Talk:Killing of Jennifer Laude

Only one sentence is quoted from the decision and it seems to the least important sentence. It is a justification for exemplary damages but exemplary damages are only 30,000p out of total payments of 4.5 million pesos, or about ½ of 1% of the total. Why should only this one sentence be included? Doesn't this give WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to this part of the decision? I removed the sentence. User:Shhhhwwww!! put it back in, saying in the edit field "historical context, LGBT rights" Unfortunately, this quote says nothing about the historical context or how this case has impacted LGBT rights positively or negatively. It is not after all a WP:THIRDPARTY source. It is a single line from the decision. There is no source that says that it is a significant part of the decision. There is no source quoted that has said that this has had any impact on such rights. Nor any source that says 30,000p is historical in any way. Indeed it is just as easy to make the opposite argument: such a paltry sum for exemplary damages and the lack of a murder conviction suggests that this case has had little impact of transgender rights. To leave in this one sentence, taken out of context, without any other sources to put it into context, gives this small part of the payment undue weight. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been several months. There has been no comment. Per WP:Silence, I will assume WP:Consensus and remove it.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not condoning the violence and homicide of Laude at all, but she tricked Pemberton into thinking she was a biologically a woman and this isn't right either. I have personally known and read of many cases where trans women trick men into thinking they're biologically a woman. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, that is hardly relevant. I appreciate the attempt at absolute neutrality, but there is simply no legal comparison between misleading someone and a brutal murder. Furthermore, focusing on it in any way undermines the larger legal issues at hand, and gives undue legitimacy to the arguments of transphobes. That said, it would certainly be prudent to expand within the article or within the article of the perpetrator, on his use of Gay panic defense. ƒin (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

It's very relevant. What happened to Laude is not right but Laude is not innocent either. This should be brought out in the article but as I know the way wiki works the thought police would delete it. 22:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:FORUM - administrators should hat this or just delete it entirely. 50.111.19.2 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pandas. Both were wrong. The killing was not justified and the deception isn't right either. 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

all this material should be deleted. it is all A) in violation of WP:FORUM and B) factually deficient and basically insulting. 2601:647:CF81:7070:6C7B:8428:9372:5996 (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

SP is right. It's also not factually defifient and not insulting, it's true.74.140.176.16 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)