Murderer's lawyer says bisexuality shouldn't have influenced judge's decision
VANCOUVER, B.C.-- The lawyer for a B.C. man convicted of second-degree murder for stabbing his friend 73 times says bisexuality shouldn't have been factor in the man's conviction.
Brent Olthuis told a B.C. Appeal Court that the lower-court judge focused on Cory Bird's sexual orientation, when he should have been examining the uninvited sexual contact from the victim.
In 2008, Bird claimed he woke up after a night of drinking and smoking marijuana with his friend Albert Michell in Lytton, B.C., to find Michell sexually assaulting him.
Bird told his earlier trial that he went into the kitchen to get a knife and started stabbing Michell in a "frenzied state," even stopping to switch weapons several times.
At his original trial, Justice Richard Blair said he wasn't satisfied with reasoning that the sexual advances would have caused Bird to lose his self control, given his previous sexual experiences with other men.
But Olthuis says the judge lost sight of the fact that the sexual contact was uninvited and unexpected.
Brent Olthuis told a B.C. Appeal Court that the lower-court judge focused on Cory Bird's sexual orientation, when he should have been examining the uninvited sexual contact from the victim.
In 2008, Bird claimed he woke up after a night of drinking and smoking marijuana with his friend Albert Michell in Lytton, B.C., to find Michell sexually assaulting him.
Bird told his earlier trial that he went into the kitchen to get a knife and started stabbing Michell in a "frenzied state," even stopping to switch weapons several times.
At his original trial, Justice Richard Blair said he wasn't satisfied with reasoning that the sexual advances would have caused Bird to lose his self control, given his previous sexual experiences with other men.
But Olthuis says the judge lost sight of the fact that the sexual contact was uninvited and unexpected.
If the person doing the stabbing was female and the person getting stabbed was male, there would be hundreds of comments cheering the courageous act of the woman by dispatching her would-be rapist.
#$%^ing double standards.Â
There are some people out there that will commit a violent response when they are set upon by someone of the same sex. I do not condone it but can understand it. It seems when the "Gay" card is played there are always a reaction from the Gay community as well as from the straight. For hundreds of years we have been told, preached to, and enacted laws regarding Gay activities. Is it any wonder that some out there are devout in their hatred of a Gay person. It will take some time for many people to be able to accept Gay activity without feeling revulsion or hate and some will never change as long as some major religions continue to put down Gay activity. Â
Defense lawyers do what defense lawyers are expected to do, which is to grasp at every straw and wield it like a club. Â
Dude are you serious? This guy's lawyer is actually trying to tell us that the touching was uninvited and unexpected and so that justifies stabbing someone 73 times... WTF!!? Ok, it's never okay to stab someone. Even if his friend did touch him, you push them off of you and tell them to stop. If they don't stop, maybe punch them and call 911 at most... but stabbing them 73 times is just outrageous!! I think this guy had murder on his mind and is just trying to find an excuse to cover it. Good job Judge, I wouldn't be satisfied with the reasoning too. It is NEVER okay to stab someone, let alone kill them. Lock this psycho up for life.Â
@keepthepeace28 My teenage son had this happen to him this past summer. They were at a local fair. An openly gay peer came up to him, drunk, and kept trying to kiss and hug him. He would not take "no" for an answer. Eventually my son had to tell him, "Dude, if you don't back off I'll kick your *ss". That did it. But, stabbing 73 times? Hayell no!
@keepthepeace28Stabbing 73 times is excessive. Â BUT if a woman had stabbed a man attempting to rape here there would be none of this "..it's never okay to stab someone." Â Again 73 times is excessive, but the judge was wrong to bring sexual orientation into it.
"At his original trial, Justice Richard Blair said he wasn't satisfied with reasoning that the sexual advances would have caused Bird to lose his self control, given his previous sexual experiences with other men."
Wait, what? If that statement was that a judge said he wasn't satisfied with the reasoning that waking up to a sexual assault by a man would have made a WOMAN lose control, because of her previous sexual experiences with men, he'd be thrown off the case. A person's previous sexual experiences do not mean they would not be upset to find themselves being raped or sexually assaulted in some way, regardless of the gender of either the victim or the assailant (and regardless of if there was previous consensual contact between them -- if they can't say no because of their current state, you can't have sex with them). I make no statement about the frenzy this man apparently went into or the excessive nature of his response, other than to say that it is understandable that a victim of sexual assault would feel the strongest possible emotions and potentially lose control of what they were doing.
@spacegoddess Different set of laws in Canada. Judges aren't allowed to do this here but I guess its fine in Canada.They don't have the death penalty up there and it sounds like this case probably deserves it.
@Blindman @spacegoddess It wasn't a premeditated murder--hence the second degree murder charge. If this had occurred in the States he still wouldn't have received the death penalty.Â