• HughJanus
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    What “risks” are they talking about?

    • GarfieldYaoi [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hate crimes. grillman and frothingfash cannot resist the temptation of committing hate crimes, and the pleasure they get from making innocents suffer.

      • HughJanus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know what these things are. Are you suggesting that there’s an exception for crimes committed against these people?

        • cynetri (he/any)@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Total exceptions? No. But many states still allow people to get reduced sentences via the gay panic defense for killing LGBTQ people. That, and some politicians are encouraging hate crimes against them with hateful rhetoric about them being “groomers” and whatnot.

          • HughJanus
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            But many states still allow people to get reduced sentences via the gay panic defense for killing LGBTQ people.

            You say that like it’s explicitly allowed by the state. It isn’t. It’s a legal defense lawyers use in court. Whether or not it’s legitimate is determined by a jury.

              • HughJanus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                But that “effect” has nothing to do with the US…

            • cynetri (he/any)@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You say that like it’s explicitly allowed by the state.

              It is. Keeping it a valid legal defense is a policy choice. Some states banned it, they chose to. Other states have not, they decided not to. That’s politics.

              • HughJanus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                But it’s not a valid legal defense. You cannot ban a lawyer from putting it forward as a legal defense.

                • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You literally can, just like any number of other valid bases for objections to arguments put forward. If the judge rules it to be such a defense, it would be struck from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it, and if the lawyer keeps on it, they would be held in contempt of court. Furthermore, if it is plainly a case of such a defense and the judge lets it fly, the prosecution can claim mistrial.

                  Perhaps there are other ways of banning it, but that is the obvious one in the American framework.

          • HughJanus
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There literally is not. That’s a legal defense that lawyers use. It doesn’t instantly exonerate the crime.

            • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              depending on the judge

              To treat it as a valid legal defense is an abomination and judges have countless times ruled in favor of the perpetrator on just the basis of that defense.

              • HughJanus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                That’s not a legal exception, that’s just a corrupt judge. Do you not have those in Canada?

                • mayo_cider [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Do you understand how precedent works in the US court system? I mean, I fully agree that US judges and laws are corrupt, but it doesn’t change the fact that those laws and judges are still upheld by the state

                  • HughJanus
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yes I understand. I asked a question, would you like to answer it? Did you not notice that people use this same defense in other countries?

      • HughJanus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude stop repeating nonsense you read on the internet and maybe actually put forward some sort of argument.

          • HughJanus
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wow you’ve actually made a meme out of not having anything to back up your statements. I’m impressed. I’m gonna make some of these up.

            How about uhhhh zebra-ing. That’s when you go around the internet spreading bullshit you made up and then play the victim when people ask you to back up your statements.