I think the crux of the OP is the question of whether it was a hate crime or not. I don’t think Hermann is trying to say that the violence was justified, only that it was not “set-off” by the girl’s gender, but by her deception instead. And to Hermann’s credit, if the attack were motivated simply by deception, it would not be a hate crime. Of course that’s what I’ve been trying to spend the past hour disproving! 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan *
**
The thing is, they did not simply "knock him upside the head"! They tortured and murdered him, how can you compare the two and are you saying that this was all over a blow job??!!milroyj: *Oh, yeah, “homosexual cooties” = BAND NAME! *
Aw, I think “Mystic Homosexual Cooties” is even better.
True! Rock on!
Hermann Cheruscan, bo989 already mentioned this, but I wanted to expand on your comment again.
—Do you have evidence to the otherwise? A simple DNA test will show whether a person is male or female, regardless of their sexual orientation.—
This is wrong. There are some people who have no penis, scrotal sacs, vaginas, breasts, low muscle weight, low body hair, etc. Some of these people altered themselves with surgery. But some are actually born that way: they are genetically male (have a Y chromosome, no uterus, can’t reproduce, never mensturate), but have what’s called androgen-insensitivity syndrome, which means that male horomones fail to make the changes necessary to alter the (basically) female fetus into a male. The person is born looking exactly like a girl, and their condition is rarely discovered until puberty when they fail to start mensturating. Ironically, these individuals, while genetically male, have secondary characteristics that match the stereotypical “good lookin” female: tall, thin, low weight, but with nice boozongas.
Hermann Cheruscan, let’s try this scenario on for size.
You and four guys go into a bar. A knockout redhead chick comes up to you and propositions you for all for sex. Said sex occurs (oral or whatever). Then you discover that the girl is really a Jew, and also quarter African-American. She died and straightened her hair, and had a nose job. For the deception, you beat her/torture her to death. Acceptable? Was racism/anti-semitism involved?
Does it matter that the above person (a Jewish African with straight red hair) does not match the typical (stereotypical, even) appearance for their racial heritage? Does it matter whether it is well known or not that people can appear different than what you might assume about their race and/or heritage? It is okay that the girl in question didn’t say “hey, I’m an African Jew, is that okay with you?” Should the boys have asked first if they cared so much?
So, the question of whether the original situation in question counts as deception is not a simple one. For many transgendered people, living as their chosen sex is a daily, normal thing. Other people might think it’s weird: but they are usually just trying to live their lives as the gender they feel they are. Obviously, however, there are people who don’t understand that.
I’m not sure how I feel about hate crimes. But insofar as they can be justified as laws, I think the rationale is that they are a crime of intimidation against a group of people, in the same way that terrorism is worse than simple murder. In both cases, the extra crime is the intent to send a message of fear to a community or group of people. I don’t know if that legitimately applies in this case or not.
Moderator’s Note: What do we think of what story?
PLEASE USE DESCRIPTIVE TITLES WHEN STARTING THREADS! Thank you.
Changing thread title from “What do you guys think of this story?” to “Transgendered teen bound, strangled, beaten to death with shovel: Hate crime or not?”
In that order? 
As far as I can tell the story linked to by Hermann Cheruscan does not bear any particularly close resemblance to the story which everyone in this thread seems to be talking about. Is there some other article y’all are reading somewhere? The story says nothing about Eddie "Gwen’’ Araujo fooling anyone into having any kind of sex. All it says is that the defendants “had known [the victim] as a pretty girl named Lida” and that after they “took 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 hours to hunt down the truth of Araujo’s gender” and “discovered Lida was anatomically male” they proceeded to strangle her, tie her up, beat her with a soup can, a skillet, and eventually a shovel, and finally drive out into the wilderness to bury the body. The only thing the article said about anyone being sexually deceived by a transsexual was that one of the defendants “had been ‘tricked’ once before by a man dressed as a woman in San Francisco”. For all I can tell from that story, they invited the poor kid over to play Monopoly, someone noticed a bulge in her pants that didn’t seem to fit, they began “interrogating” her, found out the truth, then went into a murderous rage–the one guy perhaps as a result of an irrational prejudice against all transsexuals engendered by his experience with some other transsexual in San Francisco–and proceeded to torture Araujo to death over the course of several hours. Sounds like a “hate crime” to me. (Interestingly, they also referred to Araujo as a “bitch”, and apparently used female pronouns to refer to her.)
Of course, call me old-fashioned, but I would say even without a “hate crime enhancement”, people who beat other people to death with 10-inch skillets and shovels as their helpless, bound victims plead for mercy, then calmly seek to conceal their crimes by carefully driving out into the countryside (obeying the posted speed limits all the way) and burying the body, then stop off for breakfast at Mickey D’s on the way home, should never ever see the outside of a prison again, pretty much regardless of what their motives were. And if society is going to apply the death penalty, I’d say these guys should be prime candidates.
Oddly enough, these men haven’t commited a crime yet. They are on trial for one. Let’s not forget that old saw about “Innocent until proven guilty.”
The problem with this whole issue is that it’s much more than a physical appearance thing to many people. There are those that feel that homosexuality is genetic. There are those that feel it’s not.
If Homosexuality is genetic, than M. Arujo is guilty of rape, because Arujo knowingly attempted to have sex with a heterosexual male. If I tried to have sex with a girl, knowing that she doesn’t want to have sex with me, it’s rape, right? Does anyone else see the parallel here?
If the 4 defendants did kill M. Arujo, then it is up to the prosecutor to prove that they killed M. Arujo because of the “Homosexual” angle, and not for any other reason. A hard sell, if you look at it, because the men (presumably) don’t have a history of going around killing people because they are gay.
However, modern society being what it is, I’m sure all 4 will be found guilty for the hate crime killing of M. Arujo.
Cite?
Apart from the death penalty part (i’m against it), i agree with this paragraph wholeheartedly.
While i deplore the unbelieveable prejudice and malice that motivates crimes such as this one and the Matthew Sheppard murder, i tend to think that the actions themselves should be sufficient cause to take the strongest possible action against the offenders. What these people (using the term loosely) did is so heinous that, IMO, no possible “hate crime” legislation should be necessary in order for them to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
If any lawyers want to correct me on this issue, go ahead, but it seems to me that the law already has measures in place that take into account the perpetrators’ state of mind at the time of the crime. For instance, we make a distinction between premeditated murder and murder committed in the heat of the moment. It seems to me that, instead of creating a specific new category called a “hate crime,” we can deal with the issue by simply saying that the “horror” of finding out that someone is gay/transsexual/transgendered is not sufficient cause for the crime to be considered a “heat of the moment” crime. In this way, we can get rid of the ridiculous “gay panic” defence (attempted by those who killed Sheppard). Also, by asserting that gay/transsexual/transgendered people are normal, and that their simple existence is no excuse for violence, the law might also help society to become more accepting of these people.
In just about every case i’ve heard where the issue of “hate crime” comes up, the actions alone of the perpetrator/s has been bad enough to warrant severe punishment. I’m not sure we need to further complicate the issue by attempting to guess even more accurately what was in the criminal’s mind at the time of the crime.
Of course, this little rant is essentially just my take on the hate crimes issue in general. In answer to the “blame the victim” tack taken by the OP, i would simply say:
a) even if Araujo did “fool” people into having sex (which, as MEBuckner points out, can hardly be taken for granted based on the article), this is not sufficient cause even for trying to “beat the hell out of the dude” (as Hermann so beautifully put it), let alone a despicable, drawn out murder.
b) they can probably “get [the] attackers on a ‘hate crime’ charge” because the crime falls under the California criminal code’s definition of a “hate crime.” And that’s all the DA needs to file the charges.
Actually, i just found a couple more links to the story. In this one, the attorney for one of the accused said:
I love it when lawyers trot out the “good college student” line. It often means they’ve got nothing else.
In this article it says that Nabors (the one who is cooperating with the police) told the cops that:
Of course, this excuses nothing, and is also only the testimony of someone looking to find excuses after being caught.
Finally, from the same article, i thought people might want to know about this piece of human shit:
Gotta admire the Christian spirit of love and tolerance displayed by some people.
—If I tried to have sex with a girl, knowing that she doesn’t want to have sex with me, it’s rape, right?—
What if she was perfectly happy to have you go down on her, or for her to screw you with a strap on, not knowing that you are really a male homosexual? Or a hermaphrodite? I don’t see how it’s rape just because you have a secret identity she doesn’t know about.
And I um, meant “dyed.” The dying came after a gang of four men beat her to death for turning out to be the wrong thing.
Your post makes no sense. What does genetics have to do with anything? If you have sex with a woman or man who doesm’t agree to it, yes, you are guilty of rape. I see no paralell with the item in the OP.
It is in question whether the perpetrator did have sex with Araujo that night, but even if it is true it could not be considered rape. If sexual relations did occur, it was by mutual consent. One of the people turned out to be not what they appeared on the outside. This is life. This is what you get when you bang a stranger at a bar.
Didn’t you ever lie to a girl to make yourself more appealing to her? Didn’t you ever believe the guy that said he wasn’t married because you just wanted him that bad? If we all were justified in killing dates who misrepresented themselves not only would the jails be ovweflowing in capacity, but there would be no one left to socialize with.
MEBuckner- it appears there may not have been sex at that particular party. However, it is also apparent that the men in question did have sex with the victim, at one point or other.
Apos- You’re not getting what I’m saying. And if I were a male homosexual, I wouldn’t be asking for a woman to do me with a strap on. Being homosexual, I wouldn’t be interested in a woman that way, right? I stand by what I said, if I tricked a girl into having sex with me, knowing that some condition existed that would otherwise have made her NOT have sex with me, I am guilty of rape.
Consuela- Actually, no, I portray myself as what I am. There is a difference between saying “I’m rich” or “I’m really Brad Pitt” and saying “I’m a woman” if you’re not. A heterosexual male may be persuaded to have sex with a (biological/genetic) female. However, his heterosexuality would preclude him from having sex with someone like the victim, a physical male.
Let me just jump in here and say that I think the perps, if guilty (most likely) are going to go away. And that’s good. They are scum, and the planet would be better off without them.
However, this is an instance where suddenly everyone wants to point out how noble the victim was. I submit that there were a series of crimes here.
Ok. This is a hypothetical. I am a straight male. I dress in drag convincingly, and go to a gay/lesbian bar to pick up on lesbian women. Once I have them in my car, I go down on them, get them off with my hands, whatever. Then, when I’m done, I expose myself as a male.
I’m goign to go to jail for rape. I practically guarantee it. Sometimes being a male sucks.
However, if I’m a male, and I pick up a hot little chick, and she sucks me off, and then I find out she’s a he, if I go to the cops, I’m going to get laughed at.
I also think that there is a lot of focus on “Gender”, “Transgender”, “Sexual Orientation” and the like. It’s a straw man defense (if I understand that concept correctly). The orientation of the scum is straight. The orientation of the victim was not. That the victim was a transgender is not the issue, the fact that the victim apparently, at one point or another, tricked the scum into homosexual acts without their knowledge or permission is part of what’s going on here.
However, they should not have done what they did, regardless. They should hang, slowly.
Not if he’s doing time in the State pen…
Please elaborate. I am curious to learn just what you think an Aggie actually is.
My answer to the original question is no, I don’t think a hate crime should be charged. Murder is murder, and that is the charge, plain and simple. What you were thinking at the time has nothing to do with it. Why is killing someone because you don’t like gay people somehow worse than killing someone to steal their wallet? Ther person is just as dead, and did not deserve to be dead whether it is because of their sexual preference or because they appeared to be an easy mark to steal from.
The notion of thought crime being actually a crime now seriously bothers me.
An Aggie is a “student” at Texas A&M, persons legendary in my home state. (I’m from Waco…quiet little town, you never heard of it, nothing ever happens there.) They are the source of numerous witticism such as: What is an Aggie seven course dinner? A six pack of Pearl and a road kill.
Such slurs are, or course, entirely underserved and I resolve to feel a twinge of guilt the moment I am done laughing.
OK, then as a Texan I can accept your jealous whinings about your superiors 
. BTW, I’m an Aggie, class of '88 thank you very much. I know very well where Waco is. My family has a farm up near Jewett, roughly 90 miles east. I didn’t grow up there, but in Houston. The farm was a weekend thing.
The reason for my post to you was due to your “location” of MN. I mistakenly figured you for someone who had the term “Aggie” somewhere and didn’t actually know why Aggies were the butt of jokes.
Can you send me some Pearl? I can’t get it up here in TN. Did you know they don’t let us graduate A&M until we can get 6 out of 10 of the pictograms under the bottle caps right on the first try?
>they attacked Araujo because Araujo misreprepresented himself as a female and he seduced heterosexual men to have sex with him.<
While Araujo did not deserve to be beaten to death, he/she/it was looking for trouble by misrepresenting herself. I wonder if he/she/it got some kind of sick thrill by seducing these men and then exposing the deception at the most inoportune time. He/she/it was courting disaster and lying, and he/she/it knew it.