Prosecutors vow to retry teen who killed gay classmate

Sep 3, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Boston Herald

OS ANGELES Prosecutors vowed to immediately retry a California middle school student who shot a gay classmate, maintaining the incident was a premeditated murder and a hate crime despite doubts by some jurors who deadlocked in the case.

Comments
1 - 15 of 15 Comments Last updated Sep 8, 2011

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 3, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

As they should......no matter what Lawrence King did or didn't do.......Brandon McInerney went into a School Computer class and shot in the back of the head a defenseless student......that in my book constitutes Premeditation......and he should face the consequences of his actions!!!
ivoryten

South Gate, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 4, 2011
 
RnL2008 wrote:
As they should......no matter what Lawrence King did or didn't do.......Brandon McInerney went into a School Computer class and shot in the back of the head a defenseless student......that in my book constitutes Premeditation......and he should face the consequences of his actions!!!
You are right. It was murder. However, if the DA decides to retry this case on the same charges, I think this kid will walk -- and that would be a real tragedy! What a message that would send: kill a gay and as long as you're a fucked up kid, not much happens to you. I would rather the prosecutors go for voluntary manslaughter because I think they could get a conviction and then this kid will have to spend significant years in jail and, hopefully, think about the immorality of his actions. Maybe I am hoping for too much.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 4, 2011
 
ivoryten wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. It was murder. However, if the DA decides to retry this case on the same charges, I think this kid will walk -- and that would be a real tragedy! What a message that would send: kill a gay and as long as you're a fucked up kid, not much happens to you. I would rather the prosecutors go for voluntary manslaughter because I think they could get a conviction and then this kid will have to spend significant years in jail and, hopefully, think about the immorality of his actions. Maybe I am hoping for too much.
I agree......this kid needs to pay some price for committing this horrendous crime........and if need be don't try him as an adult........the conviction is what needs to happen.......and the kid needs to do some time.

I think what caused the mistrial was charging him as an adult.........but he has been free for the last 3 years and needs to understand that his actions alone took the life of another person!!!

“You'll love me!”

Since: Sep 10

I promise.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 4, 2011
 
ivoryten wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. It was murder. However, if the DA decides to retry this case on the same charges, I think this kid will walk -- and that would be a real tragedy! What a message that would send: kill a gay and as long as you're a fucked up kid, not much happens to you. I would rather the prosecutors go for voluntary manslaughter because I think they could get a conviction and then this kid will have to spend significant years in jail and, hopefully, think about the immorality of his actions. Maybe I am hoping for too much.
I would rather not see him get convicted on voluntary manslaughter because what kind of precedent and message is that going to set? It sends the message that a "gay panic" defense is a reasonable one when it obviously isn't.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 4, 2011
 
Gay/trans panic should never be able to be used as a defense.
ivoryten

South Gate, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 5, 2011
 
Coy91 wrote:
<quoted text>
I would rather not see him get convicted on voluntary manslaughter because what kind of precedent and message is that going to set? It sends the message that a "gay panic" defense is a reasonable one when it obviously isn't.
Regardless of what charge the DA ultimately decides, the defense will employ the "gay panic" strategy which I admit is horrible. But I want to see this little dirtbag in jail and that's why I would be willing "to settle" for a manslaughter charge. Unfortunately, straight America is still not ready to acknowledge that "gay panic" justifies nothing!
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 5, 2011
 
equalityboy81 wrote:
Gay/trans panic should never be able to be used as a defense.
The defense is obligated to whatever it can in the interest of its client despite your groundless objection.

I agree with ivoryten and Coy. I'd like to see the kid convicted and do some hard time. I'm not sure I agree with Coy about any "message" that might be sent. "Messages" are over rated and quickly forgotten or ignored.

Perhaps the case was not presented strongly enough, or maybe the jury simply did not buy it. That's the system. Sometimes juries get it wrong (in our opinion). As with Casey Anthony's jury. But they are privvy to more information than we get from press accounts and sometimes you just have to accept things we disagree with. Of course, I wasn't in the jury room. Were you?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 5, 2011
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> The defense is obligated to whatever it can in the interest of its client despite your groundless objection.
I agree with ivoryten and Coy. I'd like to see the kid convicted and do some hard time. I'm not sure I agree with Coy about any "message" that might be sent. "Messages" are over rated and quickly forgotten or ignored.
Perhaps the case was not presented strongly enough, or maybe the jury simply did not buy it. That's the system. Sometimes juries get it wrong (in our opinion). As with Casey Anthony's jury. But they are privvy to more information than we get from press accounts and sometimes you just have to accept things we disagree with. Of course, I wasn't in the jury room. Were you?
While we don't know what the juror's said, some of them did speak with defense counsel, if that means anything.

I tend to agree with two legal analysts with fairly broad experience who believe that charging the 14-year-old defendant as an adult was an overreach.
LA Times wrote:
Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor and former federal prosecutor, said she believes jurors thought the charges were too harsh.

"Jurors felt prosecutors overcharged and they were clearly not comfortable putting the boy away for life. They probably believed the dynamic between two adolescent boys is not the same as two adults," Levenson said. "This was a shooting but not a traditional cold-blooded killing. It had an (emotional) complexity, especially one associated with adolescents."

Defense attorney and former prosecutor Dmitry Gorin agreed.

"In a hate crime there is typically clear and convincing evidence that it was motivated by hate," Gorin said. "Children tend to have a myriad of reasons for killing. He may have had issues with the victim being gay but that interaction was probably a lot more complex and jurors saw that."
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 5, 2011
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
While we don't know what the juror's said, some of them did speak with defense counsel, if that means anything.
I tend to agree with two legal analysts with fairly broad experience who believe that charging the 14-year-old defendant as an adult was an overreach.
<quoted text>
When you say that some of the jurors spoke with defense cousel, I'm assuming that was *after* the mistrial was declared.

And I agree with you and the legal analysts you cited.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 5, 2011
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> When you say that some of the jurors spoke with defense cousel, I'm assuming that was *after* the mistrial was declared.
And I agree with you and the legal analysts you cited.
LOL, I certainly hope it was after!

In my experience on two juries (one of the cases had two defendants each with their own attorney) and in courtroom visitations with my students, the attorneys that I thought were doing the best job during the trial turned out to be the ones who went out of their way to request personal feedback from the jurors. It didn't matter if they won or lost. The worst attorney (a private attorney) never made an attempt to request feedback; the best (a public defender who ended up losing the case but was able to get a reduced verdict) was really interested in our opinions. I teach a high school law class and coach a mock trial team; he bought me lunch in exchange for my feedback, and later came to speak to my class.

In Sacramento anyway, the public defenders office has a reputation of having hard-working and conscientiousness attorneys.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 5, 2011
 
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, I certainly hope it was after!
In my experience on two juries (one of the cases had two defendants each with their own attorney) and in courtroom visitations with my students, the attorneys that I thought were doing the best job during the trial turned out to be the ones who went out of their way to request personal feedback from the jurors. It didn't matter if they won or lost. The worst attorney (a private attorney) never made an attempt to request feedback; the best (a public defender who ended up losing the case but was able to get a reduced verdict) was really interested in our opinions. I teach a high school law class and coach a mock trial team; he bought me lunch in exchange for my feedback, and later came to speak to my class.
In Sacramento anyway, the public defenders office has a reputation of having hard-working and conscientiousness attorneys.
Good for you, Sir. I have a feeling you're a very good, dedicated teacher.

btw, Laurie Levenson is a well-known, brilliant law school professor known for her very understandable observations.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 8, 2011
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> The defense is obligated to whatever it can in the interest of its client despite your groundless objection.
I agree with ivoryten and Coy. I'd like to see the kid convicted and do some hard time. I'm not sure I agree with Coy about any "message" that might be sent. "Messages" are over rated and quickly forgotten or ignored.
Perhaps the case was not presented strongly enough, or maybe the jury simply did not buy it. That's the system. Sometimes juries get it wrong (in our opinion). As with Casey Anthony's jury. But they are privvy to more information than we get from press accounts and sometimes you just have to accept things we disagree with. Of course, I wasn't in the jury room. Were you?
Then would you be okay with a straight panic defense or a black panic defense and a male panic defense (used by a woman who hates men flirting with her)?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 8, 2011
 
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> The defense is obligated to whatever it can in the interest of its client despite your groundless objection.
I agree with ivoryten and Coy. I'd like to see the kid convicted and do some hard time. I'm not sure I agree with Coy about any "message" that might be sent. "Messages" are over rated and quickly forgotten or ignored.
Perhaps the case was not presented strongly enough, or maybe the jury simply did not buy it. That's the system. Sometimes juries get it wrong (in our opinion). As with Casey Anthony's jury. But they are privvy to more information than we get from press accounts and sometimes you just have to accept things we disagree with. Of course, I wasn't in the jury room. Were you?
It should not be able to be used as a defense just like they say ignorance of the law is never a defense despite all the numerous laws on the books we don't even know about nor have access to read about.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 8, 2011
 
equalityboy81 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then would you be okay with a straight panic defense or a black panic defense and a male panic defense (used by a woman who hates men flirting with her)?
The defense can offer whatever defense that gives them a thrill... as long as it conforms to the rules of the court and the law. That's their job. Would I buy it? No.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 8, 2011
 
equalityboy81 wrote:
<quoted text>
It should not be able to be used as a defense just like they say ignorance of the law is never a defense despite all the numerous laws on the books we don't even know about nor have access to read about.
If you don't think it should be allowed as a defense, talk to your state Supreme Court. I'm not in a position to do anytthing about it.

Years ago, some defense lawyers would use the "she dressed provocatively so she was asking for it" defense for rape. That was later prohibited. They also used to look into every aspect of a woman's private life. That was also shot down.

I don't buy the provocative dress as an excuse for rape of course, but if a woman works hard at looking hot and men notice that she looks hot, I'm not sure how valid the objection is if men notice that she looks hot... after the women work to look hot.(Do we se a pattern here?) But again, it's no excuse for rape... which is said to be a crime of violence (with a sexual component) rather than a crime of sex... even though it is manifested sexually.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••