Dead gay teen caused 'turmoil'

[E.J.]

Lawyer blames school in shooting of gay Oxnard student

Attorney for youth facing arraignment on murder charges says officials failed to defuse tensions.

By Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

LINK

As 14-year-old Brandon McInerney prepares to be arraigned today in the slaying of 15-year-old Lawrence "Larry" King at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, his lawyer is advancing a defense that at least partly blames school officials for the tragedy.

Educators should have moved aggressively to quell rising tensions between the two boys, which began when King openly flirted with McInerney, said Deputy Public Defender William Quest.

Instead, administrators were so intent on nurturing King as he explored his sexuality, allowing him to come to school wearing feminine makeup and accessories, that they downplayed the turmoil that his behavior was causing on campus, Quest said.

On Feb. 12, McInerney shot King in the back of the head with a handgun as first-period classes were beginning, according to police. McInerney's inability to see another way to solve his problem is partly the fault of the school system, his attorney said.

"Brandon is not some crazed lunatic," Quest said. "This was a confluence of tragic events that could have been stopped. If there is partial blame in other places, let's not throw away Brandon for the rest of his life."

McInerney has been held in Juvenile Hall in lieu of $700,000 bail since the shooting. Ventura County prosecutors have announced their intent to try him as an adult. The teenager is scheduled to enter a plea at today's proceedings, but Quest said the arraignment may be postponed until the court decides on his motion to try him as a juvenile.

Under state law, juvenile offenders can be incarcerated until the age of 25 and then must be released. If he is convicted as an adult, McInerney would face 50 years to life, with an additional three years for a special hate-crime allegation.

"We think there will be evidence that the school, with the actions of Larry, didn't quite know how to deal with it," Quest said.

School Supt. Jerry Dannenberg strongly disagreed with such allegations. "School officials definitely were aware of what was going on, and they were dealing with it appropriately," Dannenberg said Wednesday. King was constitutionally entitled to wear makeup, earrings and high-heeled boots under long-established case law, Dannenberg said.

Totten said he was open to further discussion on trying McInerney as an adult. Prosecutors are looking at all of the evidence and are considering pleas from the community, as well as from McInerney's family and friends, he said.

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

[Tanuki Racoon]

Interesting because this appears to be sexual harassment so there are some mitigating circumstances. Murder? Uncalled for. But I can understand how the teen angst led it to get there. Sad.

[Cole Parker]

It adds to the tragedy by trying a 14-year-old boy as an adult, and then throwing him away for all of his productive life. He wasn't an adult when he did the crime, and he isn't an adult now. He's much, much closer to being a little boy than a grown man. Had he been older, he most likely would have been able to find another way to discharge his confusion.

Trying him as an adult makes a travesty of the entire affair.

C

[colinian]

Brandon McInerney planned the premeditated murder of Lawrence King.

Brandon McInerney continuously bullied Lawrence King. Lawrence King decided to respond by telling Brandon McInerney that he was in love with him. In retaliation Brandon McInerney planned to shoot and kill Lawrence King. He stole the gun from his father. He loaded the gun with bullets. He brought the gun to school with the intent to shoot and kill Lawrence King. He entered the classroom that was filled with kids other than Lawrence King. He walked up to and shot Lawrence King in the back of the head. He calmly walked out of the classroom and left the school grounds. It's murder, purposeful and premeditated. He knew exactly what he was going to do and he did it. Did he consider all of the ramifications of his murdering Lawrence King? The same as many adults who commit premeditated murder, probably not. Does that mean he should be treated differently than any other person who committed a premeditated murder? No. Do I have any sympathy for Brandon McInerney? No, none at all.

If Brandon McInerney is tried as a juvenile, and he was released from juvenile detention at the age of 25, would you want him to move into your neighborhood? I wouldn't want him to move into my neighborhood, that's for damn sure.

Colin

[JamesSavik]

Stupid Lawyer Trick #1- Blame the victim.

His client is guilty. He was caught smoking gun in hand. What is a defense attorney to do? Blame the victim, blame the system, blame grape nuts, blame anti-depressants, blame everything and everybody but take the glare of public (and jury) attention off his client.

This is a very typical opening round from an attorney with a guilty conscious client.

[Cole Parker]

You're both right. The kid was guilty as hell. He did exactly as Colin says. His lawyer is doing exactly as James says.

But that doesn't change the fact that his mind is the mind of a child, he hasn't reached the age where he can make adult decisions, and the law was written just for this sort of thing. What he did is truly awful. But how many 18-year-olds do you see doing this? Damned few. They better understand the consequences, and they have the capacity to think through what they are planning to do. How many adults decide if someone says he loves him, his only out is to kill that person? Is that a rational act of an adult? Of course not.

Do I excuse what he did? Also, of course not. I hate it. But my hatred for it doesn't change that fact that the one who committed the crime didn't have adult capacity.

C

[The Pecman]

But my hatred for it doesn't change that fact that the one who committed the crime didn't have adult capacity.

My longtime partner has a law degree, and has often raised the issue of a child's ability to tell right from wrong, also known as "the age of reason." He says most courts set this at 7 years, so in my book, anybody that age or older should know it's wrong to shoot somebody in the back of the head for any reason. Violent crime is unforgivable under any circumstance.

There's no excuse for this except possibly criminal insanity. Either way, they should put the murderer away forever. If nothing else, punishing the criminal sees to it that justice is served. It's not enough compensation for the victim's family, but at least it's something. Maybe this will send a message to anybody who is stupid enough to want to hurt a child simply because they're different -- whether gay, black, a different race, or anything else.

[colinian]

My longtime partner has a law degree, and has often raised the issue of a child's ability to tell right from wrong, also known as "the age of reason." He says most courts set this at 7 years, so in my book, anybody that age or older should know it's wrong to shoot somebody in the back of the head for any reason. Violent crime is unforgivable under any circumstance.

There's no excuse for this except possibly criminal insanity. Either way, they should put the murderer away forever. If nothing else, punishing the criminal sees to it that justice is served. It's not enough compensation for the victim's family, but at least it's something. Maybe this will send a message to anybody who is stupid enough to want to hurt a child simply because they're different -- whether gay, black, a different race, or anything else.

I agree with you 100%. I don't believe a 14 year-old teen who has access to guns and murders someone should be treated as a "child". We've been having a debate about it in our dorm, not this particular case in Oxnard but about teenagers in the Bay Area who are involved in gang-related and/or drug-related shootings. The general opinion is that if you're a teenager and you know how to shoot a gun, and you deliberately shoot someone with the intent to kill them, then you're not a child.

Colin

[sumbloke]

This is a very emotive issue. I'm unwilling to treat a 14 year old as an adult. This isn't to say I don't think this boy can be criminally responsible but that he isn't an adult. I seriously believe that if we decide to treat 14 year olds as adults in criminal cases then we are obliged to treat them as adults in other respects: if they have the liabilities of adulthood then they have the rights as well. I think it's absurd - we have set the age of majority and it's not 14 (in the UK or US). I have quite rigid beliefs concerning democracy and civil rights - I think they are pretty non-negotiable and indivisible. I don't believe in having second-class citizens who have some rights but aren't equal. For me to be willing to have a 14 year old tried as an adult with full adult criminal resonsibility would entail a willingness to recognise 14 year olds as adults endowed with all the civil and democratic rights that adults have. I'm not willing to do that. I think it's unworkable. Elevating children to the status of adults is wrong. Even worse, there is the downgrading of adulthood this entails - it morally infantilizes adults. The possibility of twentyfive years of incarceration beginning in his teenage years actually seems to me to give adequate scope for sentencing. Nothing of course can ever compensate for the slaughter of a child, but we don't look to the courts for vengence or to assuage our feelings of outrage but to do justice according to our laws. Dura lex, sed lex. I'm not comfortable either with hate crime legislation. Outisde of the mens rea, I don't think motivations should have a role in the determination that a crime took place. I do think they can aggrevate or mitigate once criminal responsibility is established, establishing motivation itself as a crime is establishing thought crime.

[Abraxas]

I'm very conflicted about this area of the law. On the one hand, I have real problems with locking a kid up for his/her entire life for a crime committed as a juvenile. On the other hand, a fourteen year old is clearly capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong.

Premeditated murder is wrong in pretty much anybodies book, and this boy planned and carried out an act of cold-blooded, premeditated, murder.

The penal system does nothing to help criminals overcome their issues, and as a direct result, the recidivism rate is well over 50% (and is probably closer to 80%, but I don't have the exact statistics at hand). Society, in general, won't accept a convict in the workplace, and those institutionalized for long terms have major issues with adjusting to life on the outside, something further complicated by their inability to find a constructive place in the workforce. If this boy is locked up until he is 25, he will fit into this mold all too well, having been in the system for 10 years.

If this boy is incapable of finding solutions to his problems for minor issues like another boy telling him he loved him and being different, how will this so-called child react when faced with real problems in adulthood? Go postal and kill everyone in his workplace? Beat his child to death because it won't stop crying? At some point, the system has to take serious interventive action, and that line was clearly crossed.

There is no perfect solution here. Justice is, and always has been, a compromise between restricting the rights of those who commit serious crimes and the rights of a free society to live in relative safety from such people.

Rick

[colinian]

During our discussions in the dorm lounge, a Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley School of Law) student stated his opinion about the Lawrence King murder. The reason for charging Brandon McInerney as an adult is because by law in California he can't serve 25 years for the murder of Lawrence King if he's charged as a juvenile. The maximum sentence for a juvenile in California is "until the age of 25". But juveniles don't receive maximum terms in California, and/or are released early, even for premeditated murder. There was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about the typical sentence for murder by a juvenile tried in the juvenile courts is around 4 years then they are released. A juvenile who murdered a shopkeeper during a robbery served 19 months for the crime and was released, and most of that 19 months was served while he was waiting for his trial to be completed.

The only way to have a sentence longer than 11 years for Brandon McInerney is to try him as an adult. Yes, the laws should be changed, but until they are, and they've gone through court reviews up through the California Supreme Court, is to try the Brandon McInerneys and other juveniles who commit premeditated murder is to try them as adults.

Colin

[Cole Parker]

I continually see the term "knowing right from wrong" used in this thread to justify trying a kid as an adult. That isn't part of the law, and shouldn't be used to justify anything. The law says a person 14 is a child and must be treated as one. It doesn't say anything about him knowing right from wrong.

I will agree that Brandon probaby knew what he was doing was wrong. Part of why he should be tried as a child is that he did know it was wrong but went ahead with it anyway. He did because he wasn't mentally or emotionally capable of figuring out an alternative plan. Had he had adult capacity, it's very likely he would have.

Psychologists tell us that at that age, kids do not think like adults do. Their brains have not matured to the point where they can.

It seems that today, whenever a youth kills someone, the DA always wants him tried as an adult. If we're going to do that, try these kids as adults when they commit murder, I suggest we change the law. Anything else a kid does, try him as a kid. If he kills someone, try him as an adult. That doesn't make much sense, does it? We have the law in the first place because there is a recognizable difference between adults and children, and it their ability to understand and accept responsiblity. We don't expect kids of 14 to be as responsible as adults, and don't hold them to that standard.

And that they can know something is wrong and do it anyway is part of the reason for that.

C

[R.J.]

I think that the prosecutors are looking too much at making a sample out of Brandon.

I agree with Cole that he should not be tried as an adult. We should have faith that people, even the worst kind, can change, and throwing away their chance at a young age is too heavy a punishment. Rick is right. There simply is no perfect solution. But 50 years? I'm sure Brandon knew that what he did was wrong - more than wrong - but he is not a murderer. He wasn't brought up to kill people. He was brought up in an environment where certain people are hated, and because of that, he acted out. Not that the hate made it alright to kill, but that it made it easier to kill. But doesn't he have the right to repent and change his ways? He has the rest of his life to pay for the murder, maybe not in prison, but he will be carrying the guilt of taking another person's life in his conscience until his death.

I disagree with WBMS though. If what Larry was doing was sexual harassment, then girls flirting with gays is sexual harassment too! :D

Nevertheless, I agree with the lawyer that the murder was partly the school's fault. Though for me, it wasn't because of Larry's flirtation, but because Brandon was able to slip the gun past the school's gates. Of course, I'm assuming here that the school has guards at their gates.

[Graeme]

I'm in the camp of not charging him as an adult. However, I'm worried by Colin's statement that juveniles tend to have very short sentences.

For a 14 year old, being locked up until he's 25 (the maximum allowed) IS a life sentence. I would challenge anyone who is 25 or older to consider the difference between them as a 14 year old and themselves as a 25 year old and to say that it's not dramatic.

You still have the basics of being the same person, but there is a huge difference in maturity and social development. Locking this boy up until he's 25 is a major punishment -- that almost as many years as he's already lived. More questionable would be if the environment he'll be in until he's 25 will help make him a good citizen when he's released -- probably not, which means he's likely to end up behind bars as an adult afterwards.

I don't see any good solution here. Locking him up until he's 25 is, to me, fair punishment for the crime. But when he's realised, he's going to have major problems moving back into society. Colin asked the question if we would be willing to have him move into our neighbourhood. I agree that I wouldn't want him here, but that's got nothing to do with his crime. That would be because he wouldn't know how to fit into society and is more likely to end up as an adult criminal....

[colinian]

He's a juvenile criminal now. He has an arrest record for petty theft, he was suspended from school for bullying and fighting, and now premeditated murder. Yeah, sure, he's going to reform. Not.

It's interesting that I'm the one in this topic who's closest in age to Brandon, and I'm all for sending him to prison for an extended length of time. The adults here are all for giving him a break.

BTW, being tried as an adult in California when you're Brandon's age doesn't mean you're sent to an adult prison until you're older (I don't remember what that law student said the age is, and it's too late and I'm too tired to look it up right now).

And Graeme, I wouldn't have wanted Brandon living in my neighborhood prior to the murder he committed. This kid is a bad actor.

Colin

[sumbloke]

He's a juvenile criminal now. He has an arrest record for petty theft, he was suspended from school for bullying and fighting, and now premeditated murder. Yeah, sure, he's going to reform. Not.

It's interesting that I'm the one in this topic who's closest in age to Brandon, and I'm all for sending him to prison for an extended length of time. The adults here are all for giving him a break.

BTW, being tried as an adult in California when you're Brandon's age doesn't mean you're sent to an adult prison until you're older (I don't remember what that law student said the age is, and it's too late and I'm too tired to look it up right now).

And Graeme, I wouldn't have wanted Brandon living in my neighborhood prior to the murder he committed. This kid is a bad actor.

Colin

LOL. Come on Colin, I'm what, two years older than you? How is this about giving him a break? It's about whether or not he should be tried as an adult even though he's a minor.

This isn't - for me - about whether this is a good or bad kid. The boy is a murderer and we have to deal with that. It's about undermining the difference between adulthood and childhood in a crucial domain - criminality. People are right to be outraged when a child is murdered but we should try to remember that the point of the judicial process is justice - not vengence or the satisfaction of our anger. It's not about how harshly he's punished - I admit I don't think there is a harsh enough punishment for what he's done - it's about whether or not we treat him as a child or an adult with respect to the law. He's not an adult. Because he's not an adult certain rights are withheld from him - children get privileges in return for the abrogation of rights. Part of the distinction we maintain between adults and children is in the realm of criminal responsibility. If you think fourteen year olds are adults then I think you should argue for all fourteen year olds to have all adult rights. If they're going to be adults with regard to the law then they should, for example, have the same democratic right to influence the legal system through voting etc as other adults. What justice can there be if we say that they are equal before the law when they do something wrong but not in other respects?

My other concern is that this blurs the line the otherway too. Technically, the defence of childhood (and not say of doli incapax, which precludes all criminal resonsbility) is an excuse that mitigates liability for a crime. The law allows this defence because adults are supposed to have more experience and more practised judgment than minors/children/juveniles. So, now, we are saying that actually adults have no more experience and can be expected to make no better judgments than 14 year olds. This is an argument that can as easily be used to call for giving adult criminals a break.

As it happens, I would want this boy to have somewhere to go when he gets out of prison - I can't see that society will be any better or safer for marginalising him. Would I want him living near me? I have to back up my convictions: yes, sure. After all, I think he's gonna be better off, safer and less likely to reoffend or develop more destructive inclinations if he's around people who are decent.

On a personal, rather than political or philosophical level, I can't help but believe that this kid is seriously broken. I don't see that he's too broken to be responsible for what he did but I think he must need help. It's too late for us to help his victim, and that's the worst thing about this case. How are we going to deal with this young murderer? There has to be more to it than punishing him for the simple reason that some community somewhere has to live with him afterwards.

Yak

[R.J.]

After all, I think he's gonna be better off, safer and less likely to reoffend or develop more destructive inclinations if he's around people who are decent

Exactly.

[Fun Tails]

He's a juvenile criminal now. He has an arrest record for petty theft, he was suspended from school for bullying and fighting, and now premeditated murder. Yeah, sure, he's going to reform. Not.

Colin

I got to agree with Graeme's comment that locking a 14 year old away for 10 years is a hell of a long time. Think of how much the average person can change in 10 years of normal life, much less 10 years of punishment.

I can't see the point of punishing him past that age. I realize you feel that as the one closest to being 14 in this discussion, that you understand how rational this kid was. What I think you're missing is the flip side of that, which Graeme touched on. You aren't old enough to realise how much more mature people get by 25.

I was a very mature kid from an early age. YET, the me of 14 had hugely different ideas about right and wrong and justice than the me of 25. And the me of 25 was kind of naive compared to the me of today, come to think of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To answer your other question... If this kid came to live in my neighborhood at age 25, I wouldn't be scared for my safety. Most murders are crimes born of emotion and even in the remote possibility that those circumstances occur again, it's unlikely that the person would choose to kill again.

[JamesSavik]

I'm not thrilled with treating anyone under 18 as an adult. However- criminal law is a power that the Constution ceedes to the states except in rare occassions.

As it stands, there are 50 different sets of rules on how to treat defendants under 18 in the US. There needs to be ONE standard across the land so grandstanding politicians in Texas can't put pre-schoolers to the firing squad. Think I'm kidding??? Not by much.

In Texas, it doesn't matter how old you are when you committ a sex crime, you are still subject to registration and life long treatment/monitering/harrassment. There are children on the Texas S.O. list younger than 12.

[Fun Tails]

I agree that the Texas standard seems messed up, but I fail to see why a federal code is the solution.

The Texas law can be changed at the state level. Instituting a Federal code seems like an unnecessary solution that impinges on the 'laboratory of ideas' model of statehood.

Don't forget that it was the right of states to set their own rules that allowed gay marriages and unions to take hold in many places at a time when George W. Bush and the religious agenda were in control of the Federal government. Massachussets and other states have therefore been able to make the case to the rest of the country that gay marriage doesn't destroy society.

[DesDownunder]

Graeme, Cole and Fun Tails have touched on much of how I relate to this shocking situation.

In this case we have two boys who lost their lives. One is dead at the hands of the other.

The killing was the result of homophobia, but what does that mean?

Brandon McInerney felt he had to kill Lawrence King, either because he had been raised to

believe such action was acceptable, or he felt threatened by the advances King reportedly had made to him.

This makes the killing an act (in his mind) justified, or one of passion.

That passion was either hate or fear or most likely, both.

At 14 years of age he was susceptible to many influences with only an immature, developing mind to cope with

not only the advances, but his parental upbringing and peer group pressures. Moreover his own as yet incomplete

persona was challenged by these influences to precipitate an action that should have been circumvented by him

having been instructed by his parents, teachers and even his friends, that such action is not acceptable, no matter

how he felt or what reactions he felt were expected from him.

Neither had he developed the internal ability to overcome the wrongness of his action.

This teenager will never recover from his action. He has, by killing his fellow student,

sentenced himself to a life that must forever exist in the shadows of his deed.

His self-torment will occupy his life, whether he justifies his actions or admits he was reacting not to the

advances made to him by his victim, but to his own fear that he might have wanted to accept those advances.

If he realises his action was the result of his own fear that he might also be homosexual he will most likely

have given himself a life sentence of guilt if not misery. In any case he will suffer because of it till he dies.

This makes it a double tragedy. A triple tragedy if you include the loss to society of what these two young teens' potential

might have been.

It is this view of tragedy that older people see, that makes them feel, they too have lost something.

Mature minds can understand the passion that drives these incidents. Most of them feel lucky that they survived their

own moments of passion without recourse to violent action. They also see with some torment the horrors of those who did not

escape unscathed from such moments, even on a small scale.

They are not seekers of vengeance or retribution for their own sake, even when it can be justified.

They have learned that passion for justice is useless if it is not moderated with compassion.

Society can incarcerate Brandon forever, it will most likely make no difference to his own misery.

It will certainly make no difference to the next time a similar situation arises, unless we as a society realise the need to

accept the different expressions of love in human relationships and teach this to our young along with

a sense of right and wrong until they can develop the maturity to exercise such ethics for them selves, with compassion.

But compassion does not come easily when vengeance is foremost in one's mind.

As Oscar Wilde put it,

"I can understand brute force, but brute thought is quite intolerable."

Vengeance is a brutish thought.

It can take many years into adult life, to understand the depth of meaning of what constitutes compassion.

For anyone who thinks I am being rosy and unrealistic, look at the following reference about teenage gangs in the UK (I am sure the UK is not alone in these things). These gangs are marauders of youth and their violence somehow makes me shudder at the horrors they are perpetrating. These are not even crimes of passion but just acts of unbridled aggression as result of social deprivation.

These are truly acts of barbarous reaction.

But that is really another topic only remotely related to the Lawrence King murder.

We should be cautious about confusing the barbarians with the emotionally immature.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080509/tuk...jo-fa6b408.html

As for living next door to any of these people, in all likelihood, we already do.

The trick is to not let them taint your own human compassion.

[Fun Tails]

Des just made me realize that I *do* have murderers in my neighborhood.

One of my Dad's employees killed his step-brother over money. He served his time and ended up being a pretty decent father and member of society. He has a reputation as a quiet, softspoken guy who does not drink and never ever fights or quarrels.

One of my friends has a step dad who killed his first wife (motivation unknown). By her account he's been a good stepdad to her and he's also a guy with a reputation for staying out of trouble.

[The Pecman]

Premeditated murder is wrong in pretty much anybody's book, and this boy planned and carried out an act of cold-blooded, premeditated, murder.

I agree 100%. If this were an accidental death, or if the murderer had had a fight with the gay kid, then went crazy and scrangled him (or something similar), I could almost see giving him just a 20 year sentence.

But in this case, he had a couple of days to think about it, to go home, load up the gun, sleep on it overnight, then take then gun to school, find the gay kid, and then shoot him in the head. Note also that the murderer shot the gay kid twice, just to be sure.

That's the main reason I think punishing the 14-year-old murderer is warranted in this case. I would agree that hoping for the death penalty is too much, but life without a chance of parole makes sense.

Sadly, I also agree with Des above. Nobody wins in this case: not the dead kid, not the dead kid's family, not the murderer, nor the murderer's family. Everybody loses. The only good that came come of it is to publicize the punishment for the guilty party, which might help stop a few would-be killers from pulling the trigger. And maybe it'll also force schools to implement stronger "anti-bullying" rules to stop situations like this from escalating.

[Cole Parker]

I agree that the fact the school didn't step in when it saw what was happening, when it simply looked the other way and allowed to happen what did happen, is reprehensible. I doubt anything will come to any of the administrators because of that, I imagine they'll invent some creative excuses to justify their behavior, but their lack of responsible supervision when it was obvious it was desperately needed led to the death of an innocent child, the ruin of another's life, and the destruction of two other families. The school could have prevented it. That isn't to say they're guilty of Larry's death. But they're certainly guilty of failing to do the job they were employed and empowered to do.

As everyone agrees, there are no winners in this case. I don't even agree that there's good stemming from the fact others won't make this same mistake if Brandon is given life imprisonment. I don't think the 'setting an example' argument works, and especially not with emotional teens. They do what they do for misguided and ill-thought-out reasons, and Brandon obvioulsy didn't think of the consequences for himself when he did this. If he spent a day or two considering what he was going to do, during that period he certainly had time to think about the repercussions attaining to himself for doing it. That he didn't bother to do that also suggests others in his same circumstnces will not think that far ahead either.

If there is some good to come of this, it might be the continued raising of awareness in our society of the problem gay children face growing up, and perhaps a continued growth of tolerance for gays in our society. Or, as Colin says, an acceptance, which is even better. I do so hope that eventuates.

Cole

[JamesSavik]

maybe it'll also force schools to implement stronger "anti-bullying" rules to stop situations like this from escalating.

If I read what they are saying in this article, they are blaming anti-bullying rules for emboldening King's behavior which they imply was out of control and created the situation.

Sure, it's blame the victim and typical of many kinds of murder/assault cases at this point. It will all boil down to jurors and their beliefs and attitudes and how skillfully the lawyers apply their craft.