Wait, wtf? What does that have to do with anything?
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2026
115 points (98.3% liked)
politics
31347 readers
2310 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
if I'm being extremely generous their (still very fucked up) argument is that a jury would be more likely to believe there was an imminent threat of harm from a "biological male" than a "biological female". They might even be correct with regards to how the information would impact the views of a Tennessee jury.
Still completely fucked and demonstrates a huge part of what's wrong with our judicial system. Everything a jury needs to know about whether a person would reasonably feel in imminent danger can be described without ever mentioning sex or gender.
“Transgender”, “Tennessee”
Say no more….
Hit them again, and harder this time.
trans rights are human rights
A hate crime, then...?
On the one hand a retrial makes sense because not all the facts of the case were presented to the jury.
On the other hand the prior conviction was manslaughter which is crazy lower for six shots and then just going home. Maybe the jury will see this as not only a hate crime, but also escalate to some form of murder charge.
The decision to exclude certain facts is generally made knowingly and carefully. The court, in this case, correctly judged that the average Tennessee jury would be unlikely to rule on the actual legal merits of this case if they knew the victim was trans (or, to the average redneck shit stain from Tennessee, "not actually human").
In court, both sides can submit something as evidence and the other side can object to it. It's then up to the judge to sustain or overrule the objections. The jury is instructed to deliberate only on the items received by the court and any witness testimony, which again can have some answers or questions objected or struck from the record.
If the defense wanted to submit it then, it was objected, then the judge did make the call. However, the defense could also just be incompetent and left it out and decided to appeal based on that fact being left out.
Local LGBTQ+ organizers have said Ward was known as a threat to trans women even before he killed Lee, journalist S. Baum reported for the news blog Erin in the Morning on Thursday. Kayla Gore, executive director of the emergency services nonprofit My Sistah’s House, told Erin in the Morning that Ward had pursued trans women in the past.
Sounds like some other facts ought to be presented to the jury as well if he’s trying to trans panic his way out of murder.
This is Tennessee, and it sounds like the appeal came from the defense, so I expect something lighter, not heavier...
Yes, but it still goes to trial which will require a new jury. It's Memphis which is a city and by nature of random chance for jury selection shouldn't be biased, like what a more rural country would be.
So there still a chance this could be a harsher sentence.
Watch him get a longer sentence anyway lmao
So mote it be.
How was the original trial not for homicide 2?
Because killing a woman barely qualifies as murder in America to begin with.