Comments about ‘Charges questioned in attack on gays’

I say for his/her Honor.... Throw the book at them.... Dont let let them walk away.... throw em in jail, They deserve it!

Of course they question the charges.

They are guilty.

'Charges questioned in attack on gays' - Title of article

The charges are questioned?

Please.

Bell was attacked in his own home in July 2008. I spent much time myself questioning this case. As to why it took almost 1.5 years for any charges to his accused attackers at all!

And now that Bell has been found Not Guilty, the family accused of beating HIM question the timing of the charges?

Two wrongs do not make a right, it's true. But what else is there? Does the family think nothing should have been done about the beating?

That the bleeding Bell suffered from his ears, or the three surgeries Fair needed to fix his right eye socket need no consequence?

What is that?

The ugly truth is simple.

Some people feel it is acceptable to beat a minority only because they are a minority. To break down their front door and literally crack their skull.

Thankfully, this is not the case.

Actions have consequence. And if the Latu family thinks beating a person almost to death is acceptable...

that is the LEAST (but most fustrating) reason there should be a trail to punish the guilty.

It is almost comical albeit sadly comical. One side thinks they are getting a raw deal throughout this whole thing based on who they like to have sex with and the other side thinks they are getting a raw deal in the other direction because of who their parents are. Both sides are crying foul and prejudice.

One side thinks they are getting a raw deal throughout this whole thing based on who they like to have sex with.

What are you talking about? This isn't about sex, this is about drunken fools beating someone nearly to death. Adults having no knowledge that there small children wandered off while they were intoxicated. They should be up for child endangerment and have the kids removed from their care. The only reason that it took so long is the ignorant notion that being Gay is equal to a Pedifile in Utah.

"Happ Valley Heretic" your post is exactly my point. It isn't about sex but the title of the article, the arguments of the victim's counsel in the previous criminal action and your own statements try to make it about sexual preferences. Even in a post trying to deride my post, you couldn't help but point out, "[t]he only reason that it took so long is the ignorant notion that being Gay is equal to Pedifile [sic] in Utah." You, just like the victims, and just like the defendants, don't want to talk about the facts and decide the case based on that, you want to cite prejudice and unfairness for the worlds wrongs. The fact is, neither the parents of the vigilantes nor the sexual proclivities of the former defendants change whether the children were (a) kidnapped or (b) abused. Furthermore, neither the parents of the accused nor the sexual preferences of the victims change whether the victims had their home invaded and were attacked. The facts have nothing to do with these statuses and the sooner we start to figure that out in this country, the better off we'll be.

Casey, unfortunately I don't believe for one second that if the children had been at a neighbors house who were a heterosexual couple that the beating would have occurred. People do react because of bigotry and to dismiss that prejudice played a part in the attack is ignoring a problem that a large percentage of Utonians like to ignore. Well except when it comes to attacking someone based on religion (which is a choice) then we need hate crime legislation. In a perfect world your logic might work but zion or not we aint there yet and sometimes people need to be told how to act in a society.

'You, just like the victims, and just like the defendants, don't want to talk about the facts and decide the case based on that...' - 1:42 p.m.

Casey, you are also ignoring the facts. The FACT is that Bell was found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers. They even called the trial a 'waste of resources' it was so mis-managed.

So, with a not guilty verdict in hand, why do you continue to debate Bell's innocence?

'The fact is, neither the parents of the vigilantes nor the sexual proclivities of the former defendants change whether the children were (a) kidnapped or (b) abused. Furthermore...' - 1:42 p.m.

Bells innocence has been factually proven, by an impartial third party.

The Latu family is trying to cast doubt before their trail has begun.

Almost 2 years after the attack in question.

Racial profiling does not mean Bell beat himself on his own sidewalk.
No, that took 7 others.

What an embarrassment to south salt lake city this whole fiasco has been.
Oh that the cops had just arrested the right people in the first place.

Pagan, there is nothing in my post that questions the previous criminal cases outcome. As you can see in your own quotation of my comment, "former defendants" indicating that they are no longer defendants. The point of the sentence, which you ignore in favor of your pet issue, is that Bell then and now is trying to make this about his sexual orientation when it clearly is not. You and I have both seen the pictures. He was attacked. No one is denying where the attack occurred, Bell was in his home. Thus, the sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue for discussion but you want it to be. I don't understand why. Why can't this be about facts instead of commentary.
"Utah Valley Heretic", the reason for the attack is irrelevant except as it operates to mitigate the offense. Unless I am mistaken, you cannot mitigate a battery because the defendant preferred homosexual sex to heterosexual sex. Therefore, the effort to turn this into a commentary on sexual orientation or racial profiling is nothing more than an effort to distract from what happened. A gang of big dudes, attacked a couple of little dudes.

'Why can't this be about facts instead of commentary.' - 4:55 p.m.

Casey, there is no further point of bringing up the facts as you claim that you know me so well that I will ignore them over my 'pet issue.'
'You and I have both seen the pictures. He was attacked. No one is denying where the attack occurred, Bell was in his home. Thus, the sexual orientation shouldn't be an issue for discussion but you want it to be.' - 4:55 p.m.
In you entire post you have yet to even verbalize that Bell was found inoccent.
Since this is the case, why the beating?
Also, the trial will establish WHO did the beating along with the why.
Also, you CAN mitigate battery into theft. My example?

Matthew Sheppard.
His beating was initially put down as burglary. Even when the attackers admited they were looking for a 'gay guy to beat up.'

'A gang of big dudes, attacked a couple of little dudes.'

So you admit a beating took place.

Should we ignore it because Latu is brown? (If found guilty)

Why then advocate ignoring it has a consequence?

Good day.

"Pagan",
Anyone reading this can see that one of two things is occurring (1) your issues are blinding you and killing your ability to read or (2) you have no ability to read. I will try once more and clarify my position.

BOTH SIDES ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS ABOUT PREJUDICE. IT ISN'T ABOUT PREJUDICE FOR EITHER SIDE. IT IS A SIMPLE, STRAIGHT FORWARD, CRIME. TWO DUDES WERE ASSAULTED BY A GROUP AND WERE BEATEN UP. FOR PURPOSES OF THE CASE, NEITHER THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF THE VICTIMS, NOR THE HERITAGE OR RACE OF THE ACCUSED IS RELEVANT. IT WASN'T IN THE FIRST CASE AND IT ISN'T NOW.

That said, I realize you are trying to make this about Bell being gay and as a result, you are adding fuel to the fire just like the attorney for the defendants are trying to make this about race. I understand your need to have propaganda and rallying cries to support your view of the world but sometimes, it is just about facts and crimes and the added commentary does no one good.

"Pagan",
I'm sorry you can't understand my comments. I must not be able to write clearly today. I've tried to restate my opinion in a few ways so it would make sense to you and clearly I have failed. To simplify, I think the article and my comments make it clear Bell was found not guilty. I think my comments make it clear that I believe he and his [whatever you call him] were brutally attacked in their own home. My only point is, both sides are trying to make this about race (on the one hand) and sexual orientation (on the other) and the digression into those arenas is neither helpful nor necessary. This is my third attempt, I hope I've made my point clear. If you would like to dispute my point, the starting argument would concern whether there is value in making this crime about sexual orientation or race. There isn't value in trying to act like I'm bigotted toward or against either group because I'm condemning and have been condemning both.

So casey what your saying is if some dudes in white robes burn a cross on a black guys front lawn it's just vandalism? Why should they get special preference?

I believe he and his [whatever you call him]...
your prejudice is showing...

OK. Enough of the squabbling. The fact is, the legal system really screwed up. The SSL cops didn't do a thorough job. Assumptions were made for whatever reason. Two men were brutally attacked. DJ was found innocent. Now those guilty of beating them should have to face trial. That's what our country and our constitution and the laws are all about. Too bad that these days our government/legal system doesn't believe in following the laws. This never should have happened.