Go ahead and kill gays

[Satya]

It's apparently legal in this country. Even if you shoot them point blank, with dozens of witnesses, are arrested with the murder weapon, covered in evidence from the body, and make a full confession, the jury will not reach a verdict and you will get away with it. All you have to do is complain that they were sexually harassing you...because apparently sexual harassment is grounds for murder in this country if they are gay. The gay panic defense wins again. Ridiculous.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/gay-slaying-jury.html

A jury has been unable to reach a verdict in the murder trial of Brandon McInerney, the 17-year-old accused of shooting a gay classmate to death in 2008.


The jury began deliberating Friday, weighing eight weeks of testimony in a trial that included nearly 100 witnesses. Many of those testifying were students and teachers at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard who saw tensions on campus rising after 15-year-old Larry King began coming to school dressed in makeup and girl's boots.


McInerney, then 14, shot King twice in the back of the head in a school computer lab on Feb. 12, 2008. The prosecution says it was a calculated murder carried out in part because McInerney was exploring white supremacist ideology and didn't like homosexuals.

 

[bamf]

I've been loosely following this. Such bullshit.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

It seems that the motive was not so much because King was gay, but because of sexual harassment. Nevertheless, such killing is not justified, but neither is trying to make this killing into something it isn't.

 

[Satya]

It seems that the motive was not so much because King was gay, but because of sexual harassment. Nevertheless, such killing is not justified, but neither is trying to make this killing into something it isn't.

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.

 

[This]

I think a lot of conclusions are being jumped to. I don't think it's fair to judge a jury's decision unless you actually sat in the court room when the case was on trail. There are so many ways that things can be skewed in any case and advocates for anything use that to their advantage. Of course it's a horrible crime, of course it should be punished as should all cold blooded premeditated murders, but I think it's unfair to come down on a jury without actually having been there yourself. I would say that about any case.

 

[Satya]

I think a lot of conclusions are being jumped to. I don't think it's fair to judge a jury's decision unless you actually sat in the court room when the case was on trail. There are so many ways that things can be skewed in any case and advocates for anything use that to their advantage. Of course it's a horrible crime, of course it should be punished as should all cold blooded premeditated murders, but I think it's unfair to come down on a jury without actually having been there yourself. I would say that about any case.

Let's review...

1. Dozens of witnesses saw the boy do it.
2. He told people before he did it that he was going to do it.
3. He had physical evidence on him from the body.
4. He had the murder weapon.
5. He made a full confession to doing it.
6. He told a psychologist that he had planned to do it and carried it out.

Yeah...I can come down on this jury because this jury is full of a bunch of fucking idiots.

 

[This]

Let's review...

1. Dozens of witnesses saw the boy do it.
2. He told people before he did it that he was going to do it.
3. He had physical evidence on him from the body.
4. He had the murder weapon.
5. He made a full confession to doing it.
6. He told a psychologist that he had planned to do it and carried it out.

Yeah...I can come down on this jury because this jury is full of a bunch of fucking idiots.

Did you watch the actual trial?

 

[Satya]

Did you watch the actual trial?

I've been following it. The defense's argument has been that the evil school administrators protected the flamboyant queer from bullying and the wicked queer child took advantage of it and sexually harassed the poor boy so that the poor boy snapped and pulled out the gun he brought to kill the boy that he told his friends the day before that he was going to bring, and shot the wicked queer in the head. And that is why this is involuntary manslaughter and not murder.

Yup, absolutely brilliant! You tell your friends you are bringing a gun to school to kill someone, you tuck it away and bring it to class, and only then do you snap and kill the person. That is "involuntary manslaughter". But they couldn't even agree on that!

 

[This]

I've been following it. The defense's argument has been that the evil school administrators protected the flamboyant queer from bullying and the wicked queer child took advantage of it and sexually harassed the poor boy so that the poor boy snapped and pulled out the gun he brought to kill the boy that he told his friends the day before that he was going to bring, and shot the wicked queer in the head. And that is why this is involuntary manslaughter and not murder.

Yup, absolutely brilliant! You tell your friends you are bringing a gun to school to kill someone, you tuck it away and bring it to class, and only then do you snap and kill the person. That is "involuntary manslaughter". But they couldn't even agree on that!

hmmm, that's odd actually. I'm not sure of california state law but "heat of the moment" type crimes in most states would be considered voluntary manslaughter, not involuntary unless it was somehow proven that the perpetrator was clinically insane.

I'd be willing to bet there was bullying going on, the whole thing reminds me of columbine. Not that it makes the action right mind you, it is indeed vile and obviously the law should protect anyone from getting shot in the back of the head regardless of what brought it on.

For now I tend to agree with your assessment that the jury was wrong, especially considering that we know the murder happened and who committed it. I'm not sure it's something I'd start yelling and screaming at until I saw everything that was introduced in trial though.

 

[Satya]

For now I tend to agree with your assessment that the jury was wrong, especially considering that we know the murder happened and who committed it. I'm not sure it's something I'd start yelling and screaming at until I saw everything that was introduced in trial though.

You have to understand this from my perspective. This is nothing new. This has a name. It's called the Gay Panic Defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

And it worked again. It's basically the argument that if a gay person flirts with a straight person, it can cause them to go temporarily insane and commit violence against the gay person. People have been getting off for murder and other violent crimes against gay people for years by using this defense. This is nothing but the latest example.

 

[Saru Inc]

I've not even read this topic yet, but just because this is probably just another bullshit heterophobic post from Satya, I am really just wanting to side to the opposite for the hell of it.


Honestly, these topics are getting old.

 

[Satya]

I've not even read this topic yet, but just because this is probably just another bullshit heterophobic post from Satya, I am really just wanting to side to the opposite for the hell of it.


Honestly, these topics are getting old.

Here is an amazing concept...

DON"T READ OR POST IN THREADS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE!

And god damn! So I post threads that challenge your precious fucking religious views! Oh, its the end of the fucking world! I'm so heterophobic because i expect humans to not be ignorant fucks! Get a grip.

Also, good job siding with a murderer. That probably doesn't help your case much.

 

[Saru Inc]

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.

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.

 

[Satya]

I'm gay you idiot.

And that matters for what? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the common sense needed to understand that you don't have to read or post in threads you don't like.

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.

Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman. Get over yourself. So I express frustration. I'm a fucking human being. I think I'm allowed to have feelings.

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.

I don't hate anyone. I can't imagine why you think I do.

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.

So...to prove that gay people aren't douchebags...you come into a thread you didn't read, begin to personally attack the person who started it, misrepresent what that person posts on the forum, and go on a long tirade about how hate filled that individual is because they make sarcastic posts?

Thanks for the fucking laugh!

 

[Saru Inc]

Umm.

 

[Feelings]

I once said "I have a 6 inch dick" to some guy in a video game, to like, bother him or be funny or something. The guy responded with "nice". I responded with "do you want to know how I know that you are gay?". And he was. Funny story.

Anyhow, more relevant to the topic: I think the contention is over whether this is a murder charge or a lesser charge like some sort of manslaughter. Wiki sez "Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter." The kid obviously had malice aforethought and intention.

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/

Seven jurors thought he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter while five thought he was guilty of murder. The lone juror who spoke to the media — but didn't give his name — said the fact that McInerney was 14 at the time of the shooting at E.O. Green School was a big point of contention as the jurors deliberated his fate during the past five days.

Conviction on a first-degree-murder charge would have brought a mandatory 50-year sentence, but a manslaughter sentence ranges from four to 11 years, along with a 10-year enhancement for using a gun.

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.

SO TAKE YOUR RHETORICAL THREAD TOPIC TITLE AND RAGE AND MISCHARACTERIZATIONS AND @#@$@##!@$#@!$#%^&

 

[Satya]

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.

That is a fair and reasonable criticism.

Damn you for appealing to my reason!

 

[Billy]

You're being a little sensationalistic. People get off for crimes all the time for bullshit reasons, thats life.

 

[Satya]

You're being a little sensationalistic. People get off for crimes all the time for bullshit reasons, thats life.

Indeed.

 

[InvisibleJim]

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.

Of course, if the murder happened in the UK he'd get off with a slap in the wrist and 2 years in prison even if he was proven and tried guilty as sin. Count your blessings.