Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Gay Man Brutally Beaten With Billiards Cue Stick In Hate Crime Attack


Yesterday a 52 year-old gay man suffered grievous facial injuries after a patron at a Shreveport, Louisiana bar attacked him with a billiards cue stick because he is gay. Witnesses say the two men hadn't even spoken before the attack.

Security personnel at the Sandbar held the alleged attacker, William Payne until police arrived. Payne was arrested and charged with attempted 2nd degree murder and the commission of a hate crime. "It was totally 100 percent a hate crime for this sexual orientation," said Sandbar manager Tim Huck. The bar provided police with video surveillance. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/01/lo ... -with.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Victim


Here is the Piece of Shit

What a stupid piece of shit. What could possibly bother you so much about someones sexual orientation that you would nearly murder them over it?!?

Something tells me Mr. Payne is going to get ass raped in prison...

Vidav wrote:What a stupid piece of shit. What could possibly bother you so much about someones sexual orientation that you would nearly murder them over it?!?

Well if you subscribe to the beliefs of most psychiatric evaluations
The reason is:
The attacker is internally terrified of "himself"
and sees in the gay man an image of himself that he is fearful and confused about
By destroying the gay man who he sees as the "bad part" of himself
he is curing himself of the sickness that he sees within

If they never talked..............how did he know the guy was gay?

Did the victim pull out?


???????????????????????

blueballs wrote:Something tells me Mr. Payne is going to get ass raped in prison...

Hopefully they won't even spit on it beforehand.

Sad. dback knows full well that while I am not gay, I have voted for the approval of gay marriage in SC. Hell, I got an old bud from high school who's gay, and unfortunately, has AIDS so this hits home. While a man will never be attractive to me, who the fuck am I to judge? I can only pray this man recovers and God comforts him while the asshat that perpetrated this act of cowardice terror can only be brought to shameful remorse. Sickening!

Whatever one's views on homosexuality and gay marriage, there's absolutely NO justification for THIS. We dealt with something similar in the Navy back in the '90s (guy gets face bashed into public urinal). It's just wrong, and the perp should do some hard time.

The whole concept of "hate crime" is a "thought control" intiiative. If someone engaged in an attack on someone else they should be prosecuted for attacking them. That's it. Introducing the idea of "hate crime" is an effort to control the ways in which people think. It should be rejected.

Why am I not surprised that the piece of shit above me jumped in to defend another piece of shit from his home state?

JohnStOnge wrote:The whole concept of "hate crime" is a "thought control" intiiative. If someone engaged in an attack on someone else they should be prosecuted for attacking them. That's it. Introducing the idea of "hate crime" is an effort to control the ways in which people think. It should be rejected.

It's a great way to describe a particular motive of a crime...
Example: Money / Drugs / Property / Hate / Jealousy / Etc.

All recognizable motives for crimes But I do agree with your post (kind of)

JohnStOnge wrote:The whole concept of "hate crime" is a "thought control" intiiative. If someone engaged in an attack on someone else they should be prosecuted for attacking them. That's it. Introducing the idea of "hate crime" is an effort to control the ways in which people think. It should be rejected.

So no premeditation charges either?

Chizzang wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:The whole concept of "hate crime" is a "thought control" intiiative. If someone engaged in an attack on someone else they should be prosecuted for attacking them. That's it. Introducing the idea of "hate crime" is an effort to control the ways in which people think. It should be rejected.

It's a great way to describe a particular motive of a crime...
Example: Money / Drugs / Property / Hate / Jealousy / Etc.

All recognizable motives for crimes But I do agree with your post (kind of)

Don't be fooled, 'tis just a (thinly) veiled attempt by St. Onge to marginalize the people he sees as mentally ill sub-humans.

JohnStOnge wrote:The whole concept of "hate crime" is a "thought control" intiiative. If someone engaged in an attack on someone else they should be prosecuted for attacking them. That's it. Introducing the idea of "hate crime" is an effort to control the ways in which people think. It should be rejected.

Thanks Loughner.

Grizalltheway wrote:Why am I not surprised that the piece of **** above me jumped in to defend another piece of **** from his home state?

And why do you say I defended an unprovoked attack? I did not. What I said is that the concept of "hate crime" involves thought control. And that's true.

If someone suddenly beats the snot out of someone with a pool cue they should be prosecuted for that. But when you get into the idea of making it "worse" because the subject of the attack was homosexual, or Black, or whatever you are getting into the realm of thought control.

Suppose someone beat the snot out of somebody because they didn't like the sports team they were pulling for? Is that "better?" Is that somehow deserving of less stringent treatment?

Again, the whole concept of " hate crime" is bogus.

Don't be fooled, 'tis just a (thinly) veiled attempt by St. Onge to marginalize the people he sees as mentally ill sub-humans.

I don't know if "mentally ill" is the best way to describe the way I look at homosexuals. No doubt I see them as suffering from a disfunction but I'd have to think about whether I see that as "mental" or "physical."

In any case, I do not think that someone being mentally ill or ill in any way should be subject to unprovoked attack.

It's just that I also don't think that government should be making laws designed to influence thought by creating a situation where something like attacking someone because they are perceived as homosexual is "worse" than attacking someone just because, say, you don't like the way they look or don't like what they have to say.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Don't be fooled, 'tis just a (thinly) veiled attempt by St. Onge to marginalize the people he sees as mentally ill sub-humans.

I don't know if "mentally ill" is the best way to describe the way I look at homosexuals. No doubt I see them as suffering from a disfunction but I'd have to think about whether I see that as "mental" or "physical."

In any case, I do not think that someone being mentally ill or ill in any way should be subject to unprovoked attack.

It's just that I also don't think that government should be making laws designed to influence thought by creating a situation where something like attacking someone because they are perceived as homosexual is "worse" than attacking someone just because, say, you don't like the way they look or don't like what they have to say.

BTW John, the only one who brought up "hate crime" in this thread was the bar manager and he used it to desribe why the victim was attacked, not on what basis he should be judged.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Don't be fooled, 'tis just a (thinly) veiled attempt by St. Onge to marginalize the people he sees as mentally ill sub-humans.

I don't know if "mentally ill" is the best way to describe the way I look at homosexuals. No doubt I see them as suffering from a disfunction but I'd have to think about whether I see that as "mental" or "physical."

In any case, I do not think that someone being mentally ill or ill in any way should be subject to unprovoked attack.

Oh so much fertile material here...
The most common thing most homosexuals suffer from is prejudice

They also suffer from being a minority - they are different than about 88% of the rest of the population - in their sexual orientation... Interesting to note regardless of this information (common knowledge) the global percentage of homosexuals does not seem to have changed much over time - from Greek history till now - it's a relative constant among Natures beasts (and Homo sapiens) it looks more like a common trend over time than anything else

So whatever you think you know about dysfunctions in the natural world - include your prejudice as the primary dysfunction on this topic

I wonder which charge is worse... the 2nd degree murder, or the hate crime?

Shouldn't they drop one? Sounds like charging someone with assault and spitting.

Chizzang wrote:

Vidav wrote:What a stupid piece of ****. What could possibly bother you so much about someones sexual orientation that you would nearly murder them over it?!?

Well if you subscribe to the beliefs of most psychiatric evaluations
The reason is:
The attacker is internally terrified of "himself"
and sees in the gay man an image of himself that he is fearful and confused about
By destroying the gay man who he sees as the "bad part" of himself
he is curing himself of the sickness that he sees within

Do you spend a lot of time with this sort of thing, cleets?

OBTW, I hope the bad guy goes to prison for a long time and the gay guy recovers quickly.

Vidav wrote:What a stupid piece of ****. What could possibly bother you so much about someones sexual orientation that you would nearly murder them over it?!?

Exactly.

Hell, I'd be thrilled if all the other men on the planet were gay so the ladies would all come to Uncle Houndawg for a good session with the ol' turkeyneck.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Why am I not surprised that the piece of **** above me jumped in to defend another piece of **** from his home state?

And why do you say I defended an unprovoked attack? I did not. What I said is that the concept of "hate crime" involves thought control. And that's true.

If someone suddenly beats the snot out of someone with a pool cue they should be prosecuted for that. But when you get into the idea of making it "worse" because the subject of the attack was homosexual, or Black, or whatever you are getting into the realm of thought control.

Suppose someone beat the snot out of somebody because they didn't like the sports team they were pulling for? Is that "better?" Is that somehow deserving of less stringent treatment?

Again, the whole concept of " hate crime" is bogus.

Only if the victim wee a Bears fan.

They also suffer from being a minority - they are different than about 88% of the rest of the population - in their sexual orientation... Interesting to note regardless of this information (common knowledge) the global percentage of homosexuals does not seem to have changed much over time - from Greek history till now - it's a relative constant among Natures beasts (and Homo sapiens) it looks more like a common trend over time than anything else

So whatever you think you know about dysfunctions in the natural world - include your prejudice as the primary dysfunction on this topic

I normally don't make statements about people who respond to me, but I can see that it is likely that you have been indoctorinated. It is very unlikely that anything close to 12 percent of the population ((1.0 - 0.88 x 100)) is homosexual. If you look for some scientific sample of the extent of homosexuality in the United States, for instance, you might look at exit polling during elections. During the last Presidential election it was estimated that about 4% of voters would identify themselves as "Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual." (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/result ... al=USP00p3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

On the one hand, there may be some impediment to people identifying themselves as such. On the other hand, it could be that homosexuals vote in higher percentages than heterosexuals do.

Whatever the case, the idea that something like 10 or 12 percent of the population is homosexual is VERY questionable.

And what about "prejudice?" I would say that a "prejudice" towards viewing homosexuality as "normal" has been insistently cultivated over several decades now.

JohnStOnge wrote:

They also suffer from being a minority - they are different than about 88% of the rest of the population - in their sexual orientation... Interesting to note regardless of this information (common knowledge) the global percentage of homosexuals does not seem to have changed much over time - from Greek history till now - it's a relative constant among Natures beasts (and Homo sapiens) it looks more like a common trend over time than anything else

So whatever you think you know about dysfunctions in the natural world - include your prejudice as the primary dysfunction on this topic

I normally don't make statements about people who respond to me, but I can see that it is likely that you have been indoctorinated. It is very unlikely that anything close to 12 percent of the population ((1.0 - 0.88 x 100)) is homosexual. If you look for some scientific sample of the extent of homosexuality in the United States, for instance, you might look at exit polling during elections. During the last Presidential election it was estimated that about 4% of voters would identify themselves as "Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual." (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/result ... al=USP00p3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

On the one hand, there may be some impediment to people identifying themselves as such. On the other hand, it could be that homosexuals vote in higher percentages than heterosexuals do.

Whatever the case, the idea that something like 10 or 12 percent of the population is homosexual is VERY questionable.

And what about "prejudice?" I would say that a "prejudice" towards viewing homosexuality as "normal" has been insistently cultivated over several decades now.

It's only 4%? Well shit, I say beat the hell outta them.

JohnStOnge wrote:

They also suffer from being a minority - they are different than about 88% of the rest of the population - in their sexual orientation... Interesting to note regardless of this information (common knowledge) the global percentage of homosexuals does not seem to have changed much over time - from Greek history till now - it's a relative constant among Natures beasts (and Homo sapiens) it looks more like a common trend over time than anything else

So whatever you think you know about dysfunctions in the natural world - include your prejudice as the primary dysfunction on this topic

I normally don't make statements about people who respond to me, but I can see that it is likely that you have been indoctorinated. It is very unlikely that anything close to 12 percent of the population ((1.0 - 0.88 x 100)) is homosexual. If you look for some scientific sample of the extent of homosexuality in the United States, for instance, you might look at exit polling during elections. During the last Presidential election it was estimated that about 4% of voters would identify themselves as "Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual." (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/result ... al=USP00p3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

On the one hand, there may be some impediment to people identifying themselves as such. On the other hand, it could be that homosexuals vote in higher percentages than heterosexuals do.

Whatever the case, the idea that something like 10 or 12 percent of the population is homosexual is VERY questionable.

And what about "prejudice?" I would say that a "prejudice" towards viewing homosexuality as "normal" has been insistently cultivated over several decades now.

You assume way too much from my post...
First of all anything that consists of 10% couldn't be called normal - nor should it be considered unusual - it would be neither... I experience no feelings about the homosexual community one way or the other

You however cannot say that...

I see homosexuality as an observable consistent trend that appears both in the animal kingdom and in homo sapiens - you see it as a defect
You are prejudiced against them - I am not - frankly it's just that simple Jon