Skip to comments.NC congresswoman claims Shepard murder 'not a hate crime'
Posted on 05/05/2009 3:16:57 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
A Republican lawmaker has enraged supporters of "hate crimes" legislation for suggesting that the horrible murder of Matthew Shepard was not motivated by anti-homosexual bigotry.
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) drew the ire of homosexual activists and other supporters of hate crimes legislation last week when she suggested that the tragic 1998 murder of college student Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime.
"We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay," Foxx said on the House floor. "The bill was named for him -- the hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."
Foxx later apologized for using the word "hoax," and said it "may have been a mistake" to reference two media accounts that reported robbery was the motive for the Shepard murder.
In 2004, Elizabeth Vargas of ABC News reported that one of the lead investigators in the Shepard case believed robbery was the primary motive. Former Laramie Police detective Ben Fritzen told Vargas, "Matthew Shepard's sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn't the motive in the homicide."
Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, says the idea that Shepard was brutally murdered "just because he was gay" is a myth.
"I think it's sad that Matthew Shepard's case continues to be exploited by homosexual activists. Even in schools there's the 'Laramie Project,' which is a pro-homosexual play which sort of builds on the Matthew Shepard myth. That's still used today to advance the hate crimes concept," he contends. "I think his case, again, proves that homosexual activists in this politically correct environment get greater attention than any other victim."
Hate crimes = thought crimes = 1984. It is nothing but a marxist, totalitarian construct.
Damnit Congresswoman, stand your ground! Stop apologizing to these bastards!
I personally don’t think there is any legitimate need for hate crimes legislation. A victim is still a victim regardless what was on the perps mind and should be punished as needed. Equal crimes should do equal time.
Well, telling the truth will now be considered a “hate crime”.
“... has enraged supporters ... drew the ire of homosexual activists “
Sure is a lot of anger and hate coming from the “anti-hate” brigade.
That said, Matthew Shepard was killed because he was Gay. The two guys beat him to death because supposedly he came on to them.
She was wrong.
"..Jesse William Dirkhising (May 24, 1986 September 26, 1999), also known as Jesse Yates, was an American teenager from Prairie Grove, Arkansas who was bound, drugged, tortured, raped, and died as a result of the position in which he was tied down.
Dirkhising's death, later ruled a murder, received only regional media coverage until a Washington Times article ran a story nearly a month after his death noting the lack of national coverage in contrast to that given to the death of Matthew Shepard. The high-profile Shepard murder was approaching its first anniversary and as such was getting another round of national attention coupled with updates on pending hate crime legislation. Prompted by coverage in the Washington Times, the Dirkhising case gained notoriety as conservative commentators compared media coverage of the two cases and explored the issues of what was considered a hate crime..."
Hey-supporters of ‘hate crimes’ legislation are ‘enraged’.Great! Let’s keep it up.Stop accepting these people’s and the media’s template what is and is not rage -worthy.
Somebody tell lawmakers that motive is not an element of crime. Please stop remaking thousands of years of tradition.
My son was a student at the University of Wyoming when this crime occured. The word on campus at that time was that the killers did not know that Matt Shepard was gay......in fact, very few people did know.
Even if they did know, it is no more or less vile a murder than the punks that knocked off the little old lady to steal $10.
So what if it was? The perps should fry in the same chair either way.
I remember watching a docudrama on MTV about Shepard. Can’t remember the title. Probably “Hateful Crime: The Matthew Shepard Story”. Anyway, the only scene I remember took place in a university lecture hall. It was intended to demonstrate Shepard’s brave soul or independent spirit or something. He stood up to an intolerant professor who dismissed some French literati—Voltaire? Rimbaud? I don’t remember—for being a homo.
Yeah, that’s right, Shepard confronted a conservative university professor. Let me repeat that. Conservative university professor. The left lives in a funny world.
From Accuracy in Media:
Exploiting Matthew Shepard
The truth is that he was the victim of a robbery gone bad by two drug addicts. What’s more, Shepard was also a heavy drug user who was HIV-positive. Not only were the perpetrators of this brutal crime not “homophobes,” but one of them knew Shepherd and was allegedly bisexual. The real story of the Matthew Shepard case, as the prosecutor says on “20/20,” concerns the dangers of methamphetamine. The two killers and Shepard were big meth users.
“Not to mention that all crimes are crimes of hate.”
Ask a lib if it’s possible to commit a violent crime out of love. I could imagine it, I guess. You know, “If I can’t have you no one can!” But they won’t be able to. They’ll proceed to tell you love is not the opposite of hate. Indifference is. So I guess when white heterosexual males rob eachother, they do so out of indifference.
I had a high school teacher once who told me indifference means you’d spit on someone soon as look at them. I beg to differ. There’s no reason indifference can’t be experienced within the bounds of acceptable social behavior (which people observe not out of love but out of habit). I figure indifference is pretty much what I feel for all of humanity, accepting people I know and either love or hate (and attractive women).
Because that’s the only way the gays can get their agenda anywhere by lying about it.
“That said, Matthew Shepard was killed because he was Gay. The two guys beat him to death because supposedly he came on to them.”
Were there eye/ear witnesses? Did the offenders admit as much?
So the Democrats want to prosecute people for so called “hate crimes”? Let them start with those filthy vermin who perpetrated the butcheries in Wichita and Knoxville.
To quote the wiki article.
“They attempted to use the “gay panic defense”, arguing that they were driven to temporary insanity by alleged sexual advances by Shepard.”
Though it’s true that Matthew Sheppard was deeply troubled (I don’t know what being HIV positive has to do with this), the perpetrators admitted and used the “Gay Panic Defense” as well as the robbery gone bad defense.
Personally, I do think they only intended to rob him but things got out of hand. But they did target him because he was gay (they admitted this, it was part of there defense).
Agreed - a crime is a crime. There are laws on every state’s books to deal with murder, assault, rape, disorderly conduct, etc. There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR SPECIAL “HATE CRIMES” ENHANCEMENT. Spoken by a judge, JAG, prosecutor and defense counsel, depending on which hat I’m wearing at the time.
“The perps should fry in the same chair either way.”
Ex - ACT - ly, Tanker Boy! No special treatment, no “special circumstances”. Crime is crime. Period.
I agree. Murder is murder.............no matter the motive.
I suppose the point was that he could have gotten HIV from drugs.
“Ask the defendants that was there defense. ‘Gay Panic Defense’”
That doesn’t necessarily make it true. Not saying Shepard’s homosexuality didn’t come into play at some point, but what reason do we have to believe they killed him because of a perceived come-on, other than their B.S. defense? If that’s all we have to go on, I could just as easily believe they picked him because they knew he was gay and thought he was an easy target.
Would it be splitting hairs to say there’s a difference between killing him because you hate gays and choosing to rob and kill him in part because of his gayness? But that’s the whole problem with hate-crime legislation. It assumes every time the protected group is singled out is because of hate. When a white person is robbed in an all-black neighborhood, you better believe it’s because he’s different, an outsider, and perceived to be weak. I wouldn’t necessarily add hate into the mix. then again, whites aren’t a minority in the population at large, so I guess when they’re attacked simply because they’re white it doesn’t count.
Funny how the same people (i.e. gay-right activists) who buy into the Gay Panic Syndrome nonsense (at least in part, i.e. believing it was their motivation without believing it drove them criminally insane) probably laugh at the Twinkie Defense out of hand. Defendants are fond of making outrageous arguments to avoid prison.
spikeytx86: “Matthew Shepard was killed because he was Gay”
There is absolutely no proof of that. It is a common technique used by militant homosexual activists to try and create these fictitious martyrs. Even liberal ABC news in their report concluded that the main motive of the killers was robbery. I believe they were sentenced to life in prison. How in the heck can you complain about that?
Well, telling the truth will now be considered a hate crime.
I was under the impression that it had been for some time now.
I always figured indifference carried its own definition, in as a prefix is a negative so it means no difference. Whatever you are indifferent toward makes no difference to you one way or the other. I don’t know how someone could have construed it to mean you would as soon spit on someone as look at them. That sounds really warped.
This is not some liberal accusation, this is their defense. It was a robbery gone bad and they flew into a rage do to “Gay Panic”.
I think I will take the word of the people who actually killed him thank you very much.
Now should we have Hate Crimes laws? No, it's a slap in a face to victims and it defies common sense. Now I don't blame his parents for fighting for this, they want to in their minds to have some good to come their son's murder. But our Representatives are supposed to be able to separate emotion from reason when making policy.
As for the congress women who claims he wasn't killed because he was gay, she is really twisting logic. She should fight against this crappy legislation on it's merits instead of lying about a murder.
“I believe they were sentenced to life in prison. How in the heck can you complain about that?”
I’m not. I just don’t think we should twist the facts of a crime and act like it was just an unfortunate accident leading from a misunderstanding to stop hate crimes legislation. That’s a liberal tactic.
Two of the guys who dragged the Black man in Texas got the Death Penalty and people still complained. And Harvey Milk wasn’t killed for being Gay. He wasn’t even the intended victim. Willie Mosconi was but where are Italians on the protected list?
Late arrival but thoughts. Why MW Shepard was killed only he & those there that day know. Since they both robbed him there were multiple motive. If AJ McKinney’s story is true that MW Shepard 1st grabbed AJ McKinney’s groin against will after which AJ McKinney reacted by killing him & then tying him to fence, AJ McKinney did react to abuse. Grabbing a man’s groin against will is a crime-minimum abuse&battery to maximum sex abuse & calling it ‘hit on’ is a code or euphemism.
Regardless, there’s 1 thing about the late MW Shepard you may not have known & it’s an unrelated case which happened 2 months before his death, MW Shepard allegedly abused a bartender in Cody(bartender testified). What allegedly happened was that MW Shepard proposed to barender in Cody Wyoming but the bartender said no. This should’ve been the end, but MW Shepard then started touching the bartender against his will after which the bartender decked him breaking his jaw. The bartender was nice enough to take MW Shepard (who may have been drunk or high)back to the Holiday Inn where he was staying.
MW Shepard then accused the bartender of being a homosexual by telling the cops a homosexual rape happened. Medical tests came up negative as there was no sex. No criminal charge was filed. The prosecution @ the 1999 murder trial didn’t cross-examine the bartender because he was credible. The defense couldn’t raise the fact that Matthew Shepard accused the bartender of rape as the prosecutor didn’t cross examine-perhaps the judge forbade it. Regardless of whether 1 believes AJ McKinney the fact is that Matthew Shepard should’ve been in a Cody jail not Laramie that day awaiting trial for abuse&battery along with falsely reporting a crime. If a man did the same thing to a woman-propose after she said no & then start touching her against her will, he would be in jail.
Finally most ‘gay bashings’ are men reacting or overreacting to criminal abuse that the homosexual 1st did. If a homo is going to grab a man’s groin or butt against will or even continue proposing to a man after he said ‘no thanks’, he homosexual is committing a crime. If the man reacts by bashing or killing the homosexual, the man may have gone, but he did so reacting to a crime.
With Twinkie defense the victim. Harvey Bernard Milk in 1964, committed statutory rape on Jack Galen McKinley when the boy was 17. Jack Galen McKinley committed suicide in 1980. Harvey Bernard Milk should’ve gone to jail for felony statutory rape and lost his voting rights. 1 may think that Dan White shouldn’t have used the Twinkie Defense in 1979 which resulted in manslaughter conviction, but Dan White killed a homosexual statutory rapist who again should’ve been convicted of a felony & who had no right to be a San Francisco politician. Sorry if I’ve posted twice but let’s understand who Harvey Bernard Milk was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.