 |
| Xnatedawgx under a creative commons attribution/share alike license |
***NOTE***
Please read all of the comments before you post - my goal for these projects is to make them a real conversation. So see what other people have talked about before you post, and then take that into consideration in your own comments.
**NOTE**
Please stick very closely to the questions below. There are all kinds of discussions one could have about the ethical issues raised by this film, and there's value in having those discussions. But if we're all going off in different directions, it's impossible to pursue any one question in depth, and that's what I want to do.
***NOTE***
Make absolutely sure that you're speaking with respect for everyone in your comments. Comments that display disrespect for persons will be deleted and you will not get credit for your answer.
**NOTE**
Please stick very closely to the questions below. There are all kinds of discussions one could have about the ethical issues raised by this film, and there's value in having those discussions. But if we're all going off in different directions, it's impossible to pursue any one question in depth, and that's what I want to do.
***NOTE***
Make absolutely sure that you're speaking with respect for everyone in your comments. Comments that display disrespect for persons will be deleted and you will not get credit for your answer.
**NOTE**
Don't forget to sign your name to your post! I have more than one class at a time posting to various blogs, wikis, and whatnot, and I can't keep track of everyone's handle. Put at least your first name and last initial so I can record your grade.
Please post your response to one of the questions below by Friday, October 11 at midnight. Then respond to 1 of your colleagues by Sunday, October 13 at midnight. Your comments should be substantive and thoughtful. Try to elaborate on your ideas, and explain why you think about things the way you do.
I can't find transcripts from McKinney's trial online; here's a story about the defense from the New York Times.
- Many people were particularly upset that Matthew Sheperd was murdered because he was gay. Do you think there's something particularly bad about crime when it's aimed at someone because of their inherent characteristics (like their race, ethnicity, gender) rather than, say, because you wanted to steal something from them or you were angry about something? Why or why not?
- What unexamined ideas and assumptions do you think the young men had, that made them react the way they did to Matthew? What about their lives, characters, upbringing, and society contributed to those assumptions?
I can't find transcripts from McKinney's trial online; here's a story about the defense from the New York Times.
Duy M.
ReplyDeleteI think Henderson and Mckinley have unclear unexamined ideas and very unthoughtful assumptions that made them react the way they did to Matthew. They assume that gay people are bad people and are deserved to be beaten up. How could they judge a person by their sexual orientation without trying to know what type of person Matthew was? They decided to beat him up, then tie him on the fence and was left to die. In Henderson’s trial, his investigation tape two days after the incident, he used sexual defense as the motive for his action. Again, who in the right mind would act sexually toward their attackers regardless of gender when he was beating up and probably begging for his life. As we are told from their friends and family, these two young men are of good moral characters when they were younger up until the incident. One even has a family with a wife and a kid at a very young age. I did not think that he thought about his wife and child at home at all while he was beating Mathew up. These two young men must have thought that their inhumane action toward Matthew, a gay person, was not going to affect them in anyway. According to their friends, the two young men characters are not someone who would act out nastily on someone they just meet. The society where they grew up must have not discussed about these types of controversial issues such as in this case how to interact with gay people. I believe their family and neighborhood did not teach them how to deal with these situations in a socially acceptable way. It is very possible that it is a hate crime toward gay people that have not been addressed in the right way in this town. Henderson and Mckinley approached Matthew and tricked him to go with them in their car which drove him to his torturing death. They committed this crime on purpose. Some of the town people mentioned a logo “live and let live” but I do not think this is a good slogan. The community spoke their minds after the incident happened. They address their opinions that outsiders should not judge the whole town people base on some terrible incidents. The whole community should inform others that it is ok to disagree on issues but harming one another are unacceptable and will not solve these serious matters.
Stephanie A.
DeleteIn my opinion, I believe that in the minds of Hendernson and Mckinley they didn’t necessarily believe that Matthew was a bad person for being gay rather they believe that the act of being gay is a wrong. What I mean by this is that in the statement above it is mentioned that, “They assume that gay people are bad people” but the reality is that Henderson and Mckinley didn’t say that they believe gay people are bad (e.g., gay people do not steal or cause harm to others) rather the film implies that the reason for the attack was based on the way in which gay people act (e.g., a man should be with a woman). This idea is based on societal programming, which assumes that being gay is wrong. This idea is what supposedly lead to them attacking Matthew who supposedly made a pass at them, which was the example used by the defense team for Henderson and Mckinley.
I believe that society as whole needs to be more supportive of gay rights. In addition, small towns like the one in the film should have open dialogs regarding gay rights and how to work through established biases and false impressions towards certain groups (e.g., the LGBT community, people of different ethnic backgrounds, etc.) because they are human beings and should be treated equally not as a non-human. People generally know that the act of murder is wrong regardless of whether its a man, woman, gay person, person of a different ethnicity, a child, etc. but watching this film made me feel as though the town was more concerned and deeply upset about the act of murder itself that these kids committed in their small town (Laramie) rather than focusing on the reason for him being attacked (being gay). I mean they all knew he was gay and that’s why they killed him but what upset the town members was the act of murder rather than him being gay, which was the real reason for the murder. I am pretty sure that these young men knew that committing murder is not the right decision or way to handle negative societal programming but they didn’t care because they “hated” gay people.
This topic makes me think about what would happen if one of the killer’s children were gay how would they react? Would they kill there own child because they felt that being gay was wrong. One wouldn’t think so but people have disowned their own children for being gay so who knows. The town’s response to the murder is a reflection of what society, as a whole needs to start thinking about people’s rights and the idea of false fear. People have no reason to live in a false fear because they are worried that a gay person is going to make a pass at them, it truly is ridiculous.
Charmaign H
ReplyDeleteWhen a person is singled out based on their sexual orientation it is wrong in all aspects. The wrong doing is discriminatory because the person is not looked at as a person, there is a stereotype attached to it. For example, if you saw a flamboyant lesbian walking down the street the person would no longer be viewed as a person, the main focus would be on the person’s sexual orientation which changes everything entirely. What changes the situation is there is more judgment, criticism, and a bigger chance of discrimination against the individual. No person should endure judgment based on their sexual orientation, it is a free country, and people have the right to be who they are. Hetero sexual, homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals should have the same rights as everyone else in the world, even if that means their sexual orientation is different. Not being viewed as a person, can be thought of to be disrespectful, offensive, and harassment depending on how far it goes. No matter what town a person is in, no one should have to walk on eggshells to be able to show their true colors, everyone should be treated with the same level of respect no matter what. What was also mentioned in the movie by many residences was the disagreement of homosexuality, but it was not offensive. The people of Laramie believed everyone should treat each other with kindness and respect despite whether they agree with a person’s sexual orientation. After hearing that statement what was confirmed was that the town was not discriminatory and that the individuals, who murdered Matthew Shepard, may have been from a different area with different beliefs.
It is understandable that people all over the world have different opinions about respect, and sexual preferences, but it does not excuse what happened in Laramie. One of the many issues in the world left unresolved relating to this case is how people do not speak about how they feel. Many individuals feel the need to hold in so much anger, resentment, and lash out at others who do not deserve it. Talking to someone or taking part in an activity that releases balled up emotions is the best medicine a person can receive because it takes away from harming others if it is caught in time. Many individuals involved in murder cases often have the same problem, which is not resolving the issue as soon as it happens, and letting the emotion fester more and more over time causing the person to be at a point of no return. When a person is at a point beyond reach, where no one can help the person they are then dangerous to themselves and everyone else. This is the primary reason it is important to spread to the word to families, friends, and everyone that talking and resolving issues it the best thing to relieve stress, anger, and any other emotion held in.
To conclude the matter, Matthew Shepard did not deserve to die, but the lesson learned should be to treat others the way you wanted to be treated. Setting an example for kids and parents can change the world, making it a safer and happier place filled with love, positivity, and not judgment. Regardless of someone’s sexual preferences, harassment should not be taken lightly or tolerated no matter where you are. In the world we live in beware of your surroundings and award people the same respect you want in return.
Rosie R.
ReplyDeleteThroughout our lives we’ve dealt with crimes in which one is murdered for their
money, cars, jewelry or anything along the materialistic boundary. We’ve also
witnessed or know someone who’s experienced pain due to gang affiliations,
drugs, in the end a loss of a loved one is home hitting no matter what the reason
may be. In the case of Matthew Shepard, to beat someone so gruesomely and
leaving them tied on a fence in the hopes that they would never wake up again
because of an inherent characteristic is disgusting and wrong. Being “gay” isn’t a
choice for everyone, rather it’s who they are and what makes them happy. To
beat someone into their last breaths of life simply because of their sexual
preference is unforgivable. During Henderson’s trial, he admitted to nearly killing
him due to sexual defense. So when a women hits on you and try’s to feel you
up it’s the best thing in the world, but when a man attempts to express interest in
you its okay to beat him nearly to death and tie him on a fence leaving him in a
coma to die? WHAT DID HENDERSON NEED TO DEFEND? If you take the
“gay” characteristic out of a human, they’re still a human being! Maybe
Henderson was uncomfortable with Matthew’s approach at first, but his reaction
was sickening, wrong, and absolutely deserving of his life sentences. I truly
believe that hatred to gay people was the drive behind Henderson’s actions.
Maybe respect for one another wasn’t talked about enough in their households.
Society played a huge role in acknowledging that people have different sexual
preferences and how to deal with them in a civil way. We saw the absence of
society when people wanted no part in the jury. We saw both the parent’s
reactions once their sentencing was final, they were crying and hurt. Why? I
believe that they resented never talking about treating others how they should be
treated. A lot of who someone becomes, can possibly be determined by their
upbringing which was evident in the pain of all their eyes.
William F.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that crimes that are made based on inherent characteristics are worst than regular crimes because their outcomes are often decided before they start. Individual’s who create crimes on these bases often think it is alright because they believe they are getting rid of the bad. These criminals often have many chances to quit, but they continue to punish the person because their beliefs. The opportunity to stop is why these criminals are extraordinary bad, because there is still a way to come back before the crime has gone too far. When a person commits a crime that wasn’t indented at first, the individual often immediately feels some sort of remorse. However those who create crimes based on their beliefs often don’t ever feel remorse or they may feel it only after getting caught. Some people may find mercy for these criminal who accidentally take their actions too far. However criminals that show no mercy should not receive it, because the individual always has the power to control how far they are willing to take their actions.
Vickie P.
DeleteI agree with William because yea it i true that some peoples do inherent their crime through the characteristics of regular crimes. But yes it is true that the two boys that beaten Mathew Sheperd did have a choice to change their mistakes but they didn't because they had to much hate against him. Also, not really true some criminals don't get mercy at all because of what they have taken from the families.
Byron T I feel that it is absolutely wrong to beat up or kill some one because they are gay. If you don't like or accept some one for who they are then you should stay away from that person so all incidents could be avoided. Mathew Shepherd was treated wrong and it was unacceptable. Its wrong that Mathew was tricked by the two boys because he was just trying to enjoy hisself an he didn't know what was really in store for him. Im not into the gay movement but this hate crime has to be dealt with immediately. The two boys who committed this crime showed there up bringing was against gay people. For two young men to beat a person to death because there gay, its obvious that they were taught to hate gays and it was very well demonstrated with this action. They could of easily rejected him an went about their business but the hate they had towards Mathew being gay was too much so they took further action. My opinion is that this isn't good for no one to do. If you don't like someone for whatever reason then go your separate ways and do your own thing. Your hate shouldn't be that strong to be able to kill someone. Mathew didn't deserve to die because he was gay. No one deserves that it wasn't fair to him or his family, or to any person whos gay family
DeleteSarbdeep S
DeleteI agree with your point that crimes based on inherent characteristics are wrong, and even worse then other crimes….I wouldn’t use the word “regular,” however. But, you say they are worse because you believe that the outcomes are pre-planned. I don’t agree with this. Sometimes crimes are committed out of anger/frustration or whatever else you want to call it, but the outcome may not always be what was attempted. If a person gets beat to their death because they are gay, it doesn’t mean that the person hated them enough to kill them. This could mean that the person hated them enough to want to hurt them, but NOT kill them. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not justifying hate towards gays or anyone else for that matter. Your statement that people who commit crimes on these bases do so because they believe they are cleaning up society….I do agree with this. This is a very wrong thought process and I don’t know how this even comes to their mind. People like this think that if you get rid of people who are different/outside the norms of society, you are cleaning your society up and making it a better place to live. However, if we get rid of everybody that is different, then won’t we just turn into robots more or less? If we get rid of all the different people in society, there will only be one race, one skin color, on religion, one gender….we won’t be humans anymore. The essence of being human is having differences from on another, and being able to learn how to accept and live with the differences we have from each other. These types of people are screwed up in the head and are the type of people that actually ruin our society….quite ironic.I don’t think that these criminals have many chances to quit like you say. Most of the time, they are already too deep into this type of crap to even think of “quitting” and coming back to being a normal person again. This is where I think their beliefs come into play…but in a different way then you are saying. Most of the time, their beliefs are so screwed up, and that is why they even get to the point of harassing and even physically hurting people because of their race, gender, religion, etc. So if a person already has such low and disgusting beliefs and thoughts, how are they even going to think that what they are doing is wrong? More than likely they grew up around these beliefs of hatred, whether that be from family or the type of company they kept outside the house…the people they associated with. This type of hatred is deeply embedded inside people; they don’t just wake up one day with such filth in their hearts. The opportunity has to be given by us (as society) and by family, friends, and parents. It is our duty to explain and try to help these people understand that what they are doing is wrong. I completely disagree with your point that some crimes are intentional while others are not and the whole mercy crimes and non-mercy crimes. All crimes are intended. However, it is just that if some did the crime knowing it was wrong OR if some did the crime because they were taught (grown up) to believe that these crimes weren’t wrong. However, we are not God…so there is no way we will ever know this. Regardless, a crime is a crime….and should always be punished the same way. If we don’t punish, how do we expect criminals to learn?
Elizabeth L.
ReplyDeleteI think murder is murder and it should not be classified which is a worse reason to kill. Murder is definitely the worst crime of them all. But however, the two young men who had absolutely nothing to do with Matthew Sheperd and the reason only being because he is a homosexual is definitely a hate crime. The way Mr. Shepard was murdered was brutal- beaten numerously to unconsciousness and tied to the fence, left to die. It almost seem like there was underlying violent feelings between the murderers and Mr. Sheperd but however they only met that night when Mr. Sheperd was killed. It doesn’t matter what excuses the two men had for beating up Mr. Shepard, whether if they were drunk or if Matt was coming on to them. They had a full eighteen hours to fix the situation but they did absolutely nothing and just expected him to die and that was it.
I agree with Elizabeth that murder is the worst type of crime. However, I feel that, since Laramie is such a small town, everyone knew each other. In this case, they especially knew who Matthew was because of how he came out and told everyone he was gay. Aaron and Russel did have something to do with Matthew Sheperd because they were from the same town, knew the same people, and made contact with each other at the bar. The town was greatly affected by this crime and it became everyone's business now. However, I agree with you that the two murders should have known what they were getting into and have no excuse for what they have done.Like you said "murder is murder" and it is the worst crime.
Delete-Kanika P.
William F.
DeleteI agree with Elizabeth, classifying a criminal’s motive for committing a crime does not change the outcome that came from it. In the Laramie project they wanted to classify it as a hate crime, which at that time the specific classification did not exist. I believe even thought the two young men killed Mr. Shepard out of hate; were as if they would have killed him on accident during a robbery the punishment would have remained the same. Like Elizabeth said “murder is murder.” The young men deserve the same punishment as anyone else who kills someone. In the end the judge and jury decide what the proper sentencing is for the criminal depending on the crime that was committed.
Pijitra S.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think all crimes are bad. If people do something that against moral, it is bad. However, when it is aimed at people’s inherent characteristic, it is worse that the crime from wanting to steal something or beat people when you were mad or angry. I think this way because no matter what, the world will have good people and bad people. When a person steals something, then they get an object he wants. He wants it but he cannot make his way to have it; he steals. But in the case that a person kills another because he is not straight, what does he get from this? After beating, a gay person will not become straight. There is no point to torture people who are homosexual. It is people’s choice. They have a right to be what they want to be. Being gay doesn’t kill anyone. And I think it is straight people that give birth to gay babies regardless it is nature or nature. To this point, I think we should look at each other as “we are all human.” I am not saying that other crimes are good but I answer this question as if I am a bad person. And I still don’t see the point to hit or beat gay people. I think the two guys were heartless. What they did was unacceptable. I understand that they did not accept gay or hate gay because a lot of people still do, but they do not have to commit crime because of it. I assume that their parents or family did not teach him to value the “good” of people not what sexual orientation they are. And I assume that they may come from very strict religion and conservative families. I assume this way because on the debate about homosexual, the side that does not support always talks about religions. Religion is a sensitive topic. When you talk about religion, you talk about belief and sometimes belief can blind you. For example, on gay marriage debate those who against it because of religion reason they forget that we run country with political process not religion belief. The two men, they maybe good people but they let their beliefs that “gay are bad” blind them and they decided to do immoral thing and took away innocence’s life.
I agree with you Pijitra, I do also think that the two boys were raised to believe one thing and to not know about others around the world. What these two boys did was disgusting and they probably did it without a conscience because if they had one then they wouldn't of left him out there for 5-7 hours before he was found. All crime is aimed at someone about something, not because of race, religion, or even someones sexuality. It is probably something someone did, like in the movie the boy Mckinley said that Matthew tried to touch him, but we don't know if thats true because we will never know Matthew side of the story. Mckinley only did what he did is because of what Matthew "supposedly" did to him. Mckinley could've made everything up. You would think he would know better because he had a son.
DeleteNickie P.
DeleteReplied to the comment above.
I completely agree with Pijitra. Any kind of crime or violence done on a person is bad, no matter what the reason is. But to do it because a person was gay just makes it even more disgusting and unacceptable. Of course the people of the town will react in a way that makes the town Laramie actually noticed by others. It's a sad thing to see these kids do this sort of action to someone who absolutely did not deserve this. Did they not feel no kind of conscious to even untie the boy? Even if all he did was try to touch Matthew, Matthew should have controlled his anger when it came to "protecting" himself. Any crime that happens is obviously one to take as seriously as this one but murdering someone because of what they are is extremely ignorant and foolish. To kill a man because he was gay? It's crazy to think others can actually take the life of another and think they will get away with it.
DeleteThank you for your time,
Veronica D.
Nickie P.
ReplyDeleteIn general I don’t think that a crime like this is mostly aimed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals, race, ethnicity, or even gender. It would most likely be about if that person had done something wrong. But in this case, the movie documentary, I feel like this wasn’t a hate crime because, in this documentary movie, it was about a town that knew someone that was gay and he lived around them and some town folks felt uncomfortable when Matthew Sheperd came out to people. Especially these two young men especially were upset or scared. Maybe they were scared if Matthew was going to hit on them and make a pass or something. Maybe they drank too much and imagined everything that led them to get so upset to hurt Matthew the way that they did. In a way I think that they just planned to rob Matthew because he had money to flaunt around and the 2 boys were broke. They were probably already mad at Matthew because he had everything and on top of that Matthew was gay so they probably felt that it was ok to kidnap him, beat and bound him, and leave him stranded in the middle of no where.
Byron T. Nickie P I agree and disagree with your comments. I agree that they were getting drunk and invision how things would of went down. But I don't think they just did hom like that because of jealousy. I think it was clear that Mathew probably made a pass to them an they were disgusted, not saying that's a reason to kill him. But just enough to want to beat him up and being drunk could've of made them take it way too far. But you did make a lot of valid and important points about the two boys being broke and Mathew having money could of made it that more of a reason for them to be mad. However that's still not acceptable to do a person like that. At the end of the day Mathew is still a person. Nickie P I understand all your points.
DeleteFrom Jose Sanchez
DeleteNickie P. I feel that I need to disagree with you in terms of whether or not it was a hate crime. Your point was that Matthew was out in the open about his sexuality(at least as I understood it) and that Henderson and McKinley may have been afraid of Matthew coming off and make a pass at them, but as far as that goes it is considered homophobia and because of said "fear" they beat a guy into a coma and left him to die, there is no excuse that justifies what they did. Those two did not have any remorse what so ever about what they did just because it was a GAY GUY that they beat up.
Paola G.
DeleteHello Nickie
I strongly disagree with you. I think that there was a lot of evidence that pointed this crime to be a hate crime. Like you said a lot of people in Laramie felt uncomfortable about Matthew's sexual orientation and were upset with him like the two boys that committed this crime. Basically, this means that the reason they did the crime was because he was gay, this makes it a hate crime since Matthew didn't do anything to them. Even if Matthew did hit on them that wasn't an excuse for their actions. If a girl hit on them would they have killed her too? No. It was the fact that it was a gay man who did. I feel that regardless of who hits on you, you should be flattered. All that means is that they find you attractive, you don't necessarily have to feel the same about them. Which if you don't you can simply let them know or just walk away. Now, if we each killed everyone that hit on us because we didn't like them we'd all be serial killers. Also, why would they think its okay for them to beat someone and leave them stranded in the middle of nowhere just because they had money and were gay? I think what the movie was trying to tell us was how strong hate can really be.
David Davis
DeleteI here your side loud and clear Nickie but I'm going to strongly disagree with you. This is clearly a hate crime. It involves two males who took it upon themselves to kill a gay just because he made a pass at them. No one deserves to lose their life at all no matter what the case and scenario may be at hand. The way they handled the situation was quite bogus and I feel that they deserved everything that came their way. Nickie I don't see how you could say such a thing and really mean it. Gays are people too and deserve to be treated equal. They do have the same alienable rights as us straight people, so how isn't it a hate crime? Just put it like this if Matthew wasn't gay then he wouldn't have ever died simple as that.
Kanika P.
ReplyDeleteThe type of crime that was displayed in the film was considered a hate crime, a bias-based crime, such as being based on hatred towards one’s race, ethnicity, or sexual preference. Matthew Sheperd, also known as Matt, was targeted because of his sexual preferences as a gay man. He was tortured so horrifically that the trauma to his body put him into a coma. Matt died shortly after the incident, not as a “gay”, but as a human. I feel that people all have a right to live life to the fullest. No one deserves to be taken by another’s hands. In addition, crimes are harmful offenses done towards other’s and can affect the whole community. I do not think a type of crime, such as a hate crime, should be considered worst than other types of crimes. However, the action done, for it to be considered a crime, is what concerns me. Murder is, in my point of view, the worst criminal activity that can be done. How can one take another’s life away from, not only the victim, but the victim’s loved ones? In addition, how can a murderer make their own loved ones go through so much pain and depression? When one steals, it temporarily takes something away from the victim. However, when one murders, the victim’s life is never “temporarily” taken away, but forever gone. Hate crime or not hate crime, murder is murder and one’s life can never be replaced.
Russel Henderson and Aaron McKinney were, probably, a bit tipsy at the time they encountered Matthew Sheperd. If McKinney’s confession was the honest truth, then tipsy McKinney easily snapped in rage from being flirtatiously touched by Matt. McKinney’s girlfriend said that McKinney would be in rage from being hit on by gays. However, I feel that Henderson and McKinney did what they did, not because they were tipsy, but because Matt was gay. McKinney probably thought that Matt was flirtatiously rubbing his leg, but an interviewee in the film stated that Matt would never come onto straight men. Sheperd knew better than that. Because Matthew was gay, the two tipsy murders took advantage of their assumptions and committed the crime. I am not sure if McKinney’s confession was true or false, but they are still at fault for what they have done. What is even worse is that, they did not just simply kill Matt in one shot, but tortured him to death. Like an interviewee stated, Matthew Sheperd officially died in the hospital, but in reality, he died tied to the pole where he was tortured. I feel that both murders’ lives were simple and comfortable. However, they wanted to keep things that way. They were not used to change and society was just starting to change. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals were just starting to come out of the closet. Henderson and McKinney were afraid of change and wanted things to stay the way things were. They lived in a small town that gave off the feelings of “home”. Small towns are greatly affected by change because the townspeople considered everyone like family or distant family, but still family. So if one thing changed, many things might change. It’s like a domino effect. Thus, Henderson and McKinney’s weren’t used to their simple, comfortable life being affected by change.
Vivian Quispe
DeleteKanika, I agree with your thoughts and ideas. While Henderson and McKinney were indeed under the influence of alcohol at the time of Matthew’s beating and torture, that fact in no way justifies their actions and what they did to Matthew. The fact that they committed such an atrocious crime demonstrates that they had these discriminatory, homophobic ideas already engrained in them, and that it wasn’t just the alcohol making them do what they did. And I agree that their mindsets were most likely greatly influenced by their surrounding and the society in which they grew up in.
It’s true that it was mentioned several times throughout the film by several different residents of Laramie that the thought of Matthew “flaunt his gayness” made many of them uncomfortable. Many residents disapproved of his lifestyle and the whole “gay lifestyle” in general, some being more vocal than others in their beliefs. However, these same residents also stressed the fact that Laramie’s motto was “live and let live”, but to what extent was that really true?
Based on Henderson and McKinney’s actions, it would not be wrong to say that there is in fact a deep-seated hatred for homosexual people in that town. For these two men to have committed MURDER due to their embedded homophobic feelings, what does this say about the people who raised them and surrounded them throughout their whole lives? People are not born being racist, xenophobic, or homophobic; these things are acquired. It is true what you said about small towns being more affected by issues such as these, because of the very fact that they are tight-knit communities and deeply religious. However, is this strongly conservative mindset of the people so radical that they raise children that grow up to become murderers in order to preserve their beliefs?
Vickie P.
ReplyDeleteActually I think there is something particularly bad about the crime when it’s aimed at someone of their inherent characteristics because some peoples are judge by their race or by their ethnicity. But wanting to steal something from them or being angry about something does not give the right to pick on the person that is homosexual. I the movie Mathew Sheperd was just a guy that was not doing anything wrong till two other guys Henderson and Mckinely didn’t like his kind around the place and wanted to teach him a lesson. What they did was kidnap Sheperd, torture him, beat him up, steal his shoes and left him tied up to die for eighteen days. On top of that I think that some peoples should just deal with it instead by torturing the peoples that are homosexual, gay or lesbian.
Pijitra S.
DeleteI agree with Vickie that there is something bad about the crime that is aimed at people's inherent characteristics. Your assumption about the two guys were afraid of change is interesting. I have never thought this way before. I think it is possible to be that way. However, from your statement you stated that people who life in a small town consider each others as "family" but if they really do, why did the two guys kill Matthew? I mean like when someone is part of the family, you will have mercy on him. Also, I think that living in a small town makes you have a strong sense of community and you will have mercy on everyone. I do not think that people who live in a small town is that sensitive to "Change." If they do, the whole town might have a protest and asked Matthew to leave the town. This crime was committed by two men who were lack of morals. I think it is more about hate that the two guys had, not the change of society and environment.
Cynthia R.
ReplyDeleteI do think that there is something especially bad when someone is hurt or even killed only because there is something different about them. Violence in anyway is bad. But if I heard something on the news about a young man who killed someone who hurt their family, I wouldn't honor them but I do feel like I would have some level of understanding. I could see myself in this person shoes, feeling their anger and rage because this person hurt my family. Of course I don't think that I would handle the situation in the same way but at least I understand.
But if instead I heard that someone had killed someone just because their was something different about them I would think that person is just evil. That random person that just happen to be different never did anything to harm them. I would fear that if this person just killed someone because they were a different race or sexual orientation that they might randomly kill anyone. This also makes me think that this person must have deep roots of hate inside of them and that is not safe for anyone. I could never imagine having so much hate for someone just because they are different.
I think that a hate crime is worse than a regular crime because it means that anyone could be at risk. Some people may want to kill you just because you are white, black, hispanic, straight or gay, there is no limit. I also feel like someone who does a hate crime is more likely to be a repeat offender. For example if Mckinney, the person who beat Matt to death just because he was gay, never would have been arrested than he could have kept beating every gay person he ever got in contact with.
Emsley Fraser
DeleteCynthia i do agree with you that violence in itself is horrible and that contributing violence because of a hate-crime makes it worse. But also be aware of the little details in the movie that weren't exploited as much other than the obvious hate-crime of Matthew Shepard. Mckinney did admit that he did commit this awful crime and it was definitely more or less a hate crime, but you can tell by some of his words that he was not a complete monster. He asked if Matthew was going to die, which shows that he did not want to kill him. This also questions about his upbringing. Was he raised in an area that had an oppression against gays? Was he influenced by friends to hate gays? Was he raised by his parents believing that homosexuality was a sin or a horrible thing to be involved in? I do believe that Mckinney's act was absolutely wrong and he should be punished for it, but also be thoughtful that he probably was not always like this, especially if he was raised in a place where he couldn't think for himself.
Stephanie A.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I feel that regardless of whether a crime is being committed out of hate towards a person/group or if a crime is being committed for the purpose of stealing; either way they are both very wrong things to do. Although, I will state that my personal belief is that killing someone just because of his or her gender, sexual orientation, and or race is just flat out wrong and not justifiable. A person losing his or her life is far worst than a person getting robbed for a car, a phone, a watch, a wallet/purse, etc. Nothing compares to losing a member of your family to a senseless crime. A life is far more important than an object with no family, friends, feelings, a heart, etc. I really do not understand how some people can feel such strong hate towards others based on a negative perception. People that identify by different sexual orientations, racial backgrounds, genders, etc. should be treated equally. People that identify as LGBT are human beings and have feelings too, what makes them any different, just because they have different preferences but then think about it who doesn’t. All people have different taste when it comes to movies, food, places to visit, experiences, etc. People should be judged as individuals not as groups, that theme is typically where racism steams from. People shouldn’t judge others based on their race either just as they shouldn’t judge those based on sexual orientation. My point in all of this is that although I believe that crimes in general are wrong I believe that committing a crime based on a specific inherit characteristic like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is much worst than crimes committed for theft because inherit characteristic are unchangeable and theft might have a justification such as a person stealing food from a grocery store because there children are starving or a person stealing a blanket from a store because they sleep outside on the streets and don’t have money to buy a blanket. Again, I am not stating that stealing is right rather it can have more context than attacking someone based on race or sexual orientation.
Vivian Q.
ReplyDeleteA crime as horrible as murder is bad under any circumstance. However, when it is a murder committed on the basis of hate, it become particularly bad, because of the fact that it was done for that matter. Hate crimes of any sort are always going to be viewed in an even more negative light because they demonstrate just how far human beings go when they feel strongly against someone or something.
When a person commits an attack or murder against someone in self-defense or to protect others, even if it is in fact a crime, there is certain justification for their actions. In these cases, the people committing the crime are not doing it out of hate or spite, but because they found it a necessary thing to do in order to keep themselves and/or others alive or protect them from harm. In other circumstances, a person may attack or kill out of revenge, or perhaps hate, but hate of a different kind. In this case, the hate would not spawn from racist, homophobic or xenophobic thoughts, but perhaps from personal issues or past conflict with that particular person. While in this case the crime would have no good moral justification, some people may still find it easy to understand why the person committed the crime, even if in the eyes of the law this were not the case.
However, when a person attacks or kills a person solely based on their particular traits such as being of a different race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion and not because they were threatened by them, or had a particular personal problem with them, it then becomes a hate crime of different magnitude. Most people with good moral standards find these types of crimes especially horrifying, because these are crimes that have no other justification except that the perpetrator perhaps did not like the color of his victim’s skin. This likely has very much to do with our country’s long history of discrimination issues, particular racism and xenophobia. In the case of Matthew Shepard, it was his attackers’ homophobic tendencies that led them to beat and torture Matthew and leave him to die in a field.
This case had an even greater impact on our country because it was done by two regular boys from a relatively small and peaceful community in a more rural state. I believe that it was particularly shocking to most Americans because it was a real eye-opener as to the overall levels of discrimination and hatred against certain groups within the United States. The truth is hate crimes of all sorts are ever-present in our country, but certain ones will resonate more because of their deliberateness, the people involved, and of course both the physical, emotional and mental outcomes of horrible actions such as these.
From jose sanchez
ReplyDeleteFirst point I want to make is that, yes, it is inherently worse when a crime such as assault and murder happen just because of a persons inherent traits rather than if the person was targeted because they had something of value(electronics, money, etc) or if they angered the aggressor. Here is the reason why I believe it is worse when a person is or has been targeted for a crime based on their inherent traits(race, skin color, gender, sexual preference, etc) such as Matthew Sheperd was is that when the person is targeted for the trait the aggressor is not only targeting one specific person the aggressor is targeting an entire community with the same trait. Every one else that doesn't have the trait does not matter to the people who do crimes in this fashion of discriminating against on one specific group/community. As far a Henderson and McKinley go from what was said in the trial it seems to me that they belief that all homosexuals(males in this case) throw themselves at any male human that is still breathing and that it is not wrong to harm others as long as what others do comes under your judgement as "wrong, bad, or unnatural". Their upbringing may have been what had planted the initial attitude of homophobia and discern that the life of someone they belief to be morally wrong has no weight to it. The fact that the society they lived in never even wanted to touch the subject in no way made the situation better. If the society they lived in had actually taken cards in the matter and had made homosexuality a public topic for everyone to at the very least be able to express their views more openly then it could have had a influence on how Henderson and McKinley viewed homosexuals to at least have respect of their point of view.
David L.
DeleteI agree with you, Jose. I think that some people are still used to living in the world where everyone would be the same. They're not used to living in the world where there are different types of people around them. Those type of people probably think that they can assault the "bad" or "evil" out of the different types people. I also think that if the society they live in had more public topics about homosexuality, many people would have reacted a different way.
Ricky
ReplyDeleteI think is it bad since why do u have to judge them for something instead of a human being. since everyone is the same as each other and also it’s a hate crime. Since why do you have to hate on them for their characteristics and for what they are. no one want to be judge different and it's also might just cause more trouble for other people that are the same as them since they might just get tease and pick on more. if you said that you killed them for robbing or you were mad then it would be the same but it wouldn’t be as bad since it would just be like another murder instead of being murdering a boy because he was gay.
Ricky, I do agree with you about a crime being especially bad if it targeted at someone just because of their characteristics. Do you believe that if someone commits a hate crime that they should be penalized harder than a regular crime? I do think so but I also see how somethings being a hate crime can be so difficult to prove. Henderson and Mckinney could have easily said that it was just a robbery and it would have been hard to prove otherwise. You say that these people are being judged since they are different and I agree but I think it is important to think about where this judgement or hate comes from. You can keep punishing people for hating someone but how will that stop future people from hating them? I think that the Laramie project should have showed us more about where this general hate comes from so we like the father said learn from Mckinney and Henderson.
DeleteCynthia R.
Paola G.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do think there is something particularly bad about a crime when it’s aimed at someone because of their characteristics. I feel that it is worse because this creates fear. People should NOT fear of being who they are because they feel like someone else is going to commit a hate crime against them. I feel hate crime could be targeting anyone. People like Henderson and Mckinney I think are mentally ill. I don’t understand how anyone can purposely hurt someone the way they hurt Matt just because they didn’t like something about him. A hate crime is also worse because it shows that you did it with initial intentions in purposely hurting the other person. It could have been a 15 year old girl they killed because she was gay. How would people have reacted then? Would it been any different?
Because of hate crimes there is lots of people who do not want to come out because they are afraid of what will happen to them. I would be more afraid of someone who committed a hate crime than of someone who committed a robbery. This is because if they can find something wrong with someone like Matt, they'd find something wrong with me. I wouldn’t want someone coming after me just because THEY didn’t like something about ME.
Hi Paola,
DeleteI agree with you that no one should fear of being who they are. But in this modern time, hate crime is very serious particularly toward gay people. However, I do not believe that Henderson and Mckinney are mentally ill. Their friends and family testimonies said that they are normally not violent people. One of them even has a family with a young child. My best guess here is they are just uneducated and have never expressed their thoughts about gay issues. They do not know how to deal with conflict when it involving gay people. They might be just mentally ill like you mentioned but I do not think it was that simple. After all, all three of them share the same gender physically speaking. I am not defending them in any way. I understand what they did was inhumane. What I am trying to say here is it is a harsh world out there. It is easy to be afraid. It is hard to not be afraid. It is even harder to stand up for yourself and be who you are. In our society, norms are stated and majority of us follow them. If you are different from others, you will be called names and treated differently. You might be brave and tough enough to not let others put you down. But there are also people who are not strong enough to protect themselves from all these hate crimes. Matt was not trying to hide the fact that he was gay at all when he was alive. These young men beat Matt up and left him to die just because they hate the fact that Matt is gay. I am pretty sure, other than that, they did not know anything about Matt’s personality or care about his feeling at all.
Duy M.
Hi Paola,
Delete“People should NOT fear of being who they are because they feel like someone else is going to commit a hate crime against them.”
I agree with you that no one should fear of being who they are. But in this modern time, hate crime is very serious particularly toward gay people.
“People like Henderson and Mckinney I think are mentally ill.”However, I do not believe that Henderson and Mckinney are mentally ill. Their friends and family testimonies said that they are normally not violent people. One of them even has a family with a young child. My best guess here is they are just uneducated and have never expressed their thoughts about gay issues. They do not know how to deal with conflict when it involving gay people. They might be just mentally ill like you mentioned but I do not think it was that simple. After all, all three of them share the same gender physically speaking. I am not defending them in any way. I understand what they did was inhumane.
“This is because if they can find something wrong with someone like Matt, they'd find something wrong with me. I wouldn’t want someone coming after me just because THEY didn’t like something about ME. “
What I am trying to say here is it is a harsh world out there. It is easy to be afraid. It is hard to not be afraid. It is even harder to stand up for yourself and be who you are. In our society, norms are stated and majority of us follow them. If you are different from others, you will be called names and treated differently. You might be brave and tough enough to not let others put you down. But there are also people who are not strong enough to protect themselves from all these hate crimes. Although Matt did not hide the fact that he was gay at all when he was alive, these young men beat him up and left him to die just because they hate the fact that Matt is gay. I am pretty sure, other than that, they did not know anything about Matt’s personality or care about his feeling at all.
Duy M.
William D.C.
ReplyDeleteWell to me in general, all crimes are just wrong and against my moral code. Although, crimes against people’s race, ethnicity and gender are worst because it becomes a hate crime, a wrongdoing to a group or multiple groups of people, for a reason that only a few find true. Hatred to that point can and will become harmful to many more than the person that was actually harmed in the first place. Like in the movie, the word spread and it damaged the people of Laramie, Wyoming.
Prima F.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is bad especially when it a crime is aimed at someone because of something they can’t control. For example, someone doing a crime based on his or her hatred for a particular race. What are their reasons for doing this crime? I don’t believe that individuals are born with a natural hatred for someone, rather they have hate because that is how they were brought up, who they looked up to as a role model but also nowadays the media. The person doing the crime is looking at that person on the outside and judging them for what their race and color of their skin is. Instead of, looking at that person as another human being and seeing what they have to offer as a human being in society.
Charmaign H
DeleteI agree it is not right to judge others on what they look like, where they come from, or their sexual orientation. Many of these crimes are from people who either had a different upbringing, or a fear of someone who is different than they are. The only reason in saying that is because if someone is afraid of someone or something more than likely the person may attack back in a childish way like bullying, or making fun of someone, or some other hurtful way. I also agree people do not grow up with such hatred, but may inherit it by the media, peers, or even family. What so many of us forget is how our actions impact each other and affect others around us. For instance, if a kid sees people in a movie constantly smoking the kid might have the idea of thinking it is the right thing to do, since the kid is seeing actors or people around them doing it. The best thing to do is set a good example of what things are right and wrong, so kids and teens can learn early not to make the same decisions.
The same principal was enacted in Arkansas in the 1950’s, when the schools became integrated. Many people of the town were upset and had been afflicted with racism not looking at people as people but judging them. It is not right to judge people on how they look, the way they dress or anything. The best example you can make out of someone is to treat them the way you want to be treated. You can never treat someone, the way you don’t want to be treated. It took centuries before several nationalities were able to vote, be respected, and get an education just because they were judged by the way they talked, dressed, and everything else. Regardless of how someone is judged, judgment is judgment and if the people of America want to improve the world, we have to keep spreading the message to accept people for who they are and let people live their lives. It is not right to take someone else’s life, just because they choose to live it differently than someone else. What was done to Matthew Shepard is more than a crime, but another reason why so many others are still in the closet about their identities. Being open about your sexual orientation can be deadly in today’s world, that is why some people prefer to blend in than to stand out, so they don’t have to face the judgment or criticism.
William D.C.
DeleteI agree with you Prima, it really is within the experiences and the people that person looks up to that make them who they are. People are not born with hatred but are raised to love and hate. Then that person will blindly hate and the media is no help either, like you said. The media is plays a tough role in it too. With the many racist things they did back in the day. People look at the exteriors of a person instead of the interior, the personality, the human being within the body of that person. The society now is still blinded by the past of slavery and racism.
Christy C.
DeleteI completely agree with what you are saying, these people are people no matter who they are, this is an aspect of themselves they cannot control. A person becomes who they are by the people they are influenced at a young age so their upbringing had something to do with their attitude towards these people. But no matter if you were brought to hate a certain type of person it does not make justifiable to hurt them. Keep it to yourself. People also learn right from young at a young age and acting upon this anger just shows how much self control a person lacks.
Julio A.
ReplyDeleteI think that hate crimes are worse than regular crimes just because people who commit hate crimes feel that they are doing “good deeds” and are getting rid of the people who are supposedly lower than they are. The people who commit hate crimes are often ignorant and feel that just because of someone’s skin tone or religion or even sexual orientation that those certain people don’t deserve to live or eat at the same table as them. I feel that those who commit hate crimes were probably raised with these thoughts that were instilled in their minds that people from certain areas of the world or people that were different than they were are bad. Or maybe something happened to them when they were growing up that effected them psychologically to think that those certain kinds of people are bad. When it all comes down to it we are all human beings and it shouldn’t matter what sexual orientation you are or what race or religion that you are we should all learn to respect each other as people.
Christina T.
ReplyDelete1. I somewhat believe that hate-based crimes are worse than randomly committed crimes in so basic of an idea, though I believe moreso that heinous crimes such as murder are terrible inherently and can very rarely be justified, regardless of the intent. Reading through the previous comments on the blog, it appears that the majority of students agree on this front. And though I’m one with the masses in taking hate-fueled crimes more offensively than others, I do believe that it is only a product of human judgment. Of course, murder is wrong, but what makes an anti-gay murder more wrong? People’s sensitivity to judgment is what makes it more wrong. In the day and age we were fortunate enough to be raised, prejudice and close-mindedness is looked down upon and acceptance is revered. Thus, anything that holds a close-minded connotation offends those who are open-minded. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouth, like, “I can’t believe such a horrible, close-minded thing such as killing a person for their sexuality would still happen in today’s world. I thought we’d come so far.” It’s gotten to the point where non hate-based crimes are the norm and hate-based crimes are leagues more devastating. Why is this so? Shouldn’t all murders be held in the same regard? Why should one loss of a life be more important than another? In the case of Sheperd, it’s because he was gay. Hate crimes are only more important than random crimes because people don’t want to believe that there are those out there who remain prejudice, be it homophobic, racist, or sexist. It messes with the notion that human intellect has progressed so much over the years and makes us appear backwards. Only decades ago, was it acceptable (or at least possible with very little penalties) to berate, assault, or even murder an innocent person for their race or sexuality. People of today’s world want to steer as far away from that past as possible, and with good reason. However, using merely hate crimes to exemplify what’s wrong with the world isn’t going to change the overall crime rate. People who were so far gone into homophobia such as the two perpetrators in this case have little to no chance of changing their mentality, no matter the amount of parades or movies or other efforts they may encounter that try to teach them the error of their ways; once a person follows a belief in their childhood, that mentality almost surely set in stone. Though I’ve spent just about all of this post defending that all crimes should carry the same weight, I’m still going to say that hate crimes are “worse” than other crimes because, again, I was raised, along with much of this generation, to accept people. I’m one of the many who are offended by the thought that people can still be so close-minded. That being said, I hope to one day change that view so I can see crimes as crimes and not so subjectively in regard to race, gender, or sexuality. That’s what I see as only fair.
David L.
ReplyDeleteI believe that crimes based on inherent traits are worse than any other crime. Many people instantly become a victim of crime just because of their characteristics. They can’t change who they are just because they have been assaulted or threatened. These attackers believe that they can change someone for the better good when it’s not. They’re actually making other people hide in fear when they should be freely being open to the world. The victims should not care of what other people think of them and so should the attackers.
Elizabeth L.
DeleteThat's a very great point, how the two men, by their actions is saying they had that ability to go ahead and change a person's traits- and if they can't change you, well they will just kill you off. And the impact of the murder of Matt really did affect many homosexuals- living in fear and kind of have some sort of reality check that Laramie may not be as "let live" as they seem to be. However, I still believe a murder is a murder and classifying someone's death to say an accidental robbery gone bad and a death due to hate is the same. No one's death should be more important than others, although I totally feel awful about thinking that these two men just killed Matt due to his sexuality, I feel that it is only fair to classify all murders, as murder.
I agree with that too, the sad thing is that it doesn't matter to the people who harm those who cant do anything about who they are. for a truly free state everyone should be excepted of who they are given that they cant be anyone else. Now a lot of people might say "well If they can be gay than I can be crazy and an asshole" but the difference is that by excepting people for who they are I mean that they cant change for who they are and we need to except that just as you said in your comment and thas wh I agree with you.
Delete- Justin G.
DeleteChristy Cortez
ReplyDeleteMany crimes are committed in this country everyday. When crimes happen there may be many reasons behind why it can be aimed at person. Singling out a person for a crime for their inherent characteristics rather than for stealing or anger I believe is more personal. When these types of crimes happen I see it as very offensive. So I believe that there is something bad of crimes of this particular sort because they are attacking who you are, a part you have no control over. It should not matter if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc. you should be able to live your life how you please without judgement of others if you are not harming anyone. It is all discriminatory, even though we all do have different beliefs and opinions it does not mean that the dislike that we hold on something should be something we act upon, though we may think we are right. People who aim their anger and violence to the people with these sexual preferences are scared but why should they hide who they are for the fear of being targeted, it is not fair for them or anyone. It should offend everyone because we live in a free open country and to have this kind of violence at this day in age is horrible and a bad example for future generations. How is it possible to be targeted for something you cannot change about yourself, that is stooping pretty low. No matter what a person is a person and form of violent discrimination should never be taken lightly.
Gurjeet Singh
ReplyDeleteIt would be an understatement to say that the murder of Sheperd was a tragic incidence. What happened to Shepherd was a heinous crime that never should have occurred, and this tragic incident speaks a ton of our abysmal ignorance and prejudice against our fellow humans due to petty little characteristics like our sexual orientations, that barely defines our personality. Henderson and Mckinney must have without a doubt felt a little prick of guilt on their conscience when they were committing the murder, but the chose to ignore any feeling of remorse and carry on with their inhumane act of torturing shepherd by tying him to a fence to the brink of death. Alot can be said about the upbringing of these two perpetrators, more especially the role of the society in imbibing these two individuals with capacity to hate a fellow human because of their sexual orientation or preference. In my opinion, hate crimes are the worst of any other crime, due to dimension that it takes on the individuals ability to judge and weigh between good and bad as can be seen in the actions of henderson and Mckinney. It was Matthews inalienable right to chose a sexual orientation that best suited him and one that he felt comfortable with absent any negative implications on the right of another individual, and this right led to a tragic death that should never have occurred. It is disgusting to think about the derogatory remarks and hateful slurs that people with sexual orientation besides heterosexual face, but it is unimaginable to think that one's sexual orientation will lead to his/her demise. Henderson and Mckinney deserve any sentence that they will inevitably face, and the defense of their actions based on Matthew's advances on henderson is outright pathetic and incomprehensible by their reactions which of course was killing him.
Justin, i respect your opinion, but your every sentence fails to recognize the most important issue which is that Matthew was targeted due to his sexual orientation and he paid with his soul, which goes as far as to reveal the sickening mindset of some individuals of our society, and the hate crimes that they are capable of. The killing matthew was outrightly wrong, and the main concern should be how to get rid of this ugly phenomenon that has eaten deep into the fabric of our society's moral judgement.
ReplyDeleteGurjeet Singh.
I think that when the media in general get a hold of a story and it pertains to race, ethnicity, gender, or and presumption that a person fits their outward appearance, it tends to bring more attrition to it. But the real problem is that these crimes that are committed towards off to theses specific groups are usually done by people with no knowledge of or are blatantly ignorant of the circumstances surrounding theses groups. It is actually worse when it’s aimed at a group because it shows that people can accept people for who they are so they seem to seek destruction of them. Actually there have been a rising number of robberies or beating pertaining to people who are gay or assumed to be gay. One man from Texas who was on a social network was invited over to another man’s house only to be beaten up by a straight man that lured him there just to beat him up. Another case was a man in new your who is straight was waking his dogs with a male friend and later walked him to his taxi then headed home himself. He later walked past a man who when yelled at him several time with slanderous remarks assuming he was gay. Then the man walked up to him and started beating him up.
ReplyDeletepeople shouldn't be upset when it comes to someone being killed, but when it comes to being being blatantly ignorant constantly in this day and age then it can pose as a problem. Especially when you know full well what your doing. Its just the problem act like they have never met a person of certain ethnicity, gender, or race before making the situation gain more attention. its like an animal when it sees something it doesn't understand. ether its scared and backs away curious or it attacks. the sad thing is that most of theses people act like an animal being threatened.
ReplyDeleteDavid D.
ReplyDeleteIn my eyes I feel that Matthew Sheperd was murdered because he was gay. There's no way around this outcome because if he wasn't they wouldn't have brutally murdered him. I think that the motive was completely BS. I'll admit I would be pretty mad if a gay man tried to pass at me but I wouldn't physically do anything about it simple because you will go to jail for a long time on that hate crime. I feel that the young man who committed this outrageous act were just holding a grudge against a man who they just thought of being GAY! They never took the chance to get to know him for the man he truly was they just went on the incentive that he was different and acted on that. They weren't brought up that way because in court their families seem well functional on terms of the topic so I feel the kids just took it upon their self to act like BAD ASSES and tough guys. This happens almost every day in our modern day society and needs to stop ASAP.
James Baldwin
ReplyDeleteI think all crimes are bad. It is worse that the crime from wanting to steal something or beat people when you or mad or just want to be a bully or do for somebody else. It would most likely be about if that person had something wrong. But in the documentary, I feel like this was a crime over hate, because of a person love life. Just because a male like a male doesnt mean that you can just off the strength do take somebody life that’s not right to do. Now when a person commits an attack or murder against someone in self defense or to others, even if it is in fact a crime, there is certain justification for their action. But if you were brought up wrong, or with no real role model sometimes, you just don’t know how to act, sometimes and just do stupid stuff like what they did in this movie documentary or any other things that be for no reason in the world.