Life sentence for homophobic Texan killer

[JackBeck]

By PinkNews.co.uk Staff Writer • August 18, 2008 - 13:22

Terry Mark Mangum, 27, of Cypress, killed Kenneth Cummings, 46, because he hated homosexuals, the Brazoria County jury heard Wednesday.

(snip)

Sometime that night Mangum slit Cummings' throat and stabbed him in the back of the head, breaking 1.5 inches of a knife blade, prosecutors said.

Prosecutors claimed that Mangum cleaned up the house the next day and drove Cummings' body to a ranch near the town of Poteet, approximately 30 miles south of San Antonio.

The partially burned body was found in a shallow grave in a dried-up stock pond on 16th June of last year.

(snip)

Mangum told the reporter, who testified during the weeklong trial, that God had called on him to “carry out a code of retribution” by killing a gay man because “sexual perversion” is “the worst sin.”

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8724.html

Yet another example why the LGBT deserves to be added to federal Hate Crimes legislation. Violence perpetrated against the LGBT community more often than not involves "over-kill". It's long overdue and indefensible as to why we continue to be an unprotected class.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

3. That's not the type of justice that I ascribe to. n/t

[dysfunctional press]

2. age 27...life in prison...i think he's going to find out what sexual perversion is really all about.

:evilgrin:

[sendero]

6. That dude.

.... is gay.

[Cronus Protagonist]

22. NO, he's a murderer and perhaps bat-shit crazy

Perhaps he fears his own longing for cock, but he's not gay by any interpretation of the word.

[cobalt1999]

4. He is going to do life in prison, how would LGBT hate crime legislation change that?

Death Penalty?

[JackBeck]

7. Hate Crimes legislation has existed since the 1960's.

Adding the LGBT community would make this a federal crime, along with the already protected classes (race, color, religion, or nation origin).

It would also increase funding to communities where violence against the LGBT community appears to have escalated, so that the issue can be addressed by law enforcement.

[David Zephyr]

8. He would have had the extra charge against him and more time added to his sentence.

More time adds up and makes later parole, if any, harder.

Why are you against having hate crime laws and why are you so against them?

[Malidictus Maximus]

11. I honestly wonder why we have to have the category "hate crime

Killing somebody = murder and should = life (no possibility of parole) or death. It shouldn't matter if the victim was LBGT, black, white or anything else, murder (or beating) should be punished in exactly the same way (very, very harshly IMO). Either people are equal and of equal value before the law or they aren't. The particular gruesomeness and obvious derangement of the sick fuck who did it pretty much indicates they should NEVER be allowed out in public (well, 158 grains to the back of the head would be better)

[JackBeck]

13. So you would agree that someone who kills someone by accident

deserves to be treated the same way as someone that plotted the murder?

[Malidictus Maximus]

14. OLf course not. That's a red herring.

If you murder someone you murder someone. Thanks for catching the discrepency, though I *should* have said something like "if you murder a human being".

[JackBeck]

15. But you said that "killing someone = murder". n/t

[Malidictus Maximus]

16. Whatever.

If you actually wish to reply to my question about hate crimes then please do so, if you want to quibble about an unclear definition then go ahead but I don't give a fuck.
MY POINT is that murder (or assault) should be treated the same (in a Draconian manner) regardless of victim.

[JackBeck]

21. Hey, just using your own words.

If you're not of fan of parsing, structure your responses more appropriately.

No one gave a shit about the Hate Crimes legislation until the LGBT community rallied to be included in legislation from 1969. Why the uproar, now, given that this law has existed for almost 40 years?

If you've got issues with it, start a movement to overturn this decades old law. Otherwise, either join other progressives fighting to include another minority community that continues to be terrorized in this country, or get ready to be trampled as you stand there in resistance.

[Malidictus Maximus]

26. I'm all for LGBT being included

[David Zephyr]

31. Doesn't sound like it.

At all.

[sendero]

24. It is well established in law...

.. that there are degrees of murder. Manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc.

The difference between these is circumstance, motivation, etc.

Why do you think "hate crimes" is any different? It is merely another category of motivation we've decided to punish more severely.

I'll admit that proving such motivation is problematic, but quite possible when the perp has been heard saying the wrong things.

[Malidictus Maximus]

27. Thanks

"It is merely another category of motivation we've decided to punish more severely."
That is an interesting way of looking at it that makes sense to me.

[David Zephyr]

34. Ask yourself these questions:

Is burning a cross on an African-American's front yard an act of vandalism? There are laws on the books against vandalism. But those laws do not rises to the level of justice that the crime clearly merits because the crime was to instill fear in not just the family and children in that household, but to all people of color in that neighborhood. The "message" is clear. "You are hated and we know where you live just like the KKK did before us. We are watching you and you are not safe." The message is to intimidate and to threaten our black sisters and brothers everywhere.

Is painting a swastika on the garage door of a Jewish family just an act of vandalism? There are laws on the books against vandalism. But as in the example before, the laws against vandalism do not rise to the justice that is merited when there was clearly an intent to intimidate, to frighten and to threaten the Jewish children, women and men in that house and all of our Jewish brothers and sisters everywhere.

When murder is done within the scope of a hate crime, the murder is also a message to all gay and lesbian citizens. "Watch out. You're next." Not just a murder, but a message.

Vandalism can just be vandalism and murder can just be murder.

But toss in the intentional motivation to instill fear, to intimidate an entire community and those "laws" are not sufficient to address the real crime that was done.

Hate crimes are the law of the land. Everyone accepts them except when my GLBT community is included and then the parsing of words seems to spring out in the most surprising places...like here on a "liberal web forum".

[Malidictus Maximus]

39. Good points. Interesting questions.

regarding acts of threat and intimidation, that is exactly the sort of adult conversation I was seeking.
Still seems to me that MURDER is MURDER and the nature of the parties involved shouldn't matter, in cases of physical violence against a person then the penalty should be severe enough that there is not only zero chance of repeating but an example is made to all.
I think you are a little over sensitive, I have probably been supportive of the LGBT community at least as long as you, maybe as long as some of the people in here have been alive, if you think I am some kind of bigoted idiot who doesn't think LGBT people deserve the same protections as any other minority then you are wrong, but I won't waste my time disabusing you of that notion, my statement has little or nothing to do with which class is, or is not 'protected' but with the point that the penalties for physical violence should be Draconian enough that the 'identity' of the victim does not matter.
Peace

[EOTE]

47. Should there be a difference between second and first degree murder?

What about manslaughter? What about drunk driving? There's a lot of nuance to our legal system.

[dysfunctional press]

35. they already ARE treated different.

MUCH different.

[pinto]

19. The impetus for hate crime protection for gays was primarily based on bashing, not murder.

i.e. random attacks, unprovoked, on gays in urban centers. The brutal killing of Mathew Sheppard highlighted the legislation's objectives and the need for some legal protection.

In my humble opinion, the hate crime umbrella remains a good legal recourse for minorities in this country.

[TexasObserver]

38. Hate crimes are also important for evidentiary purposes.

It is a crime to beat someone up, but if we can determine that the intent was particularly malevolent, we can better punish the crime committed. As a society, we recognize that assaults in the context of two drunk frat boys in their dorm, or two guys fighting over a girl are fundamentally different than those same amateur pugilists attacking someone who is gay, or black, or Hispanic, or such.

If there are hate crimes included in the charges against the defendants, then the testimony which can come into evidence at trial is broader than in a normal assault case. The charges impact the breadth of evidence which the jury can hear.

It allows the prosecution to make the hate crime the focus of the event, the evil driving it, and thereby cast the attack as it was perpetrated. By making these attacks tried and punished more seriously, we increase the probabilities that young men will think better of beating up on some group targeted for being gay or minority.

I do not favor incarceration for most crimes, but I believe hate crimes must be dealt with harshly, because they terrorize large segments of the population.

[Cronus Protagonist]

23. Yeah, I'm against "hate crime" statutes too

It doesn't matter what the motive for any crime, and hate crime statutes are not a deterrent - they just move us more and more towards a police state.

[JackBeck]

25. Yeah, because Sweden and Canada are in total lock-down. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

28. What do Sweden and Canada have to do with the fascist USA government?

Oh yeah, nothing whatsoever. And my opinion is mine, it's not wrong and it's not yours, and it's not your job to judge either. If you have an alternate point to make, feel free to do so. Otherwise, try to at least make some sense.

[JackBeck]

29. Those countries have hate crimes legislation and managed to avoided fascism.

The fact that Bush would veto this legislation is enough evidence for me that this would be the furthest thing from fascism.

[Bluebear]

32. Because hate crimes terrorize a whole community, not just the victim.

[Malidictus Maximus]

40. Thanks

for an adult reply. Good point.

[LanternWaste]

52. Then you believe that Murder 1, Murder 2, and Murder 3

"...murder (or beating) should be punished in exactly the same way."

Then you believe that Murder 1, Murder 2, and Murder 3 should all be standardized into a one-size-fits-all Trial and/or sentence?

[Winterblues]

53. Hate crimes don't just apply to murder

What if some one placed a burning cross on your front yard? I think that should be more of a crime than simple trespassing. To threaten/intimidate someone based upon some hatred should be a crime of more significance than simple assault IMO.

[cobalt1999]

17. Who said I was against hate crime laws?

Stop reading things into posts that aren't there.

I'm just asking the question how this particular case builds the case for needing hate crimes laws. I could see if the guy got only 10 years, then the public could see that an additional hate crime sentence would be justified. However, in this case, it's hard to build any argument for an additional sentence beyond Life in a Texas Prison.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

51. I, myself, would just like to see what Texas normally does.

Fry the fucker.

[pinto]

12. The point about hate crime standards isn't necessarily about murder.

That's obviously the pre-eminent crime, if that's the right phrasing. Hate crimes include crimes less than fatal against persons based on race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, among others.

The point is, discussing hate crime only in the context of murder, misses the point.

Y'know?

[cobalt1999]

18. So using a murder case where the guy got life, isn't a good starting point for the debate.

That's my point.

[pinto]

20. The guy got life. Where's the debate? The law tooks its due course. As I said above,

hate crime legislation wasn't *only* intended for murder cases. That framework for a debate doesn't hold water, imho.

I see your point, but disagree on the basics.

[Sanctified]

5. What would his sentence have been under the Hate Crimes Legislation? n/t

[JackBeck]

55. Similar to a sentence given if the crime was motivated by race, color, religion, or nationality.

But as our current federal law stands, the LGBT community is not protected under existing Hate Crimes laws, while others are afforded that protection.

[Ilsa]

9. These shitty attitudes run rampant throughout so much of Texas.

Cypress, Brazoria County, Poteet, San Antonio -- these are all areas I am familiar with more or less. The limited and hateful mindset that these ignoramuses develop is appalling. Hate Crimes legislation is certainly needed.

[JackBeck]

57. Thank you for understanding the need for this legislation.

Your experience needs to be shared with those that doubt the need for this type of education.

[Catherine Vincent]

10. I remember hearing about that tragedy on the news here.

It says this guy was in prison before. I wonder if it has anything to do with what happened to him while inprisoned and when he gets out, he takes it out on the first gay guy he meets. More than likely the guy (or guys) that did that to him were not gay.

[dddem]

30. “sexual perversion” is “the worst sin.”

no kidding. And all this time I thought "thou shalt not kill" was a biggie. Who knew?

[Hugabear]

33. And yet preachers all over America continue preaching that homosexuality is an abomination to God

You can't continually demonize a group of people and not expect this to happen.

[dysfunctional press]

36. well...according to the script they work from- it is.

:shrug:

religion is the problem, not the answer.

[closeupready]

45. And also (I kid you no) that "hatred is good."

n/t

[alarimer]

37. Explain why this is not worth the death penalty.

I am opposed to the death penalty but I don't understand why this guy didn't get it. They gave the death penalty to someone who only happened to be in the car when his friend went and killed someone and yet someone could do this but only get a life sentence.

[Contrary1]

44. Exactly.

This guy was using the "God talked to me" defense. Perhaps he thought that emulating the president would buy him some favor with the judge. Even being mentally deficient hasn't spared others from the death penalty in Texas. Maybe murdering a homosexual just ain't that big a deal there?

I am opposed to the death penalty also, but for a state that prides itself in the number of executions it carries out, this one stinks.

[michreject]

41. How would Hate Crimes legislation

changed anything? Laws don't stop criminals from being criminals.

[JackBeck]

42. "Laws don't stop criminals from being criminals."

What would be your suggestion to stemming the increase in anti-LGBT violence?

[michreject]

49. Education

"Laws don't stop criminals from being criminals." applies to all criminals regardless of their crime. I notice that murderers don't stop killing people because murder is against the law.:shrug:

[JackBeck]

54. Which is what expanding this legislation will provide.

Money infused into communities that need it most, therefore, more education.

I just can't understand for the life of me why the uproar over letting the LGBT community have the same rights and protections that others enjoy (usually, completely unaware that they are already being protected).

[aikoaiko]

43. As a Democrat for the death penalty -- I wish Mangum would get the needle.

Seriously, he doesn't deserve any more days.

[TCJ70]

46. I don't think we should have hate crime legislation at all. n/t

[JackBeck]

56. But we already do. Since 1969.

And I've never seen anyone raise a stink about it until the LGBT community lobbied to be included.

[MetaTrope]

48. Nice to see that Texas can shy away from the death sentence in SOME cases...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

50. No execution.....in Texas......

....gee, wonder why that is.....