defendant

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-09

Final complete day: 2026-10-09. Attention was 0.1% — this entity appeared in 32 of 51,707 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (40 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-10-09 22:16 UTCComment

   **Just because you don't see how someone could misunderstand something doesn't mean their misunderstanding isn't valid** Holy shit, I tried to be patient and actually explain this to you, but now you're just being ignorant, and in all transparency you're starting to annoy me Go tell OP that you don't understand how they thought the defendant was getting away with murder, and that anyone should know the headline was implying - but dont come in here and give me shit because I tried to explain something to other people that they didn't understand **a mistrial is NOT a not guilty verdict, it means they have to be tried again** Mistrial = trial not valid, do it again Acquittal = the charges are being dropped You literally asked me to explain the difference between what the title was saying and what the article was saying because AND I QUOTE *THE KILLING MAY HAVE BEEN JUSTIFYABLE BECAUSE SHE'S TRANS* That's **LITERALLY THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE** AND IF YOU KILL SOMEONE AND GET A NOT GUILTY VERDICT DO YOU KNOW WHAT THATS CALLED?! AN **A Q U I T T A L** **killing trans people is not justifyable** **but that doesn't mean a retrial isn't warranted** ***BOTH CAN BE TRUE*** Jesus ffs I'm normally quite patient but youre TESTING ME HERE EDIT: "technically a good thing, but for the other way around : the victim being trans, the reasons for the crime may have been motivated by that, requiring more jail time, as it isn't just "a murder", but "a murder based on protected characteristics". So a retrial isn't unwarranted" - u/lesuperhun, in response to the top comment and OP's confusion Go tell lesperhun youre confused, and you dont see the distinction between the reality and the perceived reality, then when they explain it to you tell them that you couldn't possibly see how anyone could assume otherwise See how they react I hope they have more patience than I do, I'm done talking to you

2. 2026-10-09 21:03 UTCComment

   First off, just to make it **explicitly clear**: I'm quoting the article title posted in the above screenshot when I say "the killing may have been justifiable" ("Killing of Woman May Have Been Justifiable Because She Was Trans, Tennessee Court Rules" - article title) I do **not** condone the killing of trans people, especially since I myself am trans, and quite like living Everything I have said is within the context of explaining the article's contents to those misunderstanding it, and I do **not** support the decision of the judge ---- Okay, now that I got that disclaimer out of the way, let me try to answer your question in as clear a way as I can: What I understood from the content of the article is that due to the evidence of the victim being trans not being presented, the judge has ordered a retrial This means the defendant's previous murder charges are once again being tried in court, and they will have to prove themselves not guilty or be declared guilty by a new jury of their peers, upon which they will be sentenced I.e. they are still "not guilty" (until proven otherwise) on paper, but are still on trial, so they're in jail pending a retrial and currently not a free man (idk about their bail situation, that's not relevant to the article) That is VERY different from what the title is implying, which is that they were *acquitted*, in which case the charges are dropped and theyre a free man who legally isn't deemed guilty of murder "justifiable" in a legal context means that the crime is allowed under current law So if we just go off the title, it means that it's now a legal precedent that murdering trans people is legal in Tennessee **as of Friday, October 9th, 2026, no precedent has been currently set in the state of Tennessee that allows an individual to murder another individual, even if they're transgender** The article title is MISLEADING, because that's ehat it's implying and it's wrong Now im not saying that *wont change* - it may But it hasn't *yet*, and that's a very clear distinction If you're still confused, allow me to answer your second (implied) question directly: "I genuinely can’t describe a difference between 'the fact that she’s trans may have influenced the jury into a not guilty verdict and should have been allowed as evidence' and 'the killing may have been justifiable because she’s trans'" You've confused two similar but different things, which is understandable, but there IS a difference - and that difference is what determines whether or not this person is sentenced to prison Let me reverse the order of the two statements, that might make it easier to convey in an understandable way Statement A is saying: "the killing may have been justifiable because she’s trans" this is stating that the victim being trans means the accused may be not guilty, whereas if the victim was cisgender they would be guilty I.e., being transgender is a differential factor whether or not a killing is justified Statement B is saying: "the fact that she’s trans may have influenced the jury into a not guilty verdict and should have been allowed as evidence" This is stating that the *act of withholding that information* has led to inaccurate information ("the victim is cisgender" is a false statement, objectively), and that that constitutes a retrial since the circumstances upon which the guilty verdict was delivered werre inaccurate I.e., the *lack of accurate information* is a differential factor when *handing a verdict* In Statement A, the victim being trans makes a difference In Statement B, not telling the jury that they were trans makes a difference Currently, Statement B is true, but Statement A is false **if** *the* **retrial** *finds them* **not guilty**, then *both* Statement A and Statement B will be true **if** *the* **retrial** *finds them* **guilty**, then *only* Statement B is true Information leading to a retrial is NOT THE SAME as information leading to a not guilty verdict, especially since the information was *not present* in the original mistrial The fact that the victim is trans has been deemed significant enough information that the WITHOLDING of it is an issue in the trials validity Im not saying I agree with it, but thats what the judge has ruled I don't think I can explain it any better within thr context of the article, so I hope you understand what I'm saying now In case you *don't*, however, let me use a more personal example to help: Hypothetically, you, mistelle1270, kill someone I'm in charge of defending you in this imaginary trial I don't personally know your gender (which is true), so I go based on statistics Statistically, 59.8% of reddit users are cisgender men, and I assume you fall into that majority So I defend you to the best of my ability, but the jury finds you guilty In the eyes of the law, a cisgender man named Mistelle1270 has been found guilty of murder But then new information surfaces after the trial Almost a third of reddit users are *not* cisgender men, and you happen to fall into that category (apologies if you actually are a cisgender man, again, I dont know you and I'm not going to make any assumption of who you are or what you identify as (just like how I told you earlier I was trans, but I didn't tell you if I was a trans woman, trans man, or nonbinary, so unless you read my comment history you don't actually know), this is just a hypothetical scenario) This information is then deemed significant, which means that I as a defense attorney have made a mistake by assuming your gender, and have presented false information to a jury Legally, there now *has* to be a retrial You could be a cisgender woman You could be a transgender woman You could be a transgender nonbinary individual, be it agender, genderfluid, genderqueer, etc. It doesn't matter, no matter what you are, the fact that you're not who I as your defense said you were is what matters in the eyes of the ruling So using this hypothetical as an metaphor, let's apply it to the real, non-hypothetical context: The victim of this trial was transgender, and that wasn't presented in court - they were *assumed* to be a cisgender woman If they were a cisgender man, a trans man, or even if they were nonbinary it would STILL be a mistrial It's not that they're a trans woman Is that they're NOT a cisgender woman, which is what the jury believed when delivering their verdict The victim was A, but the jury thought they were B Even if they were C or D, the fact that they're NOT B is what constitutes the mistrial So yes, the title is wrong The fact that they are a trans woman isn't important here It's the fact that they're NOT a cisgender woman THATS what the judge has deemed is differential information, and that's NOT what the title of the article said Being a trans woman = not being a cisgender woman Not being a cisgender =/= being a trans woman One can be true but the reverse isnt necesarily true Just like how not every transgender individual is a trans woman, not every person who isn't a cisgender woman is a trans woman (trans men are men but also trans, too, and someone who's agender isn't a man or a woman but they can still be trans!) Its the incorrect informstion that's been deemed the issue here, not what their gender actually is (even though I personally dont agree that the incorrect information is relevant enough to warrant a mistrial) Hopefully this all makes sense now - short of drawing pictures I'm not sure how else I could explain this

3. 2026-10-09 20:49 UTCComment

   It's not simply 'whether it was self defense', the defendant said he refuses to testify if he can't claim he was defending himself against a man. He is DEMANDING the courts not just label his victim a transgender woman, but a 'biological man' He said if the judge rules him still simply as any sort of woman, he won't make any self defense testimony. He's evil and aggressive, and he's very desperate to make a jury think he killed a man and not a woman as the lynchpin of that entire self defense argument

4. 2026-10-09 20:47 UTCComment

   It's beyond awful, the lede is buried that the defendant is calling this into question because he REFUSES to testify unless he's allowed to call the victim's gender into question, because he thinks juries will be more lenient 'if he killed a man' (this was specifically the defense's reasoning; people in here saying 'it's because the judge wasn't being truthful' look very suspicious to me right now, the defense's exact argument isn't that the judge was dishonest, it's that the victim should supposedly be seen as a man in the eyes of the law so that juries will seem more favorable) This man killed an innocent woman, this woman is dead because of him, he really wants you to only hear that 'a man fought him for his gun', it's kind of that simple. There is no 'unless he is aiming for a trans panic defense', he is, and the defense is very much saying that he is. The defense is explicitly trying to claim that it's essentially 'indisputable' that a man fought him for his gun, and not that a woman was merely struggling against someone who shot her. *I don't think he realizes his original ruling can't be thrown out, he doesn't want this unless he's aiming for a trans panic defense, he's DESPERATE to pretend this was self defense.

5. 2026-10-09 18:57 UTCComment

   >But it explicitly says that the defendant is "entitled to a new trial where he could use this fact \[that the victim was a trans woman\] to bolster his claim of self-defense". could, but that's his defense. and if he did, well, then the crime would have been a hate crime, because the fact she was trans would then be relevant. so, a risky gamble on his part. especially since his defense was "she had a gun ( that wasn't found) " and well, sex/gender has little to do with gun danger level.