Go ahead and kill gays

[Flavus Aquila]

This is a story about a white supremacist, homophobe who didn't like gays and who was sexually threatened by a gay kid who flirted with him and so he told his friends he would kill the kid and the next day he followed through. If the gay kid had been a girl or another straight male, and the murderer had reacted in this fashion then he would have been convicted. That is what this story is about. The actions of the jury are just as repugnant as the actions of the murderer because they have pretty much said that it is okay to kill gay people if you think they are hitting on you.

But of course, little FA is so worried that people might "mistakenly" believe that the killer shot the boy because he is gay, that he sees nothing wrong with a jury letting the kid off. And of course, FA knows the killer's true motives because he was there. Oh wait! No he wasn't! He simply read what the defense said and decided to believe that argument because that is better than the thought that the killer actually did kill the boy because he is gay. FA has no idea what the killer's true motive was, he is simply making an assumption, because he doesn't like the political implications of open season on gay people.

I am more likely to trust the judicial system and a jury that has been present for all of the evidence, than what the media presents. The very fact that a jury couldn't reach a decision, indicates that this is not such an open and shut case, as you want it to be (or as you have blindly accepted it to be). Trials take weeks, if not months - and cover more facts and arguments than a few one-liners from some tabloid. To passionately believe a trial was flawed just because some print-journalist has told you to think it was would be behaviour fitting of people too stupid, or lazy to read or think for themselves.

 

[barbad0s]

This is a story about a white supremacist, homophobe who didn't like gays and who was sexually threatened by a gay kid who flirted with him and so he told his friends he would kill the kid and the next day he followed through.

It takes a lot to make someone kill a person. This guy must have had deep insecurities to want to prove his manly antigayness or whatever.

I am more likely to trust the judicial system and a jury that has been present for all of the evidence, than what the media presents. The very fact that a jury couldn't reach a decision, indicates that this is not such an open and shut case, as you want it to be (or as you have blindly accepted it to be). Trials take weeks, if not months - and cover more facts and arguments than a few one-liners from some tabloid. To passionately believe a trial was flawed just because some print-journalist has told you to think it was would be behaviour fitting of people too stupid, or lazy to read or think for themselves.

+1

@Satya You are taking this story to a level to bring to light an issue that is much broader than this individual situation allows for. While it may have connections and insinuations towards this broader issue, you are partaking in confirmation bias. This is a case where a man was ridiculously unfairly violently attacked, BUT you are using vague connections from this one story to bring up an issue that you are obviously personally attached to and passionate about, and it makes you look foolish.

It's not a bad thing to be passionate about a cause, but if you wield it above your head and try to use arbitrary sources to preach about things as facts, then you are acting in exactly the same way as the "white supremacist homaphobes" that you have great disdain for.

 

[Lerxst]

He brought a gun to school. He shot a classmate twice... in the back. Hate crime status aside, there is absolutely no legal defense for this or pleading to a lesser charge. This is First Degree murder by definition. If the defense made the case that he was provoked, then they coudl reason Second Degree Murder... but the kid still brought a gun to school and shot his classmate twice in the back.

 

[barbad0s]

Wiki sez: "Voluntary manslaughter occurs either when the defendant kills with malice aforethought (intention to kill or cause serious harm), but there are mitigating circumstances which reduce culpability, or when the defendant kills only with an intent to cause serious bodily harm. Voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions is a lesser included offense of murder. The traditional mitigating factor was provocation; however, others have been added in various jurisdictions."

Does King's actions constitute 'provocation'? Wiki is our friend. "Provocation: A killing which occurs after provocation by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. There must not be a cooling off period negating provocation. If there is an interval between the provocation and killing sufficient to allow the passion of a reasonable person to cool, the homicide is not manslaughter, but murder."

By those definitions it was murder.

Check out http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/sep/02/mcinerney-jury-splits-on-verdict-judge-declares/


Apparently a lot of people are uncomfortable with the kid being tried as an adult. I think that's why the jury was hung. The kid's gonna be locked up for a long time, but it's more a matter of how long.

Could it also be that the jury is unfamiliar with distinguishing between these two terms "murder" and "manslaugher" and their particulars?

Jury sounds like dumbasses. The individual's crime was obviously a hate crime. Still @Satya you are shitting a large amount of bricks about this and basically you look like "OMG ONE HATE CRIME ONE GROUP OF FAILING JURORS THE UNIVERSE HATES GAYS I HATE MY LIFE THE SKY IS FALLING TIME TO GO SHIT A BRICK ON THE FORUM".

 

[Vicarious]

Am I the only one who noticed that it was a hung jury...in other words, this case can go to trial again?

Granted, I agree that this was a premeditated thing...one doesn't spout off about killing someone the day before if it was a "heat of the moment" thing but before everyone gets their panties in a wad, it was a hung jury, not a "not guilty" verdict, so this isn't over yet.

 

[Kgal]

Forgive the lateness of my response here...

QUOTE=saru;525943 I'm gay you idiot.

But I'm sick and tired of every single day having another topic from you saying A) Conservatives suck, B) straight people suck C) stupid people suck or D) whoever doesn't side with me suck.

I mean honestly, the high school I went to, a tranny was beaten so bad he was in the hospital for months. I had food thrown at me in the lunchroom for being gay. I lived in constant fear of my parents finding out and disowning me to the point I was taking sleeping pills to sleep from 4pm until 7am the next day. And then I 'tried' killing myself a few times. I've also done a bunch of other stuff. I know if I post anything you'll just say something retarded like "AWWW WANT A COOKIE?" or something gay like that.

All I am trying to say is, I have PLENTY of reasons to hate straight people, to hate conservatives, to hate everyone who's ever hated me for simply being the person God made me to be.

Ok...I'm struggling with a whole range of emotions reading this. And you've already made the comment to Satya you don't want him to "offer you another cookie". So I will withhold any compassionate responses I so strongly wish to give you.
But I gotta say what happened to you in your time in school was atrocious and horrible and No One should be subjected to that....

What I am saying to you is, hate is a choice, and you're choosing to post these hateful topics again and again and again. Now, I can respect the fact that you are simply outraged that a gay kid was shot, and I'm assuming the killer is getting off, that pisses me off as well.

However, making a sarcastic title and being an assbag for the entirety of your forum career, really does nothing but re-enforce the gay stereotype that gays are douchebags.

These types of threads/posts don't make me think that way, Saru. I find them necessary in the fact they add to the body of evidence about our culture's increasing fear.

I'm going to suggest something here.

Science has now demonstrated the same areas of the brain light up for emotional pain as physical pain. When you consider this fact in light of a "sensitive person" such as an introvert feeler, the emotional pain is intensified. Combine that with repeated emotional trauma such as you endured in school, and you have a person who is walking around with the equivalent of a raw open gaping knife wound deep with their body.

The emotional pain FEELS the same as something such as cutting off a part of the body...

Each time you encounter a thread or a story, someone tells, with elements of your past in it, I imagine it's as if they are slashing through your wound again.

Because you have not had a chance to heal the wound - your psyche - your hidden parts of you that is wounded - naturally gravitates to these stories to help make you aware of your wound. We all have those hidden aspects of ourselves in us. When someone comes along and triggers the hidden aspect, quite often we react so as to make it hidden again because we either aren't aware of it - or we don't have the capacity to deal with our hidden self. So you continue to keep it hidden, covered over with a bandaid, out of sight, because the pain is so unbearable to you. And rightly so, Saru. Please don't think I'm coming down on you or judging you lacking.

My hope here is for you to see how your wounded self is searching for any way for itself to heal. Your dismissal of the events where the 14yr old boy killed the other boy is denying your wounded self any chance at healing.

I wish you peace, Saru.
Namaste'

 

[Satya]

I am more likely to trust the judicial system and a jury that has been present for all of the evidence, than what the media presents. The very fact that a jury couldn't reach a decision, indicates that this is not such an open and shut case, as you want it to be (or as you have blindly accepted it to be). Trials take weeks, if not months - and cover more facts and arguments than a few one-liners from some tabloid. To passionately believe a trial was flawed just because some print-journalist has told you to think it was would be behaviour fitting of people too stupid, or lazy to read or think for themselves.

Same could be said of you. Don't pretend you know what the true motive was.

 

[Satya]

Still @Satya you are shitting a large amount of bricks about this and basically you look like "OMG ONE HATE CRIME ONE GROUP OF FAILING JURORS THE UNIVERSE HATES GAYS I HATE MY LIFE THE SKY IS FALLING TIME TO GO SHIT A BRICK ON THE FORUM".

I was reacting to the sheer amount of evidence of this case.

 

[Satya]

Am I the only one who noticed that it was a hung jury...in other words, this case can go to trial again?

Granted, I agree that this was a premeditated thing...one doesn't spout off about killing someone the day before if it was a "heat of the moment" thing but before everyone gets their panties in a wad, it was a hung jury, not a "not guilty" verdict, so this isn't over yet.

I doubt they will take it to trial again but we will see.

 

[Trifoilum]

......it looks like a valid issue, but the matter of which the issue is represented kind of turns me off to read enough of it instead of the gist.

For the sake of the victim, I'm just going to point out that verdicting a kid is still verdicting a kid, no matter his orientation, actions, beliefs, race..... If this has juries (sorry, I don't know much about American judicial system), this is going to disturb them. Right, this kid kills another kid, but am I SURE I want to be the guillotine to his future? Really?

Besides, in a certain way; doesn't his admission can be worked out as 'he's feeling guilty about it'? Of course, I'm biased since I don't follow the case and don't see how it's presented and the situation, but...

On the other hand, loss of life is still loss of life.

I call injustice if the kid is let out free. But really, is that the case?
I'm with the Princess here. He's not going to get away with it. The only question is how long.
===

On the other hand,
[MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION], [MENTION=3156]saru[/MENTION], there, there. Calm down.

 

[aerosol]

also, child murder is apparently allowed here as well.

*cough*

 

[bickelz]

I am more likely to trust the judicial system and a jury that has been present for all of the evidence, than what the media presents. The very fact that a jury couldn't reach a decision, indicates that this is not such an open and shut case, as you want it to be (or as you have blindly accepted it to be). Trials take weeks, if not months - and cover more facts and arguments than a few one-liners from some tabloid. To passionately believe a trial was flawed just because some print-journalist has told you to think it was would be behaviour fitting of people too stupid, or lazy to read or think for themselves.

The argument from the defense was simply to humanize the defendant saying that he was "only 14, had family troubles and his father died whilst on trial so have a heart people of the jury, let him off". The defenses argument was just a bunch of crap to make them feel sorry for the kid so that he didn't have to serve life.

How else would you get off the hook when you admit the crime?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

The argument from the defense was simply to humanize the defendant saying that he was "only 14, had family troubles and his father died whilst on trial so have a heart people of the jury, let him off". The defenses argument was just a bunch of crap to make them feel sorry for the kid so that he didn't have to serve life.

How else would you get off the hook when you admit the crime?

There is such a thing as limited, or diminished responsibility.

I've had a couple of friends who were let off for bashing people because of extreme provocation. Some people, if pushed beyond a certain point, are not capable of acting rationally.

An example of this has been some cases of abused women, who kill, or mutilate their husbands (at times, when they were not simultaneously being abused), who have been excused of more serious crimes because of their mental state.

I cannot say one should expect that every 14 year old who is abused at home and humiliated/sexually harrassed at school would be in rational control of their actions at all times.

 

[Feelings]

Well, the devil's in the details. Whether or not it was a hate crime, and whether there are mitigating circumstances, and to what extent culpability is mitigated, those are not easy questions to answer. Precedence might help, if there is some. Either way, it's a very subjective call, deciding exactly how long the kid should be locked up for. So unless you do your research and can present your reasoning, your opinion is not very well formed. A lotta people jumping to conclusions without the groundwork to back it up. I don't give a shit if someone has one opinion or the other, as long as it's backed up by a reasonable basis.

I would look into exactly what kind of home life the kid had, and precisely what his experience had been at school (were other people harassing or bullying him? in what ways?), and what other exchanges the 2 kids had. That information, along with the kid's age at the time, plus perhaps precedence and anything else relevant, would be used to form an opinion on what the charge should be. I would want to know as much relevant info as possible before deciding "alright, it's first degree murder. 50 years." You gotta do a comprehensive analysis when making these kinds of decisions.

 

[Billy]

In another thread Satya weren't you championing the cause that depending on his life circumstance he may not be 100% at fault? So that goes out the window when the killer kills a gay dude?

 

[Satya]

I cannot say one should expect that every 14 year old who is abused at home and humiliated/sexually harrassed at school would be in rational control of their actions at all times.

The premeditation of the crime throws the whole "act of passion" aspect out the window. He told his friends he was going to bring a gun to school and kill this kid, he brought the gun to school. he retrieved it and hid it, and then he pulled it out in class and shot the kid in the back of the head. The "trigger" to his alleged snapping was that the kid was changing his name to a female name, but that is a bullshit excuse given he already had the gun on his person. Changing names is also not exactly something very threatening. While I'm sure you feel for the kid given his past of abuse, that is not an excuse for cold blooded murder. I experienced a lot of abuse in my childhood, that doesn't give me grounds to come put a bullet in your head because I don't like how you treat myself and other people at times.

Now the question is should this kid have a future after murdering someone. Just change the fact that the person he killed was gay, and tell me if you could honestly say he does. If he had killed another child that is important to you, could you honestly say given all the details of this case, that he should have a future?

 

[Kgal]

No.

He is a danger to society.

 

[This]

No.

He is a danger to society.

He is now, but will he be in 25 years? The question isn't of letting him go it's if and when.

 

[bickelz]

There is such a thing as limited, or diminished responsibility.

I've had a couple of friends who were let off for bashing people because of extreme provocation. Some people, if pushed beyond a certain point, are not capable of acting rationally.

An example of this has been some cases of abused women, who kill, or mutilate their husbands (at times, when they were not simultaneously being abused), who have been excused of more serious crimes because of their mental state.

I cannot say one should expect that every 14 year old who is abused at home and humiliated/sexually harrassed at school would be in rational control of their actions at all times.

Well, wasn't the defendant like a white supremacist or something? And is "hey, how are you?" considered sexual humiliation?

I'll probably get into trouble for this but nobody has asked the question yet and keep in mind that I am a white person. Do you think that the defendant would have been successful if if shot a white kid? What about if the defendant were black?

 

[Kgal]

He is now, but will he be in 25 years? The question isn't of letting him go it's if and when.

I'm not understanding where you got the idea he'd be in prison for 25 years. I read a couple of articles and did not see that fact.
But maybe you did...

If you are asking me if I think he will be "safe" to rejoin society while living in prison for the next 25 years - then I honestly couldn't say. We could speculate all day long about his psyche and what's tangled up in his mind. Even if we knew for a fact how to proceed with his mental rehabilitation - there's no way to know he would get that service while in prison.
I watched the movie "The Dhamma Brothers" and gained a new understanding of the prison system methods - at least down in the south. Who knows what would happen to him wherever he's sent? The way this country is heading - as far as compassion and ethics - is in the toilet - imo - and I don't see him getting any real help any time soon.

So far it does not appear he is going to prison at all...

Teen to face retrial in killing of gay classmate

Catherine Saillant,Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Los Angeles --
Prosecutors pledged Friday to immediately retry a middle school student who shot a gay classmate, maintaining that the incident was a premeditated murder and a hate crime despite doubts by some jurors in the initial trial, which ended with a hung jury and a mistrial.

But Ventura County prosecutors said they are considering whether to again try Brandon McInerney as an adult - a choice that legal experts believe made it harder for them to win a conviction.

McInerney, of Oxnard, who was 14 at the time of the killing of 15-year-old Larry King, would face up to life in prison if convicted as an adult.
In the juvenile system, even convicted murderers are typically released at age 25.

Jurors said Thursday that they were deadlocked on a verdict, with seven favoring a voluntary-manslaughter conviction and five pushing for first- or second-degree murder.

Prosecutors said Friday they continue to believe the killing at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard was motivated by King's sexual orientation.

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law professor and former federal prosecutor, said it is possible that jurors thought the charges were too harsh.

"Jurors felt prosecutors overcharged, and they were clearly not comfortable putting the boy away for life. They probably believed the dynamic between two adolescent boys is not the same as two adults," Levenson said.

Defense attorneys acknowledged that McInerney was the shooter, but argued that he had reached an emotional breaking point after King made repeated, unwanted sexual advances.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/03/MNQR1KVKJN.DTL
This article appeared on page A - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle