Moved Cafe Society --> IMHO.
Wyoming.
Also, the 3 guys in the car with him (all black, and all doctors as well) testified that they all received good care, but Drew was just too badly injured to survive. The “whites only hospital” story really is 100% undiluted bullshit.
I’m not sure why it’s surprising that someone who was gang-raped while in Morocco, as Shepherd was might get into Meth or even why selling drugs to friends makes him evil or even less of a victim.
For that matter, the idea that Henderson and McKinney were tracking him to rob him, visited several places he’d been to that night and brutally tortured and killed him in anger due to finding out he had no drugs on him coupled with coming off a drug binge hardly makes them less sympathetic.
That the guy was beaten to a pulp and left to die tied to a fence is horrible and worth sympathy regardless of the other circumstances.
However, the death and the crime made international news because it was presented as a hate crime that occurred solely because the victim was gay. If that’s not the case - if he was murdered over drugs, with his and the attacker’s sexuality a side issue at most, it does call into question much of the original hysteria. It doesn’t change that it’s a tragedy.
Exactly! And what it really calls into question is the true worth of so-called ‘hate crimes’ in general. Does hate ever motivate a crime? Of course, all the time. But if you officially make that a ‘worse’ crime then you are automatically making a ‘non-hate’ crime not as bad, both in the eyes of the law and the public eye. And that is a very, very wrong thing. The epitome of ‘the slippery slope’…
I don’t know about you, but for me, yes, being a drug dealer whose skeevy asshole friends kill you when you run out of drugs makes you less of a victim than if you are some innocent bystander who gets killed by homophobes. If that’s how it went down.
It doesn’t mean he deserved it. But it’s like the difference between a bank teller getting shot during a bank robbery, and a bank robber getting shot by an accomplice in an arguement over divvying up the loot.
Again, I don’t know enough about the case to say definitively one way or the other. But, as Hail Ants mentions, the media spent a good deal of time presenting this as motivated as pure homophobia, and what this says about us as a society. If it turns out otherwise, then that says something different about us as a society, with equal validity.
Regards,
Shodan
This is the main reason i think the book’s claim is bullshit. The defendants never claimed they were innocent - the purpose of the trial was to determine if the murder should be a capital crime or not. Anything that makes the victim less sympathetic is going to help the defendant avoid the death penalty. So why didn’t it come out then?
While the news media has a lot of faults, lets keep in mind the “I killed him because he was gay,” was the actual defense strategy. It wasn’t something invented purely out of media hysteria.
Out of curiosity had gay panic been a winning or mitigating strategy in prior assault or murder cases?
Not exactly. There were a lot of claims, ranging from “I killed him because he came on to me” to “I pretended to be gay to get him alone so I could rob him”. (Cite - it’s wiki, but seems close enough).
I don’t think this is accurate either.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t believe it’s ever resulted in an outright acquittal, but it’s often been used successfully to reduce the conviction. One of the more infamous cases was the murder of Scott Amedure by Jonathan Schwartz, after the two had appeared on an episode of the Jenny Jones show about secret admirers. From the wikipedia description of the crime:
Despite this fairly elaborate preparation for the crime, Schmitz was only convicted of second degree murder.
Right. They made a lot of different defense claims during the trial. If there was any truth to the drug theory, I’d expect it to have come out as part of their “throw everything at the wall and see if it sticks” legal strategy.
It’s also worth noting that “gay panic” was their initial defense, and they only changed it after the judge ruled they couldn’t use it in the trial.
I’m not seeing where that contradicts what I wrote.
It really says a lot about right-wingers that so many of them are jumping on this shit. Not enough to have a man beaten to death, gotta smear him with lies when he’s dead too, huh? Lots of “Oh, well, if this is a possibility…” willing to treat the idea with ‘respect’ but no actual sources backing that up.
Which trial do you think was purely to decide penalty, and not guilt or innocence? Henderson pleaded guilty and got double life in return for testifying against McKinney. McKinney was convicted and cut a deal during the penalty phase. The purpose of both (completed) trials was to determine guilt or innocence, not merely whether or not it was capital murder.
Regards,
Shodan
Both men plead guilty to crime, did they not?
No, only Henderson AFAICT.
The penalty phase, in which the jury decides if it was a capital offense or not, started after that. Neither man, IOW, ever had a trial at which the only question was whether or not it was a capital offense.
McKinney was acquitted of a couple of the charges against him, in case you didn’t know.
Regards,
Shodan
I know nothing of Dr. Drew, however it’s not as if this sort of thing never happened: I was surprised in reading the Wiki on Chester Himes to read his account — which, yes, might be deceitful or mistaken, but I doubt that — of his brother:
He had misbehaved and his mother made him sit out a gunpowder demonstration that he and his brother, Joseph Jr., were supposed to conduct during a school assembly. Working alone, Joseph mixed the chemicals; they exploded in his face. Rushed to the nearest hospital, the blinded boy was refused treatment. “That one moment in my life hurt me as much as all the others put together,” Himes wrote in The Quality of Hurt.
- “I loved my brother. I had never been separated from him and that moment was shocking, shattering, and terrifying…We pulled into the emergency entrance of a white people’s hospital. White clad doctors and attendants appeared. I remember sitting in the back seat with Joe watching the pantomime being enacted in the car’s bright lights. A white man was refusing; my father was pleading. Dejectedly my father turned away; he was crying like a baby. My mother was fumbling in her handbag for a handkerchief; I hoped it was for a pistol.”
In the present case, whilst misliking the gay hate-crime hysteria — and I wouldn’t be surprised if some people profit from such furores — I can’t care nor blame Mr. Shepherd for being gay or straight, drug-dealer or drug-free ( none of which activities affect my being; and I neither take drugs or am gay ): I would have no objection to his murderers being dead sooner than later.
Okay, I see where I screwed up.
You are correct, McKinney did not plead guilty to first degree murder. He confessed to the killing, but argued that it was not premeditated, and that he was not in control over his actions. The prosecution argued that he had set out that night with the explicit intention of finding and assaulting a gay man.
The question of whether or not McKinney beat Matthew Shepard to death was never in doubt, only McKinney’s motivations for doing so, and that was the subject of the trial. I phrased it poorly, but my point was that the defendants never claimed they were not responsible for Shepard’s death.