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...