"gay Panic" Defense Outlawed In California

[konradv]

Always seemed like a really specious defense to me. Did they panic because they were leaning towards accepting an advance?

 

[sameech]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

 

[konradv]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

 

[sameech]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

If it is the truth, then black panic and white panic and dwarfism panic and any other type of panic should be allowed to be argued.

 

[konradv]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

If it is the truth, then black panic and white panic and dwarfism panic and any other type of panic should be allowed to be argued.

I'm afraid that's just ridiculous. Panic isn't a justification for anything. It's a personal failing that shouldn't get you leniency.

 

[sameech]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

If it is the truth, then black panic and white panic and dwarfism panic and any other type of panic should be allowed to be argued.

I'm afraid that's just ridiculous. Panic isn't a justification for anything. It's a personal failing that shouldn't get you leniency.

Panic disorders are a form of mental illness and are just as legitimate as any insanity defense.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Wow, so a little kid who kicks a queer in the shin and runs away from the sodomite pedophile's advances, can end up in court with an assault rap and a sentence to juvie? This is why the Islamic expedient to all matters homosexual looks more attractive to me by the minute.

 

[OnePercenter]

Wow, so a little kid who kicks a queer in the shin and runs away from the sodomite pedophile's advances, can end up in court with an assault rap and a sentence to juvie? This is why the Islamic expedient to all matters homosexual looks more attractive to me by the minute.

And there we have it.

 

[Politico]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

LOL Kalifornia and TYT being a news source and aside. Killing someone who is hitting n you just because they are gay is not a defense.

 

[Sunni Man]

Humans are biologically hard wired to to have an aversion to homosexuals. .....

 

[Noomi]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

You can claim you panicked, but you shouldn't be allowed to claim you killed someone because you were afraid of them for being gay.

 

[Noomi]

Wow, so a little kid who kicks a queer in the shin and runs away from the sodomite pedophile's advances, can end up in court with an assault rap and a sentence to juvie? This is why the Islamic expedient to all matters homosexual looks more attractive to me by the minute.

A completely separate issue and you know it.

 

[Katzndogz]

They will still allow the urban rage defense though for black people who become murderous.

Trying to eliminate this defense has been going on since Brian McInerny killed Lawrence King because he could not stop King from harassing him.

 

[martybegan]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

You can claim you panicked, but you shouldn't be allowed to claim you killed someone because you were afraid of them for being gay.

Why shouldn't you be allowed to claim it? Why, only in this specific case, has California decided to prevent a defendant and his attorney from providing a defense theory?

 

[bodecea]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

If it is the truth, then black panic and white panic and dwarfism panic and any other type of panic should be allowed to be argued.

I agree with you on this one...it shouldn't be allowed to be presented....but then, the prosecution should shoot it down as the ridiculousness that it is.....just like someone cannot use the excuse of "I was drunk" as an effective excuse.

 

[bodecea]

Humans are biologically hard wired to to have an aversion to homosexuals. .....

Well, I always knew that I frightened you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we are allowing panic defenses, then 'Muslim panic defense' and 'hetero fascist panic defense' are quite logical.

 

[martybegan]

If we are allowing panic defenses, then 'Muslim panic defense' and 'hetero fascist panic defense' are quite logical.

Or if we are banning them, we have to ban all of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree, Marty.

 

[Katzndogz]

The man who shot the muslim beheader in Moore, Oklahoma had muslim panic.