U.S. Marine jailed in Philippines for killing transgender woman

a reply to: Domo1


Do you think she deserved to die for that?

a reply to: Domo1

One could argue that a mouth has no gender.

On a serious note - I agree with you in large part - if dishonesty can be rape (and it can be - I do believe tricking someone into having sex is considered rape) - then you are correct. However, the "defense" argument?

And I still question whether this was rape or not. How do you not tell a man from a woman?

I guess the Marines are getting lax in 'life training' - we got the horror stories about that in basic.

originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Domo1
And I still question whether this was rape or not. How do you not tell a man from a woman?

It can be very very difficult with some guys, especially if they're on hormone therapy.

If you're ever in New Orleans, it's a common hazard.

a reply to: scorpio84

You've never seen the ladieboys have you. You'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between a man and woman, and in most cases couldn't tell them apart.

Ia reply to: Zaphod58

I saw her pics and to be honest, in the Philipines, I would have stayed away.

My rule is, if there is any question, stay away.

a reply to: intelligenthoodlum33

Of course not. I just don't think it's acceptable to withhold that sort of information.

So I said I would most likely break a nose. I should get charged with assault in that scenario. I'm not saying it's at all OK, but that I understand emotions can go wild when you're tricked into sex.

If anything I was trying to say I would be pissed off enough to do something terrible, but that wouldn't include murder.

If I'm being honest, I would probably punch someone if they didn't tell me beforehand they were transgender or whatever. I'm not saying it's right, but I shouldn't have to ask. If I got tricked, I would expect to be informed before the deed. If I wasn't, I'd be furious. I'd be in the wrong in the eyes of the law most likely, but I don't always agree with that sort of conviction.

For the record, if I was walking down the street and saw someone transgendered getting harassed or beat up, I wouldn't hesitate to set upon the jackasses causing harm. I may not understand you, but I'm going to go ahead and love you. Treat me the same way please. Respect how I feel about certain things, and I'll treat you the same.

a reply to: intelligenthoodlum33

I haven't looked, but I've seen some that no matter how closely you looked you'd never be able to tell they were a man.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: scorpio84

You've never seen the ladieboys have you. You'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between a man and woman, and in most cases couldn't tell them apart.

I lived in Thailand for 6 years and I live in the Philippines now. I've seen them and, yes, I can spot them. Next assumption about me?

a reply to: Zaphod58

The hands are the give-away in most cases. Barring that, shoulders should clue you in.

Of course, there's also the question of attitude. Ladyboys - especially the kind that will walk away with a foreigner for sex (I'm assuming this was a cash-exchange scenario, not a long term gf of his) - are obvious purely by their attitude. Even female hookers have a little more demure than ladyboys.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
m.aol.com...=3204476

A Philippine court on Tuesday found a U.S. Marine guilty of killing a transgender woman, jailing him for six to 12 years in a case that has reignited debate over the American military presence in the country.

He will serve a minimum of six years and a maximum of 12 years in jail. Laude had been charged with murder but was convicted of the lesser offense of homicide, which does not require malicious intent.

He can appeal against the verdict and sentence.

An appeal can be expected as he has denied killing the woman in question.

Pemberton had earlier admitted in court to choking, but not killing, Laude.

He told the court he acted in self-defense after he discovered that a man was giving him oral sex, not a woman.

I wonder how he found out?


They're in the midst of deciding where he will serve out his time.


To be honest, I thought 6-12 years was a pretty lenient sentence.

But it's homocide apparently, not murder with malicious intent...

Makes sense, all he did was strangle her to death, surely that rules out malicious intent. /sarc

Lenient?

You do realize he was raped? It's sexual assault at the very least.

Love the double standards. If this was a woman who was raped/assaulted by a man, she'd be getting a medal of honor.

I'm going to change my position on this - not from a desire to be wishy-washy, but from the fact I learned more than I knew. I hate admitting to being wrong, but hopefully it will be seen as a good quality by some:

Anyhow, the Pemberton case came up on the news and I asked my wife about it, and learned the following:

-the victim already had a fiance
-the victim and Pemberton met while drinking (a bar, perhaps?)
-the victim came on to Pemberton, who was drunk at the time
-Pemberton smashed the victim's head on a toilet seat, killing her (or him, if you prefer)
-Pemberton was apparently still drunk at this time
- it was a quick reaction, and if Pemberton is to be believed, was not intended to kill (perhaps they were positioned in such a way that Pemberton shoved the victim's head into the toilet as a reflex)

Those points considered, if true...it's a tough call. We do need to consider that Pemberton was a). drunk and b). lied to and therefore had a moment of reacting without thinking.

originally posted by: scorpio84
I'm going to change my position on this - not from a desire to be wishy-washy, but from the fact I learned more than I knew. I hate admitting to being wrong, but hopefully it will be seen as a good quality by some:

Anyhow, the Pemberton case came up on the news and I asked my wife about it, and learned the following:

-the victim already had a fiance
-the victim and Pemberton met while drinking (a bar, perhaps?)
-the victim came on to Pemberton, who was drunk at the time
-Pemberton smashed the victim's head on a toilet seat, killing her (or him, if you prefer)
-Pemberton was apparently still drunk at this time
- it was a quick reaction, and if Pemberton is to be believed, was not intended to kill (perhaps they were positioned in such a way that Pemberton shoved the victim's head into the toilet as a reflex)

Those points considered, if true...it's a tough call. We do need to consider that Pemberton was a). drunk and b). lied to and therefore had a moment of reacting without thinking.

Rape by deception is what this is.

a reply to: OhOkYeah

What would be the normal judgment passed in such a case? I have no background in legal matters and "what should happen" and "what the law says" are different things. I do know that in the Philippines, if a man walks on his wife cheating and kills the pair, he can be acquitted. I wonder if it applies here, too - not the same law, but the same sentiment as "crime of passion" so to speak.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

You could argue it all you want, but if you willingly allow someone to perform a sexual act on you then it isn't.

I somewhat agree with you in that I would never have found myself in that position to begin with, but this is still rape by deception and frankly the marine acted in a way that I feel was justified. He did not intend to kill this guy, but he did want to kick the crap out of him.

Maybe it is manslaughter, but definitely not murder.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Metallicus

You could argue it all you want, but if you willingly allow someone to perform a sexual act on you then it isn't.

I somewhat agree with you in that I would never have found myself in that position to begin with, but this is still rape by deception and frankly the marine acted in a way that I feel was justified. He did not intend to kill this guy, but he did want to kick the crap out of him.

Maybe it is manslaughter, but definitely not murder.

TEll that to her family man. They needed her income. now shes dead due to some virgin over reacting.

In the US this marine would be in levinworth for murder not manslaughter. He was drunk and representing the marines for one. Hes lucky he was not a comissioned officer so he didnt get that double whammy.

Rape by deception. That defense rarely works because it does not excuse the action after the fact. HE flew into a rage because he felt like he had to cover his mistake and to cure or prevent his feeling gay.

a reply to: yuppa

I'm having a hard time understanding this.... Before the action (He was mentally raped?) after the fact it was just consensual sex?

I wouldn't acquit him. manslaughter seems fair at least to me. He may have not known that the head he got was from a man still didn't constitute killing him even by accident. I agree with you in that it's Possibly rape by deception but he still killed a man and should face the charges.

In that area of the world the lady boys are quite convincing as zaphod noted. Real hard to tell the difference but that's pretty well known. He should have went for a junk check and saved himself a manslaughter charge.




a reply to: Metallicus

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

He didn't kill a transgender woman, he killed a man that wanted to be a woman but was born a man.

I would have had a hard time containing my rage at the manipulation and deceipt myself.

a reply to: intelligenthoodlum33

It was not a "She".

It was an "It".

And "it" wasn't being honest to itself or anyone else.