Boy who killed gay classmate deserves leniency, jurors say

[thebigmole]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...urors-say.html

I don't give a shit if King had kissed the little bastard that's no excuse to shoot him twice in the back of the head, and the jurors think he deserves leniency because he had the horrible experience of being hit on by someone of the same sex, such bullshit.

[Sythan]

The idiocy of these people disturbs me.

[TigerTank77]

The jurors wore light-blue rubber bracelets stamped "Free Brandon" and said they were there to support McInerney

Take it to federal court. Holy fucking shit.

[Tynan]

That Image pretty much describes my full opinion on the stupidity of what human society has come to.

[dr2005]

I was always of the understanding that attempting to influence the outcome of a case - such as making claims as to the nature of evidence or of the charges themselves - was in effect contempt of court, so I would question the wisdom of the jurors making such proclamations. That's leaving aside the glaringly obvious issue that the alleged behaviour of the victim (and it is only alleged) does not exactly meet the criteria for provocation justifying his killing, nor does it explain the fairly pre-meditated circumstances of the killing itself. So on that basis, their claims strike me as bogus through and through.

It'll be interesting to see how the DA chooses to respond to these comments, or the presiding judge for that matter...

[Ghost On The Highway]

He deserves leniency because he's a fucking middle schooler. Kids that young should not be tried as adults, however heinous the crime. He should still be sentenced obviously, just not life without parole.

[ChaosControl]

I know he's young and everything, but in my opinion, shooting someone in the head cannot be dealt with leniency. They described the flirting as "bullying". If you're being bullied, you do your best to talk to someone about it. You don't go on the rampage with a gun. I just don't see how people can exonerate this kind of atrocity.

[ToGoOmniscient]

Maybe I'm biased because I'm gay and I support gay rights, but holy shit. The boy KILLED another boy. TRY. HIM. IN. COURT. PUT. HIM. IN. JAIL.

[Skeleton]

He shot a boy in the back of the head, twice. Whatever his motivate was, he doesn't deserve leniency because what he did was horrible.

[Sincerely Yours ♥]

People are ridiculous these days.

[Bubbles37]

So what if he flirted? YOU DON'T FUCKING SHOOT HIM IN THE HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are ok ways to deal with unwanted flirting, killing is so obviously NOT one of them.
I really hate people sometimes.

[Sythan]

Originally Posted by Ghost On The Highway

He deserves leniency because he's a fucking middle schooler. Kids that young should not be tried as adults, however heinous the crime. He should still be sentenced obviously, just not life without parole.

Kids should be tried for heinous crimes. By your logic if a 13 year old murders 10 people in cold blood then he shouldn't face adult punishment?

[Squidgy]

ಠ__ಠ Kids flirt, I spent my whole year last year getting hit on by a kid in my class but I didn't kill him. This is bullshit. He killed someone and now he has to pay the consequences no matter the age.

[Ghost On The Highway]

Originally Posted by Sythan

Kids should be tried for heinous crimes. By your logic if a 13 year old murders 10 people in cold blood then he shouldn't face adult punishment?

In general, I do not think the 13 year old in that situation should be sentenced to multiple life sentences without parole or death (the traditional adult punishments), no. Jail, for a long time, certainly. I don't know what the "juvenile" punishments entail. So leniency, yes, a free pass, absolutely not.

[Mandylion]

of course he shouldnt have leniency he knew what he was doing he should be tried as an adult

[Ghost On The Highway]

Of course he knew what he was doing, an eight year old "knows what he is doing," knows that killing is wrong under those circumstances. But he's not a man, he's not fully developed mentally, and I believe he can still change for the better (not that I've been following the case personally). Sentencing him to death or living-death is a bit too eye-for-an-eye for me, and I'm not particularly religious or even-tempered. Prison should be primarily about rehabilitation in my opinion, and a 13 year old is not necessarily set in his ways at that age. Perhaps try him as an adult and offer a reduced sentence (e.g. life with possibility of parole)

[Kyeto-X]

I am normally all for LGBT justice and stuff, but that doesn't mean that we can now be assholes about it.

Think about it? Would this story be as scandalous if it was a guy flirt with a girl? No. The ONLY reason that it is in the headlines is because it hit the LGBT button. That, mixed the "young child does something heinous" approach, you have a gold story to print.

Granted, I am not saying that he should get off on a lighter sentence. NOR am I saying that he is a homophobic asshole who needs to be drawn and quartered at the next Gay Pride Parade. His crime is that he KILLED someone! It shouldn't matter what the victim's sexuality is one way or another. A Life is still a Life.

[Anthropomorphic]

Originally Posted by Ghost On The Highway

He deserves leniency because he's a fucking middle schooler. Kids that young should not be tried as adults, however heinous the crime. He should still be sentenced obviously, just not life without parole.

That seems rather naive of you. A middle schooler is old enough to know right from wrong, and sure as hell knows it's wrong to kill someone execution-style.

[Pelios]

Lesson learned...
Don't flirt or you get shot in the head.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Kyeto-X

I am normally all for LGBT justice and stuff, but that doesn't mean that we can now be assholes about it.

Think about it? Would this story be as scandalous if it was a guy flirt with a girl? No. The ONLY reason that it is in the headlines is because it hit the LGBT button. That, mixed the "young child does something heinous" approach, you have a gold story to print.

Granted, I am not saying that he should get off on a lighter sentence. NOR am I saying that he is a homophobic asshole who needs to be drawn and quartered at the next Gay Pride Parade. His crime is that he KILLED someone! It shouldn't matter what the victim's sexuality is one way or another. A Life is still a Life.

I understand what you are saying, and from my point of view the part of this story that's pissing off the LGBT community is not that the jury doesn't think it's a hate crime even though the kid is gay. The part that pisses them, and me off, is that the jury almost seems to be saying that the kid was justified in shooting the boy because he was flirting with him. I doubt the jury would be saying that if it had been a girl flirting with him. I don't want the kid to get leniency because he took a gun to school and them calmly sat down behind another student and shot him twice in the back of the head. It's that action that's the problem and doesn't deserve leniency, whether the victim was gay/straight, male/female, black/white, etc...

[Guile]

Well still though, yes he shot someone, but the kid sexually assaulted him (yep, I'm pulling that card), hell if some guy came up and kissed me I'd break his face on the pavement. Of course, this guy should go to jail, but life, no way. I'd say 20 years, 10-15 with good behavior.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Guile

Well still though, yes he shot someone, but the kid sexually assaulted him (yep, I'm pulling that card), hell if some guy came up and kissed me I'd break his face on the pavement. Of course, this guy should go to jail, but life, no way. I'd say 20 years, 10-15 with good behavior.

He never kissed the kid. I said in my OP that it wouldn't have mattered if he had. All there is is ALLEGATIONS that the victim flirted with the boy. And at 14, how bad could it have been. I mean good grief when I was a senior in high school I had this creepy 14 year old boy following me around and constantly wanting to hug me and shit but I never wanted to shoot him.

However I do agree with you on the sentencing, but this jury isn't even saying he deserves that.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

He never kissed the kid. I said in my OP that it wouldn't have mattered if he had. All there is is ALLEGATIONS that the victim flirted with the boy. And at 14, how bad could it have been. I mean good grief when I was a senior in high school I had this creepy 14 year old boy following me around and constantly wanting to hug me and shit but I never wanted to shoot him.

However I do agree with you on the sentencing, but this jury isn't even saying he deserves that.

Big difference, you're a female, and a boy was following you, he was a male, and a male was following him.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by Guile

Big difference, you're a female, and a boy was following you, he was a male, and a male was following him.

Please explain the logic behind this one.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

I feel genuinely sorry for this guy's Defence Attorney.
Unless he actually sympathizes with the kid. That wouldn't be good.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

Please explain the logic behind this one.

A breach of societal morals.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

Originally Posted by Guile

A breach of societal morals.

*A breach of far-right societal morals.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by Guile

A breach of societal morals.

You're going to have to explain this one further still. Which society are you talking about here where it's considered immoral for a guy to flirt with another guy?

[Ghost On The Highway]

Certainly not SoCal...but there are a few: Bible Belt, Midwest, Utah, Middle East!, etc.

[Baxter]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

You're going to have to explain this one further still. Which society are you talking about here where it's considered immoral for a guy to flirt with another guy?

I'm not sure, but I think he's trying to point out the fact that, if guy grabs a woman's ass, and she punches him, she's fighting for her right. A guy grabs another guys ass, he punches him, he's homophobic and its a hate crime. Not a double standard though, since women have a leniency anyways the eyes of the law.

Nevertheless, the prosecution trying to paint a 14 year old as a white supremacist is disgusting. People here seem to be totally overestimating what the jury is talking about when they say 'leniency'. He is not going to be let free, so calm yourselves, unclench your teeth and fists. A 14 year old is still developing, and should not be seen as having the same mindset as a 30 year old.

Jurors specifically stated there was a 'ton of evidence' of bullying, so why you people are stating there were only allegations is beyond me. Even the prosecution is dropping the hate crime angle.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Baxter

I'm not sure, but I think he's trying to point out the fact that, if guy grabs a woman's ass, and she punches him, she's fighting for her right. A guy grabs another guys ass, he punches him, he's homophobic and its a hate crime. Not a double standard though, since women have a leniency anyways the eyes of the law.

Nevertheless, the prosecution trying to paint a 14 year old as a white supremacist is disgusting. People here seem to be totally overestimating what the jury is talking about when they say 'leniency'. He is not going to be let free, so calm yourselves, unclench your teeth and fists. A 14 year old is still developing, and should not be seen as having the same mindset as a 30 year old.

Jurors specifically stated there was a 'ton of evidence' of bullying, so why you people are stating there were only allegations is beyond me. Even the prosecution is dropping the hate crime angle.

I suggest reading the article again. The only thing they had evidence of is that the kid made "unwanted sexual advances" and the jurors considered that to be bullying. Funny a lot of high school girls get unwanted sexual advances all of the time, I don't think that they would consider that bullying. But because it was a boy flirting with another boy, it's not only considered bullying, but bad enough bullying to justify shooting him.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Baxter

I'm not sure, but I think he's trying to point out the fact that, if guy grabs a woman's ass, and she punches him, she's fighting for her right. A guy grabs another guys ass, he punches him, he's homophobic and its a hate crime. Not a double standard though, since women have a leniency anyways the eyes of the law.

There is, I should point out, a difference between punching someone and shooting them twice in the back of the head. Provocation only goes so far as a mitigating factor, and that is a legal statement rather than a moral one. I can dig out the relevant case law if you like.

Originally Posted by Baxter

Nevertheless, the prosecution trying to paint a 14 year old as a white supremacist is disgusting. People here seem to be totally overestimating what the jury is talking about when they say 'leniency'. He is not going to be let free, so calm yourselves, unclench your teeth and fists. A 14 year old is still developing, and should not be seen as having the same mindset as a 30 year old.

Unless the mindset of the assailant is one so impaired that questions of capacity arise, the nature of the mindset is broadly speaking irrelevant. All the legal process is concerned with is whether the defendant committed the act (actus reus) and whether they had the required form of intent or recklessness for it to be a criminal act (mens rea). The question of whether he should be tried as an adult or juvenile is entirely a procedural issue, and my understanding is that owing to the alleged premeditation in the killing he has to be tried as an adult. The fact that the State Supreme Court refused to overturn this decision would appear to confirm that. On the white supremacist issue, I don't know enough about that side of things to comment.

Originally Posted by Baxter

Jurors specifically stated there was a 'ton of evidence' of bullying, so why you people are stating there were only allegations is beyond me. Even the prosecution is dropping the hate crime angle.

Because statements such as those given by the jurors, without being accompanied by first-hand copies of the evidence in question, is hearsay and should be treated as such. That isn't meant to cast doubt on their claims - for all I know, they may well be right - but at present we have one side from an admittedly partial source and until it's demonstrated conclusively one way or the other it remains an allegation on account of the hearsay nature of the evidence supporting it. It's a fairly straightforward application of the rules of evidence. Also, the dropping of "the hate crime angle" merely points to them ruling out that motivation for the offence - it does not in itself support the bullying claims.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Devil

That seems rather naive of you. A middle schooler is old enough to know right from wrong, and sure as hell knows it's wrong to kill someone execution-style.

Strictly speaking, not exactly. Certainly children have some idea of right and wrong, but it's often not founded on the same kind of thinking that we would recognize as actual moral reasoning. Kohlberg has a good general model. So while a child would recognize that it's wrong, a violation of their moral reasoning is not deserving of as much punishment as the same violation made by an adult.

[Cosmo]

Middle schoolers are old enough to know both that shooting someone is wrong and the consequences of doing so. He did so with full knowledge and so deserves the full punishment.

[Kyeto-X]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I understand what you are saying, and from my point of view the part of this story that's pissing off the LGBT community is not that the jury doesn't think it's a hate crime even though the kid is gay. The part that pisses them, and me off, is that the jury almost seems to be saying that the kid was justified in shooting the boy because he was flirting with him. I doubt the jury would be saying that if it had been a girl flirting with him. I don't want the kid to get leniency because he took a gun to school and them calmly sat down behind another student and shot him twice in the back of the head. It's that action that's the problem and doesn't deserve leniency, whether the victim was gay/straight, male/female, black/white, etc...

That was another point that I saw. This seems to be all skewed because of the LGBT thing. Rather then focusing on the ACTUAL situation, "someone dies because of flirting", they push it to "A Gay kid dies..." I agree with you too.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Strictly speaking, not exactly. Certainly children have some idea of right and wrong, but it's often not founded on the same kind of thinking that we would recognize as actual moral reasoning. Kohlberg has a good general model. So while a child would recognize that it's wrong, a violation of their moral reasoning is not deserving of as much punishment as the same violation made by an adult.

Are you using Kohlberg's moral stages as an argument that the person should get less punishment? It's an interesting idea, certainly not an argument as you haven't provided any reasoning or evidence. Your idea has also taken several assumptions.

First, you've assumed the kid is at a moral stage lower than that of a "typical adult". Some children have exceptionally high moral thinking but you've dismissed this possibility. Your idea hinges on this and without addressing it, your idea falls to pieces.

Second, you've assumed the criminal justice system deals sentences based exclusively on one's moral thinking. I don't know all the ins and outs of the law, I'll wait for dr2005 to provide his insight.

Third, a "typical adult"'s moral stage isn't easily defined, so you're comparing something which you have no information for against something you cannot be entirely certain of.

Your idea also has another problem, although this isn't an assumption, it's a lack of reasoning. Kohlberg's model doesn't specify necessary punishments, so why should the kid not get an adult's sentencing if the action violates the moral thinking of a child and adult?

[Ghost On The Highway]

I concur Xujhan and Baxter and think he probably deserves a reduced sentence. That's what leniency is, right? Not an acquittal by any means. Calling sexual harassment bullying is an understatement.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Second, you've assumed the criminal justice system deals sentences based exclusively on one's moral thinking. I don't know all the ins and outs of the law, I'll wait for dr2005 to provide his insight.

Happy to oblige.

Yes, that is basically correct - as far as the criminal justice is concerned, all that is required is that the defendant carries out the act in question (actus reus) and has the mindset related to the act (mens rea). Whether they are aware of their actions being wrong to the same extent as an adult is, broadly speaking, irrelevant, unless it is such a lack of awareness that it raises questions of capacity. A defendant need not be aware of their actions being wrong to be convicted of an offence, simply because it is a question of law and not morality. The age may well be taken into account in a pre-sentence review hearing, but the question of development of morals seldom, if ever, comes into the equation. It's primarily a question of consistency.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

Are you using Kohlberg's moral stages as an argument that the person should get less punishment? It's an interesting idea, certainly not an argument as you haven't provided any reasoning or evidence. Your idea has also taken several assumptions.

First, you've assumed the kid is at a moral stage lower than that of a "typical adult". Some children have exceptionally high moral thinking but you've dismissed this possibility. Your idea hinges on this and without addressing it, your idea falls to pieces.

Second, you've assumed the criminal justice system deals sentences based exclusively on one's moral thinking. I don't know all the ins and outs of the law, I'll wait for dr2005 to provide his insight.

Third, a "typical adult"'s moral stage isn't easily defined, so you're comparing something which you have no information for against something you cannot be entirely certain of.

Your idea also has another problem, although this isn't an assumption, it's a lack of reasoning. Kohlberg's model doesn't specify necessary punishments, so why should the kid not get an adult's sentencing if the action violates the moral thinking of a child and adult?

I kept my post intentionally vague because where you proceed from there depends entirely on what you view the purpose of criminal punishment to be, and on the nature of justice in general. Opinions on this subject vary wildly, so it would have been silly to assume that people hold the same view as me. For those who don't, the discussion would immediately veer completely off topic, so I felt it best to not get into it to begin with.

Secondly, the post I was responding to was commenting solely on the morality of the child, and that's all I was responding to. Neither Devil's post nor my response were nearly long enough to constitute a formal argument - as you pointed out yourself - so it's a little unkind to analyze them as though they were. All I meant to do was suggest that if someone's opinion hinged on the premise that a child's moral reasoning is similar to that of adults that there might be additional information they would want to consider. I apologize if that was insufficiently argumentative for your tastes.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I kept my post intentionally vague because where you proceed from there depends entirely on what you view the purpose of criminal punishment to be, and on the nature of justice in general. Opinions on this subject vary wildly, so it would have been silly to assume that people hold the same view as me. For those who don't, the discussion would immediately veer completely off topic, so I felt it best to not get into it to begin with.

Absolutely correct, opinions vary and that's the beauty of debates, you can give your view and someone else gives theirs either to refute or give a different angle.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Secondly, the post I was responding to was commenting solely on the morality of the child, and that's all I was responding to.

I wasn't entirely sure, so I appreciate you clearing that up.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Neither Devil's post nor my response were nearly long enough to constitute a formal argument - as you pointed out yourself - so it's a little unkind to analyze them as though they were.

If you frequently gave useless, irrelevant posts, I wouldn't bother trying to analyze it because it's a waste of my time. However, you've never been like that on here, your posts are often very eloquently arranged and you effectively give counter-arguments. Somehow you're usually able to make them shorter than mine while containing all the beauty, probably because I ramble for the whole day as I fear I may start to do now. Point is, even if your posts are short, they're usually effective arguments, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Devil's post has no concern to me because it was yours that contained the content I was responding to.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

All I meant to do was suggest that if someone's opinion hinged on the premise that a child's moral reasoning is similar to that of adults that there might be additional information they would want to consider.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I apologize if that was insufficiently argumentative for your tastes.

Well everyone makes mistakes. Give me a burger and onion rings, and we'll call it even.