ABC’s Gibson Claims Matthew Shepard was Murdered ‘Because He was Gay’

While CBS and NBC ignored yesterday’s expansion of the federal definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation, ABC’s Charlie Gibson reported it, explaining that the amendment was “named for Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student killed 11 years ago because he was gay.”

It’s true that the amendment, attached to a defense spending bill, was named for Shepard but Gibson ignored his own network’s investigation of the Shepard case that revealed sexual orientation was not the sole motive behind his murder.

ABC’s “20/20” investigation in 2004 found that drugs fueled Shepard’s brutal murder, not homophobia, as is widely believed. Aaron Mickinney, who fatally assaulted Shepard, told ABC he was high on methamphetamine during the attack and it was the drugs that sparked his rage, not Shepard’s sexual orientation.

Anchor Elizabeth Vargas reported that Shepard’s friends promoted the idea that Shepard’s sexuality was the key factor in his murderer’s attack. “Just hours after Matthew was discovered at the fence, and before anyone knew who had beaten him, Walt Boulden and Alex Trout, friends of Shepard, began spreading the word that Matthew may have been attacked because he was gay.

Cal Rerucha, the prosecutor in the case, confirmed Vargas’ words. “They [Shepard’s friends] were calling the county attorney’s office. They were calling the media and indicating, “Matthew Shepard is gay, and we don’t want the fact that he is gay to go unnoticed,” he stated.

Rerucha also told ABC he didn’t “think the proof [of a hate crime] was there” and “it something [Shepard’s friends] had decided.”

Ben Fritzen, a former police detective and one of the lead investigators on the case, told Vargas it was drugs and money that motivated the attack on Shepard.

“Matthew Shepard’s sexual preference or sexual orientation certainly wasn’t the motive in the homicide. If it wasn’t Shepard, they would have found another easy target. What it came down to, really, is drugs and money and two punks that were out looking for it,” he told ABC.

Despite what law enforcement had to say about the murder, Shepard’s friend Walt insisted to ABC, “I know in the core of my heart it happened because he revealed he was gay. And it’s chilling. They targeted him because he was gay.”

Shepard’s death was a terrible tragedy, and nobody deserves the treatment he received that night. But to ignore evidence that indicated the motives behind his murder were more than pure homophobia to push a political agenda is irresponsible.

"Yes, I understand the politcs involved, and you have done a good job of putting words in my mouth, lol, at least in that regard."

Sorry to step on your toes. A lot of people say they don't understand when what they mean is that they don't agree. But, I know it's irritating to be told what you mean. I should have phrased it as a question.

"What I do not understand is that, even “minorities” should fear “thought crimes” or fear the government trying to get into our heads."

They fear other things more, like getting their heads broken, and this is "for them".

“I do not understand ‘hate crimes’ legislation, at all.”

Some people think particular minority groups need extra-special protection, because the temptation for Regular White Dudes to kill them is too strong for ordinary murder charges to deter. These people, of course, are idiots. The rest of the proponents of Hate Crimes are in it to promote their little group and/or get credit for aiding in said promotion. It’s just another case of identity politics, that’s all/

“What I do not understand is that, even ‘minorities’ should fear ‘thought crimes’ or fear the government trying to get into our heads.”

I steer clear of the Thought Crime angle, since thought is already under consideration, and should be, in some cases. Intent, for instance, is all inside the head, and people get tougher or lighter punishment based on it.

The real problem is that “hate” is a motive and, traditionally speaking, motive is not an element of crime. For obvious reasons, since for any one person murdered there could have been a dozen people who had wanted to do so at one point. That’s why defense attourneys always counter witnesses’ claims of hearing the defendent vow “I will kill that man!” by asking them if they’ve ever said they want to kill someone at some point in their lives.

Hate Crime legislation overturns centuries of legal tradition, and for that reason, not the Thought Crime reason, it is a travesty.

Well put, and point taken.

Still, I think it is a bit creepy for the government to say that a class-based murder is any worse than a murder done for hire or for revenge.

In fact, I guess to avoid the “hate crime” charge, a defendant could say, “I am not saying I killed him, but he DID 1.) steal money from me 2.) mess with my girl 3.) call me names 4.) cheat at poker -— etc.

In other words, prove that there was a different motive, besides hate -— but these libs don't seem to care about other motives, as long as “hate” existed, somehow, it is a “Hate crime” if that hate was based on identity with some protected group.

Remember how we went from, thankfully, protecting abused wives to allowing wives who murdered abusive husbands to get off the hook? Sometimes, when no REAL abuse even took place?

How long until those who “commit” these “hate crimes” can be bumped off, and their lives will be judges less valuable, since, after all, these were “haters” were they not?

When you make some lives more valuable than others, simple logic says that the value of those lives, not protected to the same extent, have DECLINED in value.

Prove you killed a “hate criminal” and you might get a slap on the wrist!

“Remember how we went from, thankfully, protecting abused wives to allowing wives who murdered abusive husbands to get off the hook? Sometimes, when no REAL abuse even took place?”

Yes, I also remember cases where women who feared rape could use deadly force, based entirely upon their perception of their supposed attacker’s actions. Not to say I don’t want women killing rapists, but what if the guy was just walking down he street? There have to be some overt actions, some standard the court can use for a “point of no return,” after which, and only after which, it’s okay to use deadly force.

The problem with hate crimes, of course, is that they’re not going to bother with perceptions, let alone set standards for determining when hate is present. That is, they can’t ask the victim whether he perceived hate in his attacker. Witnesses, of course, could be asked their opinion. But what are they, psychologists? Social scientists? No.

Unless it’s painfully obvious, they’ll only be able to go by what the attacker says, and more often, the larger social groups to which each side belongs. In other words, two gay guys, regular crime. Straight guy vs. gay guy? “Hate”.

Bottom line, this is all about throwing a bone to the gay rights lobby, and creating a protected class. Which, by the way, won’t actually be protected. If assualt and/or murder charges aren’t enough to deter an attack, what effect do you think a little added time for “hate” will have?

Finally, our stupid leaders might look into tackling actual problems at some point. Gay-bashing, however horrible, is like a drop in the pond compared to black-on-black crime, for instance.

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.