http://minnesota.publicradio.org/col...ommunity.shtml

The case of Chrishaun McDonald continues to build intrigue as her murder trial gets under way today.

Her defenders maintain the black transgender woman was protecting herself from a hate crime when she allegedly stabbed Dean Schmitz, 47, a white man from Richfield. National transgender-rights activists are in town today to talk about the significance of the case.

Local elected officials also have shown support for the 23-year-old McDonald, who was studying fashion at Minneapolis Community and Technical College and is known to friends as "CeCe." Minneapolis City Council Member Cam Gordon weighed in on his blog weeks ago, arguing that McDonald was targeted for her race and gender.

"It is unfortunate that in this case, as in so many, the hate crime itself appears to have been ignored," said Gordon.

McDonald said she was acting in self-defense after a friend in Schmitz' group hurled a glass at McDonald's face. She also maintains that the group taunted her and her friends with anti-gay and racist remarks.

Quote:

And state Rep. Susan Allen, DFL-Minneapolis, has written Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, urging him to remember the "extenuating circumstances" of McDonald's race and transgender, which she said "have cast unique question marks" over the case.

But the details of what happened last June outside of the Schooner Tavern in Minneapolis remain in dispute. Despite pressure from LGBT groups to drop the charges, Freeman responded in a letter to McDonald supporters that the evidence will show murder was the appropriate charge. "Gender, race, sexual orientation and class are not part of the decision-making process," he said.

To me it depends entirely on whether it was actually self defense or not.


I don't see how claiming that the circumstances are extenuating is any different to someone else claiming a gay panic defense?

Quote:

McDonald told police that she took out some scissors to scare Schmitz, and he was mortally stabbed when he ran into them.

That is possible... I think... Is it?

I must admit when i read it it reminded me of a scene from The Simpsons :

Same Same Media Player

Metta World Peace does Elbow Celebration (Simpsons did it) - YouTube

(from 52 seconds in)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ammonite

To me it depends entirely on whether it was actually self defense or not.


I don't see how claiming that the circumstances are extenuating is any different to someone else claiming a gay panic defense?

I think the implication is its possible she was arrested because of her race and transgender status and not because there was sufficient evidence that she was at fault in the situation.

she admitted that she stabbed him. and he died.

i would have thought that was enough for anyone to be arrested?

This is a really interesting case. Self defence is a very, very gray area in Australian Law. According to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, the Defence I’d imagine would have to give evidence and provide appropriate witness testimonies in order to ascertain that there was a genuine belief that the suspected aggressor’s (Dean Schmitz) conduct was sufficiently threatening to warrant the degree to which she defended herself. This is despite the fact that the burden of proof relies on the prosecutor as without sufficient cause to believe her belief was genuine, I cannot see the prosecutors having a difficult time persuading the court to agree with their contention.

(5) If a defendant raises a defence under this section, the defence is taken to have been established unless the prosecution disproves the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

That said, she does allege that he ‘ran into her scissors’ so this could suggest a moment of panic. However, by pulling out scissors (despite her intention according to her, that she merely wanted to scare him/them as this can be considered an Unlawful threat according to section 19 of the act) she had essentially ‘armed herself’ with a ‘weapon’ and so, should Dean be alive and this was a mere assault, he could’ve argued that he acted pre-emptively as a means of self-defence himself (Being that, though he was acquainted with the individual who launched the bottle at her, he was not the perpetrator himself) if he held a genuine belief that she intended to use those scissors against him with ill intent. So… The crux of the matter really is intention/motive..

19—Unlawful threats

(1) A person who—

(a) threatens, without lawful excuse, to kill or endanger the life of another; and

(b) intends to arouse a fear that the threat will be, or is likely to be, carried out, or is recklessly indifferent as to whether such a fear is aroused.

The timeline of events is vital to this case, so I can’t really say much about it simply based on that article. The hate crime itself should definitely not go unpunished, however, that is an entirely different cause of assault that Chrishaun McDonald has to bring to the court against the individual who threw the bottle at her in addition to its relevance to this case.

I think I’ll keep tabs on this case and see how it unfolds once some of the facts are decided upon… It seems to be all up in the air with a can full of confusion right now. I really don’t know what to think about it other than it’s all really unfortunate. Interesting! But very unfortunate.

[EDIT] That and I'm basing my logic on Australian law, not American law.. Despite similarities. Curse not reading that it was in the US! >:O I seriously need to sleep me thinks, my brain is evidently fried.

(Ammonite.. The question is not that it was grounds enough to be arrested, but if there is likely to be enough evidence for a conviction. =D We'll have to stay tuned.)

It's complex because each American state has their own statutes, which vary wildly. Contrast to the Florida(?) man who shot the unarmed African American boy recently. No charges at all until there was an outcry. In this case, judging by the reports of swastika tattoos, the guy was a neo nazi allegedly threatening her. I didn't realise she used scissors....that mitigates her behavior becuase although she used them as a weapon, it was not an actual weapon (knife) used and therfore she was not armed with intent to attack or defend.
Research WoC especiallty trans WoC in the USA. Transgriot is a good start. There is a long sad track record of both police inaction (if assualted) and bias.

http://supportcece.wordpress.com/

http://www.glaad.org/blog/cece-mcdon...e-manslaughter

Very good blog on the whole issue.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archive...pened-to-cece/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Precedence

O.o What part of the last part?

[Edit: Er, you should ask me the part you're uncertain about on the other thread so I don't derail this one. xD)

this part:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Precedence

(Ammonite.. The question is not that it was grounds enough to be arrested, but if there is likely to be enough evidence for a conviction. =D We'll have to stay tuned.)

They have to have enough evidence for a conviction before they arrest someone? I thought that was the point of arresting someone - so you could gather evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ammonite

this part:

They have to have enough evidence for a conviction before they arrest someone? I thought that was the point of arresting someone - so you could gather evidence?

Not sure about American law tbh. In Australian law (At least so far as Victoria, For when I was under the impression it was an Australian case)

The law handbook states,

[ Section 457 provides that no person shall be arrested without warrant except under the Crimes Act (Vic) or some other Act giving express power to arrest without warrant.

Section 458(1)(a) means that any person found committing an offence (other than a breach of regulations) can be arrested without warrant by anyone (not only the police) who reasonably believes the arrest is necessary for any of the following reasons:

1. to ensure the appearance of the offender (person committing the offence) before court;
2. to preserve public order;
3. to prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence or the commission of a further offence; or
4. for the safety or welfare of the public or offender.

The basic requirement is that person making the arrest (the arrestor) finds the offender committing the act. The arrestor must then exercise discretion in deciding whether one or more of the other criteria are present before making an arrest.

Section 461(2) states that police do not have to take into custody or take before a justice any person found committing an offence, if they believe on reasonable grounds that the case can effectively be brought by way of summons. The summons could be sent to the person at a later date.]

Hope that answers your question, though it's relevancy is in question, it's still handy to know.

And she has been sentenced. Sentence to be carried out in a male jail.
Seriously in America if you are a trans WoC you can be jailed for defending yourself with a pair of scissors after being glassed in the face and chased by neo nazis. Then sent to an environment where rape is a daily threat.
If you are a white male you can shoot an unarmed African American boy and the police will just let you off. (Well, at least try)
I can have nothing but contempt for American 'culture' .

http://www.iacenter.org/lgbt/mcDonald0607012/

yeah wasn't he "armed" with a bag of skittles?

http://www.ebony.com/news-views/why-...-cece-mcdonald

This is a perfect example of bigotry and oppression being intersectional when the individual belongs to more than one oppressed group.

Being trans, a WoC and openly queer did she ever stand a chance in the American justice system? Evidence says no!