime and there is no need for a man to say no to a crime the homosexual had no right to do. & there is no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is proposing to him in a public restroom because public restroom is not a house or a bar and it’s illegal to ask others for sex in public restroom. Public restroom is the place to use toilet and wash up not a place for sex.

        Again if it’s true homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. before men reacted violently, then the fact the homosexual committed a crime before he was bashed must be decided by jury in deciding if gay basher(s) used reasonable or excess force. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse. Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t call cops to report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay.

        Like

      • notChristian says:

        Millard, Just to show other problems, even pro-gay sites Huffington Post & Queerty admit that gays, lesbians & transexuals (mutilated gays/lesbians) are more likely to be drug junkies as you can see these 3 links
        https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-do-gay-men-do-crystal-meth_us_5704023ee4b083f5c60929b5

        https://www.queerty.com/whats-behind-the-enduring-allure-of-crystal-meth-for-gay-men-20160405

        https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20160201/west-village/meth-is-overlooked-problem-transgender-gay-communities-experts

        Those links unsurprisingly omit-violent crimes gays, lesbians & transexuals commit while high on drugs. If the gay (some cases lesbian) is high on drugs such as cocaine & or meth while committing indecent exposure, stalking, etc., then the homosexual can commit a more violent crime incl. murder in a drug rage after committing indecent exposure. Stalking, indecent exposure, etc. may not be the only crime which the homosexual intends esp. if he is high on drugs.

        This law is a bad idea and says is that you don’t have a right to defend yourself if a homosexual, transexual or some cases a lesbian stalks you, commits indecent exposure, etc. This law by the language says that if a homosexual stalks you, commits indecent exposure, assault and battery, etc. then you don’t have a right to protect yourself from the crimes the homosexual is committing though the gay, transexual or some cases lesbian could commit a violent crime or even potentially kill you especially if the homosexual, lesbian or transgender is high on drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc. while committing stalking, indecent exposure, etc.

        Indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, assault & battery again are crimes just by themselves & they are not mutually exclusive. If a homosexual pedophile is let’s say trying to molest a 15 year old boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit crimes such as indecent exposure, before he commits molestation. It’s the same way that if a man is trying to rape a 15 year old girl, the first thing he often does is commit indecent exposure, etc.

        Assault and battery or murder case including gay bashing cases, unless there is a plea bargain (which happens in most cases) juries decide after hearing both prosecutor and defense lawyer. Juries decide what is reasonable & excess because each case is different and must be judged individually. If a defense lawyer in a gay bashing case wants to raise a crime the gay did such as harassment, indecent exposure, etc. before man reacted violently, then that must be regarded in deciding verdict. Prosecutors can argue why they think it was excess force and defense lawyer can argue why it was justified force. Jury decides if it’s justified or excess force.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. notChristian says:

    The journalist (who likely has a pro-gay/lesbian and transgender view) said regarding the 1998 Metthew Wayne Shepard case. In the 2nd paragraph of the article, the journalist talks of the 2008 Lawrence Fobes King shooting in class and in both cases, the journalist (who again likely has a pro-homosexual/lesbian and transgender bias) omitted information. My post after this will be about the Lawrence Fobes King case.

    1. Metthew Wayne Shepard (1976-1998) was not the innocent as he has been portrayed by Laramie Project or films like Shepard is a Friend of Mine. Metthew Wayne Shepard was a junky who assoc. with drug dealers in both Colorado & Wyoming, was possibly a drug dealer himself (Methew Wayne Shepard could also possibly have been a drug courier or a lookout, but whether or not he was a drug dealer he did assoc. with drug dealers) & when he was 15 years old, he was arrested for molesting 2 boys & he got counseling by Natrona County Juvenile Court for molesting 2 boys. Metthew Wayne Shepard had himself been a victim of child molestation by 3 different people when he was a boy & if he had not been a victim of homosexual pedophiles would he have turned out straight instead of gay?

    No matter why the murder happened, the idea that A.J. McKinney and Methew W. Shepard were strangers who did not know eachother until that day is rubbish. There are many witnesses-Doc O’ Connor’s ex girlfriend, Elaine Baker (bartender), M.K. Rohrbacher (drug dealer), Tristan (Ted) Henson (Methew W. Shepard’s former lover) & others who saw them together.

    Methew W. Shepard associating with drug dealers in both Wyoming and Colorado is not disputable. Methew W. Shepard went into bars where drugs were sold and he did associate with drug dealers-we know that he went to bars named Tornado, Ranger, Library & other bars in Wyoming and Colorado where drugs were sold. Methew W. Shepard’s friend Tina LaBrie expressing concerns about Methew W. Shepard’s drug and $ problems. We know that Methew W. Shepard was having $ problems (spending so much on limosuine rides in Doc O’ Connor’s limousine).

    Now was Methew W. Shepard’s assocation with drug dealers and going into bars where drugs were sold more than buying drugs ? Was Methew W. Shepard a drug dealer or a drug courier? Stephen Jimenez thinks so and he believes it was the Denver circle. No, Stephen Jimenez does not know it all but his conclusions are sincere and honest. While homosexual groups complain about Stephen Jimenez saying the murder case is complicated and possibly not a hate crime, that is incidental-main reason homosexual groups are offended by Stephen Jimenez’s book is because he talked about the ugly truths about who M.W. Shepard was. You don’t always know the secrets friends and family have. If a person is a drug dealer, then they are usually not going to tell their friends and family that they do this. Laramie Project, Shepard Foundation & Big Island Chronicle Tiffany Camille Hunt sees nothing wrong with Methew W. Shepard selling drugs and molesting children so their view is rubbish.

    Here’s what LA Times journalist Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove left out. Lawrence Fobes King exposed himself and harassed other boys for sex in the bathroom. When complaints were made about Lawrence Fobes King, the lesbian VP Joy Epstein refused to expel him. 1 boy who had enough of Lawrence Fobes King’s harassment shot and killed him in class in February 2008.

    Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) harassed Brandon James McInerney (Brandon) by stalking Brandon such as following Brandon wherever Brandon went, even when Brandon asked him to stop following him. An eg. would be Lawrence stalking Brandon as Brandon was playing basketball.

    We know what was reported. It can easily be that Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) also committed physical abuse (assault & battery) against Brandon James McInerney (Brandon), only that Brandon did not report this. If the school had expelled Lawrence Fobes King when complaints were made, his February 2008 killing would likely not have happened-they should have tried to help cure Lawrence Fobes King of transexuality.

    Lawrence Fobes King exposing himself and harassing others and Lawrence Fobes King masturbating in front of other in public restroom among other things. We know what was reported about Lawrence Fobes King exposing himself and harassing others but it would not surprise me if Lawrence Fobes King molested children only that it went unreported as most do.

    Like

  10. notChristian says:

    Another thing -in 2013 when I chatted with a man who told me about why he once reacted violently against a homosexual and here’s what happened. This young man had been @ a party and the homosexual propositioned him. The young man told the homosexual ‘no thanks’. This should have ended that, but then this happened.

    The young man later was getting harassing phone calls @ home by who he believes was the homosexual who he told no to. The young man then told me that he thinks that the homosexual man had on @least 1 occasion, followed the young man to the college and workplace. 1 day, the young man had some1 ring his door. When the young man opened the door, it was the homosexual man who entered his house and started touching and kissing the young man against his will (assault and battery). After this happened, the young man reacted by bashing the homosexual man.

    The homosexual man in this case committed several crimes-harassment (leaving the obscene phone messages), stalking (following the young man to his workplace and school), trespassing (entering the young man’s house against will) and assault & battery (kissing the young man against his will and touching him). This young man bashed the homosexual in reaction to crimes the homosexual did.

    If the young man did not react, he would likely have ended up being molested and or even more violently attacked by the homosexual man. This homosexual likely has a history of harassing young men for sex and then attacking them when he didn’t get what he wanted only in this case, the young man fought back.

    Under the language of the law, this young man does not have a right to defend himself against this would be pedophile and the law’s language unsurprisingly has these legal problems, especially as it’s written by gay/lesbian and transgender activists whose intent is to support the right of homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders (mutilated gays/lesbians) to commit indecent exposure, stalking to other violent crime and to not have the right to defend/protect yourself. This law is a bad idea and says is that you don’t have a right to defend yourself if a homosexual, transexual or some cases a lesbian stalks you, commits indecent exposure, etc. This law by the language says that if a homosexual stalks you, commits indecent exposure, assault and battery, etc. then you don’t have a right to protect yourself from the crimes the homosexual is committing though the gay, transexual or some cases lesbian could commit a violent crime or even potentially kill you especially if the homosexual, lesbian or transgender is high on drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc. while committing stalking, indecent exposure, etc.

    Indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, assault & battery again are crimes just by themselves & they are not mutually exclusive. If a homosexual pedophile is let’s say trying to molest a 15 year old boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit crimes such as indecent exposure, before he commits molestation.

    Like

  11. notChristian says:

    Millard, here are 2 cases where homosexual and transgenders protest transgenders killed by cops.

    In this case, a transgender is killed by Missouri police after attakcking cops with a knife http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/vigil-honors-transgender-woman-killed-by-st-louis-police-after/article_26487868-577e-5123-af80-13f98dd3673e.html

    In this second case, a transgender homosexual Scott Scout Schultz is shot and killed by cops after trying to attack them https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/17/knife-wielding-campus-pride-leader-killed-by-police-at-georgia-tech/?utm_term=.b3b9c2fb3514

    Millard, the homosexual groups are protesting because 2 homosexual transgenders attack cops and are killed in a shooting. It would not be surprising if both these homosexual transgenders are pedophiles. It would not be surprising if it turns out that Lawrence Fobes King was a pedophile along with other things he did such as Lawrence Fobes King masturbating in front of others, harassing and stalking other boys.

    With Lawrence Fobes King as mentioned, Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) harassed Brandon James McInerney (Brandon) by stalking Brandon such as following Brandon wherever Brandon went, even when Brandon asked him to stop following him. An eg. would be Lawrence stalking Brandon as Brandon was playing basketball which witnesses testified to-Brandon did not testify.

    We know what was reported. It can easily be that Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) committed violence (assault & battery) against Brandon James McInerney (Brandon), which Brandon did not report. Stalkers can get violent when they don’t get what they want and most stalking does not get reported which Brandon did not report. There could have been incident(s) where Lawrence Fobes King threatened Brandon with a knife or other weapon which Brandon did not report-this would not be surprising.

    Most abuse goes unreported and it can easily be that Lawrence committed violence against Brandon in addition to stalking. If the school had expelled Lawrence Fobes King when complaints were made, his February 2008 killing would likely not have happened. I think this case was manslaughter. Predictably, the transgenders made an HBO Movie Valentine Road which omits the things Lawrence Fobes King did. Perhaps the people who made HBO Movie Valentine Road think it’s acceptable for Lawrence Fobes King to masturbate in front of others and perhaps they would tolerate Lawrence Fobes King committing pedophilia.

    Like

  12. notChristian says:

    Millard, if you look @ comments, I made comments in the LA Times article written by LA Times reporter Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove who likely has a pro-gay/lesbian transgender bias as so many reporters do. Here Millard is something I wrote replying to a homosexual poster named TruthShines in the comment section. This law by language could create problems for men and boys who violently react to homosexuals and transgenders harassing them in public bathrooms. TruthShines thinks pedophilia is acceptable when it’s homosexual/lesbian. Here’s 1 post that I wrote to him:

    TruthShines,it’s not so easy and simple as you imply and is more complicated and complex. You could use deadly force to protect yourself from some1 about to violently attack you or about to sexually abuse you, so it’s not just limited to some1 trying to kill you. Yes, proposing straight or gay in a person’s house or bar is legal. The right thing to do is say ‘no thanks’ and walk away. But the law’s language has loopholes as mentioned which could create problems. Here’s another example to prove point.

    There are cases of homosexual men who go into public bathrooms, harass men and teenage boys for sex and then violently attacking the men and boys who refused. The way the law is written, let’s say a homosexual man goes into a public bathroom, commits indecent exposure and starts harassing a teenage boy for sex after which the teenage boy reacts and kills the homosexual. Is it self-defense? If it’s prosecuted, then a jury would decide if justified or excess force was used but things to regard. What if the homosexual man in this case has a history of going into public bathrooms, harassing young men teenage boys for sex and then violently attacking the teenage boys who said no?

    If you’re going to tell me the men and teenage boys should say ‘no’ to a homosexual who is proposing to them in a public bathroom, proposing to people in public bathrooms (straight or homosexual) is a crime-harassment and cops arrest people who do this. There’s no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is proposing to him in a public bathroom because there’s no need to say no to a crime the other had no right to do. A synonym is if you’re a store owner there is no need to say ‘don’t steal’ because stealing is a crime and no need to say no to a crime the other person has no right to do.

    The homosexual man in that case is committing the crime of indecent exposure and harassment by harassing the teenage boy for sex, but as said -indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, can worsen to something more violent such as rape/sex abuse and if the homosexual, lesbian or transexual is high on drugs such as cocaine, Meth, an even more violent crime. What if the homosexual man in that situation along with having a history of harassing young men for sex and then beating them up when he didn’t get what he wanted is also high on drugs such as Meth or Cocaine? Though you know, these situations are unpredictable. In that situation, a case can be made that the teenage boy by reacting violently against a homosexual who is harassing him in a public bathroom defended himself from a more violent crime the homosexual intended, especially if the homosexual man has a history of attacking young men in public bathrooms after harassing them for sex.

    Like

  13. notChristian says:

    As a person who is neither Democrat nor Republican, the fact is that the Illinois law which has language problems and loopholes was signed by a Republican Governor. There are Republicans who think it’s acceptable for homosexuals and transgenders to commit stalking, indecent exposure, etc. and for people to not have right to defend themselves, so it’s wrong to say Democrats because too many Republicans accept this rubbish.

    Words such as ‘unwanted…’ are codes or euphemisms for crimes such as indecent exposure, stalking and sexual abuse. Stalking, harassment, indecent exposure, assault & battery (forceplay), etc. are crimes just by themselves. But they can easily worsen to something more violent. If a gay grabs a man’s butt, groin, etc. against will, the homosexual is committing assault & battery or forceplay even if people use mild words such as unwanted…..

    Unsurprisingly former California AG Kamala Devi Harris, law Professor Cynthia Lee and the Illinois Governor omit the fact that what they call ‘unwanted advances’ or ‘non-violent sexual advances’ are codes or euphemisms for the crimes described. Indecent exposure, stalking and trespassing are ‘non-violent sexual advances’ but the law has language problems because indecent exposure is the first crime a would be pedophile does before molesting. If some1 is trespassing in your house and wants to commit sexual abuse (homosexual or straight), the first thing the would be attacker does is commit a ‘non-violent advance’ such as trespass and indecent exposure before they commit the more serious sexual abuse crime such as rape (if it’s man with woman) or homosexual pedophilia.

    If a homosexual man is trying to commit a more serious crime, the first things a gay often does stalk, assault & battery or forceplay. That means that if a homosexual or transexual is trying to molest a boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit indecent exposure, stalking, before the homosexual molests. It’s dishonest to suggest that indecent exposure, stalking, etc. is the only crime.

    If a homosexual is committing harassment, indecent exposure, stalking, assault and battery (such as if a homosexual grabs a man’s butt or groin against will), etc. then a man has a right to use reasonable force to end the abuse. There’s no need for a man to say no to a homosexual who is committing indecent exposure, etc. because there’s no need to say no to a crime the other had no right to do.

    This law’s language has loopholes which could create problems. What about cases where a gay man is harassing a retarded man and or a man with Down Syndrome for sex and the retarded man reacts violently by bashing or even killing the gay? It’s a crime (straight or homosexual) to sexually propose to people who by their mental retardation can’t understand sex, such as Down Syndrome or some1 with the IQ of an 8 year old.

    No surprise that the Illinois Republican Governor, along with former California AG Kamala Devi Harris and Law Professor Cynthia Lee omit cases of homosexual men harassing retarded men for sex before the men reacted violently to the criminal act. This law by the language, can be interpreted as saying that a homosexual, lesbian and transgender commits a crime such as propose to a person who by legal definition can’t consent to sex such as a mentally retarded person, that the mentally retarded person doesn’t have a right to react violently to end the abuse. If people see nothing wrong with a homosexual man proposing to a retarded man with the IQ of an 8 year old, then there’s something wrong with the people who see nothing wrong with this.

    & as mentioned earlier, in cases where a let’s say a 16 year old boy who bashes or kills a 34 year old gay man, must wonder if the 34 year old gay man was committing a crime such as harassing the 16 year old boy before the boy reacted violently? Does the gay man who was bashed or killed have an unreported history of stalking, harassing or molesting teenage boys ? Most men and boys who are victims of gays usu. won’t report that a gay is committing indecent exposure, harassment or in worst cases molestation until some1 reacts violently and bashes the gay.Again if it’s true homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. before men reacted violently, then the fact the homosexual committed a crime before he was bashed must be decided by jury in deciding if gay basher(s) used reasonable or excess force.

    Like

  14. notChristian says:

    Millard, in another place, this site discussed Milo https://gaybullyingitisreal.wordpress.com/2016/07/20/twitter-silences-milo-yiannopoulos-for-surfing-while-conservative-lets-liberal-trolls-harass-conservative-woman-for-three-years-%E2%8B%86-conservative-firing-line/, but Milo H. Yiannopoulos is a homosexual who makes excuses for homosexual pedophiles and Milo would be against the right of people to defend themselves from homosexuals (some cases lesbians) and transgenders committing crimes such as indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc.

    Here’s a youtube video (language is graphic and gross) of Milo defending pedophilia see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJhHwspZGcg Milo H. Yiannopolous is a homosexual and he thinks it’s OK for homosexuals to molest children. Milo Yiannapolous implied that he is OK with adults having sex with teenage boys because as Milo was sexually abused by a priest and this damaged his thinking, he calls it his first sexual encounter to justify in his mind that it’s consent and not sex abuse. This is unsurprising. And there are Christians and Republicans defending Milo H. Yiannopolous. Breitbart (BreitFart) has no credibility when they hired this homosexual Milo who thinks pedophilia is acceptable.

    The people condemning Milo for his comments are often doing this because Milo H. Yiannopolous supported Trump for President. The people condemning Milo H. Yiannpolous have often made excuses for pedophiles such as H.B. Milk, which is why they don’t care that Milo supports homosexual pedophilia, they care that he supported Pres. DJ Trump. But Breitbart, WND, etc. are worse because these websites say that they’re against homosexuality but then end up doing what they say to be against which damages them. That’s why I don’t care what Breitbart (BreitFart) says because they hired this homosexual pedophile apologist. WND says they are against homosexuality/transexuality but then the WND has columnists who are pro-homosexual such as Ann Hart Coulter (Ann Fart Coulter), Michelle Malkin and JF Stossell.
    You can be sure that Milo does not think that Harvey B. Milk should have been punished for committing homosexual statutory rape on a 16 year old boy in 1964. You can also be sure that Milo Yiannopolous would be against prosecuting Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt- 2013 Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt case in Florida, where a lesbian committed sex abuse on a teenage girl in a public bathroom and homosexual groups were against her being prosecuted for lesbian statutory rape-they even exploited children to rally for her carrying ‘stop the hate’ signs to protest prosecutor.

    If Milo Yiannopolous had not been sexually abused by a priest when he was 13, would he have turned out straight instead of gay? Possible he would have turned out straight but though won’t say definite. It’s not controversial to talk of nightmares, suicides, bed wetting often a result of sex abuse in youth. Yet when 1 talks gay/lesbian behaviors in adulthood because they learned this sexual behavior by being repeatedly molested, then gay groups with politically safe psychologists complain. The politically correct psychologists who deny this know it’s possible for a boy to turn out gay as a result of childhood sex abuse, yet deny what they know is true. Of course, not all who are sexually abused in youth become gay in adulthood-but the risk is higher.

    While most gays and lesbians do not commit pedophilia, I have found that homosexual groups are more likely to tolerate pedophilia when it’s homosexual/lesbian. The fact that Milo would make jokes about his sex abuse by the gay priest makes me think that and his comments do not shock me because have heard this so many times before. Earlier in the post, I mentioned the 2013 Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt case and homosexual icon Harvey Bernard Milk (1930-1978). It’s homosexual groups who often push for lowering consent age laws-many places have lowered consent age laws to 16 and some have even lowered this to 13. I have found that homosexual and lesbian groups will often say that they are against pedophilia, but then they make excuses for Harvey B. Milk committing homosexual statutory rape on a 16 year old boy in 1964 and push for trying to lower consent age laws.

    Like

  15. notChristian says:

    Yes, that is what I mean-the homosexual harassed the young man for sex and the young man reacted violently. Know that the Illinois law’s language can create problems not only for men who react to criminal acts a homosexual does but even women and here’s an eg.

    -If a man is going to rape let’s say a 15 year old girl-what is 1 of the first things he often does? He harasses the 15 year old girl, commits indecent exposure, etc. before he rapes her. Let’s say a man harasses a 15 year old girl for sex and commits indecent exposure (exposes genitals) and the 15 year old girl reacts by hitting or even killing him. Under the law’s language, as indecent exposure and harassing some1 for sex could be regarded as ‘non-violent sexual advances’, the 15 year old girl could have problems claiming self-defense.

    That’s the possible problems with the Illinois law, though the homosexual groups deny this. It’s by language interpretation saying that if esp. a homosexual commits harassment, indecent exposure, stalking or other crime which can be interpreted as ‘non-violent sexual advance’, you could have problems claiming self-defense.

    Clairethinker, the Illinois law was signed by a Republican governor which proves that people need to stop saying those Democrats because Republicans have become apologists for the homosexual agenda incl. the right of homosexual, lesbian and transgender pedophiles.

    Law Professor Cynthia Lee and the former California AG Kamala Devi Harris give ½ facts, especially as Kamala Devi Harris is a former prosecutor, Kamala Devi Harris knows that with sexual abuse (homosexual or straight), before a sexual abuse happens. Professor Cynthia Lee and ex California AG Kamala Devi Harris omit violent crimes homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders have done while high on drugs.

    Indecent exposure, stalking and trespassing are ‘non-violent sexual advances’ but the law has language problems because indecent exposure is the first crime a would be pedophile does before molesting. If some1 is trespassing in your house and wants to commit sexual abuse (homosexual or straight), the first thing the would be attacker does is commit a ‘non-violent advance’ such as trespass and indecent exposure before they commit the more serious sexual abuse crime such as rape (if it’s man with woman) or homosexual pedophilia.

    If a homosexual man is trying to commit a more serious crime, the first things a gay often does stalk, assault & battery or forceplay. That means that if a homosexual or transexual is trying to molest a boy, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit indecent exposure, stalking, before the homosexual molests. It’s dishonest to suggest that indecent exposure, stalking, etc. is the only crime.

    -If the gay (some cases lesbian) is high on drugs such as cocaine & or meth while committing indecent exposure, stalking, etc., then the homosexual can commit a more violent crime incl. murder in a drug rage after committing indecent exposure. Stalking, indecent exposure, etc. may not be the only crime which the homosexual intends esp. if he is high on drugs. Again when gays & lesbians commit sex abuse, the first thing they do is commit indecent exposure, grab a person’s genitals against will before doing something more violent.

    And of course, Professor Cynthia Lee and ex California AG Kamala Devi Harris along with the 2017 Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Vincent Rauner give little to no discussion of homosexuals who lurk in public bathrooms, commit indecent exposure, harass young men for sex and commit violent crimes when the young men refuse. Under this law’s language definitions, the young men could have problems arguing self-defense.

    What about cases where a gay man is harassing a retarded man and or a man with Down Syndrome for sex and the retarded man reacts violently by bashing or even killing the gay? It’s a crime (straight or homosexual) to sexually propose to people who by their mental retardation can’t understand sex, such as Down Syndrome or some1 with the IQ of an 8 year old.

    No surprise that the Illinois Republican Governor, along with former California AG Kamala Devi Harris and Law Professor Cynthia Lee omit cases of homosexual men harassing retarded men for sex before the men reacted violently to the criminal act. This law by the language, can be interpreted as saying that a homosexual, lesbian and transgender commits a crime such as propose to a person who by legal definition can’t consent to sex such as a mentally retarded person, that the mentally retarded person doesn’t have a right to react violently to end the abuse. If people see nothing wrong with a homosexual man proposing to a retarded man with the IQ of an 8 year old, then there’s something wrong with the people who see nothing wrong with this.

    Like

  16. notChristian says:

    I posted on the LA Times articles comment section pointing out the fact that the LA Times reporter Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove (likely a pro-gay/lesbian and transgender agenda) omitted information. Not all of my comments were approved but here are 2 comments which I made. Here are 2 comments I made to a poster named Kevin 55.

    1. Yet something else for you Kevin-in this article the LA Times Reporter Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove write about 28 or so transgenders who were killed in the U.S. in 2017 and she cites the HRC. Among the 28 killed, in 2 cases (1 in Missouri and another in Georgia), the transgenders were shot and killed by the police such as 1 in Missouri where a transgender stabbed a man, had tried to attack a cop and was shot in killed. In the Georgia Tech case, the transgendergay had refused to comply, tried to attack cops and was killed. No surprise that the HRC would make these 2 to be heros.

    But there are so many people killed every year. With violent crimes, there are more cases as mentioned of homosexuals, lesbianns and transgenders taking drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc. and then committing violent crimes while under their influence. But these violent crimes committed by homosexuals don’t make usually make the news as reporters usually have a pro-homosexual/lesbian and transgender bias and omit news which doesn’t agree with the journalist’s agenda.

    2. Kevin55, let me give you a case I know from a a few years ago and Kevin55 if you have thoughts then please tell me what you think the man should have done ? Young man was @ a party and the homosexual proposed to him. The man told the homosexual ‘no thanks’ and walked away. This should be the end, but then this happened. The young man got harassing phone calls @ home by who he believes was the homosexual who he told no to. The young man also thinks that the homosexual man had on @least 1 occasion, followed the young man to the college and workplace. 1 day, the young man had some1 ring his door. When the young man opened the door, it was the homosexual man who entered his house and started touching and kissing the young man against his will (assault and battery). After this happened, the young man reacted by bashing the homosexual man.

    The homosexual man in this case committed several crimes-harassment (leaving the obscene phone messages), stalking (following the young man to his workplace and school), stalking/trespassing (entering the young man’s house against will) and assault & battery (kissing the young man against his will and touching him). This young man bashed the homosexual in reaction to crimes the homosexual did. If the young man did not react, he would likely have ended up being violently attacked by the homosexual man. This homosexual had a history of harassing young men and then attacking them when the men refused only in this case, the young man fought back. Under the language of the law, it could be interpreted that this man does not have a right to defend himself against this stalker and would be attacker and the law’s language unsurprisingly has these legal problems, especially as it’s written by gay/lesbian and transgender activists. These cases are not so easy and simple and can be quite complicated and complex.

    Like

  17. notChristian says:

    I have 2 other comments to make on this topic. The first part deals with comments made by Professor Cynthia Lee and Forensic psychologist Karen Franklin https://www.karenfranklin.com/, both of who are cited as experts on the gay bashing topic and the ½ facts given by both.

    Both forensic psychologist Karen Franklin and Prof. Cynthia Lee would say that they think high school and even grade school students should be required to watch the Laramie Project and should be required to listen to Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard speak and listen to the ½ facts given by Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard about their son Metthew Wayne Shepard.

    As you know that for years, Judy & Dennis W. Shepard push ‘queero worship’ of Metthew W. Shepard . They have gone to schools to speak being invited by teachers & kids have posed for pictures with Dennis & Judy Shepard. Many of the pro-gay teachers won’t tolerate students giving facts which offend them & if a student were to say to Dennis & Judy Shepard that Metthew W. Shepard’s a child molester, drug junky & possible drug dealer, they could get punished by teacher.

    Both Professor Cynthia Lee and forensic psychologist Karen Franklin would likely not tolerate a student telling Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard that their son was a child molester, drug junky and possibly a drug dealer. Professor Cynthia Lee and forensic psychologist and the teachers who require their students to listen to Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard support free speech right for students to pose for pictures with Dennis & Judy Shepard-the parents of a dead child molester, drug junky & possible drug dealer but they oppose free speech right for students to say ugly facts.

    Dennis & Judy Shepard hope that people who agree with them reinforce them while those who differ be shy or if they speak censor them. But what do both of you think of my idea-If Dennis & Judy Shepard are invited to speak @ a school, then kids should have a right to tell ugly facts about Methew W. Shepard though Dennis & Judy hate it.

    Now I know people will talk about how a student telling Dennis and Judy L. Shepard the ugly facts of who their son was as attacking mourning parents. But the fact is that for years, the Shepards have been exploiting their song M.W. Shepard (1976-1998) and kids have been forced to listen to them. Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard have celebrities such as Ellen Lee DeGeneres, Rosie T. O’Donnell (Roseann Teresa O’Donnel), etc. give money to them. Yes, it’s Ellen and Rosie T. O’Donnell’s right to give money to causes they believe in. And as you know, most media including this LA Times article by Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove gave ½ facts of the Shepard case.

    For these reasons, I think that school kids or any1 should have a free speech right to tell Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard the ugly facts of who their son was, especially if they are forced by their teachers to listen to Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard speak. Dennis & Judy L. Shepard have no complaint when people tell them that their son was a child molester & drug junky. Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard are forcing an agenda on others and for these reasons, people especially school kids should use their free speech right to tell Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard who their son was if they let’s say go to a school, where students were forced to listen to them. What do you think of this idea? The way to react to Dennis and Judy Lynn Shepard is to tell them the truth of who their son was, especially if you’re a schoolkid who was forced to listen to them speak in a school.

    Like

  18. notChristian says:

    Clairethinker, my other comment is read this paper (print out if you need to) by Professor Cynthia Lee https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/42/2/articles/42-2_lee.pdf After you read the paper you can comment. While I can’t comment on all the cases given by Professor Cynthia Lee, will comment on a few.

    -In 2 cases, the homosexuals were trying to commit or even committed homosexual statutory rape on teenage boys and the teenage boys reacted by killing the gay men. Professor Cynthia Lee by no surprise calls it troubling that the juries came back with the lesser charge of manslaughter. The fact is that the juries regarded the fact that the homosexual men were seeking teenage boys for sex, even committing homosexual statutory rape, only that the teenage boys reacted violently but used excess force to end abuse which is why the juries convicted of lesser charge but not acquit.

    By these 2 cases, Professor Cynthia Lee thinks it’s acceptable for homosexuals to commit pedophilia. Law Professor Cynthia Lee is troubled by 2 homosexual pedophiles who are killed by their victims and Professor Cynthia Lee is not troubled by homosexuals seeking teenage boys for sex, which involve homosexuals trying to seek teenage runaway boys. The fact is that straight, homosexual or lesbian, an adult has no right to seek teenagers for sex or have sex with teenagers. Though many places have since lowered consent age, a 34 year old man has no right to seek sex from a 15 year old girl and for the same reason a 34 year old homosexual has no right to seek sex from a 15 year old boy.

    Law Professor Cynthia Lee makes excuses for homosexuals committing pedophilia as you see from the law article. Forensic psychologist Karen Franklin & Law Professor Cynthia Lee also gave excuses to Lawrence Fobes King masturbating in front of others and harassing other boys in the lockerroom before 1 boy who could no longer tolerate Lawrence Fobes King’s harassment, shot and killed him. Forensic psychologist Karen Franklin and Law Professor Cyntia Lee gave ½ facts by calling Lawrence Fobes King’s deeds ‘flirting’ instead of harassment and indecent exposure.

    Though Law Professor Cynthia Lee knows this, the fact is that Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) harassed Brandon James McInerney (Brandon) by stalking Brandon such as following Brandon wherever Brandon went, even when Brandon asked him to stop following him. An eg. would be Lawrence stalking Brandon as Brandon was playing basketball which witnesses testified to-Brandon did not testify.

    Stalkers can get violent when they don’t get what they want and most stalking does not get reported which Brandon did not report. It can easily be that Lawrence Fobes King (Lawrence) also committed physical abuse (assault & battery) against Brandon James McInerney (Brandon), only that Brandon did not report this. There could have been incident(s) where Lawrence Fobes King threatened Brandon with a knife or other weapon which Brandon did not report-this would not be surprising. Most abuse goes unreported and it can easily be that Lawrence committed violence against Brandon in addition to stalking.

    But to no surprise, Professor Cynthia Lee, along with Forensic psychologist Karen Franklin omit these things, because both Forensic Psychologist Karen Franklin and law Professor Cynthia Lee think that pedophilia is acceptable when it’s homosexual/lesbian and both are apologist for sex change mutilations.

    Psychologist Karen Franklin, Law Prof. Cynthia Lee, former California Atty. Gen. Kamala Devi Harris and most reporters including the LA Times reporter Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove (as in this article) omit many more cases cases of homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders getting high on drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc., committing indecent exposre and then a more violent crime incl. murder in a drug rage after committing indecent exposure.

    The fact about the situations described is that they are a matter of both think and react fast because if you think too much and are too slow, then you can be a sexual abuse (sex abuse) victim. Better to be tried by 12, then be a sex abuse victim or carried by 6. Even if the homosexual does no other crime besides indecent exposure to his victim, the fact is that if a homosexual thinks he can get away with indecent exposure and harassment, the homosexual (sometimes lesbian) or transgender may think they can get away with more violent acts and the homosexual could commit pedophilia to the next victim.

    Again if it’s true homosexual committed indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, etc. before men reacted violently, then the fact the homosexual committed a crime before he was bashed must be decided by jury in deciding if gay basher(s) used reasonable or excess force. I would rather have a case where a jury decides if a man’s reaction to bashing or killing a homosexual is justified or excess vs. the man doesn’t do enough and the gay does something worse.

    Like

  19. notChristian says:

    ^^Added things to my 2 posts of January 27, 2018. Law Professor Cynthia Lee gives sympathy to 2 homosexual pedophiles killed by teenage boys in her article. Chances are that the 2 homosexual men had committed homosexual statutory rape/sex abuse on other boys which was unreported and it can easily be the 2 teenage boys had been victimized by other homosexual pedophiles before they reacted and killed the 2 homosexual pedophiles. Law Professor Cynthia Lee should be honest and admit that Law Professor Cynthia Lee supports pedophilia when it’s homosexual and lesbian.

    Thing about articles such as that of Law Professor Cynthia Lee is that too many people just read what she says and don’t raise the fact that Law Professor Cynthia Lee makes excuses for homosexual pedophiles. Yes, if there’s a trial (most cases are plea bargained), then a jury must decide whether justified or excess force was used to end the abuse the homosexual (some cases lesbian) or transgender was committing such as if the homosexual, lesbian and transgender was committing harassment, stalking, indecent exposure, etc.

    Juries decide what is reasonable & excess because each case is different and must be judged individually. As known with murder cases, there is Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter which is a jury topic. A jury can acquit or if they convict, they can convict a person on lesser charge. If it is true the homosexual (some cases lesbian) or transgender was doing antisocial conduct before he was bashed, then jury must decide if it was justified or excess force to end the abuse.

    We will find out if the Illinois panic law, along with those of other states create problems by the law’s language interpretation. Professor Cynthia Lee, ex California Atty. Gen. Kamala Devi Harris & the 2017 Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Vincent Rauner give little to no discussion of homosexuals who lurk in public bathrooms, commit indecent exposure, harass young men for sex and commit violent crimes when the young men refuse. Indecent exposure, harassment, stalking, assault & battery again are crimes & they are not mutually exclusive. If a homosexual is trying to molest, the first thing the homosexual will often do is commit crimes such as indecent exposure, before he commits molestation.

    Like

  20. notChristian says:

    Clairethinker, yet something else for you and Millard to think about. If you visit the LA Times and read the comment section, I have commented there, but not all my comments are approved by the LA Times website which is no surprise given the LA Times pro-homosexual bias. Must say that even media which you think is supposed to be against the gay/lesbian and transgender agenda, have not critiqued the legal problems the Illinois law along with that of other states can create.

    That’s why Clairethinker and Millard, I don’t care much anymore what Lifesite News and World Net Daily, because World Net Daily claims to be against homosexuality and transgenderism, but then they hire columnists who support the transgender agenda (JF Stossell, Michelle Malkin and Ann Hart Coulter). World Net Daily and Lifesite News have not critiqued the possible legal problems and loopholes which the Illinois law has in the language.

    Anyhow, more people should comment in the LA Times comments section. Here’s another comment (pending approval) I made to the homosexual pedophile excuser TruthShines. Will find out if the LA Times moderator approves my post (they have again not approved everything I posted) but regardless, here’s another reply I am trying to make:

    TruthShines, I read all your replies and my reply. You, along with most media, incl. LA Times journalist Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove as in this article aren’t saying much which I haven’t thought about. We will find out if the Illinois law, along with those of other states create problems described by me by the law’s language interpretation, as with law, how the law is written and the problems with how the law is defined. You said that attacks by gays are rare and that you doubt I can muster any references.

    Though you likely know, violent crimes committed by homosexual men (some cases lesbians) and transgenders are common and not rare, but most journalists are not interested in discussing it because of pro-gay/lesbian & transgender bias. With violence, there are more cases of homosexuals and transgenders taking drugs such as Meth, Cocaine, etc. committing indecent exposure, harassing young men for sex and then committing violent crimes while under their influence. While media including Huffington Post have done articles now and then which admit that gays, lesbians & transexuals (gays and lesbians) are more likely to be drug junkies who take drugs such as Methamphetamines (Crystal Meth), Cocaine and other drugs, omit-violent crimes gays, lesbians & transexuals commit while high on drugs.

    Homosexuals mixing Crystal Meth with sex is common, which media has discussed, but as said they omit violence committed while high on Crystal Meth-Meth rage. Also I knew of a 2nd case of a homosexual who high on Cocaine, had harassed a young man for sex and the young man with his 2 friends reacted by bashing the homosexual man. That homosexual man who was high on cocaine had a past of harassing young men for sex and then attacking the young men when he didn’t get what he wanted. If that young man had not had 2 friends with him to stop that homosexual man, that homosexual man in a Coke rage would likely have attacked him, as he attacked others. With transgenders, there are many more cases of transgenders mixing Cocaine, Meth, etc. with the hormone shots they take & you get a violent combining.

    The media including the article written by LA Times journalist Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove gives ½ facts, while homosexuals (some cases lesbians) and transgenders committing indecent exposure and then violent crimes while high on drugs such as Meth and or Cocaine (drug rages) are omitted as they are in this LA Times article as reporters usually have a pro-homosexual/lesbian and transgender bias and omit news which doesn’t agree with the journalist’s agenda. That is why the media can’t be trusted on the homosexual/lesbian topic.

    Like

  21. notChristian says:

    ( I’m posting alot about this), turns out that the LA Times did approve 1 of my posts that I did on January 29, 2018. Here’s another comment I made to TruthShines and will see if LA Times approves this. Here’s what I wrote:

    Though you know this TruthShines,-who were the homosexuals before they were bashed and killed? Media almost always omits the ugly facts of the the victims were before they were bashed and killed because of the journalists pro-gay/lesbian and transgender bias which LA Times reporter Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove has in this article, such as reporter Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove omitted that of the 28 or so transgenders killed in 2017, in 1 case, the transgender stabbed a man and was shot and killed by cops when transgender attacked the cop and in the 2nd case, the transgender was attacking cops and was killed. It’s report the facts unless the facts offend homosexual groups and or differs with the journalists pro-gay, lesbian and transgender agenda. You know that with gay bashings, often what happens is that journalists with pro-gay/lesbian and transgender agendas martyr the victims and omit ugly facts of who the victims were before their deaths.

    For eg. with the June 2016 Orlando shooting in a homosexual bar, people get offended when possible ugly facts about a homosexual’s past are given, when who were the victims before they were killed and wounded? I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out 1 or more of the Orlando victims were drug junkies, drug dealers & even have a violent past of harassing young men for sex and then attacking them when they didn’t get what they wanted in a drug rage. In gay/lesbian pubs-drugs like Meth, Extasy are sold as drug junkyism high among them. No, Omar S. Mateen had no right to go into a Orlando gay club and shoot so many people which killed over 40 and wounded many, even if it’s true that 1 or more of the Orlando shooting victims were drug junkies, drug dealers & or even a pedophile. If true that 1 or more of the Orlando shooting victims was that, then it’s the cops job to arrest them & help the prosecutors prove they’re guilty. If convicted, then they go to prison. I don’t disagree with that. But I don’t worship and martyr the victims lives.

    I don’t believe the Orlando shooting victims should be worshipped as though they’re heros, esp. if it turns out 1 or more of the victims were drug dealers, etc. Turns out that with exceptions such as Sia’s 2016 song Greatest, the 2016 Orlando gay night club shooting victims have not usually gotten the same worship. Reason likely the 2016 Orlando shooting has not gotten the same coverage as the other 2 cases is because in the United States, we have had so many mass shootings before and since then, such as October 2017 Las Vegas shooting.

    Like

  22. notChristian says:

    ^^This will hopefully be the last comment I’ll make on this topic. It turns out that the LA Times moderator did allow my post, though I edited the post. They didn’t approve all of my posts, but they approved enough for me to make my point. Here’s what the LA Times moderator approved below:

    Though you know-who were the homosexuals before they were bashed and killed? Media almost always omits the ugly facts of who the the victims were before they were bashed and killed because of pro-gay/lesbian and transgender agenda as in this article, where LA Times reporter Jaclyn Michelle Cosgrove omitted that of the 28 transgenders killed in 2017, in 1 case, the transgender stabbed a man and was shot and killed by cops when transgender attacked the cop and in the 2nd case, the transgender was attacking cops and was killed. You know that it’s usually don’t report the facts if they anger or offend homosexuals and or differs with the journalists pro-gay, lesbian and transgender agenda.

    You know that often when a homosexual is a bashing victim, journalists rather than neutrally report end up martyring the victims, reporting ½ facts and omit ugly facts of who the victims were before their deaths. With controversial topics such as gay bashings, it’s almost always written by a reporter with a pro-gay/lesbian transgender agenda. Also most journalists dislike their conclusions challenged on topics like this especially when you point out the ½ facts, point out what the reporters are not omitting and reporters hate it even more when people reach a different conclusion from what the reporter wants you to believe.

    For eg. with the June 2016 Orlando shooting in a homosexual bar, people get offended when possible ugly facts about a homosexual’s past are given, when 1 asks who were the victims before they were killed and wounded? I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that 1 or more of the Orlando victims were drug junkies, drug dealers & or even have a violent past of harassing young men for sex and then attacking them when they didn’t get what they wanted in a drug rage. In gay/lesbian pubs, drugs like Meth, Extasy are sold as drug junkyism high among them. No, it wasn’t Omar S. Mateen’s place to be their jury and executioner, even if it’s true that 1 or more of the Orlando shooting victims were drug junkies, drug dealers & or even a pedophile. If true that 1 or more of the Orlando shooting victims was that, then it’s the cops job to arrest them & help the prosecutors prove they’re guilty. If convicted, then they go to prison.

    But I don’t worship and the victims. I don’t believe the Orlando shooting victims should be worshipped as though they’re heroes, esp. if it turns out 1 or more of the victims were drug dealers, etc. But we have seen this so many times with gay bashing cases including the H.B. Milk case (1930-1978), where people worship Harvey B. Milk, while only once in a while do we hear about the fact that Harvey B. Milk committed homosexual statutory rape on a teenage boy in 1964. If H.B. Milk had been arrested, prosecuted and convicted by jury trial (or plea bargain) for homosexual statutory rape in the 1960s, then it’s likely his 1978 shooting death wouldn’t have happened.

    Like

  23. notChristian says:

    I thought that I was done commenting here, but reading again the law see this part quoted and the law’s possible language problems ‘…including under circumstances in which the defendant and victim dated or had a romantic or sexual relationship, cannot be mitigating factors…’

    Here’s an example and then to explain possible problems this law’s language could cause with how it’s interpreted-let’s say a 34 year old homosexual is committing repeated homosexual statutory rape and sexual abuse (sex abuse) against a teenage boy, after which the teenager, no longer able to tolerate the sex abuse, shoots and kills the 34 year old homosexual man. By the law’s language with words such as ‘sexual relationship’, the law’s language could be interpreted to mean that the homosexual statutory rape is a ‘romantic or sexual relationship’ and that homosexual statutory rape can’t be regarded as a mitigating factor.

    Now this law could also be interpreted to mean that straight statutory rape such as a man having sex with a teenage girl or a woman having sex with a teenage boy is a ‘romantic sexual relationship’. If a man has sex with a teenage girl, he usually goes to jail for statutory rape and been required to register as a sex offender.

    If a woman has sex with a teenage boy, she can go to jail for statutory rape and yes, cops and prosecutors are going after women who do this and women have gone to prison for having sex with teenage boys-see this case of a court upholding conviction and sentence of a woman getting many years in prison for committing statutory rape on a 12 year old boy https://cases.justia.com/michigan/court-of-appeals-published/296721.pdf?ts=1396126315

    As it’s about homosexual statutory rape and pedophilia, again, with the Illinois panic law along with that of other states, Professor Cynthia Lee, ex California Atty. Gen. Kamala Devi Harris & the 2017 Illinois Republican Gov. Bruce Vincent Rauner give little to no discussion of how homosexual pedophilia and homosexual statutory rape could be interpreted to mean ‘romantic or sexual relationship’.

    Law Professor Cynthia Lee makes excuses for homosexuals committing pedophilia as you see from the law article. Forensic Psychologist Karen Franklin and law Professor Cynthia Lee think that pedophilia is acceptable when it’s homosexual/lesbian and both are apologist for sex change mutilations. Professor Cynthia Lee gives sympathy to 2 homosexual pedophiles killed by teenage boys in her article.

    Anyhow, if you have thoughts to my comments I have made on this article, then please comment. Law Professor Cynthia Lee should be honest and admit that Law Professor Cynthia Lee supports pedophilia when it’s homosexual and lesbian. We will find out if the Illinois panic law, along with those of other states create problems by the law’s language interpretation.

    Like

  24. vimoreHD says:

    You must take part in a contest for among the finest blogs on the web. I will recommend this web site!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s