If the youth killed him because of his perception that the autistic man was not capable of reasoning with..and that an attack, possibly deadly and forced sexual assualt.. then the only justification for killing him would be if the older man actually had hold of the younger and would not let him go.

If the confrontation was simply aggressivly verbal.. then running would have been best.

The "I killed him because he was gay and provoked me" is ludicrous.

Being propositioned by a homosexual is grounds for perhaps at worst "NO you sicko.. get lost" but killing? not a chance.

Just like the female who might say "Get lost you dirty pervert" to a man asking her for sex.. she is hardly going to get out her licenced pistol and blow his brains out...unless he actually attacks her.

Provocation? hmmm not really.. Insulting sure..but not a provocation to violence.

DD. The police officer committed a crime, he was soliciting and grievously assaulted a person.

I do not support censorship, though I am against violence in any form.

Thank you OLO

DD. The police officer committed a crime, he was soliciting and grievously assaulted a person.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 9:10:43 AM

what police officer might that be Kipp?

This looks like one of those cases where posts have been removed by the moderator without any indication that it's happened. I distinctly recall reading a couple of prior posts by Divorce Doctor in this thread, one of which triumphally described an incident where DD claimed that a police officer had entrapped a gay man in a toilet and then beaten him up.

The exceedingly homophobic DD is trying to be cute here, I think.

As an old homosexual male I am appalled by the writings of Divorce Doctor ( more appropriately Doctor Fanatic) I would have thought that his posts ( must be a he as I doubt any female would harbour such horrible thoughts) breach the posting guidelines but I`m glad that I had the chance to read them as it is a wakeup call to all that this type of fundamentalist thinking is alive and ever a threat to the civil liberties of others.
Referring back to my post of 08/09/08, I can advise that when I was younger, 30 to 55 years, I was offered sex for money on many occasions by 17 to 18 year old young men, not in public toilets but when standing at traffic lights in the city, on train stations and in trains. I do not have any acquired mannerisms and always was conservatively dressed. For these reasons I believe it to be dangerous to jump to conclusions without having the deceased`s side of the story.
In conclusion I would suggest that Divorce Doctor place less emphasis on what he thinks that gays do and consider the possibility that they have a natural predisposition to fall in love with their own gender. That is my experience and the conclusion of Justice Elizabeth Evatt after her inquiry into human sexuality way back in the early 1970s.