Charlie Rogers’ Lie About Gay Bias Attack Puts All LGBTs At Risk
December 11, 2012
She told authorities she had been assaulted and cut by three men who had broken into her apartment and cut her legs and chest with a box cutter leaving anti-gay “writings” as wounds.
Immediately LGBT groups, orgs, websites and bloggers cried out over this anti-gay attack on a lesbian while authorities were skeptical when doing an investigation of the alleged attack and the claims of Rogers.
And therein as usual lies yet again the problem when some in the world of LGBTs, take sides, bone up for an alleged victim and accuse authorities of their own anti-gay bias when performing criminal investigations.
Others of course did reserve judgement and in the end did praise police but at the same time even though as it turns out the attack and allegations were untrue still took this as an opportunity to turn the lies of one into a PR op of gay violence without any retribution nor condemnation against the liar who told untruths. This unfortunately isn’t the first crying wolf, nor will it be the last.
On Monday December 10 Rogers was found guilty of filing a false police report and allowed to enter a plea of no contest while not admitting guilt nor a defense against the charge.
Investigators had found that Rogers wrote the following on her FaceBook account several days prior to the alleged attack, “So maybe I am too idealistic, but I believe way deep inside me that we can make things better for everyone. I will be a catalyst. I will do what it takes. I will. Watch me.”
Be it Rogers, others who have done so in the past and or those who will in the future report false claims of anti-gay attacks it creates an automatic frame of mind for some if not many in law enforcement to be skeptical of such claims.
That will hurt all of us in the LGBT community, who may someday actually be accosted or worse by individuals who perpetrate such incidents which can be held up to the light and be seen for what it is an anti-gay bias crime.
Rogers who will be sentenced in February and who could get a sentence of up to a year in jail and a $1000 fine should at the very least get the maximum penalty allowed.
For the potential future damage she has done to all of us she should get a lot more. And those who sided with her at the beginning before knowing all the facts should now write a complete condemnation of her actions.
I however will not be holding my breath for either the former nor the latter.