Talk:Matthew Shepard

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

--Incide 12:26, 17 December 2007 (EST)Could it be that guys who'd brutally murdered someone might just lie about their motives to avoid being charged with a hate crime? Maestro 13:59, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I'm almost looking forward to reading about a bunch of gay dudes that murder a straight guy because he is straight and see how quickly right-wingers pull out the 'hate crime' card.

Conservapedia's quote from 20/20 is completely irrelevant. If these two individuals are so lacking in morals that they are willing to kill (based on Shepard's sexuality or not) they would obviously be willing to lie as to their motives to avoid a potential hate crime prosecution. Hate crime is a substantially more punishable offense then a non-hate crime. I am sure their lawyer was involved in that statement. Kiss20 20:19, 8 January 2008 (EST)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by incide (talk)

Check out Mary Stachowicz.--Aschlafly 18:41, 11 December 2007 (EST)
HA! I knew it. Still, I really can't see this as being a hate crime. He didn't kill her because she was straight, he killed her because he had "issues". It looks as if he would have killer her if she continuously told him not to eat cheeseburgers (and inane example I know but I'm trying to prove a point.) Had he randomly picked her out of a crowd as being staright and killed her for that, then it would be a hate crime--beyond any shadow of a doubt. But savagely murdering someone because she disagreed with his sexuality is indicative of something far more serious.--Incide 09:28, 13 December 2007 (EST)
So the issues didn't involve hate at all? Did he kill her out of love? Karajou 09:44, 13 December 2007 (EST)
That is asinine! Of course he hated her. But he hated her. Her the person. Her the person that ragged on him all the time for being gay. Does her sexuality come into play? Yes. But inasmuch as it was one of the driving forces behind her nagging along with her 'religious devotion'. Had that not occured and he not be as "troubled" as he is, this would not have happened.--Incide 10:01, 14 December 2007 (EST)
What you're implying is when someone who is GAY kills someone straight it is not a hate crime, but it IS A HATE CRIME when someone straight kills the gay person. Karajou 10:49, 14 December 2007 (EST)
No. clearly, you've misunderstood what i wrote. but i'm guessing that there is very little i can do to convince you otherwise.
A question, then. If the roles were reversed. If a gay person who tried to "convert" a straight person (putting aside your archaic view of morality for just a moment because i know that it will come into play) and the straight person kills the gay person: whould THAT be a hate crime? Or would the straight person be justified?
There's no justification for murdering someone at all, and no, my morals are not archaic, and no, you are to cease rocking the boat here, because all you're trying to do is to put some sort of justification for homosexuality here...which clearly shows your own hatred for this site and the persons who hold fast to those morals you claim are archaic. It stops now. Karajou 12:38, 17 December 2007 (EST)
i'm not trying to justifying anything. i'm stating my opinion. you would do the same and should do the same. I thought America still had the first amendment. Has this been revoked? Am i not allowed to say what I believe to be true? Should the fact that it angers people be enough for it to be censored? You have the right to belive and say whatever you want. This website is proof positive of that. What you don't have the rigth to do is tell ME what I CAN or CANNOT say. --Incide 14:17, 17 December 2007 (EST)
Then tell me, Incide...do you have a First Amendment right to come on to this website and force your opinion on others? I don't think you do. The only reason you are here is because you cannot stand conservatism; you cannot stand those who criticise homosexuality for what it is and what it could do to people; you cannot stand those who created this website to promote those values you claim are archaic...and if we object to what you say and how you say it, well, then you complain it's your First Amendment rights that are violated. Have a nice day! Karajou 07:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Oh yes, I forgot something...you have NO First Amendment rights here. Your IP hails from either Saint Laurent, Quebec, or Toronto, Ontario; both of which are in Canada, which means you're Canadian. Therefore, you are not an American citizen under our constitution by which you could have First Amendment rights. Bye. Karajou 08:02, 18 December 2007 (EST)
It's a private website, Incide, they control the content, and do not have to justify deletions. Unlike wikipedia, where more than one opinion is allowed and you can only be banned by blatant vandalism. Maestro 13:11, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Definition of a hate crime

Look, before discussing any ferther, I would like to just simply put down the definition of a hate crime. Here is, according to the American Heratige Dictionary (verbatim out of it):

n. A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group[1]

Irrelevant. At no point was the crime portrayed by the prosecution as a hate crime and the men were never convicted of any hate crime. The only people who called this a hate crime were pro-gay activists who were more concerned with promoting their agenda and forcing their views upon the public than with the facts of the case or even with Mr. Shepard's life. Jinxmchue 00:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT)
The men were not convicted of a hate crime because there was no law in place at the time stating that killing a homosexual for any reason besides they were a homosexual was a hate crime. Also, as was once stated in the article (I guess someone deleated it), it stated that they wanted to rob a homosexual man. This means that they did not just target Sheppard, but any homosexual man. Also, I only put that in there because of the conversation above because I wanted to make it clear what was a hate crime for them.


Mention of gay bar, other important factors

Why is so little detail given into the context of the murder? There is no mention of the men being straight, Shepard being gay, the bar they were in being a gay bar, the testimonies of the girlfriends of the killers saying that the murder was premeditated? I understand the agenda of CP, but these seem like important aspects of the case, even if they do knock down the rest of the article, which is a house of cards built on the omission of these facts. LordNelsonRepub 1:15PM, May 16, 2009


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools