Monday, February 05, 2024

I Shot A Man In Reno Just To Watch Him Die (And It's All Stephen King's Fault)

Liberals, true as ever to their motto 'being outraged about the wrong things since 1978', have decided that the real guilty party in the Brianna Ghey case is everyone who ever objected to a guy in a dress sharing a changing room with their six year old daughter. 

Although to be fair, I did think J K Rowling went a little too far in her book 'Harry Potter And The Creepy Tranny In A Terrible Wig'. 

Meanwhile, non-insane people note that the actual killers will be eligible for release in their mid-thirties i.e. still prime murdering age. 

I'm sure they'll be totally rehabilitated by then though.....

Note that not only did the jury not find that the killers were motivated by transphobia, the prosecution didn't even allege this - the judge herself decided to introduce this after the verdict was in.

You might say she decided to transition the case....

But wait, where are all the people who usually sermonise about muh sacred due process now  that a judge has suddenly decided that the whole trial thing is just a warm up act to her telling us what really happened? 

As it is, her reasoning seems.... well, let's just say I think there's a reason why she chose to wait to  introduce this until after no one could answer back:
'Your messages about Brianna were transphobic,' she told him. 'You consistently referred to her in a way that was dehumanising, calling her "it". You also described her as a "femboy thing".'
Wait... this guy sounds like me. 

Or, come to think of it, anyone else who rolls their eyes at the whole 'I identify as a cat' thing. 

And if you think that's weak, there's this:
While Jenkinson did not use transphobic language, she said it was the prosecution case that she 'encouraged' Ratcliffe to kill Brianna in the knowledge that his 'attitude' would make it more likely that he would go ahead and stab her
Huh? Hanging out with bigots who use insensitive language makes you a bigot too. How about if they work under you in some kind of group? Let's say there's some hypothetical guy - we'll call him Sir Keith Stoller - and some of the people who work under him are a bunch of raving antisemitic nuts? Is he responsible for any crimes they do too? 

Still, we have to look on the bright side of all this: at least motivation is back in play as something we're allowed to talk about. 

Hey, if we're allowed to trawl through some scumbag's text messages to work where he's coming from, we're surely free to do a deep dive into other cases... like, say, the Nottingham Horror. 

Right, liberals? 

Nope, guess not. 

The killer was sane enough to arm himself, conceal the weapon, travel into town, strike at the time of day when the police response was likely to be slowest, lie in wait for his victims and target only a specific demographic but too crazy for us to be able to ever understand why he targeted the people he did. 

Could be literally anything, you guys!

1 comment:

JuliaM said...

"Although to be fair, I did think J K Rowling went a little too far in her book 'Harry Potter And The Creepy Tranny In A Terrible Wig'. "