who died and made us the master race?
May. 9th, 2005 11:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ciroccojWhat a lovely race we humans are:
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
BERKELEY, Calif. - For the second time in less than a year, prosecutors are gearing up to try three men accused of killing Gwen Araujo, a 17-year-old one-time friend who they later discovered was biologically male.
Last year, a jury deadlocked on whether Araujo was murdered, as prosecutors argued, or the victim of manslaughter, a crime the defense said was committed in a heat of passion sparked by sexual deception. The defense infuriated Araujo's family and transgender activists who called it a case of blaming the victim.
On Monday, prosecutors will try again as jury selection was to begin in a second attempt to convince a jury that what happened to Araujo was a cold, calculated killing.
"Everybody's asking questions, talking about it," said Christopher Daley, director of the San Francisco-based Transgender Law Center, who expects the defense "to come out swinging a lot harder."
Michael Magidson, 24, Jose Merel, 25, and Jason Cazares, 25, are charged with killing Araujo, who was born Edward but came to believe her true identity was as a woman. After she died, her mother had her name legally changed as a mark of respect.
According to a fourth man, Jaron Nabors, 22, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in a plea bargain and agreed to testify against the others, Araujo was beaten and strangled after her biological identity was revealed during a confrontation at Merel's house in a San Francisco suburb.
The four men had met Araujo, whom they knew as "Lida," months earlier and became fast friends.
According to testimony from the defendants' first trial, both Merel and Magidson had sex with Araujo and became suspicious that she was not biologically female.
Their suspicions were confirmed on Oct. 4, 2002, when a young woman at the house grabbed Araujo's genitals, Nabors testified. Nabors said he saw Merel hit Araujo with a can and a skillet and Magidson punched, choked and kicked her.
Araujo begged for her life, saying "No, please don't. I have a family," Nabors said.
The attack dragged on for more than an hour, and Nabors said he left before the actual killing. He said Magidson later talked about twisting a rope around Araujo's neck.
The next day, all four men took the body to the Sierra foothills, where it lay for nearly two weeks until Nabors led police to the grave.
At the first trial, defense attorneys hammered away at Nabors' credibility, pointing out that he told different stories to police.
Magidson's attorney, Michael Thorman, acknowledged that Magidson played a role in the attack and said he was sorry for it. But he argued that it was "classic manslaughter," suggesting that the sudden discovery of Araujo's biological identity was a violation "so deep, it's almost primal."
Merel's attorney said jurors only had Nabors' word for it that Merel was involved in the assault. Cazares, the only defendant to testify, said he also was outside when the killing took place and only helped bury the body.
First-degree murder is punishable by 25 years to life, second-degree by 15 years to life and manslaughter by up to 11 years. The case was also charged as a hate crime, a potential extra four years.
Link to the story: Gwen Araujo Transgender killing case.
Particularly disgusting quote: Magidson's attorney ... acknowledged that Magidson played a role in the attack and said he was sorry for it. But he argued that it was "classic manslaughter," suggesting that the sudden discovery of Araujo's biological identity was a violation "so deep, it's almost primal."
I remember when we studied the "Homosexual Panic" defence in Crim in first year. Basically, the Criminal Code of Canada said that if you killed "in the heat of passion", you were guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Case law stated that the shock felt by a man finding his wife in bed with another man qualified as "heat of passion". So did the shock of a man whose wife made fun of the size of his penis (no, I'm not making that up) and a man who had to fend of an unwanted proposition by a gay man. And by unwanted proposition, they didn't mean sexual assault. They meant, Hey stranger, can I buy you a beer ::wink::
Of course, a woman fending off a date rapist usually didn't qualify for this defence. Neither did a woman killing her abusive husband.
Humans are lovely.
Anyway. Here's to the prosecutors for Gwen Araujo's murder. May they give her the justice she deserves.
By MICHELLE LOCKE, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
BERKELEY, Calif. - For the second time in less than a year, prosecutors are gearing up to try three men accused of killing Gwen Araujo, a 17-year-old one-time friend who they later discovered was biologically male.
Last year, a jury deadlocked on whether Araujo was murdered, as prosecutors argued, or the victim of manslaughter, a crime the defense said was committed in a heat of passion sparked by sexual deception. The defense infuriated Araujo's family and transgender activists who called it a case of blaming the victim.
On Monday, prosecutors will try again as jury selection was to begin in a second attempt to convince a jury that what happened to Araujo was a cold, calculated killing.
"Everybody's asking questions, talking about it," said Christopher Daley, director of the San Francisco-based Transgender Law Center, who expects the defense "to come out swinging a lot harder."
Michael Magidson, 24, Jose Merel, 25, and Jason Cazares, 25, are charged with killing Araujo, who was born Edward but came to believe her true identity was as a woman. After she died, her mother had her name legally changed as a mark of respect.
According to a fourth man, Jaron Nabors, 22, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter in a plea bargain and agreed to testify against the others, Araujo was beaten and strangled after her biological identity was revealed during a confrontation at Merel's house in a San Francisco suburb.
The four men had met Araujo, whom they knew as "Lida," months earlier and became fast friends.
According to testimony from the defendants' first trial, both Merel and Magidson had sex with Araujo and became suspicious that she was not biologically female.
Their suspicions were confirmed on Oct. 4, 2002, when a young woman at the house grabbed Araujo's genitals, Nabors testified. Nabors said he saw Merel hit Araujo with a can and a skillet and Magidson punched, choked and kicked her.
Araujo begged for her life, saying "No, please don't. I have a family," Nabors said.
The attack dragged on for more than an hour, and Nabors said he left before the actual killing. He said Magidson later talked about twisting a rope around Araujo's neck.
The next day, all four men took the body to the Sierra foothills, where it lay for nearly two weeks until Nabors led police to the grave.
At the first trial, defense attorneys hammered away at Nabors' credibility, pointing out that he told different stories to police.
Magidson's attorney, Michael Thorman, acknowledged that Magidson played a role in the attack and said he was sorry for it. But he argued that it was "classic manslaughter," suggesting that the sudden discovery of Araujo's biological identity was a violation "so deep, it's almost primal."
Merel's attorney said jurors only had Nabors' word for it that Merel was involved in the assault. Cazares, the only defendant to testify, said he also was outside when the killing took place and only helped bury the body.
First-degree murder is punishable by 25 years to life, second-degree by 15 years to life and manslaughter by up to 11 years. The case was also charged as a hate crime, a potential extra four years.
Link to the story: Gwen Araujo Transgender killing case.
Particularly disgusting quote: Magidson's attorney ... acknowledged that Magidson played a role in the attack and said he was sorry for it. But he argued that it was "classic manslaughter," suggesting that the sudden discovery of Araujo's biological identity was a violation "so deep, it's almost primal."
I remember when we studied the "Homosexual Panic" defence in Crim in first year. Basically, the Criminal Code of Canada said that if you killed "in the heat of passion", you were guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Case law stated that the shock felt by a man finding his wife in bed with another man qualified as "heat of passion". So did the shock of a man whose wife made fun of the size of his penis (no, I'm not making that up) and a man who had to fend of an unwanted proposition by a gay man. And by unwanted proposition, they didn't mean sexual assault. They meant, Hey stranger, can I buy you a beer ::wink::
Of course, a woman fending off a date rapist usually didn't qualify for this defence. Neither did a woman killing her abusive husband.
Humans are lovely.
Anyway. Here's to the prosecutors for Gwen Araujo's murder. May they give her the justice she deserves.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 05:42 am (UTC)I have to say I have a different opinion of this situation. In this case there was no justification for the violence, because it was not a sudden punch, but an full blown assault that took over an hour. But I think there is a huge difference between somebody beating up someone for being gay, and somebody reacting to the information that the person they just had sex with was a different gender then that person claimed to be. This is not the first case of this sort. There was another one on the TV show 20/20. There a man in his late teens discovered while he was having sex with her, that his partner was not female. That is bound to have an extremely upsetting effect on many people. The young man did not agree to have sex with another man, he was agreeing to have sex with a woman. That to me is very different than beating up another man who makes a sexual invitation to him.
If I was the Defense Counsel, I would have raised the same point. Remember a lawyer is an advocate for her client, and she is not there to right social wrongs. A vigorous defense requires that point be raised. It does put the attack in a different point of view and it might have some sway with the jury, especially if the jury was filled with young men.
I am certainly not advocating violence against transgender people, the assault against this woman was horrifying. The point of the defense loses a lot of merit when you look at the long drawn out nature of the attack rather than an immediate gut response. But that is definitely an argument you run up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes, Why would a transgender person go to bed with someone without letting them know up front that they are transgender? There is no right for transgender to expect heterosexual people to go to bed with them, wihtout letting them know the situation.
If I was a judge and I was looking at a case where a young man beat up a transgender sexual partner because he did not realize he was in bed with another man until he was in the middle of act, I would tend to see that as a huge mitigating factor. People have the right to dislike other races. People have the right to dislike gay people and transgender people. It is called the right to think whatever you want. I wish people did not hate one another for such silly reasons, but I am not the thought police. Once they ACT on this hatred, they are breaking the law. But I would will very violated if I was in bed with an attractive man I met in the bar and in the midst of the sexual activity discovered he was a woman.
I suspect many people would argue that if a lesbian picked up a transgender person in a lesbian bar and then during the sexual activity discovered she was in bed with an anatomic man, that is akin to rape. We may not like macho, swaggering, anti-gay teenage males, but they have the right be heterosexual. And this includes the right not be lured into bed under false pretenses.
This is an exceptionally sad case.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 07:16 am (UTC)Starstruck (http://wibberley.blogspot.com//)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 03:30 pm (UTC)Yeah, that is a good point. Like you say, it doesn't excuse this case at all, but you're right, being fooled like that is a rather large violation. Hadn't thought of that, because after all, you are consenting to have sex with somebody... but as you say, you're not consenting to have sex with a person who is not of the gender you thought they were.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-10 03:31 pm (UTC):D :D :D