The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defense is a victim blaming strategy of legal defense, where a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a same-sex attracted individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them. A defendant will use available legal defenses against assault and murder, with the aim of seeking an acquittal, a mitigated sentence, or a conviction of a lesser offense. A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.
Would this be a viable defense for a woman who was receiving clearly unwanted advances from a man and retaliated by assaulting or killing him? No? Then it sounds like we’re applying laws differently based on sex/gender. Either mitigate this for women or don’t permit it for men, preferably the second one.
If a gay man hits on you and you’re a straight man, take it as a compliment and be upfront that you’re flattered but not interested in men. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
Would this be a viable defense for a woman who was receiving clearly unwanted advances from a man
YMMV. If the woman is white and the man is black, probably. The other way around? I wouldn’t bank on it.
If a gay man hits on you and you’re a straight man, take it as a compliment
As a legal defense, the most nefarious thing about it is that you’ll often have two assailants giving testimony that the now-dead victim can’t refute. So it very well could be the “straight” man aggressing on an out-gay man, the gay man rebuffing the advance, and the “straight” man plus friend killing him in reprisal. If you look into the rash of night club shootings during the '10s, it was not uncommon for closeted or sexually repressed individuals to be involved, after feeling the need to prove their straightness by killing their peers.
Also very common for abortion clinic bombers and snipers to come out of communities that convince young men they’re being robbed of future spouses and children by insidious far-left feminist institutions.
Okay so you can’t legally own a gun to defend yourself? I thought this was America?
You can legally own a gun to defend yourself, but only if you are part of the in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, not the out-group whom the law binds but does not protect.
Rules for thee…
Well, yeah? I mean, this is magastan we’re talking about. A country where only people* can defend themselves from an attack and claim self defense.
*Terms and conditions apply. The definition of “person” and therefore of “people” varies from state to state. Please check your local laws to confirm if you can claim you’re legally a person enjoying human rights. Examples of potentially excluded individuals from the definition of person depending on the state include:
- Black/brown/whatever colour is not “american white”
- Gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/whatever sexuality not considered heterosexual
- Any kind of minority deemed “not acceptable” under maga’s principles, such as transexual, furry, autistic, or, in general anything that’s considered woke.
Waste of taxpayer money. The attackers should have been charged, too, for a hate crime.
Too? Bartender shouldn’t face criminal charges for exercising her self defense right.
It’s normal to face charges when you have to defend yourself. I had a guy threatening me with a chunk of rebar and I pulled my gun. I had to talk a lot with the police about it. “Self defense “ is what you argue in court. You might still get arrested and charged.
That being said I’m confident this person will beat the charge because it’s clearly self defense.
Yeah, exactly. Self Defense is a legal defense in court, but you’ll still need to go to court to make the argument. Oftentimes, police won’t bother making an arrest in the moment. They’ll just get your info and you’ll receive a court summons a few days later. But you’ll need to go to court regardless.
Too???
I should have used “instead”
