California Judge Rules Rapist Must be Referred to With She/Her Pronouns Because He Identifies as a Woman
“Its just absolutely insane that a victim would have to get on the stand and police their pronoun usage when trying to recite one of the scariest times of their lives”
A California judge has ruled that an accused rapist named Tremaine Carroll must be referred to in court with she/her pronouns because he identifies as a woman. As you can see from the featured image, it doesn’t look like Carroll has put much effort into passing as a female.
Carroll was allowed to be housed in a female prison for simply claiming to be female. Now, two female inmates have accused him of rape. A third was allegedly impregnated by him.
ABC News in Chicago reports:
Pronoun use at center of rape case involving former prisoner in California
A convicted criminal who served time at the women’s prison in Chowchilla, California is charged with raping fellow inmates.
A Madera County judge ruled 52-year-old state prisoner Tremaine Carroll must be referred to with she/her pronouns because Carroll identifies as a woman.
But the district attorney believes the defendant is abusing the system.
“This is a person who is not a woman in any sense of the word,” says Madera County District Attorney Sally Moreno.
In March DA Sally Moreno, charged Carroll for rape allegedly committed while incarcerated at the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla.
“After his first cellmate became pregnant and was moved to Los Angeles, two other cellmates of his had complained that he had raped them, so we have filed rape charges against this inmate,” said Moreno…
“Its just absolutely insane that a victim would have to get on the stand and police their pronoun usage when trying to recite one of the scariest times of their lives,” said Dutemple.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air notes that this is all because of a particular law in California, aimed at preserving the “dignity” of the criminal. Yes, really:
How does a man end up in a women’s prison in California? Thanks to progressives in the state legislature, all it takes is for the man to declare himself a woman. Three years ago, Democrats enacted Senate Bill 132, also known as “The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act.” As one prosecutor explains, the law requires no medical transition, no psychological evaluation, and no other medical assessment.
What happens when this law gets put into effect in prisons? Pretty much what everyone would expect. Tremaine Carroll impregnated one fellow inmate after declaring himself a woman and then allegedly raped two other female inmates in prison. He faces trial now for those sexual assaults, but the Madera County judge ruled that everyone has to use Carroll’s preferred “she/her” pronouns — including his victims.
Why? Because, the judge explained, Carroll “deserves dignity.” Uh-huh.
This law and the judge’s ruling are stupid and offensive.
Here’s a video report:
This issue cost the Democrats big in the 2024 election. An increasing number of Americans look at stories like this one and say something to the effect of; You know what? I’m done with this.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Here’s a better example of some things that political correctness stole besides Christmas.
It has stolen comfort from the victims and given it to the criminals.
Another Culture Marxist judge, a couple more on the US Supreme Court would sink the country. And if Trump would have lost from another vote fraud we would have gotten a couple more.
This is not a judge anyone seeking justice should have to suffer.
The judge needs to be this guy’s next cellmate.
Seriously.
The women in these prisons are being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the U.S Constitution.
excellent point
So after I swear an oath to tell the truth, you’re ordering me to lie?
Referring to a man as “she” is incorrect English, but it’s not a lie. Especially when everyone can see him and knows that he is a man.
Even if it were a lie, though, it wouldn’t be perjury because it’s not material.
This judge seems to think it’s material. I would bet that the women in the prison the guy might be sent to would think it’s material.
The judge did not say it’s material. And the defendant’s potential future victims have nothing to do with what is or isn’t material to the case.
The defendant’s correct gender is completely immaterial to the case, so it would not be perjury even to tell an outright lie about it. Let alone to merely use incorrect pronouns, which is not even a lie.
I know what “material” means in a trial. I was being flippant. Evidently, you are too dumb to pick that up. I’ll type more slowly for you next time.
Incorrect English? So if you claim you didn’t steal an object when proof exists that you did, you’re just using incorrect English? If you tell me I have to look at a man sitting in front of me and claim he’s a woman, it’s a lie. And it’s gaslighting.
>>California Judge Rules Rapist Must be Referred to With She/Her Pronouns Because He Identifies as a Woman<<
Not surprised at all. It's the fad thing to do these days. And I'm more than sure his Public Defender told him to make that claim. So that if he's found guilty he'll be sentenced to a women's prison facility instead of a men's facility. Of course, that puts all the actual female inmates at whatever facility he's assigned to in jeopardy but that doesn't seem to be a concern for the woke California justice system. Disgusting. Simply disgusting.
Simply wouldn’t do it.
Just call it by its last name
Period
Time California is made to come to its knees
They can’t make you participate in somebody else’s hallucination, has always been the trouble with the pronoun aggression.
Why is everybody waling on the judge? Are his hands not tied by this stupid state law?
As we are reminded, judges don’t make law, except when a specific case is about challenging the law itelf.
How about giving the legislators hell?
Save some for the voters who keep putting folks into office that pass these sorts of ideas into law.
What business is it of the government, in any context, what pronouns or names someone uses for someone else?
The first amendment, which is the Supreme Law, says that the government has NOTHING to say about my language in that respect.
Then, there are also the little things called “reality” and “sanity”.
The first amendment doesn’t apply when you’re in court, and especially when you’re on the stand. For instance when you’re on the stand you have no right to remain silent; you are required to answer all questions truthfully unless the answer would incriminate you.
Judges can also impose their own idea of appropriate language. You don’t have a right to use vulgarities on the stand, or indeed anywhere in the court room, if the judge objects.
So if the judge thinks referring to the defendant as “he” is offensive, he can order you not to.
Obviously, the judge can order anything he wants in the court. He is given full reign for the moment he is the judge, there. But his actions in this respect are criminal and he should, at the very least, be thrown off the bench and disbarred (if he’s a lawyer).
A judge can decide that “stupid” is verboten in his courtroom and start holding people in contempt for using it to describe stupid people and stupid actions (as they are legally required to do in telling “the truth, the whole truth”) but he would need to be held liable for his actions by the state and appropriately punished.
Obviously, California would never hold a deranged lunatic like this liable (since California is the home of deranged lunatics) but then the US attorney should look into it and California should be sanctioned by the feds until the judge is removed.
The judge can compel you to speak the truth but the judge cannot compel you to lie. Period. And men cannot be women. End of story.
The judge is not affected by this law at all.
The law requires prisoners to be housed according to their stated preference. That has nothing to do with the judge. Judges sentence people to prison; they don’t decide where that sentence is to be served.
The law also requires “Staff, contractors, and volunteers” of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Not judges and certainly not witnesses in a court. It’s entirely up to the judge what language he considers appropriate in his courtroom.
It identifies as a rapist.
On the contrary. If he’s pleading not guilty then he identifies as a non-rapist.
Does this Leftist jurist even know what a woman is? Didn’t think so!
If I identify as a judge will I be caledl, “Your Honor”?
In California?
They had a guy who identified as an Emperor, and they called him Your Imperial Majesty.
So why not?
What methods are available to remove this judge from the bench?
I believe California has a judicial conduct board, which can recommend to the state supreme court to remove a judge.
But I have tried and failed to find any mention of the judge’s name, or a direct quote from this alleged order, let alone its original text. It’s alleged here that the order will apply to witnesses too, including the alleged victims, but we only have the DA’s word for that. Without the text we can’t know whether that’s true.
That’s what happens when judges don’t know what a “woman” is.
This judge has the sort of sharp legal mind of someone Biden would appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Seems like a clear case of “compelled speech”, which would be in violation of both the US and CA State Constitutions.
6th Circuit recently ruled on this.
Here in my State of VA the State Supreme Court recently ruled on it as well.
Anyone on the stand in court is already compelled to speak. The first amendment doesn’t apply when you’re on the stand. The judge makes the rules.
You are NOT “compelled to speak” in court. You are compelled to tell the truth. You CANNOT be compelled to lie.
Leave a Comment