The myth of Matthew Shepard is unravelling

[Procrustes Stretched]

So the right discovers the victim of a gay bashing murder was no saint?

Well blow me over!

What's next, George Washington was no saint because he lied about a Cherry tree?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Rachael said that trayvon was afraid zim might rape him. That means he thought zim was gay and attacked him for that reason

Most likely

 

[Esmeralda]

Rachael said that trayvon was afraid zim might rape him. That means he thought zim was gay and attacked him for that reason

Protecting yourself against a potential rapist and attacking someone simply because they are gay are two completely different things. There is no comparison whatsoever.

 

[bodecea]

Oh, the old libtard, 'they disagree with me so they must be evil, stupid or corrupt' defense.

I would say nice try, Bodecea, but it was actually pathetic.

You guys have been trying so hard for so long......ever ask yourself why?

Lol, so do you have anything relevant to say here?

Or is ad hominem all you've got?

Again....ever ask yourself why it is so important for you do spin a story about this not being a gay-bashing murder?

 

[bodecea]

Did you read the fucking article or are you accusing the forward of being tight wing?

Ah....now you are losing your composure. That's sure convincing me of your point of view.

lol, getting tired of morons like you is hardly a loss of composure, twit.

Name-calling....that is convincing........

 

[bodecea]

Why do you pursue such stories?

Does you hate toward others make you feel better. Shepard is a very old story, I don't care why he was killed, no one deserved to die that way and if it wasn't because he was gay? The group that killed him went out of their way to make it look like he was.

So we should ignore that it was a giant lie?

Oh? You'd best tell the court then.

 

[bodecea]

Even libs are beginning to admit it was a drug deal gone wrong a d not a hate crime

What If Matthew Shepard's Murder Wasn't an Anti-Gay Hate Crime? ? Forward.com

Forward.com? wtf is that?

I know.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So the right discovers the victim of a gay bashing murder was no saint?

Well blow me over!

What's next, George Washington was no saint because he lied about a Cherry tree?

lol, are you THAT dense?

It was not a hate crime, dumbass, it was a drug crime.

Shepard was not killed because he was gay but because he was a meth dealer.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Even libs are beginning to admit it was a drug deal gone wrong a d not a hate crime

What If Matthew Shepard's Murder Wasn't an Anti-Gay Hate Crime? ? Forward.com

Forward.com? wtf is that?

I know.

And the New York Times, ABC and 20/20 are what, just rumor mills?

roflmao, you libtards are so funny, in a drunk falling in the ditch kind of way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ah....now you are losing your composure. That's sure convincing me of your point of view.

lol, getting tired of morons like you is hardly a loss of composure, twit.

Name-calling....that is convincing........

And you avoiding dealing with the facts is more convincing, and the thinness of your lies even more so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You guys have been trying so hard for so long......ever ask yourself why?

Lol, so do you have anything relevant to say here?

Or is ad hominem all you've got?

Again....ever ask yourself why it is so important for you do spin a story about this not being a gay-bashing murder?

Tell it to the NYT, not me, liar.

I just want to know the TRUTH, something that seems to give you fits.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Rachael said that trayvon was afraid zim might rape him. That means he thought zim was gay and attacked him for that reason

Protecting yourself against a potential rapist and attacking someone simply because they are gay are two completely different things. There is no comparison whatsoever.

So you think jumping someone and knocking them to the ground then beating them repeatedly is simply 'protecting yourself against a potential rapist?'

lol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So the right discovers the victim of a gay bashing murder was no saint?

Well blow me over!

What's next, George Washington was no saint because he lied about a Cherry tree?

lol, are you THAT dense?

It was not a hate crime, dumbass, it was a drug crime.

Shepard was not killed because he was gay but because he was a meth dealer.

Robbing that small framed kid for drugs is one part of a multi-part crime. The NYT and other media are reporting a story, not debating fact. No one with a sense of honesty denies what the visciousness of tbe beating and death were about

You lose...sucks to be you misunderstanding exactly what the NYT and other media are reporting.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It can be said to you a million and a half times and you still won't get it: we only have Zimmerman's story to say he was attacked by Trayvon. It is only one man's story, and a proven liar at that. Rachael never said Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

And people have been telling libtards like you ten gazillion times that there WERE OTHER WITNESSES THAT CONFIRMED GZ's story.

Good lawd almighty you people are fucking dense as hell.

And you don't know what the case is with Mathew Shepard. You weren't there. We only have the murderer's story to go on. The dead cannot tell their side of things.

Yes, and neither were you. But ABC, 20.20, And the New York Times risked pissing off most of their readership to report the FACTS they uncovered.

And you think it is a lie only for the sole reason that it contradicts your bullshit view of life.

So please, go learn something and then try and discuss it without all the self-righteous bilge. How about it?

Where did I say it was a lie? You must have me mixed up with someone else. I have not addressed whether the initial story was a lie.

Lol, if GZ's story is not true, as you imply, then that follows that he is lying, according to you.

This is hilarious, like trying to teach monkeys how to ride a bike.

I am addressing the fact you folks need to dredge this up in order to seemingly pretend such events don't happen to homosexuals. They do.

I know that they happen as well. I have seen it. None of that changes the FACTS about Shepard at all.

Hate crimes do happen, and they are sometimes incredibly violent and viscious. There is no need for anyone to make up a hate crime against gays as there are so many stories that are true, and that has been the case as far back as history goes. As well, I think perhaps you are the one who needs to be better informed.

1. Hate crime laws punish people for what they think, not what they do. I object to that. The murder of a white heterosexual male is no less hateful simply because he didn't fall into some statistically minority group.

2. If there are so many vicious crimes against homosexuals for merely being homosexuals, then FIND THAT STORY and use it, instead of one that is a pack of lies. Shepards death was used because it was useful at the time, not because it was the clearest and best case.

 

[novasteve]

Esmeralda how often do you think men think that men walking near them intend to rape them? I worry about bring mugged , not being raped. Trayvon must really have hated gays to think that

 

[JimBowie1958]

So the right discovers the victim of a gay bashing murder was no saint?

Well blow me over!

What's next, George Washington was no saint because he lied about a Cherry tree?

lol, are you THAT dense?

It was not a hate crime, dumbass, it was a drug crime.

Shepard was not killed because he was gay but because he was a meth dealer.

Robbing that small framed kid for drugs is one part of a multi-part crime. The NYT and other media are reporting a story, not debating fact. No one with a sense of honesty denies what the visciousness of tbe beating and death were about

Lol, you didn't even read the NYT story and you are trying to pretend that you need, or else you are just a stupid liar. No one doubts the facts of the story: Shepard was cruelly killed. The subjective part of the crime, about why it was done, and is it a satisfactory example of a killing motivated purely by hatred of gays, is what people are arguing and what the NYT and 20/20 cast doubt on NINE YEARS ago.

And you imply that the NYT, 20/20, and ABC have no sense of honesty? lolol you are so full of shyte its running out of your ears.

You lose...sucks to be you misunderstanding exactly what the NYT and other media are reporting.

Let the reader decide:

"But Mr. Shepard did, too. Like Mr. McKinney, he had a meth habit, his friends say here. And this is where the documentary spirals into a real twist - the kind generally reserved for episodes of "Mystery!" or Errol Morris documentaries.

It turns out that if you like high life in the high plains, you go for limousines - namely, the rental fleet owned and chauffeured by Doc O'Connor. Mr. Shepard hired one of these, which Mr. O'Connor drove, to get to a gay bar one night in Fort Collins, Colo. Mr. O'Connor noticed he was upset on the drive home, and later, Mr. O'Connor tells Ms. Vargas, Mr. Shepard told him he was H.I.V. positive. "20/20" relies heavily on the interview with Mr. O'Connor, who comes across as an invention of David Lynch. (His accusations are not confirmed with anyone else on camera.)

But that's not the end of Mr. O'Connor's involvement in this story. In defending himself from charges of homophobia Mr. McKinney says, noxiously, "I have gay friends," which gives the documentary a chance for a bravura transition.

"One of McKinney's gay friends may have been Matthew Shepard," Ms. Vargas says in voice-over.

What? They knew each other?

Mr. McKinney denies it to Ms. Vargas, but "20/20" then produces several interviews with people who had seen the men together. And then a bomb is dropped.

Mr. O'Connor, ever the mixer here, volunteers that Mr. McKinney didn't hate gays because "I know of an instance where he had a three-way - two guys and one girl at a party, an all-nighter." After confirming that Mr. McKinney had had sex with the man of the trio, Ms. Vargas asks Mr. O'Connor how he knows about such an intimate experience.

"Because he did it with me," the limo driver says. "

If the writer for the NYT felt it was all bullshit, and at points he seems not convinced, then 20/20 most certainly did as the NYT article proves.

No, you lose, and you lose for at least one reason; you have no regard for facts or Truth.

you only have regard for things that support 'your side' and your side is losing and so badly you don't even realize it yet. It will still take twenty years to shake it all out, but the nails to libtardisms coffin are being nailed as we speak.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Poor tools with few critical thinking skills...

From some idiot's link to NYT: "None of this, as Ms. Vargas points out, changes the horror of the murder, or the inspiration and awareness that people gained from the widespread parable version of the event.

I totally agree with that. And note the writer calls the official version the 'widespread parable version of the event'. Now what do you think the writer meant by that? What is a parable, do you know? It is a fictional story composed of elements that can be true, unlike, say fantasy is made of things that cannot ever actually happen, like talking foxes trying to eat grapes is not a parable but a fantasy.

But getting the truth - in ABC's revisionist investigation, which seeks to overturn the powerful and canonical version of the facts and meaning of this crime - is worthwhile, as it thickens the description and adds to the mystery of what happened that night in Laramie."

So, the NYT reporter says it adds to the mystery, and 'thickens the description'; no what exactly do you think is meant? not that it is all lies, but that these are inconvenient facts, and that the myth of Shepard the fence post Martyr is too valuable to lose over details.

But the writer never said that any of it was false.

And you want to talk about my critical thinking skills? lolololol

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is not a NYT story. The NYT is reporting on a revisionist history story... gawd you are dumber than dirt. The quotes refer to ABC program

...

Poor tools with few critical thinking skills...

From some idiot's link to NYT: "None of this, as Ms. Vargas points out, changes the horror of the murder, or the inspiration and awareness that people gained from the widespread parable version of the event. But getting the truth - in ABC's revisionist investigation, which seeks to overturn the powerful and canonical version of the facts and meaning of this crime - is worthwhile, as it thickens the description and adds to the mystery of what happened that night in Laramie."

The convicted and friends are now saying they lied during trial, under oath? LOL

 

[MeBelle]

So instead of all the insult hurling in this thread I did some research.

The prosecutor in the case stated there was ample evidence that drugs were at least a factor in the murder.

Some people that knew McKinney say he was bisexual even though he has denied it.

And here, on wonderful USMB, someone drove the point home.

There is nothing more dangerous to the gay community than a man who hates the fact he is attracted to men.

There is nothing worse than someone who cannot admit they are gay. They usually have to spread hate to compensate.
He would be better off he was just honest with himself.

Is it impossible to even contemplate a combination of these things fueled McKinney that day?

 

[bendog]

Hey listen up, just because one of the killers said he killed the Shehard because he was afraid the fruit would gay sex him, that didn't make crucifying the little guy on a barbed wire fence about him being gay, because the little gay guy also sold the killer meth. Y'all are trying to make this about something it ain't about.