I guess then these are the big questions, if being furry is relevant to the case why is it? And if it not then why the hell did the question come up in the first place?
If one questions the relevancy of the story to the fandom, then one must also question why a prosecution staff would choose to bring that up in a murder trial. If our hobby is being used to discredit our testimonies, that's kind of relevant and important information. If the only thing that happened here was something that was irrelvant and isn't being used in a case came up then that's another thing. But there is ALWAYS a reason in the court of law if a lawyer is attempting to bring it up. It is not just some bar conversation. There is a reason she was asked about her hobby.
Whether it was to help her in presenting her case, or harm her reputation in the case, is unclear. But if it is the later, it isn't just some insignificant news story, it'd probably be one of the biggest blights of societal perception on the fandom, far worse then some Tyra Banks blowoff. Tyra Banks was just some bimbo with no real power or influence which is why she no longer has a show. However here we are talking about actual prosecutors. If being a furry is going to make your testimony useless in court, in the worse case scenario, a furry will never be able to obtain justice.
I highly doubt every jury would eat that up though, or every lawyer would do such a tactic, but it is something to be aware of, especially if you're a furry resident in Michigan who votes for the local DA who would allow such tactics to go forward if that is indeed the case.
I guess then these are the big questions, if being furry is relevant to the case why is it? And if it not then why the hell did the question come up in the first place?
If one questions the relevancy of the story to the fandom, then one must also question why a prosecution staff would choose to bring that up in a murder trial. If our hobby is being used to discredit our testimonies, that's kind of relevant and important information. If the only thing that happened here was something that was irrelvant and isn't being used in a case came up then that's another thing. But there is ALWAYS a reason in the court of law if a lawyer is attempting to bring it up. It is not just some bar conversation. There is a reason she was asked about her hobby.
Whether it was to help her in presenting her case, or harm her reputation in the case, is unclear. But if it is the later, it isn't just some insignificant news story, it'd probably be one of the biggest blights of societal perception on the fandom, far worse then some Tyra Banks blowoff. Tyra Banks was just some bimbo with no real power or influence which is why she no longer has a show. However here we are talking about actual prosecutors. If being a furry is going to make your testimony useless in court, in the worse case scenario, a furry will never be able to obtain justice.
I highly doubt every jury would eat that up though, or every lawyer would do such a tactic, but it is something to be aware of, especially if you're a furry resident in Michigan who votes for the local DA who would allow such tactics to go forward if that is indeed the case.