Officer who beat transgender woman while in custody sentenced to two years in prison.

Links234

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/may/17/former-memphis-officer-sentenced-two-years-prison/

In 2008, Duanna Johnson was beaten by an officer while in custody, who put his handcuffs around his knuckles and repeatedly punched her in the head, then she was found later that year murdered, she had been shot in the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IAPTk69XPo

Her murder still remains unsolved.

AndrewJD

His sentence also included tax evasion convictions (99 dependants... lol). It also notes how neither attacker of victim was seriously injured.

Someone with more legal knowledge could help me here: he was convicted on "civil rights" issues - are these to do with the attack on a person or the rights specifically of a transgender person? What I'm getting at is whether or not this story has anything to do with her transgenderism, or just general brutality. The article otherwise seems to suggest it isn't.

wonderfulname

AndrewJD wrote: »

His sentence also included tax evasion convictions (99 dependants... lol). It also notes how neither attacker of victim was seriously injured.

Someone with more legal knowledge could help me here: he was convicted on "civil rights" issues - are these to do with the attack on a person or the rights specifically of a transgender person? What I'm getting at is whether or not this story has anything to do with her transgenderism, or just general brutality. The article otherwise seems to suggest it isn't.

Its against anyone's civil rights to be mistreated in custody. It appears that another Memphis officer was convicted of the exact same offence last year in relation to someone with no minority stature. link.

I'm not getting into whether or not this was a "hate crime" or similar, I don't know enough on the case to comment and in all fairness there's enough of that kind of conversation on here at the moment. What I will say is that just because the conviction does not mention whether the victims gender identity was a factor in the incident, this does not mean that it wasn't, Tennessee legislation may not take such things into account.

AndrewJD

Awesome thanks.

FrozenUp

He was a police officer? That's the worst profession to have had upon entering jail; they'll make his life miserable.

Links234

FrozenUp wrote: »

He was a police officer? That's the worst profession to have had upon entering jail; they'll make his life miserable.

Yep, and he's going to Federal "Pound me in the ass" Prison.

hare05

Links234 wrote: »

Yep, and he's going to Federal "Pound me in the ass" Prison.

Taking bets, will he be for or against Westboro B*stards when he gets out?

Odds depend on who he bumps... I mean, bunks with.

bitter_lemon

FrozenUp wrote: »

He was a police officer? That's the worst profession to have had upon entering jail; they'll make his life miserable.

it is one of the two worst professions to have upon entering jail. i can't speak for the US way of "treating their own". but if its anyway like ireland i am sure he will get preferential treatment. he will not be mixing with the general population.
and all he has to do is go on protection which he will do.

however it is interesting to see how people can joke about him "getting a pounding up the ass"! etc etc.
very interesting yet again where one person has civil liberties because of their sex/ gender and others don't

Rev Hellfire

bitter_lemon wrote: »

however it is interesting to see how people can joke about him "getting a pounding up the ass"! etc etc.
very interesting yet again where one person has civil liberties because of their sex/ gender and others don't

I was think the same myself, an interesting sentiment for a lgb forum.

Links234

bitter_lemon wrote: »

however it is interesting to see how people can joke about him "getting a pounding up the ass"! etc etc.

...

it's an Office Space reference :rolleyes:

We get caught laundering money, we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison

bitter_lemon

Links234 wrote: »

...

it's an Office Space reference :rolleyes:

[/I]

oh well thats ok then
all i know is if i said the same thing about a transgendered person in jest i would be banned for a long long time.

Links234

I'm not going to help you derail yet another thread by getting into an argument with you, bitter lemon, it's beyond tiresome at this point. go ahead and report my posts if you have a problem with anything I've said.

bitter_lemon

i'm not derailing anything. i have as much right to air my view here as you. just because it does not go with the general consensus does not mean it is not valid.
i look at things outside the box. i am not consumed by my sexuality and give everything an even playing ground.


its not my style to report people. i rather have a discussion and debate. but you obviously see it as attacking you.
it was not my intention.

rainbow kirby

Both of you lay off it - stay on topic please.

Links234

well I'm not arguing with you

Meesared

Links234 wrote: »

...

it's an Office Space reference :rolleyes:

[/I]

I love that movie!

SugarHigh

I'm not sure why this story suddenly becomes interesting just because a trans gendered person was involved. Should black people take an interest just because she was black?

I'm really not even sure what discussion you are hoping to have. Someone got beat up and the person got charged.

wonderfulname

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm not sure why this story suddenly becomes interesting just because a trans gendered person was involved. Should black people take an interest just because she was black?

If she claimed he called her a n***** I'm sure they would.

rainbow kirby

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm not sure why this story suddenly becomes interesting just because a trans gendered person was involved. Should black people take an interest just because she was black?

I'm really not even sure what discussion you are hoping to have. Someone got beat up and the person got charged.

This is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender forum. If people want to discuss something in relation to a news story where the victim's gender identity was a factor, this is the most appropriate place for it. Clearly, because people have replied to the original post, they *do* want to discuss it.

SugarHigh

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender forum. If people want to discuss something in relation to a news story where the victim's gender identity was a factor, this is the most appropriate place for it. Clearly, because people have replied to the original post, they *do* want to discuss it.

She was not beaten because she was transgendered she was beaten for not doing what the officer told her to do. She wouldn't respond to her legal name and was depending to be called a name which she isn't legally entitled to be called, she should have changed her name. You can't just depend to be called what you like.

She didn't deserve the attack but there isn't any reason to think it wouldn't have happened to anyone who was refusing to follow orders. If she did what she was told it wouldn't have happened.

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

She was not beaten because she was transgendered she was beaten for not doing what the officer told her to do. She wouldn't respond to her legal name and was depending to be called a name which she isn't legally entitled to be called, she should have changed her name. You can't just depend to be called what you like.

She didn't deserve the attack but there isn't any reason to think it wouldn't have happened to anyone who was refusing to follow orders. If she did what she was told it wouldn't have happened.

That's a very definite statement of fact that she wasn't beaten because she was transgender. What proof have you got to make such a statement?

SugarHigh

Johnnymcg wrote: »

That's a very definite statement of fact that she wasn't beaten because she was transgender. What proof have you got to make such a statement?

I think the burden of proof is obviously on those claiming she was beaten because she was transgender. It's just another cop beating until you prove otherwise.

If she did what she was told there wouldn't have been motiv to beat her.

Annasopra

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think the burden of proof is obviously on those claiming she was beaten because she was transgender. It's just another cop beating until you prove otherwise.

If she did what she was told there wouldn't have been motiv to beat her.

I'm not claiming proof of anything; I'm pointing out that you are making statements of fact with absolutely no basis whatsoever

wonderfulname

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think the burden of proof is obviously on those claiming she was beaten because she was transgender. It's just another cop beating until you prove otherwise.

If she did what she was told there wouldn't have been motiv to beat her.

Nobody did, you're the only one claiming anything.

SugarHigh

wonderfulname wrote: »

Nobody did, you're the only one claiming anything.

If the op doesn't think it was because she was transgender wh make the thread? It's just another cop assault which really has nothing to do with this forum. Should we have a thread every time a transgender gets a speeding ticket?

wonderfulname

SugarHigh wrote: »

If the op doesn't think it was because she was transgender wh make the thread? It's just another cop assault which really has nothing to do with this forum. Should we have a thread every time a transgender gets a speeding ticket?

Maybe the OP recognises that it is highly likely that if the scenario was exactly the same except the victim had been born a woman and merely disliked her birth name then its highly probable the cop wouldn't have assaulted her?

Nobody here is screaming hate crime, however nobody is stupid enough to think that that's not a distinct probability, that probability is what brought the story to this forum, don't like it, don't read it.

bitter_lemon

SugarHigh wrote: »

She was not beaten because she was transgendered she was beaten for not doing what the officer told her to do. She wouldn't respond to her legal name and was depending to be called a name which she isn't legally entitled to be called, she should have changed her name. You can't just depend to be called what you like.

She didn't deserve the attack but there isn't any reason to think it wouldn't have happened to anyone who was refusing to follow orders. If she did what she was told it wouldn't have happened.

i 100% agree with you. surprise surprise
she was beaten more than likely because she continuously refused a direct order/ request. anybody in the same situation would have received the same. there is no sound on the clip? who goaded who? how many times has she been through the system?

he was out of order for doing it big time and he is paying dearly for it now.

i don't see the need for such posts
equality is equality.

wonderfulname

bitter_lemon wrote: »

she was beaten more than likely because she continuously refused a direct order/ request. anybody in the same situation would have received the same.

Could you please explain how this is rational? If the guards beat up every cheeky scumbag that darkened their door there'd be no police service left in the country. Do you genuinely believe his reaction is normal, or have you just gone too far in attempting to justify your judgement of the situation, when, in reality, no judgement can be made.

Links234

Just to point out that the officer didn't call her by her legal name, he called her "******" and "he-she"

and yes, I'm concerned about this because she's transgender.

bitter_lemon

wonderfulname wrote: »

Could you please explain how this is rational? If the guards beat up every cheeky scumbag that darkened their door there'd be no police service left in the country. Do you genuinely believe his reaction is normal, or have you just gone too far in attempting to justify your judgement of the situation, when, in reality, no judgement can be made.

i have already said it was wrong. it was a disgrace. how are you reading my posts? it would be super if you could quote the rest of my post. thanks :rolleyes:

wonderfulname

bitter_lemon wrote: »

it would be super if you could quote the rest of my post. thanks

Why? I quote solely what I'm replying to for clarity. "he was out of order for doing it big time and he is paying dearly for it now" made no sense to me on my first few reads, still hurts my head but in light of your clarification I'm sorry.

bitter_lemon

wonderfulname wrote: »

Why? I quote solely what I'm replying to for clarity. "he was out of order for doing it big time and he is paying dearly for it now" made no sense to me on my first few reads, still hurts my head but in light of your clarification I'm sorry.

there was a lot said here that was removed. and my clarification was self evident. thank you for quoting the other bit of my post! we cannot pick and choose what we would like to reply to.

wonderfulname

bitter_lemon wrote: »

there was a lot said here that was removed. and my clarification was self evident. thank you for quoting the other bit of my post! we cannot pick and choose what we would like to reply to.

Most of it I didn't have a response to, what could I possibly have to say to you merely agreeing with someone? And that sentence did not make sense to me. Remember I'm reading your post, not listening to you speak.

I don't know if you're insinuating that I intentionally perceived you as claiming the incident was normal or that there is some unwritten rule that one cannot address a single point of interest in a discussion without addressing each in turn, either way you're wrong. This is my last post on this, its ridiculously off topic, PM if you need to reply.