Colorado Case Law & Special Prosecution for ..

In the news this afternoon is a case in which a man was found guilty of murdering another man who tricked him into thinking he was a woman. I know for certain if the man murdered really had been a woman,the violent abuser would not have even been tried in court! He would have been given a "defense" of cocaine use and 'bipolar" and 'suicidal' and he'd be given a punishment of attending a class once a week to talk about how miserable he was/is, and a two year so-called probation where he would dress up in business shirt and 'check in' to be seen with his "probation officer' .

Now here's the thing: why is the U.S. as a nation accepting tiered law : one set of laws for homosexuals, and a different set of laws for heterosexuals? Is not the US supposed to have a concept of equal justice for all? I am reasonably sure that the laws of the US Constitution include the concept and words that the same laws apply to everyone equally? Yet, a man pretending to be a woman to trick a man into homosexual activity was apparently afforded 'more' justice than other citizens in the State of Colorado would be given, because he was considered perverted by both his attacker and the public at large. I am not excusing murder! Murder of anyone is wrong and not just murder of homosexuals. However, the defense for the murderer is missing the best opportunity to reestablish the concept of 'fighting words' and the right to be treated the same as other persons convicted of violent crimes. I testify that my second exhusband was guilty of violent crimes against me and the State of Colorado did nothing whatsoever to punish him in any meaningful way but made excuses for him, covered for him, even wrote letters 'excusing' his violence because he was whacked on cocaine when he was hurting me. I did not accept those reasons as being just and do not believe that i had any justice in the events that happened to me that left me with a limp, and a wobbly gait forever. So in the interest of the concept of 'equal justice' for all I suggest this defense for the man that killed that homosexual man named Justin. 1) Tell the prosecutors he was on cocaine at the time and send him to one of the list of so-called behaviour management programs and get them to attest that he tested positive for cocaine in writing and submit that to the Judge and the Jury. 2) Then go to the State of Colorado and give a big donation to a State legislator and ask him for a letter about how much good he does for the democratic party, and submit that to the Judge.3) Then tell the prosecutor that your client [the man who murdered that Zapata person] is 'suicidal' and might harm himself and get a letter from a loosey-goosey 'psychiatrist' on the State's approved list of those allowed to create 'reasons' for crimes, and put in writing how 'disturbed' he is,and submit that to the Court. These three tactics worked very well for my second then-husband and he was never punished in any way.
Equal justice is NOT the law in Colorado but if you make a case for it using this case, then maybe it would be some day, and then not only homosexuals would have the court's 'protection' but also heterosexuals too.
/s/ Gloria Poole, Denver CO 80203; 22-April -2009 at 6:40 PM, MT
@ 6:51 PM I realized I could add more help to the defense of the man accused of killing a man trying to trick him into sodomy. Though I do not ever approve of killing and that is not my point; but to make the concept of equal justice apply to all situations. In the U.S. it is generally considered acceptable by Judges in Courts of law to murder the innocents in the womb for these reasons:
1) the person was 'inconvenient' to the other person and had to be eliminated.
2) the person [in the womb] arrived untimely and had to be eliminated;
3) the person [in the womb] had no financial support from the person's father [unwed mother] and therefore had to be killed;
4) the person [in the womb] had to killed because the person in the womb was interfering with the lifestyle of the other person.
Therefore if these 'rules' could be applied to the innocents,why not to the wicked? Tricking a man into sodomy is not acceptable to most men, I would think. I am a woman but I cannot think of any respectable man who would not be enraged by that.
Now in case you don't know by now, I consider all of these reasons for murder abominable and protest them vehemently; but they are what heathens call 'law' in the U.S. so why not apply them to this situation? The man who killed Zapata could make all of these arguments in his defense and why should he not--the US Constitution says equal justice for all doesn't it? So if there is a so-called right to kill inconvenient people that exists for women, should men who happened upon an untimely inconvenient and lying deceitful treacherous person who interfered with his 'lifestyle' be denied that same so -called right? In other words, why is there a 'right' to kill inconvenient persons that exist only for women and abortionists? Shouldn't men have the same 'rights' as women including the right to kill those inconvenient to them? Isn't Colorado the wild west where the gun-slinger makes the laws? Is there in reality a three tiered system of law? One for wicked women [aborting women] and wicked men [sodomites] and a different tier for heterosexual women who don't kill their offspring, and a different tier for men than women?
What say ye?