Always seemed like a really specious defense to me. Did they panic because they were leaning towards accepting an advance?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Well, I always knew that I frightened you.Humans are biologically hard wired to to have an aversion to homosexuals. .....
If we are allowing panic defenses, then 'Muslim panic defense' and 'hetero fascist panic defense' are quite logical.