Transgender criminal defense - ...Or why you should never get raped by a trans woman.

[Kosher Dill]

I've made a similar argument in regards to those who whine about the gay/trans panic defense being a thing. Basically whining about people who supposedly get off scott free for assaulting/killing gay or trans people by claiming it was self defense, or because the sexual advance was offensive enough to provoke them. There are even calls to ban this defense.

I did some research into this once, and it looks like the last time a gay panic defense was successfully used was sometime back in the early '90s, and even then it pretty much amounted to arguing "Your Honor, I know this sounds retarded, but my client really is dumb. No, like really dumb, dumb enough to spaz out and kill someone".

 

[Mayhem]

Dana Rivers’s long-postponed trial began this week. He is the tranny that allegedly shot and killed a lesbian couple and their teenaged son, possibly over a beef that started when he was denied entrance to the Michigan Women’s Music Festival over, you know, being a fucking man. (This is also the event that brought Julia Serrano, the tranny who invented the concept of “transmisogyny,” into the spotlight.)

Of course, Rivers has been treated with kid gloves — lots of hearings about his mental competence, using his chosen name and pronouns, etc. Mainstream media has been silent. Kara Dansky, an attorney with the Women’s Liberation Front, has been one of the only people reporting on this case. Her updates are here.

 

[sheepworldvizor]

Dana Rivers’s long-postponed trial began this week. He is the tranny that allegedly shot and killed a lesbian couple and their teenaged son, possibly over a beef that started when he was denied entrance to the Michigan Women’s Music Festival over, you know, being a fucking man. (This is also the event that brought Julia Serrano, the tranny who invented the concept of “transmisogyny,” into the spotlight.)

Of course, Rivers has been treated with kid gloves — lots of hearings about his mental competence, using his chosen name and pronouns, etc. Mainstream media has been silent. Kara Dansky, an attorney with the Women’s Liberation Front, has been one of the only people reporting on this case. Her updates are here.

Daily Mail story on it here https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tand-trial-2016-murder-lesbians-son-week.html
If you ever feel a major troon news story is being missed by MSM you can email anon tips: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/contactus/index.html

 

[Surfin Terf]

The gay/trans panic defense barely exists, and in the cases that are cited the people trying to use it are still punished by the law. The trans panic defense specifically, I'm not sure if it can really be claimed to exist at all. Just because someone tries to use something in court, doesn't mean it is accepted in court.

How do you even ban a legal defense? If I commit a crime and have to defend myself in court I'm legally allowed to use any insane defense I want, right? What's stopping me from claiming that Jews from the future made me do it, as long as I'm making the argument in good faith (to avoid contempt of court). It's my right as an American (1st amendment? 5th amendment? 6th amendment? All of the above?) to defend myself in a court of law.

How does it even work in practice? If I kill a tranny and go to trial and make a trans panic defense are they going to charge me with contempt on the spot? If the jury finds me not guilty does it get overturned?

Are there any other legal defenses that are banned?

 

[Toolbox]

How do you even ban a legal defense? If I commit a crime and have to defend myself in court I'm legally allowed to use any insane defense I want, right? What's stopping me from claiming that Jews from the future made me do it, as long as I'm making the argument in good faith (to avoid contempt of court). It's my right as an American (1st amendment? 5th amendment? 6th amendment? All of the above?) to defend myself in a court of law.

How does it even work in practice? If I kill a tranny and go to trial and make a trans panic defense are they going to charge me with contempt on the spot? If the jury finds me not guilty does it get overturned?

Are there any other legal defenses that are banned?

Keep in mind that it's becoming increasingly true that the law doesn't work for you, it works for whatever party is in power, anyone with more money than you, many other cases. Well it's been true for a while but it's getting worse. I don't believe, however, that the defense is actually 'banned' just that the media spergs out about it, though I'm sure cali has tried to get rid of it.

 

[Surfin Terf]

Keep in mind that it's becoming increasingly true that the law doesn't work for you, it works for whatever party is in power, anyone with more money than you, many other cases. Well it's been true for a while but it's getting worse. I don't believe, however, that the defense is actually 'banned' just that the media spergs out about it, though I'm sure cali has tried to get rid of it.

It is banned in a significant number of states, almost half of the population.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

Seconded, really curious what "banned" looks like. I think similar bans are in place for rape defenses based on the accuser's dress or past sexual history? But again, no idea what it being banned means in practise.

 

[Where's Waldo?]

Link | Archive

The context for this is that, allegedly, this guy allowed (at least) 30-50 alpacas that were in his care to die. He claims to have been visited by the police for animal neglect.

I'm waiting to see if the county sheriff's blotter gets updated with a report of this visit. So far, it hasn't been.
Another kiwi is suspicious.

 

[Strangolapreti]

My father once worked in a prison, he said trannies were the ones screaming the most.

 

[White-Kettle Shufflepunk]

This is the identity-politics version of a kid saying they have super-duper-block-everything-armour while playing with their friends. If the game was concealing mass animal neglect cruelty or trying to rape said friends.

 

[Where's Waldo?]

I've kind of lost the taste for continually updating this thread, because I've found people who actually agree with me, and I don't feel like I would be screaming into the fucking voids of the retarded masses anymore if I think, "this is messed up".

But here's some wonderful groomery for those of you that have stuck around:

Link | Archive
(OP had been deleted, but the comments and reposts are still up.)

---

I predict the slippery slope of this:
"Getting an erection around women doesn't mean anything. It's just excitement, or nervousness!" (true, sometimes, but not every time)
->
"Sticking my penis in your vagina doesn't have to mean anything. You're thinking too hard about it. It's like a handshake, or a hug.
Don't deny me a sisterly handshake!"

---

...I mean, yeah, penises by themselves -- as floating detached organs, flying around in space -- are not necessarily a fucking threat.
The thing that people are worried about are the people attached to those penises.
A guy wearing a swimsuit can just take off the swimsuit. A guy with a penis can do things with the penis. It's a sexual organ. Primate biology has evolved for thousands of years to perfect the fact that most male animals want to put their penises inside female vaginas.
At least 90% of people are attracted to the opposite sex. It's animal instinct.

It's a lot harder to get out of a situation if you don't stop it early. If you don't say, "No, I don't even want to see you clothed, in a bathroom." Because a bathroom is a secluded area.
That shit just goes against all common safety sense.

Then, I've seen troons respond to these voiced concerns, by saying.... "Oh, you're just fantasizing about that happening. You're obsessed with it. You must be a fantasy writer, or sexually aroused by it."

I didn't save the examples of this I've seen, but someone else might know what I'm talking about. :I

I know that troons love to claim that they go against biology, or that they're outliers.... but most of them really fucking aren't.
They want to believe that, because it would make them feel special. They tend to wish to obfuscate how much they conform to the averages. It's just roleplay.

 

[Monkey Pink]

Don't forget that even though they cry that "trap" is a slur, they're OBSESSED with raping straight men by deception.

 

[Where's Waldo?]

I totally forgot one of the things that inspired me to write this thread:

I've seen this autism salad article being thrown around the tumblrsphere to prove that anybody who claims to be a trans woman that gets shunned no matter what evidence there is against them is always the victim. And while I was reading it I was thinking "this lolcow should have a thread" so I scroll up to the byline and lo and behold, they had one all this time.
https://thenewinquiry.com/hot-allostatic-load/
http://archive.is/whVya

This is old news but I didn't see this anywhere in the thread.

Several times I have witnessed situations where someone was accused of creepery.
The alleged perpetrator and their friends would say shit like, "omg, like, don't you know anything? Read this essay. Don't talk to me until you do."


It reminds me of the way that some christians will say, "Anyone criticizing the church (as an organization) is in league with satan.
All these child molestations? Don't worry about it. All our detractors are satan. Just trust Jesus. It'll save you."

I mean, regardless of whether you believe in that religion or not, it's messed up.

I suppose the idea of,
"Anyone who says they devote their lives to God must be a good person,"
is analogous to,
"Any man who says he 'gives up what being a(n evil patriarchal) man means' is actually a good person, automatically.
Just give up being a man. It's feminism 4.0. Men are bad by default. Women are good.
You want to be a good person, don't you?"


I really liked this conversation from the Tranny Side-shows thread:

I fucking despise this notion that protecting children is some sort of "right-wing talking point" and not a legitimate concern. How convenient that Sarkeesian has no kids herself.

I have daughters. I'm male, which means that if my daughters enter a changing room it's without me present. So hell yes I have every right to be concerned about predators and weirdos, and you can be assured that my kids have been made aware of any potential hazards they may face. This is called good parenting.

There was a common libfem narrative I recall from a few years back -- basically that women shouldn't feel like they should ever be obligated to "protect themselves from men" as men should instead be taught not to assault women. Sound familiar? Google "teach men not to rape" and you'll find a slew of articles from 2013-2015. There's a sliver of merit to this thinking, predatory male behavior should obviously be discouraged, but there will always be crazies and there's thus nothing wrong with women being prepared to defend themselves.

Anyhow, the narrative has shifted in a weird direction by the handmaidens, who are now advocating for the idea that men are entitled to behave in a predatory manner (provided that they're "trans") and that women should be passive and submissive when encountering such men. It's all so gross and misogynistic.

Another thing -- as modern transgenderism is predicated on "identity" and not appearance (arguably moot anyway as so few "trans women" can "pass") how the hell are women in a locker room supposed to distinguish between a "trans woman" (who ostensibly has a "right" to be there) and a man (who would be unwelcome)? What's the difference between a "real trans woman" (a man pretending to be a woman) and a "fake trans woman" (a man pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman)?

Relativist ideologies like transgenderism uphold no truths, and thus perpetually teeter on the precipices of chaos, disorder, authoritarianism, and violence.

I was talking about this with my own dad and told him that just like when I was a child and he would take me into the men’s bathroom with him, with how shit is going now, he might have to escort me into the women’s bathroom now, since any goddamn man can now just waltz in and I can’t say shit about it. I told him if we have to resort to that and some troon questions on why he’s in there, is to tell them he’s a nonbinary trans woman lmao.

But this is what troons want, because they get highly aroused by forcing women to participate in their fetish, even more so when they can do it in our sex segregated areas and don’t have to worry about men who’d beat their ass for it and how uncomfortable they make us.

And I will be honest, if I see a troon in the bathroom then I’ll use the men’s, because at least with men I know what to expect, and most men are fucking decent towards women. Troons on the other hand, make no goddamn secret of their sexual deviances, and I refuse to be around a man who fetishizes my existence and has burning hatred for me just for being born a woman.

Its hard explaining some stuff about this without power leveling as fuck, so let me try. It might not make the most sense:

I have hella issues and something I've found over the years is traditionally "masculine" men are less scary than soyboys or trannies. The first group has their own host of issues but unless you're involved with an actually abusive person which is a different class in and of itself they tend to have some awareness that they may scare a woman and will actually recognize that in their behavior.

Soyboys are like those weird spiders that pretend to be ants so that they can close to ants and eat them. Trannies are the same way. That behavior is far more sinister to my paranoid brain and sets off danger in a more extreme way than some dudebro who likes to lift.

EDIT: I put masculine in quotes because its a weird thing to define and thats just the easiest word for it.

This certainly rings true to me, and I think it's at least partly because traditionally masculine men also tend to be traditional in a lot of other aspects, including --brace yourselves, TERFs-- respecting women and wanting to protect them. They also tend to have genuine interests, hobbies and passions. Compare this to soyboys, Nice Guys, PUAs, incels, troons...all of these groups are motivated entirely by getting their dick wet; everything they do is a vector towards that goal, painted in varying shades of camouflage.

Also without PLing, I see this play out a lot when I'm at work and it's genuinely fascinating watching how the normal, well-adjusted men will interact with women vs the weirdos. Even though both camps will often say the exact same things it's very obvious the latter group are just repeating what they've read online you're supposed to say to make a woman fuck you.

I think women can sense this insincerity instinctively and so are put on guard around these types of men, and rightly so.

A lot of men, if they were raised right, have a respect for women and feel an obligation to protect them. Some would say that's infantilizing women, but I don't. I think it's just rising to be the role of protector if they're the biggest guy around, using their strength for good, that sort of thing. I'd be happy to see a good old boy silently stand between me and another man or troon who was trying to act like we were friends.

Basically any man who is trying to get his self-worth from women by expecting her to be nice and appreciative is an asshole. The whole troon project revolves around this, and they have the same "you fuckin' BITCH" reaction when you don't return their smile as any creep at a bar. The heroic masculine figure is always the guy who stands up and says, "Hey, leave her alone," whether he's a muscular jock or a weak teenager, and we have the same heroic impression if it's a woman intervening in an awkward public scenario. The whole issue is that our society is currently giving neurotics ultimate veto power and enabling insecure behavior.

Guys who have masculine hobbies and care about their appearance are normally aware of how people think of them - even those who work out for vanity are doing so because they know how they appear and want to appear better.

Being fit is equal parts of physical activity, intelligence and self-restraint, all of which trannies and soyboys proudly lack.

From the perspective of somebody who takes his fitness and health seriously, soyboys have a certain smugness and arrogance in their disposition - they're proud of being "confident" in their flabby bodies and they do speak ill of people who actually care quite frequently. Trannies are the same, but worse. All of their feigned agreeableness is a facade and drops immediately when confronted with anybody they can attack without consequences, they will. Most are clearly not happy with having people who can knock them out anywhere near them, and always use underhanded tactics to keep themselves as the dominant men in a group.

Seriously, soyboys hate masculine men because they see them as a threat - masculine men are easy to deal with, just give them protein-rich food and they'll be happy. Soyboys on the other hand almost always consider themselves as some Machiavellian masterminds with infallible justness in their actions.

 

[leveroll]

Why do they get so much attention? They are fucking crazy people

 

[Twix Eatr]

See they do that, and its one of those things thats retarded, and its also why their "a tranny shouldn't have to warn a partner" argument is retarded and gets them beat up.
If you're getting it on with someone and suddenly find yourself with a handful of dick or stink ditch, the natural reaction is going to be shock that someone tried to stealth rape you, and I can't blame a person in that situation for them beating the shit out of the dick bearer/ditch holder.
Even comparing it to so called "gay panic" is dumb as shit because its pretty obvious from the start someone is a dude or not, but to a drunk in a dark bar with bad eyesight... trannys are just mad because nobody in their right mind wants to fuck them except other deranged fetishists, but these AGP's don't want that, they want to be "validated" but the fact is no straight man wants to fuck a dude, and that's not important to the troon though, yet another example of how to the tranny the only feelings that matter are their own.
Its fucking gross.

The gay/trans panic defense barely exists, and in the cases that are cited the people trying to use it are still punished by the law. The trans panic defense specifically, I'm not sure if it can really be claimed to exist at all. Just because someone tries to use something in court, doesn't mean it is accepted in court.

https://senatedemocrats.wa.gov/blog/2020/03/05/governor-approves-ban-on-panic-defense-in-lgbtq-assault-cases/

https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/washington-governor-signs-nikki-kuhnhausen-act-into-law/

https://komonews.com/news/local/wash-gov-inslee-signs-nikki-kuhnhausen-act-into-law-limiting-lgbtq-panic-defense

The "gay panic defense" was ridiculous because it was involved in cases where a guy hit on another or something. The "trans" panic defense is when they get legislation to greenlight men to trick you into gay encounters and penalize you for getting mad.

 

[monstrous bubo]

How do you even ban a legal defense?

Seconded, really curious what "banned" looks like. I think similar bans are in place for rape defenses based on the accuser's dress or past sexual history? But again, no idea what it being banned means in practise.

Spoiler: boring spergery

Ever heard the old phrase „ignorance of the law is no defence”? Does that mean it’s banned? As ever, it’s a bit complicated and we need to understand the difference between banned and pointless. Everything that follows is very general, btw, and your state will have its own weird laws.

When someone is tried for a crime, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offence. There are two main elements:

• the mental element ie what did the accused intend to do (mens rea is the Latin term - the guilty mind)
• the physical act (the actus reus or guilty act).

So for theft, the physical act is taking the thing, and the mental element is the intention to permanently deprive the owner.

If the defendant says they didn’t know there was a law against it, tough shit. No crime has an element that you know your act is illegal. You might be able to argue you made a reasonable mistake (you didn’t steal the suitcase, you just thought it was yours when you took it off the carousel), but that isn’t saying you didn’t know there was a law against theft. Instead, you’re saying you didn’t intend to to permanently deprive the owner, because you (wrongly) thought you were the owner.

The elements are set out in the legislation. Now, a successful defence hits at one or more of the elements. If you stand up and sperg about Jews from the future making you do it, you’re effectively arguing duress - I was forced to do it - or insanity. The legislation and/or case law might say that duress cannot be a defence to a crime, or it might be a partial defence. For example, duress won’t usually be a total defence to murder, but it could knock it down to manslaughter. Whether the jury buys the Jews story is another matter.

And that neatly takes us to the next issue: the interaction of the judge and jury. The judge does a speech to the jury before it retires to consider the verdict. The judge has to explain what the law is, and can point to the bits each side has argued and how they relate to the law, while stressing it’s up to the jury to decide what to believe. If the Jews story is part of a duress defence to murder, the judge will say that as a matter of law it is no defence. If it’s an insanity defence, he or she might call the Jews story fanciful or absurd, but if the jury wants to believe it…