Trial begins in slaying of transgender woman

[Grandpa Troll]

No it doesn't.

Ok, what does premeditated mean sir?

(trying to learn, not trolling)

[asleepathewheel]

I understand that, I was asking if this was being pursued, off your comment..i.e. making conversation, commenting off your comment, ect.

Thanks

seems to be the case:

[QUOTE]
Andrade has been charged with murder plus a bias-motivated crime./QUOTE]

[Grandpa Troll]

[QUOTE=asleepathewheel;5578291]seems to be the case:

Andrade has been charged with murder plus a bias-motivated crime./QUOTE]

See, glad you posted this, but this is an issue, this man has sexual relations with this woman (she felt she was, I have known many who were all woman but physically had landing gear versus landing strip) but became enraged when he found out this was a tranmsexual, killed her/him

Now, did he kill her because she lied?

or did he kill her because she had male organs?

The sex must have been at a minimum sufficient (I am being serious, not trolling, not jesting here folks) because he stayed.

I wonder did he kill her because he was a macho gang banger and didnt want his posse' to become aware of his encounter?

I know if he killed her, and if he is found guilty, he is a murderer, but my question is when does the hate crime come into play.

This was kind what I was headed toward, Im no lawyer, but as a former LawDawg, Federal Typpe, I know you have to prove intent as a minimum to take it up a notch in severity with most crimes

thanks

GT

[Darius871]

Ok, what does premeditated mean sir?

(trying to learn, not trolling)

Well, that is to say it means more than intent, not that intent isn't part of the picture. If you catch your wife cheating and blow her brains out in a fit of rage, you certainly "intended" to go grab a gun, aim it at her, and pull the trigger, a chain of events which can never be "reflexive" nor "accidental." Second and first degree murder both have an element of intent, as does manslaughter, because it's what distinguishes all three from the reckless disregard of risk or negligent unawareness of risk associated with involuntary manslaughter (aka criminally negligent homicide in some jurisdictions).

Terminologies for 1st degree murder vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (especially since the Model Penal Code came out), but the familiar phrase "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" is not a mere littany of synonyms; it's instead read by courts to grasp the distinctions of 1) bare "intent," 2) "measuring and evaluating major facets of a choice or problem," and 3) "thinking of an act and forming a plan prior to its execution."

It's correct that this defendant's final blow satisfied #1, but so did the first blows. Meanwhile #2-#3 do not have a bright-line "cutoff" point after an assailant believes the victim to be dead; it's entirely possible to have the fit of rage extend from his/her/it's revelation through the final blow, or that there were two separate fits of rage, or none of the above, since the question's up to the jury's discretion. However, since there's precisely no evidence that while cleaning up he spent minutes thinking about the possibility that he/she/it might still alive and formulated a plan to finish her off, as opposed to getting re-enraged by (or simply panicking at) him/her/it being alive and clunking him/her/it over the head within seconds of that stimulus, the prosecutor would have a tough case for #2-#3 without a damned sympathetic jury.

[Grandpa Troll]

Thanks for reply Darius871

[Wezil]

Now, did he kill her because she lied?

or did he kill her because she had male organs?

I wonder did he kill her because he was a macho gang banger and didnt want his posse' to become aware of his encounter?

This is one of the arguments against hate crime legislation. It requires proof of motive (or reverses onus to the defendant) which is something not usually required to be proven, for obvious reasons.

You've provided a couple motives above. I would add - Because he didn't want the victim to be able to tell police about the initial beating. Who knows?

[Grandpa Troll]

This is one of the arguments against hate crime legislation. It requires proof of motive (or reverses onus to the defendant) which is something not usually required to be proven, for obvious reasons.

You've provided a couple motives above. I would add - Because he didn't want the victim to be able to tell police about the initial beating. Who knows?

Correct

Thats why in my OP..I stated a crime is a crime..because of the shame, this person had inside her heart a beautiful womans life coming into full bloom, despite having been born a male.

She decided to live that life, albeit making a costly judgement call by going with a badboy figure, and paying the consequences.

I try to love all people, it pains me when people kill folks, not in self defense, not when someone took the plight of another up (you see someone being abused and step in and kill someone) but in acts just like this.

Pure shame

R.I.P.

[SlowwHand]

You know why I think he did it? It was either that he thought if anyone found out that he'd be embarrassed; or compounding that thought, he actually found her desireable to some degree. I think it disturbed his machismo.

[Grandpa Troll]

You know why I think he did it? It was either that he thought if anyone found out that he'd be embarrassed; or compounding that thought, he actually found her desireable to some degree. I think it disturbed his machismo.

This was my first and still is my thoughts

No evidence, but I think he feared what others might think.

I would wager many in society, if no reprisals or no retribution, would come clean on many inner thoughts amnd desires.

Perhaps then the perverbial "closet" would return to a word associated strictly with a place to hang clothes and place shoes, not a place to hide secrets.

GT

[Jon Miller]

Throwing the hate-crime charge on these facts imho does a disservice to real victims of hate-crimes. I do believe that transgender and homosexuals should be included in hate-crimes legislation, if there is such a charge/enhancement in the jurisdiction, but this is a plain-ole murder to me. Unless this is an extraordinarily liberal jurisdiction, the hate crime is going to be tough to get a conviction on, therefore, it probably should not have been charged as such, particularly in light of the fact that he is going to go to prison regardless and the hate aspect can be used at sentencing.

They are going to have a real hard time showing that the murderer would have done this mostly based on the transgender nature of the victim. There is no evidence that anything bad would have happened at all if the victim and the murderer hadn't had sex.

And I think GT and Sloww read too much of themselves into the occurrence.

JM

[Grandpa Troll]

They are going to have a real hard time showing that the murderer would have done this mostly based on the transgender nature of the victim. There is no evidence that anything bad would have happened at all if the victim and the murderer hadn't had sex.

And I think GT and Sloww read too much of themselves into the occurrence.

JM

JM, not sure what you mean?

I have posted an article, voiced an opinion, such as yourself.

Unclear what you mean?

For the record, I have never murdered anyone, nor have I been a Gang-Banger

Thanks for the explanation if you would

GT

[The Mad Monk]

Plato's son?!? Crikey!

I was wondering when you would catch up.

[Jon Miller]

JM, not sure what you mean?

I have posted an article, voiced an opinion, such as yourself.

Unclear what you mean?

For the record, I have never murdered anyone, nor have I been a Gang-Banger

Thanks for the explanation if you would

GT

You keep going on about machismo, occasionally bring religion in (although there is no evidence that anyone was religious, and gangbangers normally aren't), and not being honest about inner desires (which might have been the case of you a while back, but isn't the case with everyone).

JM

[Grandpa Troll]

You keep going on about machismo, occasionally bring religion in (although there is no evidence that anyone was religious, and gangbangers normally aren't), and not being honest about inner desires (which might have been the case of you a while back, but isn't the case with everyone).

JM

JM, I dont mind explaining myself:

Machisom because of being in a gang is about proving your self to peers, most times up to and including violent acts

I brought up religion to start with because many times here at Apolytoners (No not all but a lot) are prejudiced against Christians so i was merely Quantifying my post by stating yes i am a Christian but have no ill will toward this lady who chose to try and fulfill her life choice. that was my point, i do apologize to anyone if that was misunderstaood.

Who's inner desires? if your talking about the gangbangers, it was merely a suggestion JM, nothing more, much like you and everyone else here, suggests things that may or may not be, basically, we are on an internet forum, discussing points of view is all

Just trying to clarify

Hope this helps my friend

Brother Bruce

[Grandpa Troll]

Guilty verdict in: Hate crime was committed

A Colorado man was convicted of first-degree murder and a bias-motivated crime and sentenced to life in prison for killing a transgender teen he met on an online social networking site.


Allen Andrade was convicted of first-degree murder and a hate crime in the slaying of a transgender teen.

It was the first time in the nation that a state hate crime statute resulted in a conviction in a transgender person's murder, the advocacy group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said.

Seated in the front row of the courtroom, the family of Justin "Angie" Zapata broke out in tears as the verdicts against Allen Andrade were read.

The jury deliberated for just under two hours before returning the verdict shortly after 3 p.m. Watch Andrade listen to the verdict »

"I lost somebody so precious," said Maria Zapata, the victim's mother. She glanced at Andrade and continued: "The only thing he can't take away is the love and the memories that I have of my baby. My beautiful, beautiful baby."

Andrade spoke just one word. "No," he said when asked if he wished to address the court.

Judge Marcelo Kopcow then imposed the mandatory sentence for the first-degree murder conviction -- life in prison without parole. Watch Andrade get sentenced to life without parole »

The verdict was hailed by gay and transgender rights groups.

Don't Miss
KMGH: Local coverage
KUSA: Local coverage
Trial begins in slaying of transgender teen
"This is a landmark decision," said Mindy Barton, the legal director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado. Barton attended the trial daily.

"Hearing 'guilty on first-degree murder' and 'guilty of bias-motivated crime' was a hugely emotional experience for all the family, friends and the supporters of Angie," Barton added.

"She will not be forgotten."

Andrade admitted killing Zapata, but his defense argued that he acted in the heat of passion after discovering that Zapata was biologically male. The defense asked for a lesser verdict, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Throughout the trial, prosecutors referred to Zapata as "she," while the defense referred to the transgender teen as "he."

"When [Andrade] met him, he met him as 'Angie,' " defense attorney Annette Kundelius argued on Wednesday. "When he found out it wasn't 'Angie,' that it was 'Justin,' he lost control."

But the jury rejected the argument, deciding in favor of prosecutors, who argued that Andrade knew Zapata was biologically male and that knowledge motivated the crime.

"This was an ambush attack," said Chief Deputy District Attorney Robb Miller. "This was an all-out blitz."

Zapata was "born in a boy's body but living as a female," added Miller. "Ultimately, she was murdered because of it."

The case has become a rallying point for supporters of the transgender community, who have held vigils and launched Web sites in remembrance of Zapata.

They are calling for the inclusion of transgender people in hate crime statutes across the country and at the federal level. Currently, 11 states and the District of Columbia recognize transgender people in their hate crime laws.

According to prosecutors, Zapata, 18, and Andrade 32, met online in summer 2008 and arranged to meet. Zapata brought Andrade to her apartment in Greeley, Colorado, where they spent nearly three days together.

According to a police affidavit, Zapata was out of the apartment when Andrade noticed photographs that made him "question victim Zapata's sex."

Andrade confronted Zapata, who declared, "I am all woman." Andrade then grabbed Zapata and discovered male genitalia.

According to court records, Andrade told police he began hitting Zapata with his fists, knocking her to the ground. He then grabbed a fire extinguisher and twice hit her in the head.

Andrade told police he thought he had "killed it," referring to Zapata, and covered her with a blanket. Realizing what he had done, he then cleaned up the crime scene, the affidavit said.

Andrade told police he heard "gurgling" sounds coming from the victim and saw Zapata sitting up. He hit her again with the fire extinguisher, he said, according to the affidavit.

Andrade took Zapata's car and fled. Police discovered the car two weeks later and arrested Andrade.


The jury heard jailhouse phone conversations, including Andrade telling a girlfriend "gay things must die." He did not testify in his own defense.

Zapata was 16 when she adopted the name "Angie," and made the decision to live as a woman