Women who 'beat up gay man' say they can't be charged with a hate crime... because they're lesbians

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 6:15 PM on 26th February 2012

Three women accused of beating up a gay man claim they cannot be charged with a hate crime because they are all lesbians.

Sisters Erika Stroud, 21, Felicia Stroud, 18, and Lydia Sanford, 20, are charged with viciously beating the man and breaking his nose after he bumped into them at a train station in Boston.

The women all face hate crime charges of assault and battery with intent to intimidate, which carries up to a 10-year prison sentence.

Felicia stroud
Erika Stroud

Sisters Erika Stroud, 21, left, and Felicia Stroud, 18, right, both claim they should not have been charged with a hate crime because they are lesbians

Lydia Sanford, 20, is also charged with viciously beating the man

Lydia Sanford, 20, is also charged with viciously beating the man

But Carolyn Euell, 38, mother of two of the Strouds told the Boston Herald that the alleged attack 'can’t be hateful' because both her daughters are lesbians.

Prosecutors said no matter the defendants’ sexual orientation, they can still face the charge by the use of hateful language.

 

Prosecutor Lindsey Weinstein said the two sisters and Sanford, who is one of their domestic partners, repeatedly punched and kicked the man on Sunday at the Forest Hills T station in Jamaica Plain, reports the Herald.

She said the victim told the police he believed the attack was 'motivated as a crime because of his sexual orientation' since the three women 'called him insulting homophobic slurs'.

The man was repeatedly punched and kicked during the vicious attack last Sunday at the Forest Hills T station in Jamaica Plain, Boston

The man was repeatedly punched and kicked during the vicious attack last Sunday at the Forest Hills T station in Jamaica Plain, Boston

But attorney Helene Tomlinson, who represented Sanford, told the judge her client is 'openly identified as a lesbian ... so any homophobic (conduct) is unwarranted.'

She said the alleged victim was the aggressor and used racial slurs: 'He provoked them.' reports the Herald.

Felicia Stroud’s attorney, C. Harold Krasnow, said, 'They don’t know what his sexual orientation is, just like he doesn’t know what theirs is.'

But Jake Wark, a spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, told the Herald that the prosecutors will have no problem proving the women committed a hate crime, even if they are lesbians.

'The defendants’ particular orientation or alleged orientations have no bearing on our ability to prosecute for allegedly targeting a person who they believe to be different from them,' he said.


 

Here's what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

no logic.....,lock them away...

Click to rate     Rating   35

They are blokes and ugly ones at that

Click to rate     Rating   37

Let Judge Judy preside over this one.

Click to rate     Rating   23

Not exactly a pretty trio, are they?

Click to rate     Rating   32

What is a 'T station'?

Click to rate     Rating   6

Hate crime laws are a joke for this very reason. If you are a protected class as a victim are you then ever able to be the criminal? Is grandma less of a victim because she was beaten to death by someone who just selected her at random rather than by the color of her skin or sexuality.

Click to rate     Rating   29

I so agree with Dave from Dystopia. Criminal charges should be based on actions. The whole "hate crime" phenomena has created an Orwellian class of thought crime, and moreover, it grants some segments of the population greater protection under law than others.

Click to rate     Rating   32

It's not what they say that matters, it's what the law says......

Click to rate     Rating   16

If three lesbian women beat up a man, it is a hate crime. Sexual orientation of the man doesn't matter.

Click to rate     Rating   35

As this is the United States, i safely assume a judge wouldn't indulge such stupid excuses. That is only reserved for British judges who are mostly brain dead.

Click to rate     Rating   151

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Your name and location will appear next to your comment.
You have 1000 characters left.
Libellous and abusive comments are not allowed. Please read our House Rules.
For information about privacy and cookies please read our Privacy Policy.
Terms