My tolerance for stupid people is diminishing rapidly i think. I walked out of the shop a few days ago and was taunted by a guy as being a fat ugly ->-bleeped-<- freak and then he snapped my bra strap i was like WTF!!!
I turned around and said to him its ok dear you continue to abuse strangers whom you don't even know and the world will be a better place for it...
then i dropped him and said DON'T you EVER snap a woman's bra strap when you don't know her!!! and walked off i even got some "good on you" comments from bystanders.
I don't condone violence but sometimes it's all that works. And when it is a choice between depression and being suicidal or taking some power back from these jerks i know what i am choosing from now on
there are two types of people. Idiots and manics. Especially while driving.
George carlin- Idiot and Maniac (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkxaF5Pq5D8#)
Some guys think that is flirting. It is more likely to get them a punch in the nose or a slap to the face.
Quote from: Majik on July 06, 2012, 07:11:59 PM
I walked out of the shop a few days ago and was taunted by a guy as being a fat ugly ->-bleeped-<- freak and then he snapped my bra strap i was like WTF!!!
Don't know what country you live in, so I can't say for sure, but in just about all parts of the US, what you just described is assault, and that person would be arrested.
Consider reporting this as a crime.
Quote from: Majik on July 06, 2012, 07:11:59 PM
I don't condone violence but sometimes it's all that works. And when it is a choice between depression and being suicidal or taking some power back from these jerks i know what i am choosing from now on
I understand why you felt you had to do what you did hon, but violence isn't power. It just lowers you to their level.
I would have just looked him straight in the eyes and said "Make the most of that, with your level of hatred and repressed anger, it's the closest you're probably ever going to get to a woman's bra." Before smiling and walking away. However I can be a venomous b*tch in some situations, and I wouldn't recommend doing that either.
If you give someone the reaction they're expecting, then you give them the power over you. Even if that reaction is a punch that knocks them to the floor. It's allowing your buttons to be pushed. People lose their power when the things they do have no effect. Then they just make a fool of themselves.
.
I am an ex-police officer....that action was physical assault and you could of had him arrested....
Someone cannot lay a hand on you.....
Huggs
Dee Jay
Quote from: Sephirah on July 06, 2012, 07:36:25 PM
I understand why you felt you had to do what you did hon, but violence isn't power. It just lowers you to their level.
I would have just looked him straight in the eyes and said "Make the most of that, with your level of hatred and repressed anger, it's the closest you're probably ever going to get to a woman's bra." Before smiling and walking away. However I can be a venomous b*tch in some situations, and I wouldn't recommend doing that either.
If you give someone the reaction they're expecting, then you give them the power over you. Even if that reaction is a punch that knocks them to the floor. It's allowing your buttons to be pushed. People lose their power when the things they do have no effect. Then they just make a fool of themselves.
Sometimes...you just have to put a mad dog down.
^-^
I think that guy would need his I.Q. raised about 10 points to get to merely stupid. Funny thing is I suspect, from fact that he touched your bra, he may been attracted to you in some way; but the only way that his little mind could deal with this was to have him act as he did.
Violence or getting down to the level of these Neanderthals may well be intellectually regrettable; but violence, anyway, can work rather well--in sending a message that they'll understand and giving one some satisfaction. A gut emotional reaction isn't always wrong; and intellectualizing an event isn't always correct--or effective.
Majik,the fact that this guy put his hand on you shows his boorishness.
Quote from: agfrommd on July 06, 2012, 07:35:12 PM
Don't know what country you live in, so I can't say for sure, but in just about all parts of the US, what you just described is assault, and that person would be arrested.
I agree. The guy sounded like a total tosser.
You have to do what you have to do, and he was very much out of line. I think you did the right thing, Majik - defended yourself. He sounds like the sort of idiot who would have tried to persist to taunt and harass you if no one had done anything.
Quote from: Sephirah on July 06, 2012, 07:36:25 PM
I understand why you felt you had to do what you did hon, but violence isn't power. It just lowers you to their level.
I would have just looked him straight in the eyes and said "Make the most of that, with your level of hatred and repressed anger, it's the closest you're probably ever going to get to a woman's bra." Before smiling and walking away. However I can be a venomous b*tch in some situations, and I wouldn't recommend doing that either.
If you give someone the reaction they're expecting, then you give them the power over you. Even if that reaction is a punch that knocks them to the floor. It's allowing your buttons to be pushed. People lose their power when the things they do have no effect. Then they just make a fool of themselves.
Ah school yard logic "just walk away" "go and tell the teacher" "I don't care who started it"
Works SO well in the school yard too...
If you're attacked you defend yourself.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 06, 2012, 11:39:58 PM
Ah school yard logic "just walk away" "go and tell the teacher" "I don't care who started it"
Works SO well in the school yard too...
If you're attacked you defend yourself.
And then you end up in jail like cece Mcdonald. You have to be smart out there.
No, key words:
*IF* you're attacked, *THEN* you defend yourself.
In the US, they allow this...and the fact the aggressor indicated he did it because he thought Majik was a "->-bleeped-<- freak" makes it aggravated assault (i.e., a "hate crime").
Majik was entirely in the right.
The original post presents an interesting hypothetical.
I think was all agree that the action of the "guy" was a form of assault - both verbal and physical.
I think we would all agree that "self defense" is a fundamental human right.
But I believe the reaction should be proportional to the provocation.
Suppose the OP was armed with a legal, concealed hangun. Would she have been justified in wounding her assailant, or shooting him dead?
Or suppose the OP was a martial arts expert. Would a deadly blow to the solar plexus be justified? Or perhaps dislocating the assailant's arm, or breaking a bone?
What about using sufficient force to make a citizen's arrest?
Or enough force to immediately stop the assault?
Something to ponder.
Too bad the incident wasn't caught on camera and posted to YouTube.
Quote from: Jamie D on July 07, 2012, 01:44:20 AM
The original post presents an interesting hypothetical.
I think was all agree that the action of the "guy" was a form of assault - both verbal and physical.
I think we would all agree that "self defense" is a fundamental human right.
But I believe the reaction should be proportional to the provocation.
Suppose the OP was armed with a legal, concealed hangun. Would she have been justified in wounding her assailant, or shooting him dead?
Or suppose the OP was a martial arts expert. Would a deadly blow to the solar plexus be justified? Or perhaps dislocating the assailant's arm, or breaking a bone?
What about using sufficient force to make a citizen's arrest?
Or enough force to immediately stop the assault?
Something to ponder.
Too bad the incident wasn't caught on camera and posted to YouTube.
That's the key phrase. "Enough force to stop the attack." If the force needed is a punch to the face, that's it. If the bra-snapper continued, then potentially a more violent (or even lethal) response would be warranted.
One thing the law looks at is "disparity of strength." A 90yo woman would be allowed to use a gun against a 200lbs young man...But a 200lbs young man would not be allowed to use it against a 14yo boy who tries to rob him bare-handed.
In this case, a punch to the face stopped it. But, what if it hadn't? What if the guy suddenly pulled a knife on her? Or a gun? Or doubled up his fists, and aggressively moved towards her?
Lot of "what-ifs" there. But, as long as the response is proportional to the threat, the law won't be a problem (unless one lives in an ultra-liberal place that says it's better to die rather than fight)
Quote from: Beth Andrea on July 07, 2012, 01:17:10 AM
No, key words:
*IF* you're attacked, *THEN* you defend yourself.
In the US, they allow this...and the fact the aggressor indicated he did it because he thought Majik was a "->-bleeped-<- freak" makes it aggravated assault (i.e., a "hate crime").
Majik was entirely in the right.
Google cece mcdonald. She was attacked by a skinhead and his gf and ended up killing the skinhead to save her life. Shes about to go to a male prison in Minnesota because of it. If you can avoid violence you should. Most situations can he diffused with an incredulous eye roll.
Plus I don't know about you but after years of hrt most Guys and girls could probably kick my ass
I personally don't have a problem with what you did and I think everyone has a right to defend themselves but you're lucky he backed down and didn't take the attack to the next level. A punch to the face may send the guy into a violent rage. Just something to consider.
considering the physical offense against your person, a truly appropriate response would have been an atomic wedgie.
majik I wanted to high five you for dropping the creep but your action was not prudent. You could have been arrested for assault and, assuming you are pre-op, that is something you desperately want to avoid at any cost.
Quote from: Jamie D on July 07, 2012, 01:44:20 AM
The original post presents an interesting hypothetical.
I think was all agree that the action of the "guy" was a form of assault - both verbal and physical.
I think we would all agree that "self defense" is a fundamental human right.
But I believe the reaction should be proportional to the provocation.
Suppose the OP was armed with a legal, concealed hangun. Would she have been justified in wounding her assailant, or shooting him dead?
Or suppose the OP was a martial arts expert. Would a deadly blow to the solar plexus be justified? Or perhaps dislocating the assailant's arm, or breaking a bone?
What about using sufficient force to make a citizen's arrest?
Or enough force to immediately stop the assault?
Something to ponder.
Too bad the incident wasn't caught on camera and posted to YouTube.
I would have simply cast a juju spell on him to make him stop.
Tbh, if I had a gun, I would've showed it. Guns are the great equalizer after all. I don't care how built you are, a bullet will take you down.
You guys are a bunch of pushovers.
The OP is attacked, fights back, and you say she did something wrong.
Saying what you would do in a situation you were not involved in, throwing around hypothetical worst case scenarios.
Majik, you got my support, from the sounds of it I think you did awesome.
Good for you. I have no doubt the guy will think twice before opening his mouth again to anyone. One thing I have learned about violence and fighting while learning to defend myself, in many other countries they view violence much differently than in the United States and what this guy did would typically be considered someone looking for a fight and the cops probably wouldn't even investigate it. They would see it as well you deserved what you got for running your mouth. It's such a shame that only a few states allow you to defend yourself in that situation without fear of prosecution.
On a side note though. I bet it felt damn good to put him in his place. I train in Target Focus Training. Phenomenal training system. Very.effective and you can learn enough in a weekend to be comfortable knowing you will survive most truly violent encounters.
Donna Jean is correct. That is assault. However, where I live (Utah) it would be overlooked and possibly I provoked it. The police are inept and transphobic also. If I resorted to violence the repercusions would be severe.
A punch (or whatever constitutes "dropping" someone) to floor a guy sounds like a decent equalizer to bra-snapping and attempted public humiliation. However, I wouldn't worry so much about the law in that scenario as I would about my immediate surroundings. It's good that you had a supporter or two on the sidelines in the aftermatch, but they could just as easily have been his equally stupid friends attempting to defend him and leave you even worse off than just a bra-snapping. I hope you were careful in considering such possibilities when you acted.
Personally, I'd rather invest in a taser/mace, but good for you for standing up for yourself. :)
Why are MTFs so violent?
Quote from: Adam1 on July 08, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
Tee hee?:p
Bein' serious here... violence is not the answer :)
Quote from: pretty on July 08, 2012, 03:04:15 PM
Bein' serious here... violence is not the answer :)
Of course not!
>:-)
In all honesty, I've never been violent towards another person. In fact, immuch too passive irl too even yell at someone.
Make catty comments?yes
B*tchfight?no thanks lol!
I would just be careful if I were you I understand why you did it but as a few others have mentioned it might bring in worse consequences in the future.
Quote from: agfrommd on July 06, 2012, 07:35:12 PM
Don't know what country you live in, so I can't say for sure, but in just about all parts of the US, what you just described is assault, and that person would be arrested.
Consider reporting this as a crime.
From one lady to another...I'm PROUD OF YOU!!! You were in danger and you took care of this cretin! I agree with the above quote...consider reporting this waste of air to the police and prosecute as far as the law allows!
It disappoints me that there are still people out there like this. But I have to say I agree completely that defending yourself in any means necessary is the appropriate response. Chattanooga TN is slowly becoming a pretty tolerant of gay and lesbian couples, not like say San Fran or New York, but getting there. When out with my brother-in-law he and his partner might get a few head turns at the most. Never had anyone say anything, or let alone assault someone in my sight. Though I do think that no matter how accepting your city is, the police are probably gonna be pretty iffy. It's their job to find guilt in disputes for one person or another, isn't always the right person.
Quote from: opheliaxen on July 07, 2012, 04:33:25 AM
Google cece mcdonald. She was attacked by a skinhead and his gf and ended up killing the skinhead to save her life. Shes about to go to a male prison in Minnesota because of it. If you can avoid violence you should. Most situations can he diffused with an incredulous eye roll.
Plus I don't know about you but after years of hrt most Guys and girls could probably kick my ass
YES, this happened; but was what happened to her really in any way justice? I very much resent CeCe's case being held up as a reason NOT to defend ones self. Even when you fail to defend yourself and are battered and bloody, dumb or prejudicial (I would say both) "law enforcement" officials will frequently treat you like
the criminal—and I know this from experience.
Would it have been better that she had done nothing and possibly have been killed herself? This kind of low-life has killed totally innocent people in such situations. (Has anyone ever received the death penalty for a hate-crime
murder?) It seems to me that the law does a very poor job of protecting people like us in too many places in our society.
It is quite doubtful that CeCe's—or even Majik's—situation could be dealt with at all well with an incredulous eye roll. Also it is a great deal easier to take the intellectual, and objective, point of view if you aren't the subject of especially a violent attack. I put forth the old question; just how much is one supposed to take in the name of knowing that he/she did the: good, "right", intelligent, Biblically correct, lawful, etc thing? As long as human beings remain what they are and the law is as "imperfect" as it is .....
To further the injustice of CeCe's case, they're sending her to men's prison.
Why isn't our whole community rallying around this young transgendered woman? Cece's case should make every MtF, regardless of degree or variety, fighting mad. In a world where too many of us are murdered yearly, she was convicted for surviving!
OK, I need back into this discussion.
I haven't hit anyone since my school days, but I'm not a whole lot bigger than I was back then.
The only reaction I ever got when I hit anyone was laughter.
I'm still under 160 lbs (and male-bodied with no hrt). If I hit another male bodied person of any reasonable size, he'd probably be able to kill me.
If you're big or athletic people it's all very well and good to advise people to defend themselves, but be aware that not everyone may be as physically capable as you are.
Quote from: agfrommd on July 10, 2012, 08:53:12 PM
OK, I need back into this discussion.
I haven't hit anyone since my school days, but I'm not a whole lot bigger than I was back then.
The only reaction I ever got when I hit anyone was laughter.
I'm still under 160 lbs (and male-bodied with no hrt). If I hit another male bodied person of any reasonable size, he'd probably be able to kill me.
If you're big or athletic people it's all very well and good to advise people to defend themselves, but be aware that not everyone may be as physically capable as you are.
That's why we created weapons.
Knives, guns, tasers, stunguns, OC/pepper spray, a sharp stick.
If you aren't even willing to TRY and protect yourself you're just asking to be victimized.
It's all very well and good to advise people to not defend themselves when you have a naive 'civilized' view of the world, but the world is only barely civilized. Bad people ARE out there and frankly, people too frightened to defend themselves, I feel sorry for them but this is evolution 101.
I'm sure this sounds hard and cynical and dangerous, but so is the reality of the world.
Quote from: agfrommd on July 10, 2012, 08:53:12 PM
OK, I need back into this discussion.
I haven't hit anyone since my school days, but I'm not a whole lot bigger than I was back then.
The only reaction I ever got when I hit anyone was laughter.
I'm still under 160 lbs (and male-bodied with no hrt). If I hit another male bodied person of any reasonable size, he'd probably be able to kill me.
If you're big or athletic people it's all very well and good to advise people to defend themselves, but be aware that not everyone may be as physically capable as you are.
I understand you. Your point is very well taken. Also, I'm not saying that retaliatory violence is necessarily the right thing. I don't think that's really what any of us on this side of the debate are really saying. The problem is those who are so very quick to, and automatically label it the wrong thing. (For those who are too frail to physically defend themselves there are things such as pepper-spray, etc.)
If our society were anywhere close to being what it is suppose to be—and claims to be—then, retaliating or fighting back would definitely be wrong. The fact is that all of us live in the real world; and many of us are sick and tired of being passive victims—and totally relying on law enforcement which is all too frequently hardly any better than those assailing us.
I guess what I'm saying is that it is time for a better answer than "turn the other cheek", etc. Saying that we could be very badly hurt doesn't suffice either. Couldn't that—
in fact hasn't it—happen anyway?
Quote from: patstar on July 10, 2012, 08:42:44 PM
To further the injustice of CeCe's case, they're sending her to men's prison.
Why isn't our whole community rallying around this young transgendered woman? Cece's case should make every MtF, regardless of degree or variety, fighting mad. In a world where too many of us are murdered yearly, she was convicted for surviving!
I completely agree she shouldn't be sent to a male prison.
But otherwise, the details of the situation are very sketchy and we really don't know the truth about what happened. I won't defend someone as being innocent of wrong doing for no greater reason than them having something in common with me.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 10, 2012, 10:45:15 PM
I completely agree she shouldn't be sent to a male prison.
But otherwise, the details of the situation are very sketchy and we really don't know the truth about what happened. I won't defend someone as being innocent of wrong doing for no greater reason than them having something in common with me.
*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.
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.pdf
It 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.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 11, 2012, 03:20:04 AM
I'm sorry but I can't take a side without knowing the facts. I don't know the facts in this case, the facts in this case likely can't be known with any certainty except maybe by those in the court proceedings. You may very well be right, in fact on the balance of evidence, I think it's more likely she was acting in legitimate self defense than any other explanation.
But I personally don't support taking action on her behalf when we can't know the full story. I won't defend someone just because they're also transgender.
This is what it says on the cece blog supporting her case.
Now I don't know what "told them that her crew would not tolerate hate speech" actually means, for all I know her group were the first to threaten violence.
It also doesn't say exactly how it came to be that this man was stabbed.
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.
There's just not much information to go on, you're probably right that it was self defense, and I'm sure you're right that the justice system has mishandled her case and in that regard I agree people should speak out.
But we shouldn't claim total innocence of the original crime when we don't have enough information to actually determine that.
Update: So I looked up some more of the court documents...
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/356409/mcdonald-chrishaun-11-16485-5-2-12-plea.pdf
It 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.
In all likelihood she was bullied into the plea. We know or can guess how the system operates for someone like Cece.
The tattoo and the criminal record would have a bearing on this umm, person's general character which I think should have been relevant. *Sigh*, is it me? Does one really have to be a member of one the groups that is on the IMMEDIATE hate list of these kind of individuals to be angry and offended by this whole case?
It's funny; I've always been one of last people to naturally or over-sympathize with someone because they are like me. Ask my family and friends. However, I think that anyone believing that CeCe received justice, or that she would even be in prison if she weren't transgendered and black, is seriously kidding themselves.
I'm was never implying that
everyone personally needed to get
involved. If you want to intellectualize and over objectify her story that's fine too. Have a good day.
Quote from: patstar on July 11, 2012, 04:44:56 AM
In all likelihood she was bullied into the plea. We know or can guess how the system operates for someone like Cece.
The tattoo and the criminal record would have a bearing on this umm, person's general character which I think should have been relevant. *Sigh*, is it me? Does one really have to be a member of one the groups that is on the IMMEDIATE hate list of these kind of individuals to be angry and offended by this whole case?
It's funny; I've always been one of last people to naturally or over-sympathize with someone because they are like me. Ask my family and friends. However, I think that anyone believing that CeCe received justice, or that she would even be in prison if she weren't transgendered and black, is seriously kidding themselves.
I'm was never implying that everyone personally needed to get involved. If you want to intellectualize and over objectify her story that's fine too. Have a good day.
Well I'm sorry that bringing intelligent thought and independent review into this case is contradicting your emotionally charged baseless statements.
Why would her attorneys bully her into accepting a plea? What have they to gain?
As I said before, under the law, if it happened the way she said it did, she is guilty, her being transgender or black is irrelevant. I don't AGREE with the law in this regard, but it says what it says.
In Minnesota the law says you have a duty to retreat, she in her own words of what happened did not do that.
And you can't make the argument that the lack of evidence that she was bullied or treated unfairly is proof that she was, that's unfalsifiable (it's like saying that not being able to prove god doesn't exist proves god does).
Also his character is irrelevant, you don't judge a case by if you like the parties involved or not, you judge them by what actually happened. And in what actually happened, his tattoo's and history have no place but to bias the jury to ignore the reality of the situation, which is likely why it was not admitted.
Why are you getting angry with me? Ultimately I'm on your side I'm just less emotional and have a desire to know the truth and the facts, I don't think she should be in prison, I don't think the law should say what it does. But I'm not going to play the race card or the gender card or make arguments I can't in any way back up.
But sure, whatever, make me the enemy, lack of coherent argument is exactly why people like me don't take people like you very seriously. ::)
I think what Patstar is more than likely trying to say is that judges and juries, especially in certain geographies, will only look at certain things such as a persons criminal record, tattoos, and things on the surface.
Sounds to me like Cece got her case hijacked. What would attorney's have to gain by bullying a plea? Anyone who KNOWS the legal system knows that the defense attorneys and prosecutors all know each other and most of these folks have political and social ambitions. They have so much they can push forward at someone else's expense.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 10, 2012, 10:39:33 PM
That's why we created weapons.
Knives, guns, tasers, stunguns, OC/pepper spray, a sharp stick.
If you aren't even willing to TRY and protect yourself you're just asking to be victimized.
No. I'm not willing to be victimized. I'm willing to insist that those I pay to enforce the laws be given a chance to earn their money, rather than carrying around a deadly item that, with my physical capabilities, is far more likely to be used against me than to do any damage on an attacker.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 10, 2012, 10:39:33 PM
It's all very well and good to advise people to not defend themselves when you have a naive 'civilized' view of the world, but the world is only barely civilized. Bad people ARE out there and frankly, people too frightened to defend themselves, I feel sorry for them but this is evolution 101.
I am not naive and frightened, and I'm not sure why you had to resort to name calling.
I am realistic. I know what I am and am not capable of. I am also not unwilling to defend myself. However, to me that, means making sure criminals are prosecuted. That's my way of defending myself.
I have people depending on me, and allowing myself to be killed because someone chose to try to humiliate me by tweaking an article of clothing as what happened to OP would be irresponsible.
Quote from: agfrommd on July 11, 2012, 06:05:36 AM
No. I'm not willing to be victimized. I'm willing to insist that those I pay to enforce the laws be given a chance to earn their money, rather than carrying around a deadly item that, with my physical capabilities, is far more likely to be used against me than to do any damage on an attacker.
I am not naive and frightened, and I'm not sure why you had to resort to name calling.
I am realistic. I know what I am and am not capable of. I am also not unwilling to defend myself. However, to me that, means making sure criminals are prosecuted. That's my way of defending myself.
I have people depending on me, and allowing myself to be killed because someone chose to try to humiliate me by tweaking an article of clothing as what happened to OP would be irresponsible.
Uhh, I'm not sure where I resorted to name calling, but if I did I apologize.
Obviously you gotta do what you feel is in your individual best interests, and I will say in theory you should always deescalate a situation if it's possible and appropriate to the situation (although if you do decide to punch their lights out in anger and choose to take the risk, all the more power to you).
I'm not a big believer in the "the gun will be taken from you and used against you" line of thinking. Obviously you shouldn't carry ANY weapon you aren't prepared to actually use, and if they go for it, use it without a second thought.
You will do what you feel is right, but I will say I do feel it's naive to expect the police to offer you much help in the moment, transgender or not. Police aren't much better than crime reporters, not crime prevention. And that's not an attack on the police, they can't be everywhere.
Quote from: Dawn Heart on July 11, 2012, 05:58:23 AM
I think what Patstar is more than likely trying to say is that judges and juries, especially in certain geographies, will only look at certain things such as a persons criminal record, tattoos, and things on the surface.
Sounds to me like Cece got her case hijacked. What would attorney's have to gain by bullying a plea? Anyone who KNOWS the legal system knows that the defense attorneys and prosecutors all know each other and most of these folks have political and social ambitions. They have so much they can push forward at someone else's expense.
That's nothing more than blind speculation. And as I said, utterly unfalsifiable.
And it's also besides the point, because regardless of there being some deal or conspiracy or not, it still boils down to the same basic fact.
If she did what she said she did in her guilty plea, then under Minnesota law, like it or not (and I personally don't like it), she is in fact guilty. And to me it's quite plausible that her lawyers would have felt it would be in her interests to plead guilty. The max penalty for her violation is up to 20 years if my memory serves.
And juries tending to look only at surface stuff is EXACTLY why evidence such as this is not permitted. Him being a neo-nazi, having a criminal record, etc, none of this makes any difference as to cece's legal culpability in the offence under which she was charged.
She may very well have made the mistake of talking to the police early on in the case and saying what she said in her guilty plea, without realizing it exposed her to legal liability, in which case she can't really back out of it now (this is why you never talk to the police without a lawyer).
If what she said in her guilty plea was not true, and she in fact was attacked prior to stabbing him, and she hasn't already said anything inconsistant with that, it then comes down to witnesses.
You could argue that her claim that him grabbing her was an attack, and that she defended herself to the best of her ability with what she knew at the time, but there could be any number of obstacles to doing that.
This dirtbag neonazi? He wasn't armed, she was, she brought a weapon into the fight, and used it when he was unarmed, in a duty to retreat state, that makes it hard to defend. You can still attempt it, but if she made any kind of statement to police that she knew he wasn't armed or didn't see any weapon or anything incriminating like that prior to being advised by a lawyer, her lawyer may have quite easily felt that pleading guilty would be in her best interests.
We don't know a lot of these details. But these claims of racism, transphobia, conspiracy, etc, in terms of her court case, are based on nothing but assumptions. Incompetence is always more likely than conspiracy, she probably had a public defender who didn't do the best possible job defending her. But like I said, she likely wasn't in a good position to start with.
What I think you're failing to see here though is that I do agree based on what I've read she should not be found guilty in the ethical sense. I don't agree with the laws that she was found guilty under. But being guilty under the law is not the same as being ethically guilty.
I don't want her to go to prison, I'm simply trying to point out the legal realities. Claiming that she is innocent under the law is likely just not true, blame the law, not me.
Read the transcript I posted of her guilty plea.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 11, 2012, 04:58:25 AM
Well I'm sorry that bringing intelligent thought and independent review into this case is contradicting your emotionally charged baseless statements.
Why would her attorneys bully her into accepting a plea? What have they to gain?
As I said before, under the law, if it happened the way she said it did, she is guilty, her being transgender or black is irrelevant. I don't AGREE with the law in this regard, but it says what it says.
In Minnesota the law says you have a duty to retreat, she in her own words of what happened did not do that.
And you can't make the argument that the lack of evidence that she was bullied or treated unfairly is proof that she was, that's unfalsifiable (it's like saying that not being able to prove god doesn't exist proves god does).
Also his character is irrelevant, you don't judge a case by if you like the parties involved or not, you judge them by what actually happened. And in what actually happened, his tattoo's and history have no place but to bias the jury to ignore the reality of the situation, which is likely why it was not admitted.
Why are you getting angry with me? Ultimately I'm on your side I'm just less emotional and have a desire to know the truth and the facts, I don't think she should be in prison, I don't think the law should say what it does. But I'm not going to play the race card or the gender card or make arguments I can't in any way back up.
But sure, whatever, make me the enemy, lack of coherent argument is exactly why people like me don't take people like you very seriously. ::)
".....
emotionally charged baseless statements." Really? ::)
However, let me deal with your misstatements in some kind of reasonable order.
Obviously (or perhaps not), one is very seldom bullied by their own defense attorney (thank you Dawn Heart); but the DA is another matter.
Lol "baseless statements" is insulting enough, but "emotionally charged"? :( How can one speak so of another, who plainly hasn't lost her sense of humor? I think it is you who have taken things way too personally.
My point is that you can't take human emotion completely out of the equation. (
Phil Donahuing things is a term I'm fond of.) Isn't that what this thread—although we have digressed some— is, at least to a minor degree, really about? Ideals that insist that human beings always do the
totally emotionally detached and intelligent thing (particularly when confronted by societies thugs, bullies and the like) don't work ..... and never will (at least not until
that next stage of evolution).
Look, obviously, some people agree with me; and some people (some of whom aren't even a part of the Minneapolis Legal System) agree with you. Can we just agree to disagree, or do you have more insults to hurl at me, *sigh*?
The bottom line here is that there are important aspects to our legal system state by state that are all the same:
1. It stops being about the law and more about semantics when you get into certain phases of legal proceedings
2. Defense attorneys and prosecutors alike have like mindedness when it comes to the politics and political ambition, name making for themselves, and they all grandstand!
3. No one in the system truly gives a rat's behind about who they are defending or prosecuting because at the end of the day SOMEONE goes home with a new notch under their belt. Clever arguments, dirty tactics, and convictions or aquittals mean numbers. Numbers mean promotions and money either way for these folks. In the case that the state convicts someone with or without jail time, the state gets more eligibility for funding.
4. Attorney misconduct is alive more than people know it is, whether it be a prosecutor or defense atty. Motives for throwing a case or bullying are actually pieces of evidence that MUST be heard if it gets brought up.
5. Laws allowing hearsay are becoming more common, especially in violent cases. Emphasis being on violent cases.
6. Sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, et al, all get used in ways that fly under the legal radar and are hard to prove unless you have an atty who knows his / her technical legal science in the court room. Even then, it can be hard.
Quote from: Dawn Heart on July 12, 2012, 02:51:06 AM
The bottom line here is that there are important aspects to our legal system state by state that are all the same:
1. It stops being about the law and more about semantics when you get into certain phases of legal proceedings
2. Defense attorneys and prosecutors alike have like mindedness when it comes to the politics and political ambition, name making for themselves, and they all grandstand!
3. No one in the system truly gives a rat's behind about who they are defending or prosecuting because at the end of the day SOMEONE goes home with a new notch under their belt. Clever arguments, dirty tactics, and convictions or aquittals mean numbers. Numbers mean promotions and money either way for these folks. In the case that the state convicts someone with or without jail time, the state gets more eligibility for funding.
4. Attorney misconduct is alive more than people know it is, whether it be a prosecutor or defense atty. Motives for throwing a case or bullying are actually pieces of evidence that MUST be heard if it gets brought up.
5. Laws allowing hearsay are becoming more common, especially in violent cases. Emphasis being on violent cases.
6. Sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ethnicity, et al, all get used in ways that fly under the legal radar and are hard to prove unless you have an atty who knows his / her technical legal science in the court room. Even then, it can be hard.
I agree.
Also, what stands out to me in CeCe's case is that neither of two remaining low-life was ever arrested. I would think coming out of a bar and harassing people just walking down the street would be some sort of violation—let alone throwing or breaking a bottle in someone's face. How can anyone claim there is no evidence of bias in her whole ordeal?
Menacing/ disturbing behavior has a charge in each state and the laws vary, as does the name of the charge.
Some states say "Disorderly Conduct" and yet others say "Menacing with criminal intent" and so on. If someone touches another without legal justification, it can be "Battery" or "Assault" or both.
Quote from: patstar on July 12, 2012, 11:26:26 PM
I agree.
Also, what stands out to me in CeCe's case is that neither of two remaining low-life was ever arrested. I would think coming out of a bar and harassing people just walking down the street would be some sort of violation—let alone throwing or breaking a bottle in someone's face. How can anyone claim there is no evidence of bias in her whole ordeal?
oh there's plenty of bias, it's all over this thread. People ignoring the facts as we can know them because cece's trans.
Disorderly conduct is not a particularly serious crime, nor should it be.
As I said already, I don't think cece should go to prison, but it seems to me like people don't want to acknowledge that under the law, she's guilty. The law is what's wrong, but people don't want to believe that because it undermines their belief system.
But whatever, play the race card, the gender card, act completely biased whilst claiming to be the only ones neutral.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 13, 2012, 10:42:48 AM
oh there's plenty of bias, it's all over this thread. People ignoring the facts as we can know them because cece's trans.
Disorderly conduct is not a particularly serious crime, nor should it be.
As I said already, I don't think cece should go to prison, but it seems to me like people don't want to acknowledge that under the law, she's guilty. The law is what's wrong, but people don't want to believe that because it undermines their belief system.
But whatever, play the race card, the gender card, act completely biased whilst claiming to be the only ones neutral.
Umm, no—there is, or has been, no pretense on my part of complete unbiased and neutrality. Given: the relative and comparative nature of the two parties involved in this case, the amount of violent and murderous offenses (more than a few of which with the perpetrator totally getting away with the crime) by people like Dean Schmitz against people like CeCe in the history of this country alone, the number of transgender women murdered (3 in just this past April, etc), I might even ask how many of us could be entirely unbiased or neutral; but I won't.
As I more or less stated in answer to your previous accusation ("emotionally charged baseless statements"), people are not completely unemotional robots—and we can be somewhat biased. Any ideology or philosophy that has humankind even aspiring to one-hundred percent unemotion and unbiased is a false construct. What I'm arguing against is misplaced biased. Furthermore I think there is a clear difference between biased and bigoted.
No, disorderly conduct is not a particularly serious crime; but it is a crime. How about assault? I would say that this is a pretty serious crime. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think having a thrown (or otherwise) bottle break in a person's face and said person requiring eleven stitches constitutes an assault. This is a fact that you and the legal preceding against Ms. McDonald have continually danced around.
Perhaps CeCe DID overreact a bit. Having both been struck by a broken bottle in the face and having a Neo-Nut in it—that wouldn't be so difficult to understand. (Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity?)
Ah, oh yes: "she brought a weapon into the fight, and used it when he was unarmed". Her weapon was a pair of scissors. She's a designer. Although these certainly did job they are really no more a weapon than a broken bottle.
I know that it seems we're picking on you. I am sorry for the way this has all played out. I honestly appreciate the fact that you don't feel she should go to prison. I know that we are largely on the same side. However, as a wise person once said:" if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem." Please be part of the solution. There is need of someone of your literacy, articulation, and other educated abilities.
Quote from: patstar on July 13, 2012, 06:10:12 PM
Umm, no—there is, or has been, no pretense on my part of complete unbiased and neutrality. Given: the relative and comparative nature of the two parties involved in this case, the amount of violent and murderous offenses (more than a few of which with the perpetrator totally getting away with the crime) by people like Dean Schmitz against people like CeCe in the history of this country alone, the number of transgender women murdered (3 in just this past April, etc), I might even ask how many of us could be entirely unbiased or neutral; but I won't.
As I more or less stated in answer to your previous accusation ("emotionally charged baseless statements"), people are not completely unemotional robots—and we can be somewhat biased. Any ideology or philosophy that has humankind even aspiring to one-hundred percent unemotion and unbiased is a false construct. What I'm arguing against is misplaced biased. Furthermore I think there is a clear difference between biased and bigoted.
No, disorderly conduct is not a particularly serious crime; but it is a crime. How about assault? I would say that this is a pretty serious crime. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think having a thrown (or otherwise) bottle break in a person's face and said person requiring eleven stitches constitutes an assault. This is a fact that you and the legal preceding against Ms. McDonald have continually danced around.
Perhaps CeCe DID overreact a bit. Having both been struck by a broken bottle in the face and having a Neo-Nut in it—that wouldn't be so difficult to understand. (Not guilty by reason of temporary insanity?)
Ah, oh yes: "she brought a weapon into the fight, and used it when he was unarmed". Her weapon was a pair of scissors. She's a designer. Although these certainly did job they are really no more a weapon than a broken bottle.
I know that it seems we're picking on you. I am sorry for the way this has all played out. I honestly appreciate the fact that you don't feel she should go to prison. I know that we are largely on the same side. However, as a wise person once said:" if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem." Please be part of the solution. There is need of someone of your literacy, articulation, and other educated abilities.
He didn't have a broken bottle at the time, that's the problem.
The thing I think people aren't understanding, I DON'T think she overreacted, I think she reacted with appropriate force. Just because the law says something doesn't make it right or wrong. It seems to me like people just want to believe that if the law says it was wrong it ethically is, which is not true.
Don't mistake me arguing she broke the law, with me arguing she did anything wrong. I think she did nothing wrong, but i'm talking about the law, not right and wrong.
All i'm arguing is that there's no evidence of conspiracy, and that under the law it's hard to argue her innocence.
Ultimately what I'm trying to get people to see, is the law should not be used to define your ethics.
I also agree something needs to be done, I just don't agree with the approach of trying to argue her innocence under the law as it existed at the time, it assumed the law was right at the time and that it was executed wrongly, which from the face of it, sounds like a hard argument to make.
The two big issues that come out of this where I think action really is warranted.
1. It's unconstitutional under cruel and unusual punishment (in my interpretation) to send her to a male prison, it's unacceptable and that practice needs to be massively reformed.
2. If you are threatened by someone with violence, regardless of how well armed they are or aren't, I think you have the right to potentially lethal self defense. The duty to retreat provision is wrong.
If it were up to me, I'd like to see the laws regarding self defense come down firmly in favor of the action she took.
And if hypothetically she HAD committed a crime (an actual crime not a legal crime), she should serve her time in a womens prison.
The only problem, the only thing I'm arguing, is that unfortunately the law as it was written at the time, the concept and spirit behind those laws, don't come out in her favor, and that some transphobic conspiracy, real or imagined, doesn't change that.
I think people are misunderstanding me in thinking that me explaining the law implies that I agree with it, or that explaining the thinking behind the law or the argument the prosecution could legitimately make, means I support any of that.
I support cece in the sense I don't think she should serve time or anything else, but I support her as a woman who's been unjustly prosecuted under an unethical law, her being transgender is just a circumstance, it makes little difference to my support or not in this circumstance.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 13, 2012, 11:55:45 PM
He didn't have a broken bottle at the time, that's the problem.
The thing I think people aren't understanding, I DON'T think she overreacted, I think she reacted with appropriate force. Just because the law says something doesn't make it right or wrong. It seems to me like people just want to believe that if the law says it was wrong it ethically is, which is not true.
Don't mistake me arguing she broke the law, with me arguing she did anything wrong. I think she did nothing wrong, but i'm talking about the law, not right and wrong.
All i'm arguing is that there's no evidence of conspiracy, and that under the law it's hard to argue her innocence.
Ultimately what I'm trying to get people to see, is the law should not be used to define your ethics.
I also agree something needs to be done, I just don't agree with the approach of trying to argue her innocence under the law as it existed at the time, it assumed the law was right at the time and that it was executed wrongly, which from the face of it, sounds like a hard argument to make.
The two big issues that come out of this where I think action really is warranted.
1. It's unconstitutional under cruel and unusual punishment (in my interpretation) to send her to a male prison, it's unacceptable and that practice needs to be massively reformed.
2. If you are threatened by someone with violence, regardless of how well armed they are or aren't, I think you have the right to potentially lethal self defense. The duty to retreat provision is wrong.
If it were up to me, I'd like to see the laws regarding self defense come down firmly in favor of the action she took.
And if hypothetically she HAD committed a crime (an actual crime not a legal crime), she should serve her time in a womens prison.
The only problem, the only thing I'm arguing, is that unfortunately the law as it was written at the time, the concept and spirit behind those laws, don't come out in her favor, and that some transphobic conspiracy, real or imagined, doesn't change that.
I think people are misunderstanding me in thinking that me explaining the law implies that I agree with it, or that explaining the thinking behind the law or the argument the prosecution could legitimately make, means I support any of that.
I support cece in the sense I don't think she should serve time or anything else, but I support her as a woman who's been unjustly prosecuted under an unethical law, her being transgender just a circumstance, it makes little difference to my support or not in this circumstance.
Okay. Thank you.
I blame the whole system of labeled politics, right wing, left wing. The left is responsible for the laws that don't give her a good defense, that enable her to be prosecuted for something like this. Well intentioned but short sighted and poorly thought out policies on the whole domain of personal defense, private weapon ownership, etc. But it's not like the right is any better, hanging on to ancient customs for no greater reason than tradition, persecuting people for being different. There's a lot of culpability to go around. Policies and law should be based in reason and science, not blind ideologies.
Being detached, trying to see things scientifically and rationally, it doesn't come as naturally to me as it might seem. But so much harm and negativity comes into the world because of blind emotions dictating law and policy. I try very hard not to let myself fall into that trap.
Something happens, people get angry, and they go for small minded policies in the heat of anger that only make things worse. The war on drugs being a perfect example.
It's for that reason that I won't support someone purely because they share something in common with me, I want to know what actually happened so I can make a rational, thought out decision on my position on the topic. In this case I looked into the court records and decided that in my opinion, she would have a hard time defending the lawfulness of her actions and that it's very feasible she may have plead guilty because of the very real chance of her being found guilty if she went to trial, at which point she could get a sentence many times longer than the one she got.
Maybe there was some transphobic conspiracy to prosecute her, I can't absolutely claim there wasn't because I can't know that for sure. What I do think, is that it doesn't make a lot of difference. It's the prosecutors job to prosecute if it feels the law has been broken, which in this case it's easy to argue.
Doesn't make the law right, which is why the law is what I'm angry at.
Quote from: Asfsd4214 on July 14, 2012, 12:34:43 AM
I blame the whole system of labeled politics, right wing, left wing. The left is responsible for the laws that don't give her a good defense, that enable her to be prosecuted for something like this. Well intentioned but short sighted and poorly thought out policies on the whole domain of personal defense, private weapon ownership, etc. But it's not like the right is any better, hanging on to ancient customs for no greater reason than tradition, persecuting people for being different. There's a lot of culpability to go around. Policies and law should be based in reason and science, not blind ideologies.
Being detached, trying to see things scientifically and rationally, it doesn't come as naturally to me as it might seem. But so much harm and negativity comes into the world because of blind emotions dictating law and policy. I try very hard not to let myself fall into that trap.
Something happens, people get angry, and they go for small minded policies in the heat of anger that only make things worse. The war on drugs being a perfect example.
It's for that reason that I won't support someone purely because they share something in common with me, I want to know what actually happened so I can make a rational, thought out decision on my position on the topic. In this case I looked into the court records and decided that in my opinion, she would have a hard time defending the lawfulness of her actions and that it's very feasible she may have plead guilty because of the very real chance of her being found guilty if she went to trial, at which point she could get a sentence many times longer than the one she got.
Maybe there was some transphobic conspiracy to prosecute her, I can't absolutely claim there wasn't because I can't know that for sure. What I do think, is that it doesn't make a lot of difference. It's the prosecutors job to prosecute if it feels the law has been broken, which in this case it's easy to argue.
Doesn't make the law right, which is why the law is what I'm angry at.
THIS is what I was trying to say! I think what is happening here is that we are all on the same side, but we are all arguing this from different angles. My eyes just opened a bit here...what you said, and all the points you have been making should be the basis for an emergency appeal of her plea based on the inequality / shortsightedness of the law. Maybe in this context, she can have a constitutional argument? Maybe a technical argument at law? Maybe these points you have made can be used in court as a chance for the judge to re-interpret the law so as to allow Cece to see some mercy here, and the offenders who attacked her to face some charges?
Quote from: Dawn Heart on July 14, 2012, 04:34:10 AM
THIS is what I was trying to say! I think what is happening here is that we are all on the same side, but we are all arguing this from different angles. My eyes just opened a bit here...what you said, and all the points you have been making should be the basis for an emergency appeal of her plea based on the inequality / shortsightedness of the law. Maybe in this context, she can have a constitutional argument? Maybe a technical argument at law? Maybe these points you have made can be used in court as a chance for the judge to re-interpret the law so as to allow Cece to see some mercy here, and the offenders who attacked her to face some charges?
Well you could definitely take it to court and challenge that her being imprisoned in a male facility is cruel and unusual punishment and as such a violation of her 8th amendment rights.
Furman v. Georgia set out the criteria for what constituted cruel and unusual punishment as including punishment that is patently unnecessary, inflicted in an arbitrary fashion, and degrading to human dignity.
I feel her punishment fits all three of those criteria.
If the supreme court would see it that way is another matter. It would be especially dangerous to challenge it if it were lost.
You could also argue that the duty to retreat provisions are too vague. This is all still difficult when she's pleaded guilty. I'm not sure how easy it would be, if it's even possible in her case, to retract that plea. But at the least she could launch a suit that her punishment violates her rights.
If the self defense law were changed to be more widely encompassing I suppose you might be able to petition for a pardon.
I think the best bet for success would be to challenge her sentence to a male prison on human rights grounds. Getting the actual punishment overturned entirely looks pretty difficult after she's plead guilty and the law of MN is far less forgiving for self defense in public areas than it is in your home or property.
As for her attackers, part of the problem of course is it's hard to prove what happened after the fact. Shouting slurs at someone is an extremely minor offense, assault is more serious but the only one that can easily be charged with assault is Molly Flaherty, and she already has been, assault with a deadly weapon.
i would kick his balls if i were you...