Quote from: patstar on July 10, 2012, 11:54:08 PM
*Sigh*, please forgive me if I sound a little impatient. How much do you really need to know? The obvious facts are: she was being verbally and physically harassed by a trio of hate-mongering GOONS, she had a bottle broken in her face requiring eleven stitches; she was arrested immediately —but not the remaining two goons, one of whom had smashed the bottle in her face—who had started the whole thing. More so, the "victim" had a swastika tattoo on his chest and criminal (a skin-head with a criminal record—now there's a real surprise!) history, which wasn't allowed in evidence in her trial.
It is also pretty clear that she and her friends tried to walk away; and that he followed her down the street. If a lot of it seems sketchy, that is probably by the design of the perpetrators of this outrage.
Related Fact(s): George Zimmerman shot and killed a single unarmed teenager and wasn't arrested until weeks later. More than few would say that the details of this case are AT LEAST equally "sketchy".
If we keep letting them under-value our lives, then our sisters shall continue to receive injustice......or/and die.
The fact he was wearing a swastika and had a criminal record does not, in and of itself, have any relevance to what did or didn't happen in this particular event. It is not proof that he initiated the violent conflict.
Update: I went through more of the court documents to try and find out what happened, so much of the previous portion of this post is no longer relevant and I've removed it.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/356409/mcdonald-chrishaun-11-16485-5-2-12-plea.pdfIt lists out in the above link her version of what happened in her entering a plea of guilty.
So the real question is, why did she plea guilty? That's really the big question mark, if she had a good and solid case of self defense, why didn't her lawyers recommend going to trial.
These are things we just don't know, I wish we did, and I wish the best for Cece McDonald, but there's just not enough information to really take action, she pleaded guilty, maybe she shouldn't have, but she did.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Minnesota self defense law states what pretty much amounts to a duty to retreat, that she is in violation in not attempting to escape from the situation and resorting first to using a weapon in self defense.
Now I don't agree with the law in that regard, if her version of events are accurate, then I agree, morally she did nothing wrong, and the law needs to be changed (and indeed my research indicates it may well be changed soon). But in a technical legal sense, she's not innocent, under the law at the time of the offense. Which I suspect is likely why her lawyers suggested she enter a plea of guilty.
None of this supports or defends her placement in a male prison, and in that I completely agree it's unacceptable.
If it were up to me, and if her version of events are truthful, I'd release her, but it's not up to me, and the law says what it says, in terms of her guilt it's nothing to do with her being transgender or not. The real injustice to focus on is her inmate housing, if you want to argue self defense law then that's not transgender specific.
Unfortunately all of this gets into the messy world of politics, and unfortunately for people with views such as mine, there's little compromise. Those on the left tend to disagree with my strong views on the rights to self defense (and in my view she had a right to potentially lethal self defense in the situation described), those on the right would disagree with my views on a great many other issues. In the end it's the whole system at fault. And sadly that won't be changed any time soon because the majority of people have comfortable lives under the system as it exists and will defend it.
