Source Quote: (Source)
A Jefferson County jury convicted Raymond Carlisle of a reduced charge Thursday in the February shooting and robbery of a professor who had picked him up wanting gay sex.
Carlisle, 20, was charged with capital murder in the Feb. 17 shooting death of Sammie Speigner III, an adjunct professor of sociology at Birmingham Southern College.
Jurors instead chose the lesser charge of felony murder, saying after the verdict they believed the shooting was incidental to the robbery, and not intentional.
The defendant's mother, Michelle Carlisle, said Thursday she believed her son should have been convicted of manslaughter, another charge the jury was allowed to consider.
Defense attorneys Amber Ladner and Cynthia Umstead contended the defendant, 19 at the time, reacted in the heat of passion when the 37-year-old victim tried to homosexually assault him.
But since Carlisle faced death or life without parole if convicted of capital murder, both defense attorneys were pleased by the verdict.
Carlisle, who has no prior convictions, faces 20 years to life when Circuit Judge Clyde Jones sentences him on Feb. 27.
Prosecutors Joe Roberts and Misty Reynolds contended during the trial that Carlisle committed capital murder, an intentional killing during the course of another crime like robbery.
"The jury still held him responsible," Roberts said.
During cross-examination Wednesday, Roberts even got Carlisle to admit his actions at the scene and after the shooting looked more like he was robbing Speigner, instead of being victimized by the man.
It amazes me when it's not enough for someone to say "No". Instead, he pulls a fucking gun, chases down, and shoots the man dead. Then, he steals the guy's car, gets the plates changed and windows tinted, and uses the guy's credit cards to party with his friends. Sure sounds like the behavior of a traumatized victim to me...
Source Quote: (Source)
Both sides admitted that Speigner had a habit of cruising the streets for sex. A friend of Speigner's testified that the victim preferred picking up older teens who appeared "thuggish." But he wouldn't let them into his car unless they agreed to have sex, the witness said.
Carlisle testified he got into Speigner's car because the man said he wanted to buy marijuana. In her closing argument, Ladner compared Speigner's actions to that of a molester using a puppy to lure a young child.
"They use what they can to get them into the car," she said.
Sure, the guy cruised around looking for sex. That's no different than what bored guys do, riding around looking for girls to bone. But the defense attorney's extreme comparison of the actions of a man looking for a sex partner to those of a child molester shows just how low people are still willing to go to essentially make gays and lesbians feel like second-class citizens.
Condescending homophobes are too quick to equate gays with child molestation, promiscuity, bestiality, and various other bullshit comparisons. You can't throw a stick without hitting some asshole making gays sound like they're the epitome of rapists.
And ignorant people buy it. Never mind the fact that teenagers roam streets with coolers loaded with beer and maybe even some drugs in their pocket, looking to pick up chicks and get laid. Never mind the fact that there's the possibility that the teenagers might even be looking to have an active relationship with the person that they meet, much as the gay professor would more than likely have loved to find a steady partner. People can't seem to understand that gays and lesbians are no more or no less promiscuous than straight people. There's no difference, aside from their sexual preference.
You're always going to have an odd one out, a person that enjoys sexually abusing people or might even try to rape someone. But to exclusively portray gays as child molesters or rapists is to do a grave injustice to the millions of victims of such sex crimes perpetuated by straight people.
But no matter what happened in that car, Sammie Spengler III did NOT deserve to die. If the kid had punched him in the face and run away, that would have been fine. If someone's doing something you don't like, either call them on it or get the fuck away. But shooting someone is NOT a viable defense against someone's sexual advances unless they cross a certain line and you have no means of defending yourself.
I've been hit on by gay guys before, and I've just said, "No thanks, I've got a girlfriend" and that's been that. Nobody's ever gotten forceful with me, nobody's ever gotten angry, just a simple dismissal and that's that. Then again, I've never been dumb enough to indiscriminately jump into a complete stranger's car because they promised me something.
And for the judge and jury to rule in favor of a reduced sentence in this case seems to lead one to believe that it's okay to kill someone if they try to pick up on you. So the next time I walk by a hooker on the street and she says, "Hey, baby, want to have a good time?" I'm going to fucking stave her head in with a brick? Yeah, right. And I'm sure that all of these good ol' boys in Jefferson County, Alabama will be really happy when the waitress that they've all made countless passes at gets pissed off one day and sinks a steak knife into their jugular, all because the judge and jury said it was okay.
What this really boils down to is a general unfamiliarity with gay people that is prevalent in the South and Midwest. Instead of trying to understand their lifestyle and treat them as equals, we have people whose goals are to "rehabilitate" gays and re-introduce them to society as if they've performed a grave injustice by being who they are. We have people who genuinely believe that gays are destined for Hell right when they have their first realization of their sexuality. And because of all this, I can't imagine being gay in a small town in the South. I'm sure that you've got to deal with constant antagonism and even the occasional bit of anti-gay violence, and it just seems like a frightening thing to me.
And what's even more frightening is the idea of a court ruling in favor of a heterosexual man being able to kill someone for propositioning them just because they feel victimized by having their manhood threatened, completely discounting the murderer's actions after the incident and treating it like he was a rape victim.
Maybe one of these days Alabama can pool their funds together (when they're not all fucking their sisters and boycotting Aruba) and buy the entire population a new set of brains.
ADDENDUM: The kid's testimony about a headlock? Doesn't hold water with me.
1) How in the fuck are you going to get someone in a headlock while sitting in the driver's seat of a car while they're in the passenger's seat?
2) If you're in a headlock, how in the hell will you manage to draw your gun taking into account the fact that a) you've probably got your seatbelt on, and b) the limited amount of space in the passenger side of a car? I can understand wrestling your way out of it, but that seems like an awful lot of action for both parties to be engaging in while in the confines of a car.
Plus, there's the whole "stole the guy's wallet, car, got it refurbished, rented it out to people, and used his credit cards to buy weed and alcohol" bit.
As far as the sentencing, I hope they stick with the "life in prison" bit. He'll get used to being victimized after a while, then he'll be begging to play hide-the-salami with a professor just to get out of the hell that he willingly put himself into.
Posted by Jake at January 16, 2006 10:25 AM
