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.”
“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.