No, the outrage at being robbed likely caused them to beat the shit out of him, and one of them when questioned to use an epithet which, taken literally, is highly illogical (what’s a homosexual doing committing Oedipalism?).
Seems if you use the “other” f-word in talking about someone you’ve just been in a violent altercation with, your homophobia trumps all other motivations, and any observer is entitled to infer institutionalised homophobia in the military. :rolleyes:
I don’t call Homebrew’s last effort much of a modification.
Malacandra, you are off in your timeline. I just reread the original article, in light of the new developments. The first article very strongly implies a bias attack.
“Faggot” is tossed as an insult often without any knowledge of the person’s sexual orientation, as is “gay”. I don’t know if the soldiers knew of the beating victim’s orientation, or even if the victim is homosexual.
To those who think that seeing “five drunk soldiers nearly beat ‘faggot’ to death outside gay bar” and thinking “gay bashing” is unreasonable, what would you think if I said “five drunk soldiers nearly beat ‘bitch’ to death outside singles’ bar”? Would you think ‘Oh, she probably stole their wallet’? If you found out she did steal their wallet, would you say ‘Well, there you go then. That explains it’? What if she had a really long criminal record? Would you feel like she got the trouble she deserved?
Just wondering. Oh, what if she was a lesbian, and they called her a dyke? Would that change it at all?
Don’t come at me all pissy about whatever it is you think I’m implying, please. I honestly don’t know what your answer to these questions is, and would like to find out.
The second article brought out additional detail, making it sound much more like a simple, but violent, assault.
The institution of the U.S. military has no tolerance for homosexuals. Many, probably a vast majority, of its members come from backgrounds sharing that intolerance.
Regardless of whether there is or not, the question is whether this particular incident offers up a rationale for going off on a diatribe about it. You want to pit the US military, go right ahead. I’ve no dog whatever in that fight; but this larcenous little git isn’t your poster-child.
My quote is a direct quote from the first article. No parsing needed. Yours is from an updated story. Don’t be stupid, if you can possibly help it, though I know it’s difficult for you. The original story is correctly viewed as a straight-forward gay bashing. The subsequent stories indicate the attack wasn’t based solely on the (preceived) orientation of the victim. But it is still true that these five guys nearly killed a man over a fucking wallet. The fact that they used anti-homosexual slurs against him suggests that the level of violence was greater because of their homophobia. Regardless of his orientation, the fact that they used “faggot” as an insult demonstrates their homophobia. For the life of me I can’t figure out why you would defend the actions of these cowards. The beating is so disportionate that it boggles the mind.
Two questions remain: 1) Was the soldier actually gay? Maybe he was just cruising all bars—straight and gay—looking for wallets. 2) Did the soldiers who meted out justice (possibly too harshly, I haven’t seen the actual injuries) know that he was gay? Because I’ve seen more than one fight end with the victor bellowing “Take that, you gay fuck” when the victor knew the other person to be heterosexual.
I think this whole incident points to a practical problem with hate crime legislation. If the statute were to be in effect here, how does one determine to what degree the beating had to do with the theft as opposed to the offender being gay? How about if the one that does the beating is also gay? How does that work into the calculation?
You think being beaten nearly to death is a just punishment for stealing a wallet? You say you haven’t seen the injuries, so you’re not sure if it was ‘too harsh’. Out of curiosity, what would be an acceptable level of vigilante violence, in your opinion?
I can understand the screams of homophobia when that was all we had to go on. Now, though, it seems like if the jackoff hadn’t have stolen the wallet then none of this would have happened. The guy brought it upon himself. If he didn’t want to take the chance of an ass beating, he shouldn’t have stolen the wallet.
If he got his ass beat for stealing a wallet from the guys who had been buying him drinks earlier, then yeah…I think he got what he deserved.
Ah, “vigalnte violence”, nice attempt to poison the well.
Is it possible the beating went too far? Absolutley. But the guy did leave the hospital on his own.
For stealing a wallet I’d say a good broken nose, a black eye, and a broken rib or two seem about right. Followed, of course, by the appropriate punishment as outlined by the law.
In what way is “it’s okay when people take it upon themselves to physically punish others for their crimes outside of the justice system” not a support of vigiliantism? Because you think the guy should be punished twice? :dubious:
I think it says something about our soldiers respect for authority when they take the law into their own hands in this fashion. Regardless of the gay angle, what they did is completely wrong.
I’m scrappy, but I’m not a big guy, and faced with five angry soldiers I’d be a smear on the pavement. In fact, most of the men I know would be. So what’s the difference? (Are you saying too that five soldiers on one woman wouldn’t be acceptable, btw?)