How is it not the defense wanting to exclude this evidence, to keep from a longer sentence as a hate crime?

The argument is that the victim is more dangerous, because "they're a man." This is obviously bullshit though. Either the victim was murdered or not. Their gender really shouldn't matter, trans or otherwise. Things are fucked out here.

So, the law doesn't apply if I don't like something about the victim?

These worthless fucks don't even view trans people AS PEOPLE! That is disgusting!

It shouldn't matter one whit what gender they are or not--- you cant just fucking murder people in cold blood wtf.

Did he kill someone? Then it doesn’t fucking matter what the victim’s gender or plumbing was.

Also, this rings of saying its not murder because transgender people aren't people.

No, it's implicitly saying the murderer was 'right' to kill her because she was 'really a black man.' The jury was 'deceived, by omission, into thinking this was about a woman being murdered.'

[Single quotes indicate their expressed beliefs, not direct quotes.]

trans rights are human rights

Fucking evil. May this these people die of kidney stones

I hope his dick rots off and he gets accused of being trans in the bathroom.

A hate crime, then...?

Conservatives will never, ever stop oppressing and killing the normal people on their own. Being polite does not work against conservatism. Showing empathy does not work against conservatism. The law does not work against conservatism. Only physical force works against conservatism.

Organizing physical resistance is not possible on social media. We must each be willing to act alone, altogether.

Act independently. Be discrete. Be prolific. Self-defense is not murder.

On the one hand a retrial makes sense because not all the facts of the case were presented to the jury.

On the other hand the prior conviction was manslaughter which is crazy lower for six shots and then just going home. Maybe the jury will see this as not only a hate crime, but also escalate to some form of murder charge.

Wait, wtf? What does that have to do with anything?

I don't agree that a murderer can't say their motivation, but when someone has shot someone else six times and we all know that they did it, just stay in prison. You chose to fill the victim full of lead because you're a dangerous weenie, and you're too dangerous to live with the public.

You can't have been too scared of them if you were in a long-term relationship, and you're a murderer. Sit in prison and rot.

Voluntary Manslaughter to begin with? For shooting someone not threatening you physically 6 times outside your house?

It's Tennessee, and it's now in south america, so nobody gives a shit. I mean, we do, but we are nobody, for now.

Well, if people are violently hostile to trans people, I guess trans people need to legally adapt.

Oh, they can't do that?

Huh. Weird. Soooo, what to you expect them to do? Just... Be murdered peacefully?

preventing the killer from using the victim's trans identity in his defense.

What's the most generous way to read this? Like, is there any way to mean something good but just express yourself very very very badly and come up with this?

Clearly the jury should have the opportunity to victim blame, no? /s

Watch him get a longer sentence anyway lmao

I support trans women and...

This was a defendant who knew the victim well. They were in an ongoing sexual relationship. The trial court made it very difficult for the defendant to discuss their relationship or concerns about being hurt during alleged self-defense. And that was defendant's entire legal defense! And he couldn't talk about it! Even if too many trans women are being killed, this is not an unfair or bad appellate ruling.

Defendants should be able to present defenses to a jury. This is absolutely not transphobia for the court to rule this way. It's entirely possible Defendant chose to not testify because of this ruling. In a self-defense case!

The ruling: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/W2025-01186-CCA-R3-CDOPN.pdf

According to the ruling:

At the pretrial hearing on the State’s motion, defense counsel expressed concern that if the trial court excluded evidence of the victim’s biological sex, it would impact Defendant’s ability to present a defense and his right to testify. Defense counsel stated that if Defendant chose to testify, he would be in a position to have to lie to the jury, “either by omission or just a straight-out lie.”

So defendant was allowed to testify, but couldn't mention that the victim was trans at all. It's not right. Defendants should be able to present their side of things.

from the actual ruling:

Logically, courts allow evidence of the physical characteristics of the victim and defendant when evaluating the “reasonableness” and “imminent danger” requirements of a self-defense claim. Here, Defendant argues the “differences in strength and power between a biological man and a woman of the same weight cannot be denied.” In other words, there are physical differences between a biological male who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds and a biological female who is five-feet-eleven and 262 pounds. The trial court determined that because the victim was armed, evidence of her biological sex was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial. We disagree.

While a gun might equalize differences in physical strength and size, there are other inherent physiological differences between the sexes that science continues to reveal and that we choose not to ignore. A detailed discussion is not necessary for our analysis; it suffices to acknowledge that these differences exist. However significant or insignificant these differences are, the Tennessee Rules of Evidence set the threshold test for relevance low: evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact. See Tenn. R. Evid. 401, Advisory Comm’n Cmt. (“The theoretical test for admissibility is a lenient one . . .”). We decline to hold that the biological sex of the victim is not relevant to a claim of self-defense.

Regarding the danger of unfair prejudice, we recognize that societal biases exist. As counsel for Defendant observed at the pretrial hearing, any prejudices the jury might have against the victim for being transgender could very well be applied to Defendant for being in a sexual relationship with the transgender victim. The trial court was concerned that knowledge of the victim’s biological sex might lead to bias and cause the jury to confuse the issues. The danger of bias, however, ran both ways in this case. Defendant expressed his concern that the jury might be less likely to accept his claim of self-defense based on their understanding of the victim as a woman rather than a biological male. Notably, the victim’s friend, Mr. Hunter, testified the victim called him because the victim thought he could provide some level of intimidation as a male. These societal views on the differences between male and female behaviors only strengthen our belief that a person’s biological sex has relevance to certain issues.

“Transgender”, “Tennessee”

Say no more….

Ordered a retrial.

Guy could still be found guilty of murder or manslaughter

How was the original trial not for homicide 2?