"Trans" Tinder date stomped to death

but then when I didn't, you posted what you did.... lol

 

??????

 

forgot already?

 

Huh?

 

Irrelevant. This is legal minefield, and it WILL result in rape charges going forward.

The court cannot know if any given victim (of such rape) had an inkling beforehand. To even venture into that territory would be contrary to the modern ethos that victims must be believed.

 

I'm not addressing the death, I'm addressing the sexual assault.

 

You said the person would remain male forever, and should be viewed by those he encounters as male.

I'll say it again - try telling that the Transactivists and Progressives. Say it emphatically, then come back here and tell us what happened.

 

I'm saying that in a case where a person consents to sex with gender A, but finds out later they actually had sex with gender B (who is not just a different gender, but entirely different identity), they have been sexually assaulted. They did NOT CONSENT.

 

nope, consent is not rape, playing down what rape is only harms real rape victims

is lying about marital status of financial status now rape too?

we can agree it's wrong... but it is not rape

 

they are the same person before and after, even if you changed your looks completely, became a make or female, whatever, you're still the same person

if I get a new hairstyle, lose or gain weight, ect. I may look different, but I am still the same person

do you think if someone goes blind, they are a new person, cause they were not a blind person before and now they are? nope, same person, just now they are blind, before they were not

 

we only have the word of the killer, we will never hear from the victim as the killer silence the victim

for all we know, this is what the killer was looking for that night

maybe later he regretted it and wanted to silence him

 

Let's focus on the sexual assault, please.

Would you say "we only have her word for it" about an 18 year old girl sexually assaulted by a 40 year old man? Would you say "maybe she wanted it, then later on regretted it"? Isn't that victim blaming?

 

if she came back a week later and killed him... told no one about it, yep, I would question if it was rape if she said she consented, but he lied to her after she found out he was married

once he killed them man, the man became the victim and he became the killer

 

For the tenth time, we're discussing SEXUAL ASSAULT ONLY.

 

Ok, let’s talk about sexual assault. Sexual Assault is defined as…

Basically doing something outside the consent of the person it’s done to. Now we state that either of the participants can withdraw consent at any time. I disagree. There is a point where concent can no longer be withdrawn. After the act is over and done.

If consent is withdrawn during any act, the person doing whatever of the above mentioned activities can stop the act. In fact, (assuming a heterosexual pairing of legal adults), two people were shagging and one says “This is not right, please stop, and the other does just that and stops, we’d consider the person respecting consent and that no assault was done. Consent was given to start, the act was started, the consent withdrawn and the act stopped.

Once the act is done however, if one of the people regretted the act the next morning, a day later, next week, etc, consent can’t be withdrawn since it’s impossible to “un[bleep]” someone. You can’t un-blow, unwank, etc someone. Once the act is done it’s done and nothing short of scifi conventions of time travel can alter that fact.

So a sexual act was done once before and the secret was kept. So what? If a woman agrees to sex with a man on the promise that he’s a free agent and is willing to start a long term relationship…when the man reveals that he was interested in a one night, wham-bam-thank you ma’am, one and done sex act…was the man having sex with her committing a sexual assault? A lie yes, misrepresentation, yes, but was that a sexual assault? Consent was given and not withdrawn until after the act was done.

How would that be different than getting a handy or a BJ from someone who is transitioning? Sure he was lied to and yes the transwoman was misrepresenting herself…but consent for the act was given and not withdrawn until he learned that she used to be a he at the NEXT encounter.

Was that really sexual assault? And I’m not asking you your opinion on the matter, I’m talking about sexual assault in the eyes of the law. Is it, to the courts, sexual assault?

And it may be depending on the courts and the laws of the area. But that’s a matter of debate.

What is not a matter of debate is that the guy killed someone else. He punched the person several times, stomped the head several more times and then left the person in a state where he was aware that the condition was not good. Didn’t call police, didn’t call EMS, just left the person there gurgling on their own blood.

That is not a matter of debate. The discovery of a wang is not a threat of life and limb that would warrant self-defense. If he was unaware that she was previously a he, then she must have looked really feminine and thus would likely not be able to withstand the violent outburst of an athlete. Even still, he killed someone.

We can debate the sexual assault until we’re blue in the mouth, the FACT is that he killed a person is a situation where he really did not need to as his life was in no threat. The damage to his “male ego and his pride” is not a justification for self-defense.

He killed.

 

We are discussing the legal and dictionary definition

You are making up your own definition as you go

 

Or how about simply saying you're not interested and leave? Imagine justifying murder because you got catfished if I can even call it that.

 

I think you're using black and white thinking.
I wasn't saying this totally justified the murder. Just that it partially justified it. My point was that the situation constituted mitigating circumstances in the killing, and that it shouldn't be punished like an ordinary murder.

 

Murder is murder, but a person who intentionally hides their biological sex from a potential partner is asking for trouble.

 

If someone wore makeup to look like another ethnicity or to make themselves look like a different person, would you be arguing here that there were extenuating circumstances if someone killed them?

You might not be saying he was totally justified but you are saying he was partially justified.

 

An interesting analogy, but I don't feel that's quite the same.

 

Likely because of your own biases on the topic. You deem race irrelevant, other people deem gender irrelevant. It is a major issue for others.

So why should one person’s biases allow them mercy from the court but another’s should not? If the sexual act was consensual and no force was involved how is one worse than the other?

 

I think this hinges on the exact definition of "consensual".
Would I make this illegal? No. But I still think it should be a mitigating factor in the event a murder is committed in response.

Yes, the young man consented to have sex with the individual, but he did not consent to engage in a sexual act with a man.

I think the big age difference should also be taken into account here, as well as the fact that the younger guy's judgement and mental function was impaired, likely due to the illegal drugs given to him by the older man who was trying to manipulate and take advantage of him.

 

And in the scenario above they did not consent to have sex with a person of a different race or an ugly person.

This was their second encounter. It is intellectually dishonest to assert that this decision was made because of impairment or that age was an issue.

One cannot argue statutory rape beyond age 18 and thus it cannot be considered in a court of law.

 

I don't believe sudden cut-offs exist.
Again, we are not talking about making an act itself illegal but rather using an act that was committed as a mitigating factor.

It may not legally be "statutory rape" but some of the same reasoning and logic still applies (in my opinion).

Let's try to avoid black & white, yes/no simplistic thinking here, shall we?