Prosecutors Call Student's Shooting A Hate Crime

[Trab]

Refusing to discuss homosexuality with children does not make homosexuality disappear. Rather, it makes the issue shadowy, frightening, and more salient than ever to the most impressionable members of American society.

Now if we could just get certain school administrators to actually understand this point, we'd all be better off.

[JamesSavik]

Some school administrators would rather put up with the occassional shooting spree than address this "mature" subject.

[DesDownunder]

Some school administrators would rather put up with the occassional shooting spree than address this "mature" subject.

Rather than think they would prefer to put up with the occasional shooting, I think it may be true to say that they see it as a problem that cannot be solved.

They need to be shown that that attitude is not helpful, to put it politely.

[Tiger]

If convicted, McInerney could face 50 years to life in prison.

Frankly, 50 years is not enough. That was a hate crime and a murderous one at that.

[dude]

When I started this thread... I felt -and still do- that this is a double tragedy. For both Larry - who innocently asked Brandon to 'be his Valentine' and for Brandon who, filled with hate he got from somewhere - probably home - whould spend the rest of his life, child AND adult, paying for it.

Neither of these 8th graders fully realized what they were doing... who of us did at that age?

Which of the two suffers most? Larry, who was taken instantly? Or Brandon, who will spend nearly the rest of his existance behind bars where things far worse than a possible Valentine's card or peck on the cheek from Larry would happen to him, every day.

All the politics of gun control, hate crime legislaton, etc. pale beside this reality.

This song is about the Matthew Shepard murder in 1998

American Triangle by Elton John

Music by Elton John

Lyrics by Bernie Taupin

Seen him playing in his backyard

Young boy just starting out

So much history in this landscape

So much confusion, so much doubt

Been there drinking on that front porch

Angry kids, mean and dumb

Looks like a painting, that blue skyline

God hates fags where we come from

'Western skies' don't make it right

'Home of the brave' don't make no sense

I've seen a scarecrow wrapped in wire

Left to die on a high ridge fence

It's a cold, cold wind

It's a cold, cold wind

It's a cold wind blowing, Wyoming

See two coyotes run down a deer

Hate what we don't understand

You pioneers give us your children

But it's your blood that stains their hands

Somewhere that road forks up ahead

To ignorance and innocence

Three lives drift on different winds

Two lives ruined, one life spent

[The Pecman]

It was reported in one recent account that the victim had told the shooter the day before that he liked him.

That to me is the most interesting part of the case. Did they, in fact, have some kind of relationship? Or was the killer simply so nutso that he'd rather kill somebody than have his friends know that a gay kid liked him?

Howard Stern commented on the case on his Sirius Radio show, and had some interesting things to say. His take on it was (paraphrasing), "Boy, I'd be flattered if some gay guy liked me. If that were to have happened when I was a kid, I would say, 'gee, thanks, but I'm not interested,' and just let it go. Why would anybody be so insecure as to be threatened by a gay guy saying you were attractive?"

Granted, in prison, that could be a problem, but you have to wonder how F-'d up a kid would be to shoot somebody over something so trivial.

On the other hand, wearing make-up and high heels to school is pretty wacky. I can't believe anybody was surprised when that kid came out.

Regardless, there's something wrong with the world when the only way somebody can react in a situation like this is to shoot them. Absolute insanity.

[The Pecman]

Frankly, I hate the phrase, "Hate Crime". Since when is any kind of crime not hateful?

That's a tough call.

I agree everyone should be equal under the law. Still, if you only get suspended for punching out a kid in the hallway, I think it helps give the school more ammunition of they find out the kid being assaulted was a minority (gay, black, whatever). If that's the case, then they can ask for more penalties, such as psychological treatment, a restraining order, even jail time.

You can make the same argument against racial quotas. I know black people who point out the inequality of forcing companies to hire X number of black employees, saying that the only true equality is to give everyone the exact same chance -- no more, no less.

It's not an easy question, and I see both sides of the argument. In this case, I feel like if they identify it as a hate crime, maybe it'll make some other bully stop and think for a moment before they pull the trigger.

[JamesSavik]

The word hate crime is a bit of a misnomer.

Think of it as domestic terrorism aimed at instilling fear in a minority group because a TRUE hate crime is exactly that.

The difference between just any crime and a hate crime is motive. When a mugging occurs and it's just a plain old mugging, there is one victim. Now when that same mugging occurs and the victim is told that you queers need to stay out of our neighborhood, there is a victim of violence and a larger class of victims who are targeted for intimidation. If it isn't handled appropriately by police, and/or it happens again, the intimidation factor is more likely to work.

Both crimes- the simple mugging and the mugging with the anti-gay message are both repugnant and deserve punishment.

The "hate crime" or "domestic terrorism" is MORE serious because it injures one person and sends a message of intimidation to a whole class of people.

[E.J.]

Oxnard school unnerved by gay teen's shooting death

SUSPECT, VICTIM WERE FROM BROKEN HOMES

By Paul Pringle and Catherine Saillant

Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES - For teenagers living in a shelter for abused and neglected children, school can provide a daily dose of normalcy, a place to fit in, a chance to be just another kid.

It didn't turn out that way for Lawrence King.

According to the few students who befriended him, Larry, 15 years old and openly gay, found no refuge from his tormentors at E.O. Green Junior High School.

Not in the classroom, the quad, the cafeteria. Not from the day he enrolled at the school in Oxnard, about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles, until the moment he was shot to death in a computer lab, just after his usual morning van ride from the shelter a town away.

The 14-year-old accused of killing him, Brandon McInerney, had his own troubled home life when he was younger, with his parents accusing each other of drug addiction and physical assaults, court records show. The year before Brandon was born, his father allegedly shot the boy's mother in the arm, shattering her elbow, the records say.

Now, as the Feb. 12 killing of Larry King continues to draw attention, students, parents are others wonder if red flags in the boys' circumstances and backgrounds had been missed and if more could have been done to avert the tragedy.

"The question needs to be answered," said Ventura County Supervisor John Flynn, whose district includes E.O. Green. "It really bothers me a lot."

The anti-gay taunts and slurs Larry endured from his male peers apparently had

been constant, as routine for him as math lessons and recess bells. The stinging words were isolating. As friend Melissa Reza, 15, put it, Larry lived much of his life "toward the side . . . he was always toward the side."

She and others recall that the name-calling had begun long before he told his small circle of confidants that he was gay, before problems at home made him a ward of the court and before he summoned the courage to further assert his sexual orientation by wearing makeup and girls' boots with his school uniform.

His friends say the verbal cruelty had persisted for months and grew worse after slightly built Larry pushed back by "flirting" with some of his mockers. One of them was Brandon, who seethed over it, friends say.

Brandon has been charged as an adult with premeditated murder and a hate crime and is being held in juvenile hall.

For about a decade, the household of William and Kendra McInerney, Brandon's parents, had been in turmoil. The 1993 shooting incident led to William's conviction on discharging a firearm and a 120-day jail sentence, according to court records.

William McInerney was addicted to prescription drugs, Kendra said in a court declaration. She said he repeatedly choked her on one occasion, when Brandon was 6. The father was sentenced, after that incident, to 10 days in jail for battery.

The mother's home was the neighborhood "drug house," with people passed out in the front room, William alleged in a 2001 court declaration. He also said that his wife "back handed" Brandon and scratched the boy's chest. After his parents divorced, Brandon bounced between their homes in Oxnard, before settling several years ago at his father's residence near E.O. Green. Prosecutors say the handgun allegedly used to kill Larry came from the McInerney house.

Friends and adult acquaintances say they are still struggling to make sense of the crime Brandon is charged with, especially given the cold-blooded nature of the killing: two shots to the head in an attack carried out at 8:30 a.m. on a Tuesday in a roomful of youngsters unpacking their books and calculators.

Earlier this year, some of Brandon's classmates say, Larry began "hitting" on him and remarking for all to hear that he thought Brandon was "cute." Other boys then ribbed Brandon by saying he must be gay.

Michael Sweeney, an eighth-grader at E.O. Green, picked up on the whispering that followed.

"Brandon told this one girl that he was going to kill Larry," Michael said. "She didn't tell the principal. I didn't either, after I heard about it. I thought it was a joke."

Larry was shot the next day.

Lawrence King was born Jan. 13, 1993, at Ventura County Medical Center. He was adopted by Gregory and Dawn King, and he had three brothers and a sister.

His parents declined to be interviewed.

Larry had been removed from his home at some point in the past six months or so, friends and others say. Citing the privacy laws, county officials have not disclosed the reasons for his placement at Casa Pacifica in Camarillo.

Copyright 2008 San Jose Mercury News

[Trab]

While it is obvious that the parents of each failed miserably in their responsibilities to their children, there truly is no manual for raising a child, nor for how to guide your own life. There is a clear set of manuals, AND training for being school teachers, and allowing the continual bullying and taunting to go on, those at the school are clearly at least partially at fault. Any school with zero tolerance for bullying and immediate instruction in proper attitudes and behaviour has much fewer problems of this nature.

It is past time to address this issue as a high priority.

[colinian]

I still receive the daily email bulletin from my high school. In tomorrow's bulletin (they are issued the day before) there's this item under Clubs:

Support the Gay-Straight Alliance in raising money to donate to the Lawrence King Memorial Fund by buying Jamba Juice on Friday. 20% of your purchase will be donated to our cause. Look for the flyers around campus, which you need to take with you to Jamba Juice.

Some schools can do it right. Why can't all schools follow those examples? Ignorance, prejudice, fear of backlash, "religious" values, even hate. It's really too bad.

When I went to high school (a long time ago, I graduated in 2007 ) we had a kid not unlike Lawrence King. He dressed goth, wore makeup, was openly gay, and was liked by probably 95% of the kids on campus. The school district, administration, and teachers all lead by example. There is a no-excuses anti-discrimination policy district-wide. This kid was a ticket taker at football and basketball games, and was seen by our students and their parents and visiting students and adults, and never had any problems. If he had, there would have been 50 or more of our student body right there protecting him. So acceptance can be instilled in kids, and for those who can't accept they can learn to tolerate. The same thing is true in the intermediate school I attended.

As others have said, two kids have been immeasurably harmed by this action. The latest is that the killer told his girlfriend that he was going to kill Lawrence King, and she told at least one other boy, and they did nothing because they thought he was "joking". OMG, how can a school district not have taught these kids to report any threat against students or teachers or staff?

I don't know how to make schools do what's necessary to protect everyone on their campuses. I don't understand why it isn't being done.

[Colin steps down and puts soapbox away.]

[Cole Parker]

Don't put the soapbox too far away. You're dead nuts right on with what you said.

C

[Trab]

Logically, there are only two reasons this continues to be a problem:

1/ ignorance, which is hard to believe, but still, some people become frozen at some level of learning, and never learn any more.

2/ deliberate, which is probably the more likely. There are probably conscious decisions being made, weighing the downside of one action and its repercussions against other actions and those repercussions. As long as the benefits of NOT doing anything positive are greater than the liabilities, nothing will change. What needs to be done is make those in a position to affect change, responsible for negative consequences of not making those changes. While I absolutely abhor the violence that happens now and then, they do add to the negative effects side of the ledger, and will ultimately lead to better actions on the parts of administrations.

[Cole Parker]

Most current school and school district administrations have one major goal in mind: to not make waves. They don't want parent complaints, and if they have them, they move heaven and earth to mollify any complainers.

See the recent Oregon middle school play for confirmation of this, although this is simply one case; this practice is currently rampant across the country.

If a school district feels it will get complaints for having GSA clubs in the schools, it won't have them. If they feel the general atmostphere does not support anti-discrimination politices protecting minorities, they will not have such policies in the schools, or simply not enforce them.

What we need is some right-minded people with guts in our school and district administrations. I don't agree with Trab's suggestion that it's deliberate nonfeasance or stupidity that allows this to continue. I think it's cowardice.

C

[Trab]

I'm only saying that it is most likely deliberate, in that the non-action is thought about and decided upon consciously. Whether the decision is based upon cowardice, laziness, or bigotry is not something I can know. Maybe what is needed is a complete removal of autonomy, in favor of state or federal standards and requirements. This battle should not have to be fought in each school district and each school in the country. It is a universal concern and needs to be addressed universally. Presidential candidates, please speak now. (Ha. Like THAT is going to happen.)

[DesDownunder]

Most current school and school district administrations have one major goal in mind: to not make waves. They don't want parent complaints, and if they have them, they move heaven and earth to mollify any complainers.

See the recent Oregon middle school play for confirmation of this, although this is simply one case; this practice is currently rampant across the country.

If a school district feels it will get complaints for having GSA clubs in the schools, it won't have them. If they feel the general atmostphere does not support anti-discrimination politices protecting minorities, they will not have such policies in the schools, or simply not enforce them.

What we need is some right-minded people with guts in our school and district administrations. I don't agree with Trab's suggestion that it's deliberate nonfeasance or stupidity that allows this to continue. I think it's cowardice.

C

Cowardice is not the term I would use so quickly. Neither is stupidity solely responsible.

While deliberate nonfeasance (where did you find that wonderful word Cole?) can be seen as part of a wider problem of authority adhering to conservative interpretations of regulations without applying common sense.

The administrators simply do not have the capacity to make the intellectual jump needed to apply the spirit of common sense, or 'right-mindedness.' This is not cowardice, but ignorance and as such reflects poorly on their own education. They have been taught to manage in isolation from the needs of the people whom are part of the organization or those for whom the organisation is supposed to serve.

If the administrator should deliberately seek to avoid applying common sense then it is stupid and if done to protect the status quo or more likely their job, then does it also become, cowardly and I would add, unethical, even if it isn't criminal .

Again we see small minds in charge of organisations that should be in the vanguard of their field. Instead we see people not understanding the objectives of their organization and inhibiting those who would inspire and initiate to achieve the objective.

[Cole Parker]

This is why I led off my argument by stating the objective of many school boards and administrators today. Their objectives aren't the noble or ethical aims outlined here. Their objectives are to maintain the status quo and their jobs, and they do this not by shooting at lofty aspiriations for their constitutencies, but by keeping the nosie level muted. I've seen and read about it too often, and have first and knowlege of it in several places. They care about their positions, and feel the best way to keep them is to keep complaints sqaushed. They squash them by caving, in most instances, to the one who bitches the loudest. And I still maintain, such actions are basically cowardice.

C

[R.J.]

We probably need another "Renaissance."

Rad

[DesDownunder]

Posted Mar 11 2008, 03:48 PM

We probably need another "Renaissance."

Rad

No probably about that for me Rad.

I just hope it has the right motivation.

[DesDownunder]

This is why I led off my argument by stating the objective of many school boards and administrators today. Their objectives aren't the noble or ethical aims outlined here. Their objectives are to maintain the status quo and their jobs, and they do this not by shooting at lofty aspiriations for their constitutencies, but by keeping the nosie level muted. I've seen and read about it too often, and have first and knowlege of it in several places. They care about their positions, and feel the best way to keep them is to keep complaints sqaushed. They squash them by caving, in most instances, to the one who bitches the loudest. And I still maintain, such actions are basically cowardice.

C

Far from disagreeing with your statement, Cole, I wished only to highlight the origin of the faulty attitude of the Administrators and Boards.

I maintain that ignorance is their primary fault and as such reflects on the system that educated them. A system they sustain by their cowering to the loudest whiners and thoughts of losing their jobs. Ignorance and cowardice are not exclusive in this debate.

In Australia this situation was thought to be overcome by making positions on various (but not all) boards as unpaid (elected) volunteers who wouldn't volunteer unless they had a sense of ethics or at least an interest in the welfare of the organisation.

Then they ruined it by making the board members and chief administrator (director) personally responsible for the financial situation of the organisation. No matter how reasonable that sounds, to stop people from dipping their hands in the organisation's funds, it has one result and one result only: it stifles initiative to the course of least risk and opportunity.

It also has meant that subsequent board members use the volunteer positions as social ladders to get to those other paid, board positions or other paid position.

Alliances and cliques are formed to promote individuals at the expense of complainants, the talented and knowledgeable, all of whom you rightly point out as being squashed.

All of this results in exactly the same situation of not 'rocking the boat' for sustaining self serving mediocrity generated by fear of the unknown and the misconstrued. In that then, we see the same result as you describe; self preservation and stagnation at the cost of the organisation pursuing appropriate aspirations. When they do this, the action they use to achieve it, I agree is cowardly.

That even good people can come to see this as acceptable, can be laid at the fault of ignorance in a very flawed education system.

[Cole Parker]

It's despicable that it happens, but it surely does. The system is surely broken. We need to put the welfare and education of our children, our most precious commodity, at the forefront of our thinking, and that is not currently happening. For all the good the PC movement was doing in this area, it has now been overcome by petty politics, ignorance, self-serving greed and cowardice. The child is being overlooked, dismissed as a voice too small to be heard.

It's another is a long list of problems we as a society face that doesn't have an easy solution. Good men have to speak up and do something. That's a solution to many problems. There seem to be a dearth of these good men.

C

[Trab]

"Good men have to speak up and do something." Well, the speaking up is hard enough to do, but actually doing something is next to impossible.

In the past, people had motives for their actions, and those were sometimes, maybe oft-times, self centred. They might have been concern for their families, friends, and even their neighbourhoods. Some people were even active on a national and global level. However, it all amounted to a drive for some kind of personal satisfaction. Then we screwed up. And we screwed up really, really big-time.

We created corporations. In the interests of efficiency, we created them, but they were a huge mistake. One of the biggest fears expressed in many SciFi stories is that of the creation of a soulless robot, which then takes over from humanity. Well, guess what; we've already done it. Not electronically, but by creating an essentially soulless legal entity which is immortal. The goals of these entities is complete domination, and they have absolutely no predators or threats against their invincibility. We are all working for them, and they have a complete disregard for anything regarding people, right, environment.

Speaking up is already difficult enough. Just try being a whistle blower and see where it gets you. See if you can invent something that might threaten a large corporation and see if you live to tell about it. Can you even imagine what it would take to actually DO something about it? You really only have two choices in life: be prepared to serve the corporations and be rewarded till your usefulness is past, and then be discarded, having no friends left as you've burned them all; or try to live life on the sidelines, avoiding getting entangled in the machinery. There really is no option to speak and fight, not once you've got responsibilities to deal with. Kids can still fight, at risk of being 'blacklisted' but adults have almost no chance to do this, without risking their family's welfare as well as their own.

Okay, okay. I'm brooding and swimming in negative thoughts today. Sorry.

[Cole Parker]

While I think you're being a little too harsh, Trab, a little too negative, I've actually lived through and experienced some of what you're saying. It's not totally accurate, but the gist is true.

I know exactly what you mean about being neutered by your responsibilities. I know it only too well.

C

[DesDownunder]

Aww Trab, I really feel what you are saying.

As much as I feel the same I also believe we are making differences every time someone like you and Cole speak up.

Sure we are not going to turn around centuries of horror and ineptitude in a single blow.

Neither can we hope to stem the tide of technocracy or bureaucracy without difficulty and heartbreak.

If we are to be replaced by artificial intelligence that perpetuates and develops itself aside from human influence, then we owe every great thinker, and every talented artist who ever lived, that we stand and question vigorously if this is the wisest course for humanity to take.

I am not saying we should abandon technology. I am saying technology does not have the right to displace humanity from its natural evolution. Any thought that technology is the next step of human evolution reveals that the human condition in its entirety has not been fully understood.

In the terms of Star Trek we allowing our own existence and future to be violated by failing to apply the prime directive of non-interference to ourselves. The Borg is threat not because it seeks to absorb us, but because it is a warning we seem to be ignoring.

Certainly we should be asking many more questions and listening to each other, than we are, even if it is simply to determine that the only reason I need to own anything is to survive. If I have anything left over then I should be giving it back in some way to further the life experience of us all.

That is not as spartan as it sounds, because we all need certain forms of diversion to attain the one thing we should be wishing for each other. Happiness. But then I guess that makes me an idealist and not to be taken all that seriously in this not so brave new era.

I just wish we would do sufficient to awaken the minds of all those who stand in the way of enabling freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Then just maybe the tragedies will be less likely.

I vacate the soapbox.

[Guest Fritz]

I hate to disagree Trab, but corporations are not the problem. Corporations are neither good nor evil, but are simply a reflection of society. Yes, you can point to a few corporations which have done things you consider bad, but to paint all of them as bad based on those few overstates the case. That is akin to saying that because one person commits a murder, all people are murderers and should be treated as such.

In an old cartoon strip called Pogo Possum, one of the episodes had Pogo saying, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." As I see it, that gets to the heart of the problem. Instead of blaming institutions such as corporations, or governments, or schools, we need to be blaming people, ie ourselves. After all, people write the laws and rules under which each of those entities operate.

Somewhere along the way we, as a society, have lost sight of the fact that we are all on this planet together and we need to work together in order to have the best possible outcome. Understand, I am not limiting that to the United States, but include almost every government on the face of the planet. It may apply to all governments, but there are some I'm not familiar enough with to say with certainty. There is an old adage which states; "The people will have the kind of government they desire." That is very true and while it may take the people a long time to achieve that government, in the end the people will have it. There is a corollary adage that states; "The people will have the kind of government they deserve." It is my belief that if the people would actually pay attention to their governments many of the problems would soon disappear. Stop and think, how many people vote straight tickets for one party or another? How many times have you seen a politician elected even though he has been convicted of a crime that took place while in office? (Think such people as Marion Barry as one example for U.S. citizens.) Anyhow, anytime you vote for someone who has lied or broke the law you only encourage others to do the same. In short, we are no longer holding people accountable for their words and actions and society has suffered from the drop in standards. Corporations are a reflection of that drop in standards because the laws and rules governing them are written by the dishonest politicians which we elected.

Not only do we not hold politicians accountable, we don't hold people very accountable either. Instead we seem to want to take care of everyone from cradle to grave and blame any of their failures on someone or something else. We have gone from a society where we are encouraged to succeed to one where we are encouraged to play the victim in order to gain more political power. The Palestinians in the Middle East are a classic example of playing the victim card, but it also appears in many other countries and in many other forms. For example, why is it that some people think that blacks need special treatment in order to attend college? Surely no one is saying that blacks are not as smart as anyone else. And yes, I am well aware of a number of so-called standard IQ tests and their results, but everything I've read suggests that it is not a matter of innate intelligence, but lack of ability to come up with a truly fair testing method. What I would say is that some blacks in the U.S have adopted victim-hood as an identity and society has screwed up by allowing politicians to pander to it in order to get their votes. Yes, blacks were treated unfairly for many years which was deplorable, but two wrongs don't make a right. What we need to do is encourage them to study so that they will be able to enter those colleges as equals. For a fuller explanation I suggest reading Dr. Thomas Sowell's book, "Black Rednecks and White Liberals," as a beginning point. He has written a number of other books which also address the issue.

End result, instead of blaming corporations or governments we need to recognize that the problem is that we, the people, have allowed such things to take place. I have no quick solution for fixing the problem, but blaming the wrong thing will not help in working towards a solution.