Today I decided to go home for lunch - my third sinus infection in two months was making me feel like I needed some alone time.
After fixing a sandwich and sitting down at the table I clicked the television on to Court TV or maybe it's called TruTV now? Anyway, coverage was focused on the conclusion of a trial involving a man accused in the robbery and murder of a Gay man. It seems that three men had been arrested when they were selling the victim's car and the defendant on trial admitted that he was involved in selling the car but that he had not participated in the murder. He actually said when he found out they were going to kill the man to get the car he told them he didn't want any part of murder but would help sell the car. He must have gotten bad legal advice because admitting what he did made him as guilty as if he had pulled the trigger (or in this case, handled the knife) under Florida law. Or maybe he was just stupid because between his arrest and the time of trial he got several tattoos on his face including one of a knife made to look as if it entered his forehead just above the eyebrow, passed behind his eye and exited at his cheek - pretty stupid given that the victim was stabbed to death!
I was intrigued by all the references to the deceased being Gay because it seemed to have nothing to do with the charges. The defendant was NOT charged with a hate crime so why did the commentators insist on including "Gay" as a descriptor every time he was mentioned?
After a commercial break one of the alternate jurors was interviewed. He seemed like a reasonable guy. He didn't get to vote because he was an alternate but he agreed with the verdict (guilty of Murder in the Second Degree) because he didn't believe that the prosecutor was able to prove that he was present at the murder. He was a 54 year old White guy who said that he had "waited 54 years before getting called for jury duty and considered it a privilege and a responsibility..." So far, so good. He was asked about the tattoos, specifically, "did the tattoos make him seem more guilty or have any impact on your assessment of him?" He replied, "lots of young people today get tattoos in places that seem strange to people my age and the judge told us to ignore them, so no I don't think the tattoos had any impact at all." Still seems reasonable, right?
The next question was, "Originally the defendant was charged under a hate crime law but the prosecutor decided that the evidence was not solid enough so that charge was dropped. In your opinion, did the victim's sexual orientation have anything to do with his being chosen by the three defendants?" His answer was, "Well I don't think that they picked him because they hate Gay people but because he made a convenient victim. You know, Gay people are weaker and won't fight back like regular people."
I'm not sure what shocked me more - that ignorant answer OR the fact that the commentator moved on to the next question without batting an eye! If that kind of answer was given matching ANY other minority with their stereotype I really think that the interviewer would have made a comment about it. Am I wrong? We remain the only minority that it is okay and expected to bash with no repercussion. As we say in Texas, that just ain't right!
After fixing a sandwich and sitting down at the table I clicked the television on to Court TV or maybe it's called TruTV now? Anyway, coverage was focused on the conclusion of a trial involving a man accused in the robbery and murder of a Gay man. It seems that three men had been arrested when they were selling the victim's car and the defendant on trial admitted that he was involved in selling the car but that he had not participated in the murder. He actually said when he found out they were going to kill the man to get the car he told them he didn't want any part of murder but would help sell the car. He must have gotten bad legal advice because admitting what he did made him as guilty as if he had pulled the trigger (or in this case, handled the knife) under Florida law. Or maybe he was just stupid because between his arrest and the time of trial he got several tattoos on his face including one of a knife made to look as if it entered his forehead just above the eyebrow, passed behind his eye and exited at his cheek - pretty stupid given that the victim was stabbed to death!
I was intrigued by all the references to the deceased being Gay because it seemed to have nothing to do with the charges. The defendant was NOT charged with a hate crime so why did the commentators insist on including "Gay" as a descriptor every time he was mentioned?
After a commercial break one of the alternate jurors was interviewed. He seemed like a reasonable guy. He didn't get to vote because he was an alternate but he agreed with the verdict (guilty of Murder in the Second Degree) because he didn't believe that the prosecutor was able to prove that he was present at the murder. He was a 54 year old White guy who said that he had "waited 54 years before getting called for jury duty and considered it a privilege and a responsibility..." So far, so good. He was asked about the tattoos, specifically, "did the tattoos make him seem more guilty or have any impact on your assessment of him?" He replied, "lots of young people today get tattoos in places that seem strange to people my age and the judge told us to ignore them, so no I don't think the tattoos had any impact at all." Still seems reasonable, right?
The next question was, "Originally the defendant was charged under a hate crime law but the prosecutor decided that the evidence was not solid enough so that charge was dropped. In your opinion, did the victim's sexual orientation have anything to do with his being chosen by the three defendants?" His answer was, "Well I don't think that they picked him because they hate Gay people but because he made a convenient victim. You know, Gay people are weaker and won't fight back like regular people."
I'm not sure what shocked me more - that ignorant answer OR the fact that the commentator moved on to the next question without batting an eye! If that kind of answer was given matching ANY other minority with their stereotype I really think that the interviewer would have made a comment about it. Am I wrong? We remain the only minority that it is okay and expected to bash with no repercussion. As we say in Texas, that just ain't right!
Comments