Just a few months back, in the early hours of November 29, 2023, Savannah Ryan Williams tragically lost her life in Minneapolis. This happened after an encounter where she performed a sexual act on a man.
Damerean Kaylon Bible, aged 25, admitted to authorities that he shot Williams, a transgender woman, in the head at close range. He claimed he did this because he felt “suspicious” of her.
Bible later confessed to the crime during a phone call with a parent, a conversation that police recorded. He stated that he felt he “had to do it.”
He faces charges of second-degree murder, a felony. His defense, as stated by his attorney, might include claims of self-defense or defending others. The attorney has yet to make any comments regarding this case.
The photo shows Savannah Williams in an undated picture, highlighting the person behind the tragedy. (Courtesy of The Aliveness Project via Forum News Service)
The circumstances surrounding Williams’ death and the subsequent claim of self-defense are all too familiar to the LGBTQ+ community. In response, Democratic-Farmer-Labor legislators have introduced a bill aiming to address this issue.
This bill, spurred by Williams’ death, seeks to offer greater protection to the LGBTQ+ community, as explained by Rep. Brion Curran, DFL-Vadnais Heights. Curran pointed out that Bible’s statements were directly related to Williams’ identity.
Curran has proposed a bill in the House, complementing a similar one in the Senate from last year. This legislation aims to prevent defendants from using a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression as a defense in committing a crime.
Curran, who identifies as nonbinary, criticized the use of such defenses in court. They argue it unjustly legitimizes harmful rhetoric against LGBTQ+ individuals, suggesting they deserve harm or fear.
The defense in question is known as the LGBTQ+ panic defense. It suggests that the discovery of a sexual partner’s orientation or gender identity can drive a person to a state of temporary insanity, absolving them of responsibility for any violence committed.
Curran condemns this defense as immoral, arguing that one’s identity should never justify harm.
While this defense is still permissible in Minnesota, it has been banned in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
Advocates for banning this defense often refer to the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard over two decades ago. Shepard, a young University of Wyoming student, was left to die after a severe beating, a crime that spotlighted the need for such legislative changes.
Shepard’s killers attempted to use his sexual orientation as a defense, a strategy ultimately disallowed in court. Both were convicted and received life sentences.
Shepard’s case brought national attention, yet it took years for significant legislative movement against the LGBTQ+ panic defense. Momentum has been building since 2019, with California being the first state to ban the defense in 2014.
Despite progress, a significant portion of the LGBTQ+ community in the U.S. still lives in states where such a defense can be used in court.
Courtnay Avant, from the Human Rights Campaign, highlights the increasing anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and violence, underscoring the urgency for legislative action.
FBI hate crime statistics reveal a worrying increase in incidents against gay and transgender individuals, emphasizing the ongoing struggle against such defenses.
The American Bar Association has been advocating for legislative action against the LGBTQ+ panic defense since 2013, calling for an end to this discriminatory practice.
Ending the availability of the LGBTQ+ panic defense in court is a crucial step toward justice and equality, as echoed by members of the American Bar Association.