All joking aside, finding a "surprise" under there, is no excuse for killing the kid. Jeeze ...
Posted on 07/26/2005 4:30:27 PM PDT by SmithL
Hayward -- One of three men accused of killing a 17-year-old Newark transgender nearly three years ago testified today that he participated in the attack after learning that Gwen Araujo was not the woman he thought he'd had sex with.
Testifying for the first time at his retrial on murder charges, Jose Merel, 25, said he was disgusted when friends at a party revealed that Araujo, who called herself Lida and with whom Merel had previously had anal sex, was biologically male.
"It's hard to explain," Merel said in a Hayward courtroom of the way he felt on Oct. 3, 2003. "Your whole life you think you're a heterosexual. Then you get pleasure from a homosexual. It disgusted me."
Merel did not testify at the first trial, which ended in June 2004 with the jury deadlocked on charges against him and two other men, Michael Magidson and Jason Cazares, both 25. The case, and the mistrial, outraged the transgender community.
The retrial began last month.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
All joking aside, finding a "surprise" under there, is no excuse for killing the kid. Jeeze ...
Well, sea creatures are known to have pretty amazing dangling parts. Whales, dolphins, walruses...
This guy should have just laughed it off with his buddies. Being tricked by a transvestite isn't the worst thing that could happen to you. Just get over it. That's what a real man would have done.
But instead, it will be she-males in the cellblock for the rest of his life.
Pretty well disgusts me, too.
Just because he called himself a "her" does not mean the newspaper reporter has to. Sheeeesh! Truth - he was a he. Sticking to the truth instead of venturing into the perverted fairyland of deception may have prevented a whole lot of trouble here.
I disagree with you. It wasn't murder.
Imagine a woman who goes to a party with a friend and wakes up in bed next to him, naked. He laughs and says that he did her while she was stoned. She is furious at the deception and grabs the nearest object, a lamp, and bonks him on the head. He dies. Murder or manslaughter? It was an unwanted sexual encounter. My bet is that the gal gets off or pleads guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
Ditto for this situation. A pervert dresses up like a gal and runs around parties giving boys oral and anal sex like a hooker, except for free. The pervert is brazenly promiscuous. The pervert brags to others that he/she/it is fooling all the boys. So one of the boys, after hitching up his pants after the liason, gets snickers from someone else at the party that he just did a guy, not a girl. He finds two other dudes equally fooled. They grab the "it," pull him outside, force him to drop his pants, confirm that he has male anatomy, and then beat the sh-t out of him when he taunts them again.
I think manslaughter is the correct diagnosis here. The only other factor is that instead of confessing the crime of passion immediately after it happened, they drove the body into the mountains and tried to hide it.
The mistrial outraged the transgender community --- is that bad? I thought outrageousness was their whole purpose.
Why should we care if they are outraged? Do they care that their outrageous flamboyant deceptive dangerous sexual behavior is offensive to most people? Why are their delicate sensibilities more precious than ours?
I think the old defense of 'the crime was committed in the heat of the moment' was a good one, and would apply here.
I know it doesn't work anymore, but it should.
A real man would not be picking up teenaged strangers to have anal sex with them at parties. Real men do not get "tricked".
Well, I frankly did not feel like d the s/he thing.
So I said "her".
And if you will read what I actually wrote, I MOSTLY said, 'this person".
"This guy should have just laughed it off with his buddies. Being tricked by a transvestite isn't the worst thing that could happen to you. Just get over it."
The fact that he overreacted as strongly as he did suggests to me that there was more going on than we know. I'd guess that he "knew," and was only OK with it because everybody thought he was with a female. When "she" was outed as a cross-dresser, he was as well. We're dealing with Latino culture here, remember. Homosexuality would be a big problem, hence the cover story. He had to kill "her" to keep the truth from coming out.
This explanation makes sense to me. The killing doesn't, though.
The victim was beaten up and left for dead in the mountains. That is murder.
'Anybody who can lift a frying pan owns death.'
I agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, it depends. Some of them she-males look mighty convincing. A real man might get to second base before he finds out. But once you round third, you are in George Michael territory for sure.
tom h wrote:
The only other factor is that instead of confessing the crime of passion immediately after it happened, they drove the body into the mountains and tried to hide it.
I met her in a club down in old Soho
where you drink champagne and it tastes just like Cherry Cola
C-O-L-A Cola.
She walked up to me and she asked me to dance.
I asked her her name and in a dark brown voice she said, "Lola"
L-O-L-A Lola, lo lo lo Lola
Well, I'm not the world's most physical guy,
but when she squeesed me tight she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola, lo lo lo Lola, lo lo lo Lola
Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understand
why she walks like a woman and talks like a man
Oh my Lola, lo lo lo Lola, lo lo lo Lola
When we out-law frying pans, only outlaws will HAVE frying pans.
Thank you.
register your frying pan now!
Large capacity frying pans should be outlawed!
The Fed wants my chicken-fryer.
they can have it when they pull it from my cold, dead fingers.
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.