Okay so you can’t legally own a gun to defend yourself? I thought this was America?
You can legally own a gun to defend yourself, but only if you are part of the in-group whom the law protects but does not bind, not the out-group whom the law binds but does not protect.
Rules for thee…
Waste of taxpayer money. The attackers should have been charged, too, for a hate crime.
Too? Bartender shouldn’t face criminal charges for exercising her self defense right.
Well, yeah? I mean, this is magastan we’re talking about. A country where only people* can defend themselves from an attack and claim self defense.
*Terms and conditions apply. The definition of “person” and therefore of “people” varies from state to state. Please check your local laws to confirm if you can claim you’re legally a person enjoying human rights. Examples of potentially excluded individuals from the definition of person depending on the state include:
- Black/brown/whatever colour is not “american white”
- Gay/lesbian/bisexual/asexual/whatever sexuality not considered heterosexual
- Any kind of minority deemed “not acceptable” under maga’s principles, such as transexual, furry, autistic, or, in general anything that’s considered woke.
The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defense is a victim blaming strategy of legal defense, where a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a same-sex attracted individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them. A defendant will use available legal defenses against assault and murder, with the aim of seeking an acquittal, a mitigated sentence, or a conviction of a lesser offense. A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.
Would this be a viable defense for a woman who was receiving clearly unwanted advances from a man and retaliated by assaulting or killing him? No? Then it sounds like we’re applying laws differently based on sex/gender. Either mitigate this for women or don’t permit it for men, preferably the second one.
If a gay man hits on you and you’re a straight man, take it as a compliment and be upfront that you’re flattered but not interested in men. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
