Box Turtle Bulletin

stjean

February 16th, 2011

If his story is right about Stephen Starr 1st touching him against his will, then it’s irrelevant whether or not he was on Mucinex, because he killed the homosexual in reaction to abuse.

If a homosexual is going to touch another man’s groin against his will or any other deed as is alleged & the man reacts by beating up or killing him, then the man killed the homosexual in reaction to an abuse crime that the homosexual committed. It doesn’t matter if the man was on Mucinex or any other drugs, even if people call it panic defense.

Zach

February 16th, 2011

Anderson was in such a state of panic, of course, that he waited until his roommate had fallen asleep, sometime after these alleged advances occurred. He clearly had no choice except self-defense! We all know what the sleeping are capable of!

Priya Lynn

February 16th, 2011

Stjean, the only time murder is justified is when one’s life is threatened. Being groped does not threaten one’s life and in no way justifies murder.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

The may be the “Twinkie defense” of 2010.

That may depend on how much dextromethorphan he actually took — in high enough doses, the stuff can definitely cause severe disorientation, temporary irrationality, and possibly hallucinations.

But if he took a smaller quantity, then the “DXM side effects” he claims to have experienced were more likely to have been a placebo-type reaction. (That is, he acted deranged because he expected that DXM would have that effect on him.)

To me, the term “Twinkie defense” implies that someone was not really in any kind of chemically altered state — but DXM is “for real” psychoactive in high enough quantities (with the crucial dosage depending on variables like body weight, prior experience with the substance, interactions with other drugs, etc.).

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

P.S. However, I have no idea whether it’s feasible for someone to consume “hallucinogenic-level doses” of DXM by taking it in the specific form of Mucinex DM, which contains active ingredients besides the dextromethorphan. If one of these ingredients tended to produce severe nausea, for example, that would make it less likely that an abuser could take enough of the Mucinex (and hold it down long enough) to experience “trippy” effects from the DXM.

Iamposterity

February 16th, 2011

Either way this should be connected to the religious rights’ attempts to demonize homosexulality, and the failure of the medical field to take same-sex living conditions into consideration when medicating real or preceived homosexuals. If a marriage was allowed here then. The other man could have called his partners doctor to report erradic behaviour.

Regan DuCasse

February 16th, 2011

This is INDEFENSIBLE, period. This ‘he made a pass at me’ bs has GOT to stop. I’d love to see the physical differences between these men. I’d like to see how getting such a weapon, rather than getting away, was the better option in such a situation.

I’m a woman. I’m a tall, fairly strong looking woman, but I’ve been subject to anything from catcalls to men getting RIGHT up in my face and saying lewd things. Physical danger is a possibility, one really CAN’T know when such a thing is possible between strangers. Especially on the street. But even then, I’m not HOMICIDAL, I try to get HELP.
Believe it or not, during the course of an arrest, there are times when SUSPECTS in the course of being handcuffed notice me and try to make a pass. And I’ve been in enough situations where the PERP was under the influence that having the wherewithal to do as much damage as this guy did to his victim wouldn’t have been as possible. Too much presence of mind actually for Mucinex to be part of the issue.

But in this situation, where one was living with the other over time, even WOMEN who have been outright raped, would CALL THE POLICE when assaulted.
If this yutz is using this defense, then calling the police BEFORE committing a horribly violent PROTRACTED homicide would make him more credible. It doesn’t help his case that he has no defense marks on him or signs of having been attacked worthy of justifiable homicide.

Another point is the religious toned scrawl.
Nothing brings out the religious, sermon spewing and Scripture quoting more than when someone straight is talking to or about a gay person or people. This is part of what makes his crime, more anti gay hate crime, than one of self defense.

Working within a more sophisticated and experienced agency like the LAPD, one can read the signs of a hate crime, as opposed to a domestic violence issue or one of self defense.
In these other towns where gay people aren’t considered so well, we can only hope this defense will be thrown out for the evidence should clearly show how ludicrous that defense really is.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

this should be connected to… the failure of the medical field to take same-sex living conditions into consideration when medicating real or preceived homosexuals.

Note: I’m not sure which country you’re posting from, but in the USA, Mucinex DM is a cough-and-cold medicine that can be purchased over-the-counter in any drugstore — meaning, it doesn’t require a prescription or a doctor’s supervision.

(In general, this is true for most drugs containing dextromethorphan; in the U.S., you can buy them legally without a doctor’s Rx. In fact, that’s why DXM was invented — to be a non-prescription alternative to codeine.)

So, while the failure of the medical field to consider the special needs of some gay patients is certainly a real problem in some contexts, it’s totally irrelevant to the present case.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

in high enough doses, the stuff can definitely cause severe disorientation, temporary irrationality, and possibly hallucinations.

But, just to be clear about it: NOT terrifying “Hollywood hallucinations” such as Giant Reptilian Coyotes climbing out of the walls, or voices saying “your parents are flesh-eating aliens from planet Zyblork and you should kill them.”

Rather, as with most hallucinogenic drugs, in reality we’re talking about moving objects appearing to have trails after them, or colored auras at the edges of objects (a la V**gra!), or “white noise” such as radio static taking on a musical quality like a sustained piano chord — fairly mundane stuff like that.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

And I’ve been in enough situations where the PERP was under the influence that having the wherewithal to do as much damage as this guy did to his victim wouldn’t have been as possible. Too much presence of mind actually for Mucinex to be part of the issue.

Speaking as someone who’s actually gotten high on DXM before, I wouldn’t exclude the possibility of the Mucinex being part of the issue here, although even if he had done a huge dose, I would tend to assume that the Mucinex was only a co-factor in the crime.

For example, I know that it’s possible to think lucidly while under the influence of DXM, although it takes a certain amount of directed willpower to stay lucid — and if you stop that active focusing, it’s easy to become distracted and fascinated by non-rational thoughts, like “What if The Matrix was right and we’re all trapped inside a huge computer simulation?” At the same time, it’s possible to “focus” and turn your rational filter back on. (I’ve heard people say the same about LSD and mushrooms, though I’ve never done either one.)

So, in short, the presence of mind he showed doesn’t necessarily rule out the possibility that he had been in some sort of “altered state” to which the Mucinex had partly contributed.

But — given that there’s not much evidence linking DXM by itself to sudden violent behavior — I would still look for co-factors such as other recreational drugs, alcohol, previously diagnosed mental illness, or even dehydration (since he had been at a dance club).

stjean

February 16th, 2011

Unsure what the drug Musinex is but it’s predictable that if this man’s story is true, homosexuals (if the posters here are) would use codes such as ‘advances’ or other euphemisms. But this is how I see it.

If Stephen Starr touched this man’s groin, etc. against the man’s will, then Stephen Starr committed a crime ranging from battery (if his intent wasn’t sexual) to something more serious such as sex abuse. It would be for a jury to decide if the man’s reaction to killing him was just or excessive. Okay, killing him by shooting him in his sleep would probably not be self-defend, but I don’t empathize with Stephen Starr being killed if what we’ve read is true.

If a homosexual is brazen enough to grab a man’s groin against his will (abuse or euphemisms grope or advance) then the possibility exists that the homosexual could do something more violent if he doesn’t get his way. These cases are unpredictable & it’s unknown if the homosexual who is abusing (euphemism groping or advancing) you has done this in the past to others with perhaps more violence. Also even if nothing else happens to the man who is abused (codes or euphemisms ‘advanced’ or ‘groped’),the possibility is there that the homosexual could do this to some1 else with more violence because if he gets the idea that he can get away with 1 crime (abuse), then he may get the idea that he can get away with something more violent to the next man.

Okay, maybe this man should’ve reported the alleged abuse to the cops, but as I see it, it’s vigilante justice, even if homosexuals want to make excuses for sex abuse when it’s homosexual.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

Two other points about DXM that may be pertinent here:

First, the “peak high” may potentially last for a couple hours (obviously, variables such as dosage, the user’s body weight, and whether it was taken on an empty or full stomach are all going to come into play).

Thus, if Anderson took the stuff while they were still at the club, it’s at least plausible (though not necessarily the case in actual fact) that he was still rather “heavily stoned” at the time of the murder.

Second, a subjective side effect of the drug may be a severely distorted sense of elapsed time. Thus, assuming that (in reality) an hour or more had passed between the alleged “groping” and the time of the murder, Anderson may have been under the drug-influenced delusion that the groping had just happened moments before.

So from his subjective, drug-addled POV, it might have felt like a “sudden and unpremeditated fit of rage”, even though to an objective observer it’s clearly a case of coldly premeditated murder.

Finally, let me emphasize again that I’m thinking out loud here about the plausibility of the Mucinex-induced high being a real co-factor in the killing. I do NOT believe that someone with no prior history of violent behavior, psychotic delusions, and/or vicious homophobia can be automagically turned into a crazy gay-killing murderer by a huge dose of Mucinex. But I do believe that DXM is psychoactively potent enough that it might trigger an episode of violent paranoia in someone where other risk factors were present.

(Moral of the story: Kids, don’t do drugs — and if you do drugs anyway, do them in a safe and familiar environment, while listening to quiet, lighthearted music, and under the supervision of a sober “trip sitter,” etc.)

Ken R

February 16th, 2011

stjean, if this was a straight woman killing a straight man after she was groped and on Musinex would you feel the same way? Would the woman be justified in what you call “vigilante justice” because she was offended by the groping and sexual assualt of a straight man?

Priya Lynn

February 16th, 2011

Stjean, under no circumstances is it just to kill someone for touching you or grabbing your groing. In any event there is no evidence that Starr grabbed Anderson’s groin, in fact Anderson specifically says HE DID NOT ALLOW STARR TO TOUCH HIM.

You suggest that if a gay person tries to touch a man that gay person has a propensity to violence – that’s totally unsuported by any evidence and utterly absurd. Your delusions about gays have no bearing on reality.

And no one here is making excuses for sex abuse you loser so take your gay smear campaign somewhere else.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

From the linked news story:

On the wall of Starr’s Facebook page, which is now inaccessible, someone asked him “who’s the teenager?” on Feb. 6. Starr said it was his son, adding that it was a long story.

“I have a new adopted son, he is 19, just turned, pray for me,” Starr said on Facebook. He said he recently took the teenager into his home and was trying to make him a better person.

So, Anderson had evidently been living in Starr’s home for at least a week when the murder happened. Also, Starr had at one point represented himself as Anderson’s “adoptive father”, which to me would make the alleged groping (if it happened at all) a more heinous offense than if they had just been “roommates”.

Priya Lynn

February 16th, 2011

Stjean, you are trying to suggest that Anderson had a valid fear of violence from Starr because of the ATTEMPT to touch him. There’s no way that’s the case given that Starr was asleep when Anderson killed him.

You call this vigilante justice as though the murder was justified but should have been carried out by law enforcement rather than a vigilante. This was justified in any way shape or form and for you to suggest it was is downright evil.

stjean

February 16th, 2011

To address the predictable. Ken R, if a man were to grab a woman’s boobs against her will, then the man has committed a crime for which he is prosecuted for. The woman would have a right to use just force to self-defend & that would be a jury issue. But sex abuse by men against women is taken seriously anyhow that there have been cases where men have been arrested for raping a woman only to be found innocent. The 2006 Duke rape case happened in NC & the men were found innocent-the woman made it up so many innocent men have been arrested.

But to this case. Priya Lynn, it’s possible that jury can acquit a man of self-defend if he kills a homosexual after arguing that the homosexual 1st grabbed his groin against his will & the jury believes his reaction was just. If the story about Stephen Starr is true, then a jury could decide that he was killed in self-defense. Jurors could think in their minds ‘if a homosexual is grabbing another man’s groin against his will, what else may he do if he doesn’t get his way?’

It’s expected for homosexual groups to side with homosexuals who get beaten up or killed after they allegedly commit sex abuse as Stephen Starr is alleged to have done. We weren’t there, so we don’t know why Stephen Starr was killed other than what has been reported in the press. But to me, beating up or killing a homosexual after a homosexual has committed a crime of abuse or sex abuse is the lesser of 2 evils, because the homosexual won’t repeat his crime or do something worse to some1 else. Human nature is just that way-if a homosexual thinks that he can get away with grabbing another man’s groin against his will as is alleged here, he may then think that he can get away with committing more violent deeds. We don’t know what Stephen Starr’s history is. He may have done this or something more violent to another man before this man killed him. But with Stephen Starr dead & gone, he won’t be able to do this or worse to any1 else.

Rob San Diego

February 16th, 2011

I do not agree with stjean one bit, no way is this killing excusable.

I’m curious though why a straight 19 year old was roommates with a gay 36 year old, and for how long.

Ken R

February 16th, 2011

I pity you stjean. Your hatred against gay people shows in your posts. You seem to think only gay people are capable of violent crimes and that murder is justification for a homosexual for a sexual advance or even sexual abuse or whatever the case may be. I find it hard to believe you feel the same way if this was heterosexual in nature. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse. You can walk away. I’ve done it several times myself.

I’m done with you. I no longer waste my time on people who feel gays are lesser than and deserve to be brutally murdered because they may have groped another guy. While Starr may have groped Anderson, which is wrong, that does not justify killing him.

As I said, I am done with you.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

Just listened to the 911 recording. Again, speaking as someone who has personal first-hand experience with DXM highs — although I’ve never felt violent urges while high on DXM, certain aspects of Anderson’s case nonetheless “ring true” for me.

For example, his surprisingly calm and emotionally detached voice throughout the entire phone conversation — he’s intellectually aware of what has happened, but has no visceral, emotional reaction to it. Yet apparently, a short time earlier, he’d had an extremely over-emotional overreaction to being groped (or to memories of being groped) by Starr. I was thinking “that’s very DXM” as I listened — attaching exaggerated emotional importance to relatively minor things, or being unemotional about very weighty matters.

And the short, telegraphic nature of his utterances is also characteristic of someone under the influence. While alcohol and cocaine stereotypically “loosen the lips” and make people babble on at length, DXM has the opposite effect: your mind may race, but spoken words often come out very haltingly.

Finally, there’s his evident mental perplexity — you can almost hear him thinking, “Hmmm, she told me to put the gun down. Is that a GOOD idea, or a BAD idea?!?” — even though he’s lucid enough to call 911 and talk calmly to the operator. That simultaneous experience of confusion and lucidity is pretty DXM-ish, in my opinion.

stjean

February 16th, 2011

Ken R, the fact that in your last post you would call Stephen Starr’s alleged deed a ‘sexual advance’-code or euphemism for sex abuse & your belief that a man should walk away from sex abuse just as you suggest that this man walk away from Stephen Starr’s alleged sex abuse proves that you you like other homosexual posters (if you are) think that sex abuse isn’t serious when it’s homosexual. You think that a man should take this sex abuse, but this is a bad idea.

As far as I’m concerned, that dead homosexual won’t be able to do this to any1 else or worse. WF Smithson was a Pennsylvania homosexual who had a history of abusing other men as Stephen Starr is alleged & in 2006 he killed a man after putting a drug in his drink but didn’t put enough k/o drug & the man tried to stop his sex abuse (your euphemism or code ‘advance’) but was strangled by WF Smithson. WF Smithson was convicted of Murder 1 & is serving life-but the fact that his earlier victims didn’t do anything about him but took the abuse allowed his behavior to worsen that he eventually killed a man.

You can say comments hostile to me but another way I see it, with Stephen Starr’s death, the possibility is gone that he’ll become another WF Smithson. You like other homosexuals can side with Stephen Starr & lecture on how men should put up with sex abuse when homos commit this, but as far as I’m concerned, if it’s true that Stephen Starr grabbed that man’s groin against his will, that man killed Stephen Starr in reaction to sex abuse & no more men will be sexually abused by Stephen Starr, so Stephen Starr is a dead homosexual who is also a dead sex abuser. Finally, so far up to this post, people haven’t asked me about Christianity which often happens, but for those of you thinking this, I don’t care much for religion.

Ben in Oakland

February 16th, 2011

just like the commercial says– always blame the mucus.

Zach

February 16th, 2011

Can we please have stjean blocked? I cringe every time I read the words “a homosexual.”

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

“Homosexual” is a perfectly cromulent word, Zach.

Zach

February 16th, 2011

In its noun form it sounds clinical and hostile.

Jim Burroway

February 16th, 2011

People seem to be accepting the axe-murderer’s word that Starr made a unwanted sexual advance. Again, the presumption that “homosexuals” are natural-borne predators seems to extend to assuming an axe-murderer is telling the truth, even if he’s hopped up on an over-the-counter cough syrup.

The extent that people will go through to defend the guilty and impugne the victim is head-spinning.

[And by the way, “a homosexual” as a noun is only cromulent to heterosexuals and a tiny, tiny minority of older gays. To everyone else, it’s offensive and hostile.]

Priya Lynn

February 16th, 2011

Stjean, you’re making up stuff about this case that is known to be false. Anderson specifically says HE DID NOT ALLOW STARR TO TOUCH HIM. THERE WAS NO GROIN GRABBING. STARR DID NOT SEXUALLY ABUSE ANDERSON BY ANDERSON’S OWN ADMISSSION.

Anderson admits Starr was sleeping when he killed him, there is no way in hell that Anderson had reason to believe Starr posed any violent threat to him.

You’re just a hateful bigotted liar Stjean. A bigotted jury might acquit Anderson, but under no circumstances would they be following the law in doing so. An attempt to touch is never a justification for murder.

Throbert said “Yet apparently, a short time earlier, he’d had an extremely over-emotional overreaction to being groped (or to memories of being groped) by Starr.”.

Thobert, go back and read the post. Anderson specifially said HE DID NOT ALLOW STARR TO TOUCH HIM, THERE WAS NO GROPING OR EVEN A MEMORY OF GROPING.

stjean

February 16th, 2011

Priya Lynn, he may have said that he didn’t allow Stephen Starr to touch him, but he may not want to admit that Stephen Starr sexually abused him because he is too humiliated to admit this. It’s human nature to not want to discuss something as humiliating as sex abuse. If his story is true that he did not allow Starr to touch his groin against his will, then still, he prevented a sex abuse attempt.

Yes, he shot Stephen Starr in his sleep. But again, as I see it, this is vigilante justice & the possibility of Stephen Starr committing another homosexual abuse is taken away. To put it another way, a homosexual who commits or did sex abuse attempt was killed as he was sleeping.

cowboy

February 16th, 2011

stjean is probably the kind of person who thinks killing abortion clinic doctors/nurses is justified.

That kind of mindset is frightening.

Erin

February 16th, 2011

stjean: This self-loathing homophobic closet case admitted he went to a gay club to “experiment” then he “turned straight again.(which is ridiculous)” If he changed his mind, he could have walked out of there and never returned. Instead, like the worthless coward he is, he waited until his victim fell asleep and murdered him. And you take his word despite clear examples of dishonesty and mental instability. This gay panic defense is ridiculous, and you’re a worthless troll. If I shot and axe-murdered every man who ever touched me inappropriately against my will, I would have been a well-established serial killer with more victims than I can count on my hand right now.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

[And by the way, “a homosexual” as a noun is only cromulent to heterosexuals and a tiny, tiny minority of older gays. To everyone else, it’s offensive and hostile.]

It’s “offensive and hostile” because gay people tell each other “OMG, the word ‘homosexual’ is SO CLINICAL”. Yet these same gay people who refuse to call themselves homosexual because it’s “too clinical” will use bisexual and heterosexual without blushing — and it never occurs to them that they’re being inconsistent.

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

Throbert said “Yet apparently, a short time earlier, he’d had an extremely over-emotional overreaction to being groped (or to memories of being groped) by Starr.”.

Thobert, go back and read the post. Anderson specifially said HE DID NOT ALLOW STARR TO TOUCH HIM, THERE WAS NO GROPING OR EVEN A MEMORY OF GROPING.

Priya Lynn: WTF, are you Amelia Bedalia, America’s most literal-minded maid?

The fact that Anderson says “I didn’t let him touch me” does not mean that no unwanted instances of touching ever happened — and this point should be obvious to anyone who isn’t as literal-minded as Amelia Bedelia!

Throbert McGee

February 16th, 2011

Jim: If this case had involved a 19-year-old woman and a 36-year-old man, would you be so obdurately skeptical? Or do you just turn on the super-skepticism because the murder victim was nominally gay?

While “stjean” comes across to me as irrationally homophobic, I think there’s one point that “stjean” may be correct about — that there was real sex-abuse (however mild) going on here, and that Anderson may have over-reacted to the sex-abuse because he was tripping his ass off.

The fact that Starr and Anderson met at a gay club, and that Starr subsequently told people that Anderson was his “adopted son,” should at the very least make people wonder if things weren’t entirely kosher. Of course, it may be that Starr’s motives were entirely innocent, but given the known facts, I don’t think there’s anything homophobic or otherwise unusual about saying “Hmmm, maybe Starr had ulterior motives.”

Zach

February 17th, 2011

Throbert: some things are not offensive intrinsically, but because of their use. If asshats used the phrase “a bisexual” as asshats like stjean use the phrase “a homosexual” then “bisexual” would become offensive as “a homosexual” is now. Oh, and no. Gay people don’t just tell each other that. Go read your average right-wing Christian website, and note their favorite appellation for gay people. I’ll give you a hint: they don’t call us gay people.

Adam

February 17th, 2011

Throbert: The complaint is using “homosexual” as a noun; I expect you’ll find the same people who object to that to also object to using “heterosexual” or “bisexual” as a noun. Unsupported accusations of inconsistency don’t mitigate the offensive and dehumanising quality of reducing people to a one-dimensional characteristic. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I think this use of language is abhorrent (whether it’s used in respect of gay, straight or bisexual people).

stjean: Just answer me one question without spiralling off into some rant about the inherent predatory nature of gay people.

Of the following scenarios, which do you think is the worst, and why:

1) A man groping a woman with obvious sexual intent;

2) A man groping a man with obvious sexual intent.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Before answering the 2 posters (Erin & Adam), let me say Cowboy that I’m pro-choice on abortion, so you got it wrong on that 1.

Erin- if this man was on drugs such as Musinex, then chances are he didn’t understand what he was doing or thinking. If Stephen Starr sexually abused or had sex with him, then Stephen Starr would be guilty even if he said ‘yes’ because a person on drugs can’t give consent. I wouldn’t be surprised if Stephen Starr put the drugs such as Musinex & possibly others in his man’s drink & then committed sex abuse, which would make Stephen Starr the coward & when the homosexual coward was sleeping, Stephen Starr’s victim took his revenge. It also wouldn’t surprise me if Stephen Starr has a history of drugging men & then sexually abusing them. If this is the case, then as I see it, this was a revenge killing, even if you & other homosexual posters want to side with Stephen Starr.

Adam, I believe homosexuality is bad in & of itself whether it’s voluntary or forced, so hopefully this answers you. Also you called it grope, but again, when homosexuals use words like grope, unwanted advances, pass, hit on, etc. as posters have written here, they’re just codes or euphemisms for battery & sex abuse which homosexuals commit.

Désirée

February 17th, 2011

why are people feeding the troll? stjean is clearly delusional at worst, a mindless bigot at best. Reason and logic will not alter his anti-gay beliefs. He thinks gay men are criminals. He didn’t reach this conclusion by logic and logic won’t dissuade him. Why do we engage with these people? It’s like trying to convince a nazi that jews really are ok.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Desiree, when you can’t come up with facts, it’s predictable that you would write ‘troll’, delusional, bigot & in your last sentence compare me to a Nazi. This is expected when homosexuals (if you are) hate the idea that a homosexual may have been killed after he abused a man.

Not to be repetitive, we are not witnesses as to why Stephen Starr was killed. You don’t know that Stephen Starr did not do as has been alleged. @ Throbert McGee while calling me an ‘irrational homophobe’ admits that the scenario of Stephen Starr committing homosexual sex abuse (homolesting) & then getting killed by his victim is possible. It’s apparent that to most homosexuals, you don’t care if Stephen Starr committed sex abuse & the fact that the posters here would take Stephen Starr’s side w/o knowing why it happened proves this.

Jim Burroway

February 17th, 2011

“If this case had involved a 19-year-old woman and a 36-year-old man, would you be so obdurately skeptical?”

I am skeptical of any claims made by an axe-murderer when he (or she) blames the victim (and cough syrup!) I can only wonder what motivations might lead others to rush to assume the victim is guilty of having an axe thrown through his gut while sleeping. There are 19-year-old women and 36-year-old men living together all the time. You take that as prima-facie evidence of “real sexual abuse (however mild).” A lot of people would take exception to that.

Adam

February 17th, 2011

stjean: Well, from my point of view, groping without consent is no euphemism: it’s upfront sexual abuse. But thank you for accusing me of misdirection, anyway.

I agree with Désirée. You say that you think homosexuality is bad in and of itself: you have no basis for that belief, and it colours all your other beliefs about gay people. There is no reasoning with you until you abandon your prejudice. You accuse Désirée of having no facts, yet you make a statement (that homosexuality is bad) without any facts of your own, and you condemn all gay people on the basis of that factless statement. Your attitude is evil, and it enables evil.

Adam

February 17th, 2011

And Désirée, the reason to engage with people like stjean is not necessarily to convince them that they’re wrong, but to counter and balance their hateful speech. In my view, it’s better to highlight the flaws of the kind of thinking that stjean exemplifies than to let it go unchallenged, so that observers might assume that there is no defence against his slanderous accusations and conclusions.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Alright Adam, grope as you say is not a code or euphemism unlike unwanted advance, but sex abuse is a better word. Incidentally in addition to my views against homosexual & lesbian behaviors, I’m also against men performing sodomy (anal) whether straight or homosexual, also against men performing oral sex whether straight or homosexual though women giving men head is Okay & against sex changes. If science eventually finds the cure for GID & homosexuality whether it’s drug, pill or surgery & men no longer have sex with men & women no longer have sex with women, then no, I wouldn’t lose sleep-please don’t start a discussion on repair therapy with ‘homosexuality isn’t a disease’ because that topic has been endlessly talked about.

Regarding Stephen Starr, unsure what else we can say w/o being repetitive but it’s evil for posters to suggest that men put up with homosexual abuse. Maybe shooting Stephen Starr in his sleep was not justified, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Stephen Starr drugged the 19 year old man, forced homosexual sex on him while he was sleeping & the 19 year old man then decides that because Stephen Starr did his deed while he was asleep, he would kill the coward homosexual by shooting him as he slept & then chop his body with an axe.

Jim Burroway & other posters may say otherwise, but I do believe that homosexual abuse could drive a man to kill the homosexual who abused him as he sleeps by shooting him 3 times & then chop his body up. Committing sex abuse could put some1 in a violent rage. No, you don’t have the right to take the law into your own hands & perhaps Stephen Starr should’ve been reported to the cops. But again, as far as I’m concerned, Stephen Starr’s death is the lesser of 2 evils-better that if true Stephen Starr get killed in revenge than for him to do this to another man & Stephen Starr may have been brought to justice poetically if he had committed sex abuse before on other men who didn’t take action because they didn’t have the strength to do it.

Priya Lynn

February 17th, 2011

Throbert said “The fact that Anderson says “I didn’t let him touch me” does not mean that no unwanted instances of touching ever happened…”.

Throbert, you’re suggesting that someone who’s desperate to excuse the murder he committed and using the gay panic defense to do so would intentionally lie and weaken his excuse by saying “I didn’t let him touch me”. That isn’t remotely credible in anyway, its totally unbelievable.

Now I know what you’re going to say, you’re going to say “Maybe he was so high (another laughable assertion) he didn’t realize he’d been groped.”. That being the case, stjean’s and your idea that a groping motivated him to murder is also nonsensical, something a person is unaware of can never be a motivation to murder.

You come here with one outrageous story after another, expecting us to believe wildly unlikely scenarios and to take the word of an axe murderer. Go back to gay independent forum where your delusions are much more welcome.

Desiree said “why are people feeding the troll? stjean is clearly delusional at worst, a mindless bigot at best.”.

I agree with Desiree here. Stjean, and to a lesser degree Throbert, has demonstrated that he’ll ignore the facts to repeatedly make up impossible motivations and anti-gay stories about what he wishes had happened. He’s just here to bash gays and reality matters not one whit to him.

Adam said “the reason to engage with people like stjean is not necessarily to convince them that they’re wrong, but to counter and balance their hateful speech.”.

I normally agree with this but feel in this case stjean is so blatently lying about gays and this case that its unnecessary.

Priya Lynn

February 17th, 2011

Gay supportive version of stjean:

Heterosexuals like Anderson who hate gays have a natural tendency to violence and murder. Its likely that Anderson is a serial killer who has repeatedly used this ploy to trap gay men and kill them. If Anderson goes free he’ll continue his killing rampage and recruit other like minded and easily tempted heterosexuals to do the same.

Any heterosexual who thinks gayness is wrong is a potential serial killer of gays, its a short step from “gays are bad and should be punished” to actually killing gays.

What likely happened is that Starr explained to Anderson how he dedicated his life to helping the poor and sick, spending all his spare time in soup kitchens and working an extra job to donate all the income he could spare to charity. Anderson became enraged by the thought of a gay man demonstrating that gays are good people and decided he had to kill him to do his part to maintain a negative view of gays.

Seriously though, anyone who’s willing to kill someone in their sleep who is in no way a threat has no problem whatsoever about lying to excuse murder.
This story has played out time and time again and it simply isn’t believable that this is anything other than an anti-gay bigot willfully killing an innocent gay and making up lies to excuse it.

Priya Lynn

February 17th, 2011

Further to what Zach said:

Anti-gay religious people repetitively make up stories about all gay people being mentally ill, diseased, disgusting, drug addicted, immoral, and having 100’s of anonymous sex partners. They used the word “homosexual” to describe these imaginary people and through repition and association “homosexual” has become an insult – exactly as they intended it.
The words heterosexual and bisexual aren’t used repetedly in a negative context so they haven’t become insults.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Priya Lynn, you can rerun, but again, none of us were there. This man was 19 years old & something I haven’t said until now-it also wouldn’t surprise me if Stephen Starr has a history of homosexually abusing teen boys perhaps younger than his 19 year old who killed him. But these things if true mean nothing to you because you like the other posters side with homosexuals even when they sexually abuse other men.

You may say that Stephen Starr’s killer is lying, but Stephen Starr’s killer may have believed that the only way he could get revenge on his sex abuser was by killing Stephen Starr as he slept & then cutting his body up. Stephen Starr may not have been a threat to any1 while he was sleeping, but he certainly could’ve been a threat while he was awake & again he could’ve sexually abused sleeping men & now 1 sleeping man gets his revenge by killing Stephen Starr as Stephen Starr sleeps:) Of course if this is true, you & other posters don’t care.

Désirée

February 17th, 2011

sorry, stjean, the only threaten one was Anderson. He’s the one who killed a sleeping man with an axe. You falsely assume that just because Stephen Starr was gay, that he must be a pedophile rapist, and then use that to justify vigilante murder. You sir, are sick. It scares me that I must share the same air with you. That you have no conscious and will, without remorse or hesitation, blame the victim of a brutal crime for his own murder tells me all I need to know about you. And it ain’t good.

Désirée

February 17th, 2011

threaten=threatening, I meant

Christopher

February 17th, 2011

Stjean, you first say “none of us were there” and cite that in Anderson’s defense, but then go on to speculate, without reason, that Starr “certainly could’ve been a threat while he was awake & again he could’ve sexually abused sleeping men”.

Do you see where your logic doesn’t follow here? After you’ve admitted that there may be facts in the case that we don’t know, you then go on to invent a scenario which, if I understand you correctly, makes homicide justifiable.

If you have some real evidence that Starr really was a threat please share it.

Regan DuCasse

February 17th, 2011

Wow…
Okay then: I’m a woman. I also work with law enforcement.
I can attest to having had the gamut from different forms of battery and attempts ALL MY LIFE.
When I was a teenager, there were no words, nor recourse for what’s now called, sexual harassment.
It’s humiliating and depressing to go through it, and the few times I defended myself. Shoved the boy or something, I would be punished for ‘fighting’.
No opportunity for pre meditated murder obviously took place, although the assault never went beyond a furtive, unwanted grope from a boy.

Let’s look at this case of Stephen Starr in it’s most likely scenario.
These are TWO MEN. I already wanted evidence of any physical disparity between them. Evidence of the nature of their situation is important. Someone like Anderson is not atypical. A conflicted gay teenager, with no home or social network who was befriended by another older gay person.

Starr mostly likely, wanted to help this kid and underestimated the mental damage to Anderson from homophobia around him.
The introduction of drug use exacerbates whatever mental and emotional problems Anderson had to the extent of murderous rage towards Starr.
Just as YOU stjean have no good will towards someone gay, a young person who has been diseased by doubt and paranoia of homosexuality, then the extension of rage against a homosexual person isn’t that far behind.
Every gesture will be suspect. Interest will be considered violation, and charity has an ulterior motive of sexual conquest.

stjean doesn’t believe that there is such a person as an INNOCENT gay person. To him and others, all gay people are ultimately predators and court being murdered for extending themselves AT straight people, whatever the reason.

Feeding the paranoia and stereotype that Starr deserved or invited his own murder by daring to be friendly to a young man, is EXACTLY why the perpetrator is using this defense. It works on people like stjean, jurors, the courts and law enforcement officers.
Justifying hate crimes laws, than reasons to believe for a second that this is justifiable homicide in self defense.

A grope, a sexual advance…is something ANOTHER male can fend off without KILLING who makes it. I’ve DONE it myself. Against males bigger and stronger than I am.
Before I had RECOURSE in the law now to report and have the person who committed such an offense, fired…or arrested.

It’s embarrassing for women. Because barbaric males like to swing their dicks around in the most public way at women to show off how studly they are.
If Anderson had any embarrassment from whatever he thought Starr was doing, MURDER is still not an option in this case sense Starr wasn’t trying to murder HIM.

He could have left the situation and NOT called anyone or let anyone know too if the humiliation was to that degree.
Anderson opted for the ALL too familiar, COMMON and COWARDLY defense when a gay man is brutalized. Regardless of the helplessness of the victim, the lie in wait method of the perp or disparity of fighting ability between them…Anderson’s side DON’T pass the smell test.

Prejudicial scenarios that stjean is offering, won’t hold up to the evidence that Anderson was in no eminent danger, even if the groping fantasy were true.
He had a whole other host of options BUT murder and the gay panic defense after the fact.

Except for using drugs, and going to the homes of strange men, I’ve been in the position of having to defend myself in different ways from the unwanted advances of men. I have more of an excuse than Anderson does. Most women do.
We actually are more threatened, even in our own homes by guys we’re married to or dating regularly.

THAT is what makes me understand his story is bullshit. THAT is what gives me a lot of cred in reading this situation for what it really is.
The EVIDENCE does show that this is just another cowardly gay bashing where the victim had no way of defending HIMSELF from another homophobic teenager.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Something new-Finally listened to the 6 minute 53 second 9-11 call. Before addressing this, Regan DuCasse makes conclusions on a case that she didn’t neutrally investigate for herself & sides with Stephen Starr, but some thoughts on the 9-11 call.

The 9-11 call does show this 19 year old man scared & nervous. He sounds like perhaps some effects of Musinex & possibly other drugs are still in the system. Perhaps he was too ashamed to admit what Stephen Starr did & said that he kept Stephen Starr from ‘touching him’ when Stephen Starr did this & perhaps more. What may have happened is that Stephen Starr pretended to be this teenager’s friend, by taking him as a roomate, taking him to a homosexual pub where he put may have have put mind bending drugs in his drink incl. Musinex. After he took the boy home, he may have forced homosexual sex on this boy while the boy was drugged until the boy passed out or while the boy was high & k/o. After the boy awoke perhaps hours later, the teenage boy took his revenge by shooting Stephen Starr dead & then chopping up Stephen Starr’s body. He then calls 9-11 & somewhat scaredly explains what he did.

My guess is that the shame of being sexually abused by Stephen Starr impaired his mind with fear, revenge & when he called 9-11 & if he didn’t tell the 9-11 operator that Stephen Starr homosexually abused him, then it maybe because he was too ashamed too & I don’t blame him not to want to talk to a stranger (9-11 operator) about something as traumatic as homosexual abuse. Rape & sex abuse are underreported anyhow.

If this goes to trial, the 19 year old man’s lawyer should argue to a jury that this was a revenge killing & if the jury believes this, the 19 year old man could be convicted of manslaughter rather than 2nd Degree Murder for killing the cowardly homosexual who abused him. My guess is that Regan DuCasse doesn’t care if Stephen Starr has homosexually abused other teenage boys incl. possibly this 19 year old teenager before he was killed. In fact to Regan DuCasse, Priya Lynn, Ken R., Jim Burroway, Adam, Desiree, Rob, Timothy Kincaid & any1 else who will post here-you really don’t care if Stephen Starr homosexually abused this 19 year old boy.

Priya Lynn

February 17th, 2011

Stjean, you idiot, you say we weren’t there so we don’t know what happened and then you go on to create all manner of outrageous stories about what you think went on. By your own admisssion you’re not in any position to make any of your claims about what you “think” or is “likely” to have happened.

What we do know for sure is THERE WAS NO SEXUAL ABUSE AS BY ANDERSON’S OWN ADMISSION HE DIDN’T ALLOW STARR TO TOUCH HIM.

You want us to pretend the known facts of the case don’t exist and that your anti-gay delusions are true. None of us is remotely stupid enough to believe your idiocy.

Christopher

February 17th, 2011

Stjean, you fault Regan Ducasse’s thoughtful analysis because you say she made “conclusions on a case that she didn’t neutrally investigate for herself”, but then cite, as the only evidence for your belief that Anderson was being abused, the sound of his voice on the call.

Again, if you have evidence that Anderson was being abused, or that Starr abused others, please share it. Even if you do have such evidence, though, your accusation that people here don’t care if someone was being abused is way out of line. You’re using your own speculations to justify accusing those who are concerned with the facts.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Christopher again, what Erin, Priya Lynn, Regan DuCasse & other posters should say is that they don’t care if Stephen Starr committed homosexual abuse & this has been implied by their past posts using codes & euphemisms. If Stephen Starr had other victims, they probably are too ashamed to discuss the homosexual abuse but will quietly cheer Stephen Starr’s death as poetic justice if they read about this in the press.

There may be more details as the case unfolds. We may hear other victims of Stephen Starr come forward which could support the idea that Stephen Starr’s death may have been a revenge killing by his 19 year old victim. No, I don’t have much information other than the press report & the 6 minute 53 second 9-1-1 call. I hadn’t heard of this case until yesterday. There isn’t much more we can say w/o being repetitive but I do believe the scenario of a revenge killing is possible most posters such as Regan DuCasse & Priya Lynn discard the revenge killing possibility because either they dislike it or they don’t care if this was the case.

DN

February 17th, 2011

I couldn’t read past the 20th or so comment, but let’s ask stjean this question. Assuming it was OK to shoot a sleeping man in the head at point-blank range (obviously I don’t think this is OK, but let’s assume for now)…

Is it OK to then get another gun and shoot him again? Then to get an axe and lodge it in his abdomen? Then to carve a word into his body? Then to write more words on his corpse with a marker?

Are those OK, you sanctimonious jerk?

DN

February 17th, 2011

A man is dead, here. Only a pervert would take pleasure in death. You are truly the most sick person I’ve encountered on the internet.

I know feeding trolls is bad, but if *anyone* has gotten my dander up, it’s this jerk.

Timothy Kincaid

February 17th, 2011

Yes, he shot Stephen Starr in his sleep. But again, as I see it, this is vigilante justice & the possibility of Stephen Starr committing another homosexual abuse is taken away.

I need not read more. It matters not that no actual abuse occurred. Rather, Stjean imagines that the murder of gay people is justified by the possibility that that they might some day assault someone. In other words, to Stjean, murder of gay people is always justifiable based on the presumption of potential threat.

Seldom is hatred so blatant.

Throbert McGee

February 17th, 2011

I am skeptical of any claims made by an axe-murderer when he (or she) blames the victim (and cough syrup!) I can only wonder what motivations might lead others to rush to assume the victim is guilty of having an axe thrown through his gut while sleeping.

I’m not rushing to assume anything; I’m considering the possibility that there’s more to this story than an open-and-shut bias murder. (Speaking of not rushing to assume, that “Hate Crime” headline puts a particular spin on the case and makes assumptions about Anderson’s state of mind and motivations that may not be justified yet, based on the rather limited information available.)

Just to be clear, I don’t think that the murderer’s state of intoxication or the victim’s (alleged) improper sexual advances are even significantly mitigating, let alone exculpatory — Anderson is guilty as hell and deserves to rot in prison (at the very least). But I think that the drug angle and the history of what took place between Anderson and Starr during their week(s) of brief cohabitation may actually shed light on a bizarre and gruesome murder.

P.S. There really shouldn’t be an exclamation mark after “cough syrup” — not to belabor the point, but your “Twinkie defense” characterization completely fails to grasp the actual potency of dextromethorphan when taken in very large “recreational” doses. We’re not talking about mild Nyquil loopiness.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Timothy Kincaid, it’s expected that you & now DN would get on my case but to what you wrote. 1st of all, I wrote ANOTHER homosexual abuse. What that means is that if the scenario is true, not only by Stephen Starr’s death, was his 19 year old victim getting revenge for what had happened to him & others in the past, but he also prevents Stephen Starr from doing his deed to any1 else. But let me shortly digress.

People get killed for no provocation. After WW2, ethnic Germans living Poland, Czechoslovakia (latter 2 nations won territory from Germany) & other Eastern European nations were expelled from their houses. There were incidents where Poles & Czechs killed their German neighbors after the war incl. 6 year old German girls & boys. The Poles & Czechs who killed the 6 year German children used the excuse that because the kids were German, their parents must have been Nazis & thus they made excuses to kill the German children though the German children were innocent, even if the kids parents were Nazis.

In fact, I’ve seen Internet blogs & read posts by Czechs, Poles & Jews who say that they don’t care about German children killed after the war because if some1 is a German, they’re a Nazi. I’ve esp. found this from Jews who most likely lost relatives during the Holocaust-that they think killing Germans is alright & that German=Nazi. I once debated a Polish American by saying that the German kids are innocent but he rationalized the deed of the Polish neighbors by talking about how almost 6 years of war & seeing your relatives killed, etc. would cause Poles & others to hate Germans & kill Germans incl. kids.

The point with this is that the German children killed after the war are innocents who provoked nobody yet many people still make excuses for their deaths because of what their fathers may have done.

Yet in this case-the Stephen Starr death, I suggest that it’s possible Stephen Starr may have sexually abused this 19 year old man who killed him in reaction to this & other than Throbert McGee who says that this scenario of sex abuse is possible, you & other posters side with Stephen Starr. If Stephen Starr indeed homosexually abused this 19 year old man, then Stephen Starr is a guilty victim, perhaps guilty murder victim. The 6 year old German children killed after the war are innocent victims, but this will be reduntant, if it’s true that Stephen Starr did what is alleged, then he is a guilty victim who doesn’t deserve empathy. Your turn now.

DN

February 17th, 2011

“you & other posters side with Stephen Starr”

I have done no such thing, sir. I asked you which of the actions the killer engaged in are justifiable. Feel free to copy and paste and add an x in front of what you think is OK if a person is groped:

Shooting them point blank in the head
Getting another gun and shooting him again
Lodging an axe in his abdomen
Carving a word into his body with a knife
Writing words on his body with a marker.

All of these questions are answerable without taking sides. Yes, I called you a pervert for taking pleasure in death, but that does *not* mean I’ve made up my mind on this case.

DN

February 17th, 2011

And another thought:

If the actions of some gay people are transferrable to the gay population as a whole, then the words of one pervert who relishes death should apply to your population as a whole. Great logic, no?

As much as I think you’re sick, I love that you’re talking. I love that a gay person is giving you an open forum to air your thoughts. So keep talking, sir. Please, for the love of life, KEEP TALKING. Then, everyone who reads stjeans comments, PLEASE repeate them. Forward them. Let people know this is the face of of anti-gay.

Christopher

February 17th, 2011

Stjean, you say that “what Erin, Priya Lynn, Regan DuCasse & other posters should say is that they don’t care if Stephen Starr committed homosexual abuse & this has been implied by their past posts using codes & euphemisms” (emphasis mine).

You apparently can’t cite any evidence to back up your claim that Anderson was being abused, which, I assume, is why you keep dodging the issue. Can you provide any evidence to back up your claims that people you call out by name don’t care if someone is abused? Bear in mind that what you think someone should say is not acceptable as evidence, only what someone has said.

Priya Lynn

February 17th, 2011

Stjean said ” Regan DuCasse & Priya Lynn discard the revenge killing possibility because either they dislike it or they don’t care if this was the case.”.

No, you idiot, I discard it because Anderson himself admitted NO TOUCHING TOOK PLACE. Your fantasizing that despite that Anderson was sexually assaulted is totally out of touch with reality.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

To answer you DN-what is the right reaction if a man is ‘groped’ or sexually abused by a homosexual.

With shooting him point blank in the head in reaction to sex abuse or as you call it ‘grope’ that’s perhaps Ok but it would be a jury topic. A jury would decide that if a homosexual is grabbing another man’s groin did the man use just force to self-defend? It may be self-defend if he shoots him once point blank in the head if the story is convincing that he was defending himself from a more violent act. What if the homosexual is much bigger than the man he is abusing ? These would support self-defend. The option also exists to convict on lesser charge such as manslaughter. I would be inclined to acquit esp. if it’s shown that the homosexual has a past history of grabbing other men’s groins against their will.

#2. Getting another gun & shooting him again in reaction to sex abuse or as you call groping? If he is already dead after the 1st shot, then it’s a moot point, so no need to investigate further. If on the other hand he is alive, has surrendered & agrees to be arrested by the police, then yes, shooting him again would be not justified. Perhaps it would be 2nd Degree Murder or perhaps it would be manslaughter, but again, that would be a jury topic.

#3. Lodging an axe in his stomach or abdomen. If he is already dead, then again this is a moot point. If on the other hand (sorry for repetitition) he is alive, has surrendered & says that he wants to be arrested for sex abuse, then no, it wouldn’t be justified. It would again be for a jury to decide what degree to convict on be it 2nd Degree, Manslaughter, etc.

#4 & 5. Carving a word into his body with a knife & writing words on his body with a marker. Since he is already dead, no charges. My guess is that the victim wanted to desecreate the homo who had abused him & writings were his way of doing so. This can happen in many cases & it’s not limited to desecrating a dead sex abuser.

This has happened to dictators. After Italy’s Fascist Leader Benito Mussolini (Il Duce) & his mistress Clara Petacci were killed by a firing squad in April 1945, both bodies were desecrated by Italians.

Anyhow, hopefully this answers you.

DN

February 17th, 2011

First Nazis and now Mussolini.

Do you even *know* how the internet works?

Christopher

February 17th, 2011

Stjean, when you say you “guess…that the victim wanted to desecreate the homo who had abused him” you’re still operating under the assumption that Anderson was abused.

I think I know why you keep ignoring this question, but in the hope that you’ll answer it at some point, where is your evidence that Anderson was being abused?

DN

February 17th, 2011

stjean, I don’t know that I’ve seen you post here before. Regan DuCasse, Priya Linn, and co I’ve seen post many times – they’re regulars.

But you… you’re new. How did you come upon this site?

stjean

February 17th, 2011

DN before continuing & I don’t think we’ll be able to raise much on this, since I & now you mention Nazis & Mussolini, Germany & Italy were advanced in many respects during their time. Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy & Nazi Germany did many bad things, but if there’s 1 thing the Nazis & to a smaller extent Fascist Italy & Imperial Japan got right during the war is that they killed many of Stalin’s henchmen during Operation Barbarossa such as the Commissar Order so in some cases the Nazis killed bad people.

But anyhow, to address DN & Christopher. 1st Christopher yes, I do believe the 19 year old man may have been sexually abused by Stephen Starr but is too ashamed to admit it. How many men would want to tell some1, esp. a stranger on the phone that he was forced to have homosexual sex & killed his abuser in revenge? He’ll probably say what this 19 year old man did-that Stephen Starr tried to touch him but failed to do so or was stopped because he wants to show he fended off an attack.

Okay, you think it’s silly of me to base this on hearing the 9-1-1 call, but maybe this man just didn’t want to tell a operator this over the phone that Stephen Starr homosexually raped him because he was just too ashamed to say this so soon after the abuse. This would damage his mind. Stephen Starr said to his friends that this 19 year old was his adopted son & Stephen Starr allegedly betrayed this man’s trust by committing homosexual incest on him. It’s too humiliating for this 19 year old man to say this.

He may tell his parents, family & his lawyer about this, if indeed this is the case. Most likely his lawyer will ask him if Stephen Starr sexually abused him. After this happens, his lawyer will tell the prosecutor what strategy they will use such as to get a jury to convict on a lesser charge or manslaughter or even acquit if they can argue self-defend should it be tried.

It’s possible that the prosecutor could pleabargain the case if they feel that is in justice interests or if they believe that Stephen Starr committing sex abuse mitigates the punishment. It’s even possible that the prosecutor could drop the case if they believe a jury will acquit.

Of course this is all speculative, but so are Regan DuCasse, Priya Lynn & other posters. But how did I come upon this site as Christopher asks?

Well I used to post on Dr. E. Warren Throckmorton’s site, but he barred me because he didn’t like my views. I’ve seen Regan DuCasse, Priya Lynn & other posters comment on other sites. Since it has been some time since I’ve been to Dr. E. Warren Throckmorton’s site, perhaps Timothy Kincaid recalls my posts there as he has visited his site in the past. Anyhow decided to post here because too often the discussions become predictable. I’ll try to keep the comments minimal on repair therapy or homosexuality per se, because those 2 topics have been talked about so many times that the topic has become dull which is why you’re not seeing me comment on the other topics here.

Christopher

February 17th, 2011

Stjean, I asked for evidence, and your reply is, “I do believe the 19 year old man may have been sexually abused by Stephen Starr but is too ashamed to admit it.”

In other words you don’t know that Anderson was abused. By your own admission you’re making a false accusation.

DN

February 17th, 2011

You know, when it came to your mutilation-after-death answer, I wanted to respond with a question.

I was going to ask if you’d be so glib about the posthumouse mutilation of one particuloar victim from the 1990s.

To remind myself of the exact details, I googled the incident, and I found photos – famous photos. And I nearly threw up. Out of respect for the other posters here, out of respect for our gracious hosts, and *above all* out of respect for the murdered and mutilated man and his family, I won’t.

I just watned you to know that. You see, unlike you, I think of a man being mutliated (alive or dead) and it makes me sick. And now, after (virtually) meeting you, I can be happy. Because now I know that no matter what bad things may come my way in life… I will never be as sick as you.

Timothy Kincaid

February 17th, 2011

Your turn now.

Sorry, Stjean, I don’t reason with evil.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Timothy Kincaid, you say that you don’t reason with evil, but you certainly see nothing wrong with the alleged evil deed of homosexual sex abuse that Stephen Starr is accused of.

Timothy Kincaid

February 17th, 2011

stjean,

you are the only person on the planet accusing Starr of abuse and, as I think you are evil, I won’t be debating you.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Thorbert McGee is a 2nd 1 who says that the scenario of Stephen Starr being a cowardly homosexual sex abuser is possible right in these posts so you’re either not reading all the posts or you’re a liar.

Timothy Kincaid

February 17th, 2011

Nope. Throbert did not accuse Starr of abuse.

I still don’t debate evil.

Throbert McGee

February 17th, 2011

Stjean, please don’t invoke me as your ally.

I think we should not exclude the possibility that Anderson was telling the truth when he said that Starr had made sexual advances towards him — but that’s as far as I’m willing to speculate.

I assume that the police are scouring the email correspondence of Anderson and Starr to help establish the chronology of their relationship and also possibly to establish premeditation by Anderson. So it may turn out that there was more sexual hanky-panky than Anderson admitted to in the 911 call, and that Starr’s interests in the young man were more prurient than he’d led his neighbors to believe. OR it may turn out that Anderson had been plotting to extort money from Starr but was discovered, and the “gay panic” was something more of an “oh-sh*t-he’s- going-to-call-the-cops-on-me-for- extortion panic.” OR it may turn out that Anderson had a prior history of impulsive violence and homophobic outbursts, and an innocent man died because of a young cretin’s drug-amplified irrational hatred.

But we’ll just have to wait and see what’s discovered in the investigation.

Throbert McGee

February 17th, 2011

What may have happened is that Stephen Starr pretended to be this teenager’s friend, by taking him as a roomate, taking him to a homosexual pub where he put may have have put mind bending drugs in his drink incl. Musinex.

*snicker*

In general, dextromethorphan would be an odd choice as a “date rape” drug, because people who are high on it tend to feel very alert and edgy, rather than drowsy and accommodating.

And Mucinex DM would be a particularly unlikely choice to sneak into someone’s drink, because (a) depending on the formulation, you’d need 5 or 10 or more tablets to produce a “mind bending” effect, and (b) it’s an “extended release” medicine that’s designed to dissolve relatively slowly in stomach acid. So trying to slip a half-dozen Mucinex pills into someone’s gin & tonic without them noticing would be pretty futile.

stjean

February 17th, 2011

Throbert McGee, I didn’t say that you were my ally-meant that even if you admit that this is a possibility though you believe I’m a homophobe & hey, I proudly admit this. Before continuing I must address something Regan DuCasse has said. Regan DuCasse mentions that she is a cop who as a policewoman has had to deal with lewd prisoners among other things. Well Regan DuCasse as a cop is held to a higher standard & she can’t expect ordinary people to react the same way that a cop would because a cops job is to deal with that conduct.

But to continue with Stephen Starr. I don’t believe the 19 year old man was plotting to extort money. Stephen Starr said this 19 year old was as his adopted son to his friends. If this is so, then he had no right to even ask this teenager for sex-an adopted father seeking to commit homosexual incest.
If an adult man adopted a teenage girl, it would be incestous for him to ask her for sex even if she is of age of consent.

I’ve thought more about this & if it’s true Stephen Starr took this boy as his adopted son as he told his friends he was, he had no right to even ask him for sex even if this teenager was of legal age. I guess another way it could be written as is teenage boy kills adtoptive homosexual father in reaction to homosexual incest.

Finally it’s my view that most of the ‘homophobic’ violence which happens is men reacting to abuse crimes which homosexuals 1st commit whether it’s the eg. given grabbing groins against will or sex abuse, homosexuals harassing men & men react by beating up or killing homosexual. Anyhow those are the added thoughts.

Kristie

February 18th, 2011

The guys story is ridiculous! He was so out of it on Mucinex that he didn’t know what he was doing but he was lucid enough to make not one but two posts on facebook about the killing? Sorry, if I was on a jury I would have no problem putting this little creep in line for a lethal injection.

And the whole “gay panic” thing holds no water. Even if you believe that this was the first time he had ever met the victim, the fact is that he went to a gay bar of his own free will, picked up a man there and went home with the guy. Yet, he claims he was surprised that the guy came onto him sexually? And, even if you believe that he suddenly “turned straight again” and was not interested in any kind of sexual activity with this poor guy, there’s this thing called, leaving…maybe he should have tried that before he took an axe to someone!

Adam

February 18th, 2011

stjean: Just to clear something up, I’m not making any judgments about whether Starr abused Anderson. The facts around their relationship are cloudy (to say the least), and I don’t even think that Anderson can say categorically whether he gave consent to any activity that (may or may not have) taken place between them. But I will say here that the relationship seems much more intimate prior to the murder than Anderson is letting on, what with his familiarity with Starr’s home and all the rest.

My point is that it doesn’t actually matter. Anderson brutally murdered a sleeping man. The evidence we’ve seen certainly doesn’t support any justification for that. The only justification I can imagine for a private citizen to kill another without due process of law is self-defence or defence of another person. Starr was asleep; Anderson was not acting in self-defence. It is as simple as that.

If Starr had sexually abused Anderson* that’s wrong and also, I note, illegal; we have a whole system set up to deal with stuff like that. It does not justify cold-blooded murder. You think otherwise because you’re blinded by your hatred of gay people. You are not rational. You are, not to put too fine a point on it, evil.

* For the sake of argument – I hate to even hypothetically impugn Starr in these circumstances.

Donny D.

February 18th, 2011

I’d like to ask any and all moderators of Box Turtle Bulletin this question:

Why is the anti-gay murder justifier and Nazi apologist still being allowed to post?

stjean

February 18th, 2011

Thinking more about this there are some other things that wasn’t considered but now has. It deals with what was this 19 year old boys mental status? Was this boy’s IQ that of a 13 year old rather than 19 year old? Stephen Starr took this boy in & told his friends he was his adopted father. Maybe he intended to be this boy’s guardian & if this is true, then as I mentioned earlier he had no right to even ask him
for sex.

But if it also turns out that this boy’s mental impairment was so bad that he can’t fully understand what sex is, then Stephen Starr committed abuse because it’s a crime to have sex with some1 whose mental faculties are so impaired that they can’t lucidly understand. Of course, these would be things that experts would debate.

Another speculation would be that Stephen Starr took this mentally troubled boy knowing full well what his mental problems were & he thought this boy wouldn’t do anything, but the boy took his revenge. If all this is true, then Stephen Starr is a homosexual coward who was killed in revenge even if now Kristie & others want to side with Stephen Starr.

Ok, I see something wrong with homosexuality, but I believe that when you’re the guardian of a kid (even of legal consent), you have no right to ask them to have sex with you whether it’s straight or homosexual. Stephen Starr took this kid to be as he says his adopted son, then he should’ve treated him like his adopted son & not like a sex toy.

Okay Adam, I agree with you that if this was a revenge killing, the boy should be punished, but it would be manslaughter or @ most 2nd Degree but not 1st. A jury will decide that. Yes, you must call the cops if sex abuse happens, but I can understand why this boy acted the way he did presuming Stephen Starr did what I’ve been writing about here.

Finally, if an underage ‘homophobic’ teenager kills an adult homosexual, then further thinking about this, there’s a good possibility that the teenager killed the homosexual because the homosexual harassed him. Adults have no right to make ‘passes’ @ teenagers as 18 is the consent age & if a 15 year old boy kills a 25 year old homosexual after the homosexual has harassed him, the way I see it, the boy killed him in reaction to a crime. Whether his reaction was just or excess will be for a jury to decide & if it was excessive, they’ll decide what charge to convict on.

Adam

February 18th, 2011

stjean: You don’t get it. You are starting from the assumption that gay people are inherently sexually abusive, and then building a whole tottering edifice of justification on that single, flawed assumption.

You don’t know about the relationship between Starr and Anderson. You don’t know what physical contact occurred between Starr and Anderson. You have absolutely no idea, no evidence at all, on which to base your conclusion that Anderson might have been justified in what he did. The fact that Anderson might possibly, perhaps, maybe have been reacting to unwanted sexual attention is not a rational basis from which to proceed down the path of digusting conjecture and defamation you’ve pursued. And even if Anderson were so reacting, brutally murdering Starr in his sleep was not justified.

The fact that you seem to think that a punishment for brutally murdering a gay person should be less severe then for similarly killing anyone else betrays your hatred. Gay people no more deserve to be unlawfully killed than anyone else, and it is the fact that you are making excuses and apologies for murdering gay people that makes you evil. That and the fact that you found it appropriate to contrast the murder of innocent German children with the murder of Starr, and conclude that the murder of Starr was justified because he might have sexually abused someone. Just like those German kids might have been Nazis, right? You’re either a very persistent troll, or a very sick individual. Or both, in all probability.

stjean

February 18th, 2011

Adam, the contrast I made with innocent German children & Stephen Starr is that the German children did nothing to provoke their attacker & even if their parents were Nazis, the Poles, Czechs & other neighbors had no right to kill them-it was brutal 1st Degree Murder of innocent kids.

My point about Stephen Starr is that the contrast here is that Stephen Starr may have provoked & abused his attacker before he was killed. There’s a difference between beating up or killing some1 who has harmed you (as Stephen Starr is alleged)vs. killing some1 who did no harm to you & the German kids were innocent. The German kids would be innocent victims & Stephen Starr would be a guilty victim.

What has been my observation is that some of the same people (perhaps posters here) who empathize with Stephen Starr even if he did abuse (your code unwanted sexual attention) this 19 year old often think that the killing of ethnic Germans after the war by Poles, Czechs, etc. was excusable because of what the Nazis did & interestingly I’ve even heard Germans excuse these deeds. BTW, I’m not German & I’m not Polish, not Czech & certainly not Jewish. It’s interesting that Donnie D would call me a Nazi apologist because I gave the fact that in SOME Cases the Nazis killed bad people-Stalin’s Commie Soviet Commissars.

But Adam, you overlook the main point which I’m making here. Adopted parents have no right to ask their adopted children to have sex with them. I would also be against a 36 year old man asking a 19 year old girl he says is his adopted daughter to have sex with him, so it’s also against straight sex abuse. If a 36 year old man wants to have sex with a 19 year old girl, there are other women he can get, but not the 1 he adopts as his daughter.

So with this case, it doesn’t matter if this 19 year old boy was on mind bending drugs, Musinex, etc. because Stephen Starr as this boy’s defacto guardian has no right to even do your code ‘unwanted sexual attention’ to this 19 year old to start with. But here’s how a jury may decide this case if it’s tried.

A defense lawyer would say that Stephen Starr pretended to have the boy’s interests to help him knowing full well that the boy had mental issues, when he really wanted to have sex with him by pretending to be this boy’s defacto guardian. Further, the lawyer could also say that the 19 year old boy’s mental disability (if experts can confirm this) such as him having the IQ of a minor made him incapable of consent. The defense would then say that Stephen Starr exploited this mentally disturbed teen sexually & got killed by his victim, after which the victim chopped & mutilated his body in reaction to this abuse (panic as homosexuals call it).

A jury after reviewing both the prosecution & the defense would then decide what the verdict should be. They could convict the boy of Manslaughter if they believe there was sufficient provocation & abuse by Stephen Starr to have caused this boy to kill him while he was sleeping. The jury may consider what I’ve been saying-adults are not supposed to have sex (straight or homo) with youths they say are their adopted children.

That’s my summary here. Stephen Starr by passing this boy off as his adopted son had no right to start with to ask him for sex. Even if Stephen Starr did not have sex with his 19 year old adopted son, just asking him for sex is sexual harassment in & of itself, so people can call this a ‘pass’ but it’s sexual harassment.

Jim Burroway

February 18th, 2011

stjean has accused a murder victim of molestation and compares him to nazis, and other monsters. He arrives at his indictment through any actual evidence, but through the use of a lot of conjectures, assumptions, biases, maybes, probablies, and could haves — oh, and he finds the word of an axe-murderer as completely, perfectly, totally credible. I suppose he might also accept the word of Charles Manson or Ted Bundy with similar ease. At any rate, we’ve all had our fun with this troll. He is on moderation.

Christopher

February 18th, 2011

Stjean, having been called out for defamation I’m glad you’ve toned down your rhetoric, admitting that Starr “may have provoked & abused his attacker before he was killed”, but you still have no evidence that abuse took place. And, strangely, you seem to continue to insist that if abuse did take place it might be considered a justification for murder.

As for the “adoption”, that may not have been a legal adoption. Starr may have simply been using the term rhetorically. We really don’t know the context of his statement.

Also, you keep referring to Anderson as a “boy” or a “youth”, but he was nineteen when he chose to move in with Starr. He was, when he chose to move in with Anderson, legally an adult.

Adam

February 18th, 2011

“the German children did nothing to provoke their attacker & even if their parents were Nazis, the Poles, Czechs & other neighbors had no right to kill them-it was brutal 1st Degree Murder of innocent kids.”

Let’s see how well this analogy could apply to the actual scenario under discussion:

“[Starr] did nothing to provoke [his] attacker & even if [other gay people have acted abusively in the past*], Anderson had no right to kill [him]-it was brutal 1st degree murder of [an] innocent [person].”

(* This is fallacy nested in fallacy: I’m sure that there are gay people who have acted abusively in the past, but there’s no evidence to suggest that gay people are more likely to be abusive than anyone else.)

You do not know that Starr acted abusively towards Anderson; you are using the fact that Starr was gay to assume that he was abusive, just like those Poles and Czechs you condemn used the fact that the children were German to assume they were Nazis. You are committing the same fallacy as the child-murderers, and somehow conclude this is a defence of Starr’s murderer.

You have been reduced to arguing that Starr abused this purported adoptive relationship in order to have sex with Anderson. You still have no evidence that the reality unfolded as you have painted it. You start from the conclusion that Starr must have sexually abused Anderson, and work backwards to concoct some crazy chain of events to support that conclusion. You are raving. And even if by some cosmic unlikelihood your insane and paranoid delusion reflects the reality of the matter, Anderson is still completely unjustified: he still brutally murdered Starr in his sleep, and Anderson still has no defence for doing so.

Adam

February 18th, 2011

Thanks, Jim. I have the SIWOTI bad. Sorry for feeding the troll quite such a rich feast.

Priya Lynn

February 18th, 2011

Stjean said “Timothy Kincaid, you say that you don’t reason with evil, but you certainly see nothing wrong with the alleged evil deed of homosexual sex abuse that Stephen Starr is accused of.”.

The only person that’s accused Starr of sexual abuse is you and as you have no evidence you don’t count. Anderson said he did not allow Starr to touch him. No one has accused Starr of sexual abuse.

Richard Rush

February 18th, 2011

Is Stjean an alias of Scott Lively?

Donny D.

February 18th, 2011

Jim Burroway wrote:

At any rate, we’ve all had our fun with this troll. He is on moderation.

Thank you, Jim.