Regarding the first story, I’m reading other information on it, and it appears (even in the excerpt you’ve posted here) that the defendant wasn’t claiming he killed the guy because he was freaked out specifically by the fact that the other guy was “gay”, but because he was threatened at bladepoint with rape. Like “i’m going to kill you if you don’t concede to fuck me”. That’s a lot different than killing someone because they made a pass at you.

I don’t claim to have all the facts, and if there’s information out there showing where the defendent claimed he was having gay panic as opposed to not wanting to be killed and raped panic, please show me. But based on what I’m reading, it seems this is journalism FAIL, not neccessarily juducial fail. The real homophobia is in the article, which describes this alleged assault as an “unwanted advance”, as if all gay men just go around threatening people with a longsword and a knife. Plus, unless the cops were lying (which is a distinct possibility), this guy was a pedophile too. How would it look if this was a female defendant and the article described her allegations of sexual assault as “unwanted advances”.

Point is, sounds like describing this guy as gay is the real problem - he was a sexual predator, and that has nothing to do with straight or gay. The jury didn’t acquit this guy because they thought “being freaked out by gay is just great:” but because “killing someone who threatened to rape and or kill you” falls under a legitimate definition of self defense.

Just to be clear, I am not justifying or defending the disgusting gay panic defense in any way.

I’m with Ross, at least insofar as this guy’s story can be believed. Of course he has a huge incentive to lie out his ass. But if there’s evidence to support the story that he was threatened with a deadly weapon, it doesn’t matter whether the attacker wanted sex, money or the date of next year’s winter solstice.

As for the 61 stabbings, that looks excessive, but isn’t necessarily proof of anything. People who have been badly scared often play catchup and beyond when they get the upper hand in a violent situation.

What Bitter Scribe said - someone threatens your life and also threatens to assault you sexually, that causes hellof overreactions in people.

As an admitted alcoholic passed out drunk, how reliable is he as a witness to what happened in that room? And stabbing the guy 61 times? That is pretty suggestive of malice.

But first degree murder? Bullshit. You don’t find premeditation, any which way, so I’m confused by why the prosecution was even pushing that. Drunk guy wakes up, freaks out, stabs people. If there is a hate crime element here, that’s a separate issue, but the murder itself is certainly not first-degree.

This is weird. I don’t get it.

Also: What Ross said.

As others have pointed out, the two stories are completely different.  If a man threatened to rape Beidermann, he had a right to protect himself.  Sexual assault isn’t any less bad just because the victim is male instead of female.  Of course there is a possibility that Biedermann is lying, but I certainly won’t assume he is, alcoholic or not.  When a woman claims self-defense against a rape, I would be pissed of at anyone who assumes she is lying.  It’s no different in this case just because it happened to a man.  If it turns out that Biedermann is lying, I will be doubly mad, not just for the murder and homophobia, but also for ruining the credibility of legitimate victims.  However, I have no reason to assume he is lying and I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, the Bailey-Woodson story is completely bogus and the murderer should never have been acquitted.

Even if the defendant was drunk and has no idea what really happened, or is fabricating a story, the defense attorney still wasn’t using a “gay panic defense.” That would be the case if they were saying to the media and the court, “my client was shocked and terrified that another man was making a sexual advance at him.” But actually, the defense’s job was a lot easier here—the defendant was testifying that the man he killed threatened to rape him at knife-point. So the it was a “self-defense defense.” The bigger question is whether it can still be self-defense to stab someone over and over again if you’re afraid of being raped or killed. If you imagine something incredibly traumatizing like that happening to you while you’re drunk and semi-helpless on someone else’s couch, how much restraint would you have? Unless the defendant is completely lying through his teeth (and we’ll probably never know, there were no other witnesses) I can’t really say this sounds like a certain miscarriage of justice.

The defendant testified that the man he killed threatened to sexually assault him, and wanted to know if he was into kiddie porn. Beyond that, is there anything in any source that would even suggest this guy was gay? Because in my book, trying to rape someone of the same sex and looking at child pornography does not make you gay. It may make you really severely disturbed, but not necessarily gay.

Right, why is this gay panic again? I was all ready to damn IL to the deepest part of Heck, but then I read that this guy was threatened by rape. The article might mischaracterize this, but the guy’s testimony said, to me, “if I didn’t kill this guy I’d be raped.” Yeah, 61 times is excessive, but I really don’t require much self-control from persons defending themselves from rape or murder. It would be depend upon circumstances. It should almost be a bright-line rule: if you threaten to rape or murder someone, your life is pretty much forfeit. You can’t expect a would-be victim to treat you anything close to rationally.

But this all assumes the guy is telling the truth. I agree with ha, above: 1st degree murder is a wtf move on the DA’s part.

The second guy is OBVIOUSLY a lying sack of shit. No emergency, no reason to fear, preparation, and robbery. Hell, he’s not even a homophobe. He’s just a murderer.

Generally, you don’t wave a sword around to threaten people (it’s not very effective for one).

Not very effective at what? Swords are effective at killing people and, thus, I tend to find the waving about of swords to be somewhat threatening. Albeit four feet of blade is not going to be the best indoor weapon in the world. That’s a really long sword.

I mean, suppose he uses Bonetti’s defense against you? Unless you know Capo Fera you’re fucked! And even then, Thibault cancels out Capo Fera so you better bone up on your Agrippa.

And, in defense of this guy’s credibility, he does report saying “What the fuck?”

I am kind of curious, though, how Michael was attempting to sexually assault Biedermann while still threatening him with a four-foot blade. Was he holding the 16-inch dagger at that point, too? Seems like an accident waiting to happen. Which is not to say I don’t believe his story, I’m just having a hard time picturing it - that’s like Edward Scissorhands trying to grope someone.

Having recently served on a jury here in Illinois (for a much, much, more minor issue!), let me also chime in something else.

We ended up acknowledging that out of the 12 of us, 8 were firmly convinced that the defendant was guilty, and 4 were solidly willing to acknowledge the possibility, if not the likelihood.

That said, the cops did a terrible job during the incident, and the state did a worse job stating the case. We found ourselves, having been directed to judge the case based only on what we had been told, agreeing unanimously that we simply did not have the evidence we needed. The defendant’s story was transparently stupid, but that only meant he wasn’t doing what he said he was doing, not that he did what the cops said he was.

There were three or four items of evidence that were clearly deliberately kept out of our knowledge by both sides, since the would have clinched things either way (defense should have been disbarred for not providing it if it matched the lawyer’s story, the state or the cops were guilty of extreme negligence in not providing it if it matched theirs), or else there was Something Else Entirely Going On, and we all ended up deciding that was the most likely thing.

We had to unanimously agree that the state had not proved things beyond a reasonable doubt, which clearly shocked the defendant when we gave our finding.

In a capital case, where the “other side” of the story is a corpse, I can easily see some procedural issue that forced the jury to do what we did.

Remember, they are not saying that they believe the defendant; they are saying that they cannot agree that the state proved its case.

I think the “gay panic” refers to the 61 stab wounds. Minus the ick factor of becoming someone’s bitch, the killer probably stops at 15 or so.

...we simply did not have the evidence we needed.

[snip]

Remember, they are not saying that they believe the defendant; they are saying that they cannot agree that the state proved its case.

I was on a similar jury years ago here in Washington state.  The minute the door closed behind us, we all looked at each other and said, “guilty but I don’t think the state proved it”.  We went through the evidence piece by piece because we really wanted to find this guy guilty, but the state simply hadn’t proven its case.  Now if we could have found him guilty of being an idiot rather than of the crime they charged him with, we would have been back in 5 minutes, including a bathroom break.

I can see the jury in a capital case being extra cautious, especially since Biedermann claimed they were fighting over the weapons.  Yeah, 61 times is a lot, but it doesn’t sound like he was standing over Hauser’s incapacitated body stabbing him repeatedly; many of the wounds could have been inflicted during the struggle.

Why is this gay panic?

Imagine for the moment that a woman had stabbed a man 61 times and told a story of having fallen asleep on his couch, awakened to a threatened sexual assault and defended herself. Not a mark on her, no actual proof of what happened past a couple witnesses seeing them leaving a bar together. Very few people would believe her.

But I’m certainly willing to believe that the prosecution screwed up enough that a jury was able to find reasonable doubt.

Sometimes I think the prosecution may overcharge in some instances.  Either out of public pressure or hubris, sometimes a good case turns into a crappy one when the prosecution goes for the big case instead of the right one.  One problem with first degree murder in many states is that it doesn’t include lesser offenses: it’s either first degree murder or nothing.  If this guy was charged with assault and manslaughter/2nd degree murder, he’d probably be doing time already.  But nooooo, someone wanted to make a bigger case than the evidence allowed and justice apparently is the loser here.

Sometimes “throwing the book at ‘em” is the easiest path to an acquittal, especially in situations where opinions and the state of mind of various people involved comes into question.  Remember the outrage when those cops got away with beating Rodney King?  Maybe if the prosecution didn’t go after some sort of conspiracy against civil rights charge which required all sorts of evidence that the defendants were in no mood to give away, the prosecution could have gotten a “beating the crap out of someone for no good reason” conviction.  And I don’t even need to mention how rape cases can be affected by this phenomenon, do I?

You know, these jury discussions always end up making me feel good about my country.  I had a similar experience; ours was open-and-shut guilty (the guy robbed a Jiffy Lube across the street from the police station during a shift change), but we went through and kicked the tires thoroughly for a couple of hours, then returned a unanimous verdict.

It was a really positive experience overall, in all honesty.  The trial was fair, the guy got caught, and we were done.

I think the “gay panic” refers to the 61 stab wounds. Minus the ick factor of becoming someone’s bitch, the killer probably stops at 15 or so.

Um, no. That’s crazy, Hector B. Is there a chart somewhere we can consult for where “rape panic” becomes something else? Yes, 61 is a lot. Again, nobody knows what they’ll do in a crisis until they’re in the crisis.

Saying a man is squicked out by “becoming someone’s bitch” because he “over"reacts to a rape threat is like calling a woman a lesbian for doing the same to a male rapist. “61 times? She must not just hate rape, she must hate all dicks.”

Well, Auguste, what’s your theory why the killer killed his neighbor?

Admittedly, stabbing is not the fastest way to kill someone. That’s why the victim usually has multiple stab wounds. But even so, 61 is way excessive if you just wanted to get the job done. I suspect that for several of them he’d just be jabbing a corpse.

So why so many? I suspect the ick factor because I have seen people surprised by, say a rat or a snake, who insensately continue to smash it with a shovel long past the creature’s anima has left. What’s your thought here?

I’m looking forward to the day we can replace jury trials with internet comments.

“Now, here are some results from our phone-in poll: 95% of the people believe Homer Simpson is guilty.  Of course, this is just a television poll which is not legally binding, unless proposition 304 passes.  And we all pray it will.”

Well, Auguste, what’s your theory why the killer killed his neighbor?

My theory, barring any other compelling evidence (which I’m ready and willing to hear, similar to the commenter above), is that the killer killed his neighbor because he was being threatened with violent rape.

Maybe it’s possible that it’s fundamentally true that homophobia added some extra stabs to the self-defense. I guess what I’m saying is, barring any ability to quantify, and accepting for the moment that the victim was an attempted violent rapist, I’m no more anxious to pursue that line of inquiry than I would be if the attempted rape victim was a lesbian. That’s the point I’m making.

Homophobes, if indeed the killer is one, are no more subject to rape than anyone else.

good point, auguste, thanks.

where the judge fucking ruled that the word “rape” was NOT ALLOWED to be used - he seriously tried to make the woman who had been raped describe the rape as “sexual intercourse”

This shows the difference between words in the real world and words in the legal world. In court, rape is a legal conclusion, for the judge or the jury to make. So, saying you were raped begs the question. To prove rape, you have to have had sex, without consent (force is optional). So instead of using the r-word, victims should simply show how the defendant had sex with them, without their consent. The same would apply to robbery, burglary, murder, etc.

If I’m drinking with someone I don’t know and I wake up to that someone not just waving a blade around in a threatening way but holding it to my throat, I’m going to try and beat ‘em if i can and if they don’t immediately back off I’ll ask questions later and hurt ‘em, if they try to gain dominance of the situation I’ll do it with prejudice. But I don’t see any reference that Biedermann had injuries on his neck so this going to come down past personal histories, was the victim gay?, did Biedermann have a violent record. If it’s no to both like it seems to be he’s a another crazy dumb-ass cracker (look at that fuckin’ pompadour)  (I bet he his gay but can’t admit it to himself) that needs to be locked up. The second guy is just a thug, he’s got a criminal record, I’ll bet on it.