Openly Gay Oxnard Junior High Student Declared Brain Dead After Being Shot at School Tuesday

[El Pinko]

A tear rolls down the cheek of Jocelyn Salinas, 13, a friend of the shooting victim.



http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-oxnard14feb14,1,955781.story?ctrack=2&cset=true


Oxnard student declared brain dead

By Catherine Saillant and Gregory W. Griggs, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 14, 2008
An Oxnard junior high student who was shot in the head by a classmate earlier this week was declared brain dead Wednesday, and the 14-year-old male suspect now faces a first-degree murder charge, authorities said.

....

several students at the south Oxnard campus said King and his alleged assailant had a falling out stemming from King's sexual orientation.

"He would come to school in high-heeled boots, makeup, jewelry and painted nails -- the whole thing," said Michael Sweeney, 13, an eighth-grader. "That was freaking the guys out."

Student Juan Sandoval, 14, said he shared a fourth-period algebra class with the suspect, whom he described as a calm, smart student who played on the basketball team. "I didn't think he was that kind of kid," Sandoval said. "I guess you never know. He made a big mistake."

[Jamastiene]

1. Mistake?

That kid needs his ass whooped. Mistake? Well, it took a life. What kind of mistake is that?

[zanne]

2. The gun nuts will conveniently ignore this one. nt

[Brigid]

8. Of course they will.

Just like they did with Columbine, Virginia Tech, Jonesboro, and every other school sooting. :banghead:

[krispos42]

99. Of course, those are excellent reasons...

to shred part of the Constitution, go beserk with repressive, restrictive laws.

Because it might save one life.





I'm sorry, how this this argument different from what the Repubs want to do?

[aikoaiko]

11. And the anti-gun nuts will roll around in his blood and smear their faces

and make political points.

[zanne]

17. Your mind is...um....fascinating.

Love the imagery there.:sarcasm:

[aikoaiko]

18. What can I say --- you're inspiring.

:sarcasm:


eta: and when I say "you're" -- I mean your zealous anti-gun postings.

[zanne]

53. Thanks. You'll be seeing plenty more! nt

[krispos42]

114. Says the person that was using this by the second post...

to push an anti-gun agenda.

Congrats on hijacking the thread. There's a story here about intolererce, bigotry, and hatred that's been eclipsed because of you.

So it's okay to be intolerent, bigoted, and hateful as long as that person can't own a gun? Or is it more important to ban guns than address intolerence, bigotry, and hatred?

[timtom]

143. Hear! Hear!

Forest for the trees kind of crap.

I almost cried on reading the OP.

I ran a bar in Austin in the 70's and one of our good patrons was a transvestite. One night he came into the bar and another patron started slapping this person about. I intervened (the slapper was actually a friend of mine and much much stockier than me) and pulled him off and told him to leave that person alone and to get the fuck out of the bar.

[DS1]

23. tough shit

[El Pinko]

24. The blood keeps flowing because gun nuts balk at even rudimentary gun laws

Most countries have sensible gun laws and they help - the US is practically a free-for-all of guns.

It's not about "scoring points", it's about stemming the senseless tide of tens of thousands of deaths every year.

What a repulsive comment.

[aikoaiko]

30. Would it matter much to you if this boy was bludgeoned to death

instead of shot? It wouldn't to me.

But yet some of the the anti-gun folks (like Zanne) see is a chance to ridicule gun owners instead of focusing on another terrible instance of gender discrimination of the worst kind.

[El Pinko]

34. If the kid had come at him with a baseball bat, he would have had more chance to escape.

This is one of the reasons why the per capita murder rate in the US is HUNDREDS of times higher than almost any other inductrialized nation.

Easy access to guns (even by kids) is a BIG part of the problem, even if you're in denial of it.

[aikoaiko]

40. I see hatred for cross gendered folks as the core of this problem.

And I see the gun as the instrument of the hate. Yes, other weapons might not be as lethal in practice, but then even if you could magically rid the US of all guns, you'd still have dead and injured transgendered folks.

I suppose I'm more interested in addressing what I see as the core issue.

[krispos42]

102. Hyperbole much?

Here are your precious gun-control laws in action



1989: Britian bans the ownership of all so-called "assault weapons" by any civilian, no grandfathering.

1998: Britian bans the ownership of all handguns by any civilian, no grandfathering.


The yellow line is the ratio of US to UK homicides. Gee, lookit that...

[El Pinko]

176. I see the UK having significantly fewer murders.

The relative prosperity of the 90s brought murder rates down. Don't see that continuing once unemplyment hits 9% again...

[krispos42]

195. And the extra cops that Clinton put on the street

The COPS program. Curiously, it started being de-funded as soon as the law-and-order Republicans took over Congress when Bush took (literally) the White House, and was completely defunded by 2004 or so.

IIRC, the program put over 50,000 cops on the streets. Many states also implemented "3-strikes-and-you're-out" laws, which put a lot of repeat offenders in jail.

[reggie the dog]

198. violence was reduced

under Clinton, and it had nothing to do with gun control, it had to do with a reduction in unemployment and the hope that the poor would be better looked after than under Reagan or Bush.

[krispos42]

109. Easy access to guns....

enable more spontanious murders, e.g., heat of passion.

Easy access to guns also prevents over a million crimes, including home invasion, rape, assault, and murder, every year.

Since spontanious murders are fairly uncommon but home invasions and rape extremely common, taking away easy access to guns is pennywise and pound foolish.

The UK passed their 1989 assault-weapon ban (a true ban, not a ban on new sales) and 1998 handgun b an (also a true ban) as a result of mass-schootings; specifically, Dunblane and Hungerford. In the interviening years, they have not had any more mass schootings. A coordinated terrorist attack involving suicide bombers, but no mass schootings.

But their homicide rate is up over 30% since 1989, even thought their gun-homicide rate is at historic lows.


Pennywise and pound foolish.

[booley]

135. Uhh where are you getting that?

"Since spontanious murders are fairly uncommon but home invasions and rape extremely common, "

While this is anecdotal and I admit that, I have known quite a few people who were murdered "spontaneously". One friend was killed in a fit of passion that lasted long enough for the other guy to go home, get his gun and drive back to shoot my friend.

Yet I don't know anyone who was killed in a home invasion. And isn't rape also "spontaneous" as you seem to be defining it?

And I live in Saint Louis where there are lots of murders. So it seems odd to me somehow I missed this. And apparently I am nto the only one who missed that crime so fpassion are uncommon.

http://spotlight.ucla.edu/faculty/eric-mokkonen_murder/
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

(in fact, that most murder victims are male and where the relationship was known, most knew their killers who were also predomintly male, that would seem to suggest that most murders are not the result of robbery or rape)

So getting back to the OP topic, s if the murderer hadn't been able to get a hold of a gun, it might or might not have stopped him but it certainly would have made it more difficult. And if society worked on building more tolerance, he might not have felt compelled to do the deed in the first place.

Trying to make this as if we can have better gun laws or a more tolerant society is a false dichotomy. We can have both.

I feel I should also point out that even with that 30% spike, the UK murder rate is still far below ours. So there may be other factors at work.

[krispos42]

144. Good question

There are about 15,000 homicides a year here, 11% of which are "intimate", i.e., spouse, girl/boyfriend, or an ex-spouse.


Use of guns has gone down.





They don't seem to have a breakdown of "hot" vs. "cold" crimes of passion, though. Both are homicides, but "hot" IIRC is usually a lesser charge.



Table 2.11 in the FBI link you gave me is interesting. Thank you.

The fact that you don't know anybody who was killed in a home invasion tells me that there's a good chance that, as a deterrent, they are working. At least with home invasions, the crook usually runs away because there is no intimate reason to stay. Unlike a relationship... :-(


As to the UK... when the homicide rate creeps up 30% over 20 years, I think some questions are in order.

Now, remember, the UK bans were designed and marketed as measure to stop mass shootings, not general crime. And, as a mass-shooting-control measure, it has apparantly lived up to expectations. However, since some people on the DU think that banning guns is a general crime-control measure, there should have been a decrease in general crime and homicide as well.

There hasn't been.

Also, since the UK now has some 4.4 million police-monitored public-area surveillence cameras (400,000 in London alone), that should ALSO have resulted in general crime and homicide rates.

But, despite disarming and closely watching the public, homicide rates are up 30%.


It's not that they're lower than us, it's that America, the most armed country in the world, has gotten and continues to get better, while Britian, one of the least-armed countries in the world, is getting worse. Remember, they used to have one-twelth of our homicide rate, now it's one-third.

[booley]

168. maybe I am reading your wrong

But I am not sure I can agree with all of your conclusions

Lets get back to my original question.

You said that crimes of passion are "extremely UNcommon" and then implied that murders because of rape or home invasion was "extremely common" Sure you could have meant that rape and home robbery themselves are more common then homicides in general, but that doesn't make sense with the context of the thread.

Ok, so where do you get that?

Because yes, Women are more likely to be murdered by someone they know, especially a family member. but women also make up a minority of the murder victims. Going back to the FBI web site I gave you certain trends stand out

Of the total number of homicide victims, 78.0 percent were male and 22.0 percent were female.

A breakdown of the data by gender (of the offenders) showed that 90.1 percent of the offenders were male and 9.9 percent were female.

Of the homicides for which law enforcement provided supplemental data to the UCR Program, the victim-offender relationship was unknown for 44.1 percent of the victims. For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances.

So what can we infer from this?

That robbery and rape seem to be an unlikely motivator for most homicides. It's unlikely that there are scores of young men raping other young men (yes there are gay rapists but there are simply not enough to account for the numbers) and a robber is unlikely to do a home invasion on someone he knows. besides that there would a greatly increased risk of being identified (even if homicide was always in the plan) but a friend would already have an opportunity to steal without resorting to a home invasion. Because they would be invited in. Indeed, i have had supposed friends steal from me. They don't come in guns blazing. they take stuff while your back is turned so often you dont' even know you've been robbed at first.

What is a much more likley motive is a crime in a fit of passion. The stereotypical crime of passion, as in a crime committed against a spouse is just one aspect of a larger set of murders committed as an emotional act. The distinction of a crime against a spouse being special is an artificial one. Spouses are hardly the only ones who can make someone angry enough to commit violence. Friends and family are just as capable.

Sorry, be both should have defined what we meant by a crime of passion. I meant a crime committed in the heat of the moment or emotional disturbance. Which would include shooting a wife, a friend in an argument, or an aquaintence who's only insult was being different.

If we put this murder into that context, it falls into the majority of motives for most murders as we can determine.

"the UK bans were designed and marketed as measure to stop mass shootings, not general crime. And, as a mass-shooting-control measure, it has apparantly lived up to expectations. "

Then I am not really sure of the issue.

"However, since some people on the DU think that banning guns is a general crime-control measure, there should have been a decrease in general crime and homicide as well."

Sorry but that's a supposition based on at best weasel wording. Do some DUers really feel that way? And which ones? and how prevailant are they? And so what if they do? what does that mean as far as if a gun control law could have helped prevent this from happening and could do so for future possible victims?
And the UK is a country of millions with lots going on besides Dunblane and whatever laws they passed because of it. If we were to treat this as an expairiment as you imply, then we would need to account for the other possible variables. If violence went up right after that bill was passed, maybe ti was the cause. or maybe there was something else going on.

And this is hardly the first gun legislation in the UK, which over all has had far fewer gun deaths then the US. So how can we be sure that those laws didn't' have a positive effect? One could say that the rise is just a blip in a much larger positive trend.

[Jamastiene]

208. Yeah, we know. It wouldn't matter at all if he was bludgeoned instead

of shot, cause he was gay. We know. You need not say it over and over again. We know you'd like to use your guns to shoot us all.

[aikoaiko]

216. wtf are you talking about?

I'm outraged at this act and every act of violence against of gays, lesbians, and transgendered folks. I don't want to shoot anyone.

[Dimensio0]

42. Please elaborate.

To what "rudimentary gun laws" do you refer, and how, exactly, would such laws have prevented the event that occured on Tuesday?

[El Pinko]

47. Handguns are illegal for civilians in many countries - I think that's a start.

If all that's allowed is rifles, well, it's pretty hard to sneak a rifle into a Junior High school isn't it?

But of course the gun nuts aregue they have the right to weapons of any size and firepower.

Suprised they don't argue for the right to carry bazookas and flamethrowers.

[Dimensio0]

58. Please explain.

State how a handgun ban could be accomplished in the United States. State how it would be implemented, how existing civillian owned handguns would be confiscated and how current legal owners of handguns would be compensated financially for the loss of their property. Also state how you would finance refunding any money paid for licenses in states where a permit is required for ownership of a handgun, and also refunding money paid for the application for a concealed deadly weapons permit in states that allow for such permits. Also demonstrate that a handgun ban would in fact prevent killings, and that murderers who used handguns would not instead use a different implement for murder in numbers sufficient to offset any anticipated reduction in handgun murders. Also explain how you would prevent contraband handguns from being smuggled in from outside the country, from being harbored by individuals who refuse to comlpy with the ban or from stashes stolen from police officers.

[zanne]

62. "It can't be done"! "It can't be done"!

That's the spirit.

[Dimensio0]

66. I did not claim that anything was impossible.

I merely made an inquiry regarding the various inevitable complications of attempting to enact a ban on civillian ownership of handguns. I did not claim that the complications were insurmountable; if I held such a position, I would have stated as much, and I would not have inquired regarding a means to overcome them.

[reggie the dog]

90. what prohibition has ever worked?

alcohol, gambling, drugs, prostitution, they all exist legally or illegally all over the world. there are too many murders in the usa because americans do not have enough value for human life. you do not help the poor, you tell them they deserve it, you bomb iraq and invade it because some other group of people attacked the usa. kids pick up on the message.

[El Pinko]

70. It would take decades to be effectively implemented, and it would never be perfect...

...but the eventual result would be far fewer handguns on the streets, and people would still have the right to defend themselves with rifles. It would definitely result in significant decreases in murder rates and could be logistically accomplished, although imperfectly because the US is not an island.

Your point about "other weapons" is a strawman.

Handguns with their unique combination of deadly firepower, concealability and the ability to kill at a distance make them uniquely efficient for killing.

Knives, bows-and-arrows, clubs, nothing really compares to the handgun -that is why the vast majority of homicides are committed with them.

[Dimensio0]

73. You have not addressed all of my inquiries.

There are, at present, millions of legally owned handguns in the United States. How, exactly, would the owners of these handguns be compensated for their confiscation if a ban were enacted? Additionally, several states required that owners of handguns purchase licenses for their firearms. How would these handgun permit holders be compensated for their now worthless handgun permits?

It should be noted that a rifle is not an adequate substitute for a handgun in situations of personal defense. A rifle is better suited to long-range combat, while a handgun is more suitable for close-range confrontations, especially when there is a concern of over-penetration. Additionally, it is difficult to carry a concealed rifle for personal defense, and many states that allow the carrying of concealed handguns for personal defense do not allow the carrying of rifles, concealed or otherwise.

Your claim that a handgun ban would "definitely" result in significant decreases in murder rates is unsubstantiated. Please provide evidence to support your claim.

Your claim that the "vast majority" of homicides are committed with handguns is also inaccurate. While handguns have been used in the majority of murders in recent years, that majority is only near 50%. That is not a "vast" majority, unless you are using a definition of "vast" majority similar to the one that George W. Bush apparently used when he declared that the 2004 election indicated that he was given a mandate.

[El Pinko]

78. Why am I obligated to answer your silly inquiries?

How are you going to make every handgun maker pay for all the deaths caused by their product?

How will you make sure handguns NEVER get into the hands of minors?

etc. etc. There are a million silly questions I could ask.



The point is that you favor people having handguns, which are seldom used for self-defense, but often involved in crimes and accidents. We've all read the stats about how people are much more likely to be shot by their own gun than ever shoot an assailant with it.

We have legislators to write the details of how it will be implemented.

I don't give a shit if people are compensated for their weapons or their licenses. Give them a coupon for a free Arby's sandwich.

I submit that every country that has banned handguns has drastically lower per capita murder rates than the US - you can look up the numbers for yourself.



56% of murders committed with handguns - 68% with firearms



By the way, a 56% popular vote win is usually referred to as a "landslide".

[Dimensio0]

112. I did not state that you were obligated to answer any inquiries.

However, your proposal necessarily invites a number of questions regarding logistics. It is not unreasonable to expect that someone proposing such a sweeping ban would have some idea as to how to address them.

How are you going to make every handgun maker pay for all the deaths caused by their product?

I do not believe that such a requirement would be justified, as it is not rational to hold a handgun manufacturer responsible for the criminal use of their product, just as it would not be rational to hold an automobile manufacturer responsible for the criminal use of an automotive product.

How will you make sure handguns NEVER get into the hands of minors?

I do not believe that such a thing could ever be accomplished. Given that there are a number of children who responsibly handle firearms -- including handguns -- when under adult supervision in controlled environments, I do not see why your suggested outcome is even desirable.

etc. etc. There are a million silly questions I could ask.

While this is true, none of the questions that you have posed thus far seem relevant, while my inquires were directly related to your suggestion that civillian ownership of handguns be prohibited.

The point is that you favor people having handguns, which are seldom used for self-defense, but often involved in crimes and accidents.

Your assessment is incorrect. The National Institute of Justice, a division of the Department of Justice, published in May 1997 a report estimating that there are approximately 1.5 million incidents where a handgun is used for self-defense.
Additionally, your assessment of my position is incorrect. I do not "favor people having handguns". Rather, I favor people who have not been convicted of felony offenses or who are not otherwise legally ineligible by current BATFE standards being allowed to posess a handgun if they choose to do so.

We've all read the stats about how people are much more likely to be shot by their own gun than ever shoot an assailant with it.

While I have heard that such statistics exist, I have never actually seen a reference to the statistics themselves. Please provide a citation. Also, explain why the comparison made is not to merely using a firearm to deter an assailant without necessarily discharging the firearm. A number of successful acts of defense with a firearm do not require that the firearm is actually fired.

We have legislators to write the details of how it will be implemented.

Regardless, as you have proposed a ban, it is not unreasonable to expect that you have considered the potentical complications of implementing such a ban.

I don't give a shit if people are compensated for their weapons or their licenses. Give them a coupon for a free Arby's sandwich.

Your suggestion would not be adequate compensation. You are suggesting a confiscation of property without due compensation, which would violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I submit that every country that has banned handguns has drastically lower per capita murder rates than the US - you can look up the numbers for yourself.

Your claim, even if true, would only be meaningful if you can show that any given country that banned handguns had a per-capita murder rate on par with the United States prior to the banning of handguns.
It is also noteworthy that both Mexico and Russia have very strict gun control regulation, yet they also have higher per-capita murder rates than the United States.

56% of murders committed with handguns - 68% with firearms

By the way, a 56% popular vote win is usually referred to as a "landslide".

You claimed that the "vast" majority of murders are committed with handguns. While "vast" is likely a matter of opinion, I would suggest that it is not reasonable to claim that a 6% margin constitutes "vast".

[bean fidhleir]

200. "people would still have the right to defend themselves with rifles"

If you miss with a rifle, the bullet tends to go through everything including innocent non-spectators because the whole point of a rifle is to hit something at long range, which requires a powerful bullet. Not so the bullet from a handgun. The kevlar vests police wear will stop most handgun bullets, but not most rifle bullets. Since rifles are also more clumsy to use in confined spaces like houses, there would seem to be a greater likelihood that in the heat of the moment, the rifle would be fired while pointed at something other than the perp.

The most significant correlation with illegal firearm violence seems to be state-sponsored firearm violence. Countries that do not have gigantic military forces, do not spend over half their national budget on the war industry, and do not engage in invading and occupying other countries, seem also not to have a lot of illicit firearm violence even when they have plenty firearms available to the people (Canada, Switzerland).

It's also true that it's much easier to suppress any movement toward freedom and democracy if the population is disarmed. Examples are numerous.

[sendero]

180. You are wasting your time..

... these folks epitomize the concept of a "knee jerk" liberal - they don't think through their position they just emote about some utopia that never existed and never will.

If laws could stop contraband there wouldn't be any pot, any heroin, any crack any thing that some people find objectionable. But that doesn't stop them from wringing their hands and declaring that the King can wave his Magic Legislative Wand and make things all better.

And I don't care if they try really, their efforts are merely a waste of time, they aren't hurting anyone.

[Jamastiene]

213. Yes. Liberals shouldn't be allowed on a liberal site at all, should we?

[reggie the dog]

89. illegal guns

are sold in every country which bans them. gangsters could buy handguns here in france if they wanted to but most do not. they consider themselves theives, drug dealers, and pimps, not killers.

[reggie the dog]

199. some dude

just shot up NIU with a shotgun, that is pretty big and hard to hide while walking across campus.

[zanne]

54. Every gun starts it's life as a legal instrument.

It's what happens afterward, day after day after day in this country, that makes the difference. Not everybody who murders with a gun is a criminal before they shoot to kill, either. Guns makes them criminals.

[Dimensio0]

59. Your reply does not address my inquiry.

[reggie the dog]

93. no they make themselves into criminals

once you choose to shoot someone you are a criminal. It is the choice that you have, you choose whether or not to kill.

[slackmaster]

142. Information about gun laws in California

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php

Note in particular:

Am I required by law to store my firearms where children cannot access them?

Yes. In most cases, if you keep any loaded firearm within any premise which is under your custody or control and know or reasonably should know that a child (person under 18 years of age) is likely to gain access to the firearm, you may be guilty of a felony if a child gains access to that firearm and thereby causes death or injury to any person unless the firearm was in a secure locked container or locked with a locking device that rendered it inoperable.

(PC Section 12035-12036)

[bean fidhleir]

206. The irony is unbounded

"if you keep any loaded firearm ... and know ... that a child (person under 18 years of age) is likely to gain access to the firearm, you may be guilty of a felony"

What are 17-yo soldiers within the meaning of that law?

[AlCzervik]

31. this kid is dead and you're railing against the "Anti-gun nuts"? WTF is wrong with you?

[aikoaiko]

35. My post countered someone else who was exploiting this tragedy to score anti-gun politic points.

so I ask wtf is wrong with you?

[AlCzervik]

38. gawd forbid you just let it go.

[aikoaiko]

43. I wish no one brought up gun politics in this thread and instead we concentrated on the core issue -

violence toward gays and transgendered folks.

Maybe we can now.

[El Pinko]

48. both issues are relevant here.

It's your prerogative to focus on the aspect you find most important, but school shootings are a problem, whether the victims are gays or not, and guns are part of the root of that problem.

So is anti-gay bigotry.

Wouldn't it be nice if our schools had neither guns nor bigotry?

[aikoaiko]

51. I understand your point of view too.

And there really are good times and places to discuss both issues and what is at the core (I disagree that the instruments of violence are at the "core" or "root").

My post, which has gathered so much interest, was to counter someone who read the OP and the article about the horrible death (ie. brain death) of a boy because (likely) of his transgendered ways and all that that person could think of was something to ridicule gun owners.

[goddess40]

49. I agree - it isn't about the guns it's about bullying

in this incident it's directed toward gay and trans-gendered, which way too many people give a pass to the people that torment them.

What kind of home did the shooter come from that he felt he had the right to shoot someone? I know it isn't always the fault of the parents but this kid had to get this idea from somewhere. I'd be interested to hear what type of program this school district runs to address the bullying issue - if they don't have one I hope the murdered child's parents get a great lawyer.

[zanne]

64. Bullies without guns are far less likely to kill somebody. nt

[booley]

138. Don't be so sure the two are unrelated

Apparently a lot of the murders in this country are crimes of passion where the murderer, a man, feels he needs to prove his manliness using violence. And that's not even adding in the gay angle yet.

What is a hate crime against a gay man but the murderer using violence to assert his manliness?

And guns help do that. In fact, excuse me for sounding cliche but guns are a symbol of masculinity. And we have a society that views shooting a gun as macho. (Yes, even when it's a woman doing it) So if your a young guy who thinks his masculinity is threatened and is willing to resort to violence to protect that masculinity, what better weapon then a gun?

If we are going to solve the problems of bullying and violence in schools, we have to deal with all the aspects of the problem. Not just the ones that aren't controversial.

[goddess40]

147. If we dealt with the issue of bullying, guns wouldn't be such a big factor

Of course the fact that this kid had access to the gun is important, I'm just pointing out if he wasn't conditioned to hate someone because they are different then him that wouldn't be as big a problem.

[booley]

169. One could turn that around

And say that is this kid didn't have access to a gun, his ability to act on his hate in a murderous way would have been far less lethal.

In short, both positions, yours above and mine as stated here have merit. I see no reason to choose one or the other.

[BoneDaddy]

203. What a sick lil mind you have

I love the "anti-gun" people who are filled with so much hate and sick little dark fantasies.

I am not a gun nut, I just think that it ain't about the guns. It is about the American psyche.

Sure, guns need regulation, but I am not for the total removal of every firearm. That is an extreme of a different nature. Either side on this issue is usually irrational.

[BoneDaddy]

204. Duplicate

post

[Jamastiene]

209. Seem you are more the type who enjoys rolling around in blood.

especially the blood of gay teens...If the shoe fits you Cinderella, somebody has to point it out.

[reggie the dog]

85. would you have felt better if

he simply cut the kids head off with a rambo knife? or pushed him in front of a train?
The problem in the usa iis not guns, there are more guns per person in canada but less violence. The problem in the usa is a devaluization of human life, which comes from the top ie. reaganomics, and when mixed with a dog eat dog mentality explodes into violence. This particular murder also involves prejudice and hating a group of people for their lifestyle (also from the top, think of reagan and "g.r.i.d.s." oe the war on drugs and you have government sponsored prejudged hatred of groups of people)mix hatred with a low value of human life and you get murders like this.

[slutticus]

86. And if the weapon had been a knife? Or a bat?

Did this kid legally obtain the gun?


Shouldn't we be more concerned about homophobia and the despicable violence committed against the LGBT community? Does it really matter what weapon was used?

[krispos42]

95. Pink Pistols

[Xipe Totec]

6. A fatal mistake

fatal to the victim and to the assailant.

That kid ruined two lives directly, and no telling how many other lives he ruined indirectly.

[Jamastiene]

212. Exactly.

It's truly horrible.

[JerseygirlCT]

124. Sure doesn't sound like a mistake

Unless a culture of homophobia obviously instilled in this kid can be blamed.

[Jamastiene]

210. Trust me. It was no mistake.

It was a hate crime. Of course, we are just asking for special rights to ask them not to make the "mistake" of shooting us point blank just for being gay. :eyes:

[piesRsquare]

182. Knock it off!

The kid is 14!

Notice the context of the statement: "I didn't think he was that kind of kid," Sandoval said. "I guess you never know. He made a big mistake."

What the kid is actually saying is "I made a big mistake." In other words, "I thought he was a nice, normal guy. I made a mistake in my perception of him."

His psyche is processing the whole ordeal--trying to make sense of it all and understand it--and this is how it happened to "come out" with the language. His language is--paradoxically--clear, yet garbled.

The press should not be permitted to publish statements from young kids who have just been severely traumatized and are in the midst of psychologically processing the experience. This is like taking individual statements from a counseling or psychotherapy session and publishing them.

[Jamastiene]

207. What? It's just a gay kid was killed. No big deal.

We don't fucking matter. Mistake my ass. He was probably happy to see the gay kid get killed. His buddy just make a "mistake" right? NO big deal. We aren't even human.

How about you fuck off instead, asshole? Take your whole goddamn family with you while you are at it, homophobe.

[Elspeth]

3. Ok, tell me about the "special rights" thing again?

:grr:

[NMMNG]

154. "Special Rights"

When uppity GLBTs want the same rights everybody else has.

[Fridays Child]

4. Fuck!

:cry:

[Hepburn]

5. Holy shit....

...this is sad as hell. Finding it necessary to kill someone because of supposedly being "freaked out" by the mode of dressing???

How freaking sad and scary!

[reggie the dog]

98. this is really fucked up

Back in high shcool a couple of guys wore dresses to school. Some toughs tried to start a fight one day and were suprised that these guys dressed in goth dresses had some really imposing metalhead friends. Only closed minded people are freaked out by guys wearing dresses. I am not saying I was 100% tolerant of gay people when I was a teen, but I used to be a racist too, I changed by about age 17. But even in my most closed minded days of age 14 I would have never even tried to punch someone because of how they dressed.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Wonder what 'church' the shooter attends. What lessons we teach.

[reformedrethug]

9. All you need to do

is look at the parents, they are prob homophobic assholes and passed that down to the kid. You kmow its funny, I grew up in a church and I NEVER felt like doing this in fact several of my friends were gay and my step mom made the comment once that damn he looks better in that dress than I do. So take your automatic assumptions and rethink them.

[enlightenment]

13. It's nice that your personal experiences allowed you

to grow up with a wider world view - but you're making the same assumptive link as the poster to whom you responded.

We don't know what sort of environment this kid has been growing up in; it's just as speculative to assume that his parents are to blame as to assume that religious indoctrination is to blame.

Possibly, more information will be released; until then, it's all speculation.

[zanne]

19. The kid murdered another kid because he didn't "approve" of his lifestyle...

That's all we need to know.

[enlightenment]

156. Your faith in the new media is fascinating.

A two paragraph article is all you need to know to judge someone? I'm not defending this kid at all, but I'd like a few more details before I "blame" parents/church/school/media/etc. Going off half-cocked, with minimal information, isn't a lot different then what this kid did - except he had a gun.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. About 95% of the fundamentalist churches believe that homosexuality is a sin and say it loud and

clear.


"If as a Christian you truly believe God's word that homosexuality is a sin, and that it is a choice (sin has to be a choice, or it is not sin) then how can you advocate teaching tolerance for it? Would you teach tolerance for rapists? For thieves? How about liars? " - http://www.behindthebadge.net/articles/a126.html

"Church teaching is absolutely on the nail on this subject. Homosexuality is dysfunctional and disordered and the homosexual act is totally depraved completely devoid of anything 'life' giving. Catholics cannot stand by and let this homosexual agenda gain momentum because our very existence is being challenged. The devil uses everything he can to destroy our Catholic Faith, the Sacrament of Marriage and Family Life which is the bed-rock of a healthy society." - http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2006/10/sermon-on-homosexuality.html

"'Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years,
one of the options discussed will be the extermination of homosexuals."
Dr. Paul Cameron, a "scientist" often quoted by religious right groups (see below),
speaking at the 1985 Conservative Political Action Conference

"“The concept, the word for homosexual behavior is sodomy. That is what is used in the official documents. It is sodomy. It is repugnant. It has been prohibited and proscribed by sane society throughout countless millennia, centuries. People have understood that it is wrong. Now in America, not only is it happening, it is getting civil rights protection in the law, and these people are invading churches.” - 700 Club, 1-18-94 (source: People for the American Way Foundation)- Pat Robertson

"god hates homosexuality" - Jerry Falwell on TV (I've seen the actual footage)"
http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/hate.html

[LanternWaste]

52. Approximately 99% of Protestant Churches

Approximately 99% of Protestant Churches also perceive stealing as a sin and say that loud and clear also. Yet since most people who get caught stealing are not beaten to death ny mods of angry Christians, I think we may look for other causal factors outside of the church, also...

Edited for clarity

[sinkingfeeling]

65. My point is that intolerance of gays is taught. It is taught by parents, primarily, but they

also are reinforced by some churches (who are extremely vocal on the subject). Intolerance is passed down generation to generation. And as you can note from the sources I quoted above, some 'church' leaders are very upset by the idea that tolerance be taught in public schools.

Here's a quote from the LA Times story above:


"This Oxnard shooting is very upsetting but not surprising," Jennings said. "The real issue is not the kid coming out, but the kid sitting next to him. Schools must teach that we may not like one another, but we must respect one another." -
Kevin Jennings, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network

Updated to add LA Times info.

Lawrence King

[LanternWaste]

72. I'm sure that they're out there...

I have yet to attend a church that teaches intolerance. I'm sure that they're out there, but my money would be on factors more closely aligned to the perpetrator-- family and friends, rather than outside organizations.

[Withywindle]

79. That's a very important point.

And "thou shalt not steal" is actually one of the Ten Commandments, which would seem to make it a much higher-ranking sin than anything to do with homosexuality.

There is an irrational, superstitious reaction to LGBT people that some churches love to encourage and inflame, but I'm afraid it didn't originate there. There are pathologically homophobic atheists with no religious background out there. "Phobia" is an apt name for it in the sense that it is as kneejerk and pointless and baseless and hard to treat as a fear of (nonvenomous)snakes, or the number 13, or amputees, or whatever bizarre thing a disordered mind can find to react to. I saw an afternoon TV show once (Maury Povich or something like that) about phobias, and there was one woman with a horror of aluminum foil. At the very sight of a roll of foil all the way across the stage, she started cringing and screaming and crying. Then she got angry and tried to attack one of the show's employees when he said she'd have to touch it. (Fear leads to anger, because nobody likes being "made" to feel afraid). I felt sorry for her but I was also morbidly fascinated.

That's what I see when I see some homophobe spouting off. I see that poor woman, reduced to babbling and sobbing like an infant by the threat of a glimpse of a roll of aluminum foil. Now, mind you, there's no church that I know of that says this feeling is only right and good because aluminum foil is EVIL and trying to corrupt our children. And the aluminum foil is not going to be hurt by anyone's phobia.

[reggie the dog]

101. what perecentage

of US churches are fundamentalist? In Chicago there are lots and lots of Catholics, are they fundementalist too or only the Protestants????

[NMMNG]

155. Plenty of non-fundamentalist churches teach that as well

It's strange that they put so much emphasis on the six questionable verses about homosexuality and so little on the 100+ about helping the poor. They completely ignore the 9th commandment (Thou shalt not lie) as they abuse it to hell in their attempts to demonize LGBTs and keep them 2nd class citizens. Likewise they pay little, if any, attention to #7, Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. To do so would cause much consternation within their own congregations. As to the many Biblical prohibitions against divorce, including the one Jesus himself made, you won't be hearing anything about those. Too many divorced and divorcing people in the church. Funny how nobody mentions banning divorce as a means of "protecting marriage".

In short, there is a very strong Anti-Gay Agenda and it has nothing to do with "family values". It has everything to do with bigotry and hatred. They just cloak it in religious language so they can keep it legal, tax exempt and righteous sounding.

[reggie the dog]

100. people that bash all churches

are prejudiced themselves. I generally do not like organized religion because it had done more to harm the world as a whole in its history than help it in my opinion. But I cannot ignore things like the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. got his inspiration from the gospel. It just so happens that the open minded religious LEADERS are minority. I stress LEADERS because I know many, many open minded religiously devout PEOPLE.

[PDJane]

10. I have problems with this all around.

I have problems that being gay would be such a huge issue. I have trouble with the way GLBT people are treated in the US. I'm convinced that the whole thing should be the subject of serious retraining.

However, I am also concerned that a 14-year-old boy, probably brainwashed and not likely to reach any of his potential, is liable to be jailed 50 years to life in an American jail. Add hate crimes to that, and the time gets longer, but there will be no counselling or treatment.

That doesn't seem just or logical either. I just don't understand any of it.

[Jamastiene]

211. At least he has his life...

The other kid doesn't have that any more.

[xchrom]

12. while this make me incredibly angry on the one hand -- it makes me very sad and thoughful

on the other.

outraged, angry, sickend that this child was killed because he was Being who he is.

but even here -- even the lgbtq forum -- we have people who get ''tired'' of having the lgbtq folk being ''represented' by people like this kid. -- extreme -- or flamboyant -- what ever words used to describe those men who are so obviously different from the ''norm'' -- what ever that is.

men, boys -- who are in some way identifiably different from the masculine universe -- and mind you not all of them are even gay -- labeled, harrassed as fag, queer, sissy -- less than ''real people'' -- and at the end - expendable.

there's a lot to think about here.

may his family some how be Blessed with Peace.

[El Pinko]

21. "extreme -- or flamboyant"

Seems to me that it's the extreme and flamboyant that we should treasure the most.

Sure there are a lot of gays who look and act exactly like everyone else. Good for them, but far from being a bad thing,


I think flamboyant gays (and flamboyant straights) make our world more colorful, more campy, more fun to live in.


If someone doesn't care for that, they should just stay away from it.


The world would be a grimmer place without flamboyant and unusual people, IMO.



(Okay, there is ONE with basically no redeeming value...)

[xchrom]

37. you have my gratitude for some humour in this grim moment.

i mean that -- no sarcasm.

however this is a serious subject -- both with the straight universe and among or within lgbtq community.

perhaps this isn't the moment -- but it is there.
along with animosity shown to those who very masculine -- another source of discomfort within us.

anyway -- great pic -- thanks again.

[reggie the dog]

104. being flamboyant

is something I picked up from other social movements and put it into my own cannabis legalization fight. I wear shirts with leaves, came to grad school with a coat that reeked of reefer from the night before, openly smoked at parties where drinking was accepted etc. I got the idea one night when my buddies dad went on and on about dumb potheads. I asked him if he thought I was dumb, he said no because he knew I got great grades, so I told him that I smoked reefer. He was surprised but I had nothing to fear because my own parents backed me.

This kids parents likely backed him so he was open, flamboyant if you want, and did not give a damn what other prejudiced people thought of him.

It is the same thing as "black is beautiful" or "say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud".

If closed minded people cannot handle the world they should hide in a cave somewhere.

[JerseygirlCT]

125. Isn't it strange?

That we require such strict adherence to the rules of fashion and dress from young men? Young women can wear make-up, or not. Jewelry, or not. Heels, or not. I doubt anyone blinks.

But a young man dresses out of the norm, and... he's KILLED for it. What a sick twisted mindset that even introduces such a possibility to young men -- he's different, he must be killed.

[uppityperson]

129. I know. Women can "cross dress", men can't. I had flamboyent young men

in my life recently. They kept raiding my, and other mom's closets for silk shirts, etc. Hey, they were comfortable and so what if they looked like George Washington?

[JerseygirlCT]

132. LOL

I remember standing next to one drag queen years ago at a theater opening. This guy was built like a football player. I wanted to take him aside and explain that shoulder pads? Not his best look.

Generally, you've got to give these guys credit for being who they are - completely and bravely. That takes guts at any age, but in HS? When conformity is king (or queen)?

Well I guess we see the risks with this story. And how sick is that?

[readmoreoften]

190. Only straight women can 'cross-dress'. It's only okay if you don't mean it.

A cute little tie or boots and overalls are just adorable on straight women... so long as they wear make-up and emphasize their femininity. My partner is a butch lesbian and, trust me, it's not okay to cross-dress. Very life-threateningly not okay at times.

[uppityperson]

218. I wear lumberjack/cowboy clothes, jeans and flannel shirts.

I wear t-shirts too. And boxers. Yes, I am hetero, but no makeup, no emphasizing femininity. I've had a buzz hair cut and my kid got an eyeroll out of kid bigots who sneered at my gayness.

Fashion changes. Why is it ok for me to wear my son's clothing, but not ok for him to wear mine? Why can I wear jeans and flannel shirt, yet he gets looked down upon for wearing silk shirts?

I posted a picture of George Washington, showing how fashions change, sometimes, many times, I really don't understand people.

[Chovexani]

183. You said it

I'm reminded of the sadly annual arguments about how much drag to allow at the Pride Parade (and heck, that thread going right now).

It's the misfits that make the world safer for everyone. I wish people would understand that.

[aikoaiko]

14. Its a terrible tragedy ---far too many kids suffer because of their peers insecuritites about gender

Gender hatred rears is ugly head again.

[jaksavage]

15. Where did he get the gun?

The owner is guilty too.

[Wcross]

33. Good question.

If it was one of his parents guns they share blame for this murder. I own several guns but no children live here. I would NEVER leave a gun where a child could access it. Ever. I don't care how "responsible" you think your child is, your gun needs to be locked up if you do not have it on your person.

[bluestateguy]

16. The little murderer should be tried as an adult and imprisoned for life

No FUTURE!!!!!

[zanne]

20. I agree. nt

[PDJane]

22. Now, there's the attitude I don't understand.

Truly.

Please tell me what good jailing this child for life, especially in a really brutal prison system, is going to do?

What lessons is he going to learn from being jailed, without education and without treatment for the rest of his life?

what an attitude.

[truebrit71]

36. "education and treatment"? Gimme a fucking break...he murdered another child...

..he INSTANTLY gave up whatever rights he had access to for "education and treatment" the second he pulled that trigger..

If he had done that to MY kid, the little punk would never be dead ENOUGH.

Fry him.

[PDJane]

56. Nice, understanding and religious attitude there.

He's a child. whether he killed or not, he is a child. Do we then fry every child soldier? How about those who pick up a gun and don't intend the consequences? Where do you draw the line, and why?

That's an ugly attitude, my friend.

[truebrit71]

75. Wrong. He's a murderer that made a concious decision to kill another human being...

...for no good reason.

Old enough to kill, then you're old enough to pay for it.

Fry the little bastard.

[Selatius]

76. Frying the kid won't bring back the dead victim.

The person should be confined to an institution.

[truebrit71]

82. You're right. That's not what punishment is for. It's to make sure he doesn't do it again...

..and the death penalty would insure that..

[reggie the dog]

115. how would they kill

if they had to spend their natural life in prison? There are too many people convicted of murder and later found out to be innocent for me to condone the death penalty.

[truebrit71]

117. Why should the taxpayers be forced to feed, clothe and house him. He's a murderer. Bye-bye.

Very simple.

[kevinbgoode]

123. Yes...let's make the victim's family pay taxes to take care of the

assailant for life. . .after all, they haven't suffered enough for having a kid who merely dressed to express himself.

Besides, we have this great moral obligation to ensure the assailant's family be kept intact and secure in their knowledge that their child's own little boo-boo wasn't as serious as if he had murdered a straight-acting, plain-dressing boy. Why, the poor kid shouldn't be expected to suffer for merely following the social messages handed down to him by his family, some of his peers, every right-wing talk radio host, and most wingnut evangelical churches. He should be rewarded for expressing his outrage at the diabolical "homosexual agenda" by eliminating those who pose such a dire threat to heterosupremacist values.

Just once, I'd like to see a murder rampage on that minority who perpetrates such horrific acts of violence on others - and then use the same excuses to lessen the punishment of those who committed those crimes. Why shouldn't the gays, for example....or how about women...be allowed to get away with the "he was going to hit on me" excuse for murder? Hell, if women shot a man every time she dealt with an unwelcome advance, there wouldn't be enough straight guys left to control all of the government and corporate world.

[reggie the dog]

149. you ignore that innocents are convicted of murder

give the people life in prison. At least that way if it later comes out that they are innocent they can be let out of jail. What do you propose that the government do when they execute someone only to find out that the person executed was innocent? Just say ooops????

[Selatius]

130. If you ask that, then why don't you ask why we have prisons for murderers/rapers/etc. at all?

Are you saying we should institute the death penalty on the entire prison population guilty of murder?

Regardless of your answer to that question, I divide killing into necessary vs. unnecessary killing. I don't believe there ever is a "good" killing. If the convict is locked away in a prison cell and is isolated from a society that he can harm, then I would argue that killing him in that situation would be an unnecessary killing. As a result, I am categorically opposed to the death penalty.

[reggie the dog]

151. one of the great things president Chirac did

was to push for and get an amendment to the constitution of France. The death penalty is not only illegal here, it is unconstitutional.

[reggie the dog]

137. innocent people

are convicted of murder. Take the exaple of Illinois. We suspended our death penalty because several convicted death row inmates were found to be innocent. Mistakes happen, our justice system is not perfect. In order to prevent the state from killing an innocent person I cannot condone the death penalty. Even if that means paying for the 97 out of every 100 convicted murders who are actually murderers.

[El Pinko]

177. Capital cases take years or even decades and cost a LOT more taxpayer money than incarceration.

If your rationale is saving tax money, life imprisonment is still cheaper (but still inappropriate in the case of a child who killed another child for reasons as yet unclear).

[yodermon]

87. I'd rather study the murderer to find out what caused him to do this.

Use the information learned to try to prevent such occurances in the future.

[kevinbgoode]

107. I'd rather go after the parents.

If we are supposed to show such great compassion for a straight male "child" who was taught that he has the right to take a gun and kill someone who he doesn't like, then the people who nurtured that behavior need to be held responsible. He killed someone else's child and deliberately removed someone else's life. Why should his family be left intact and enjoying all of the rights and benefits and privileges of the heterosupremacist lifestyle?

[yodermon]

120. You may be right, but i prefer to focus my energy on the prevention aspect.

Justice/vengeance/retribution is all well and good, but it does nothing to A) bring back the victim or B) prevent future occurances.

You are correct that the parents must be studied as well. The entire family dynamic that led up to this deserves close inspection.

[kevinbgoode]

126. Unfortunately, the time for prevention education is BEFORE

something happens.

Frankly, the parents can be studied all you like, but I see no reason why a "family" which produced this level of violence should be allowed to remain legally intact. After all, if we can have a million gay families without any legal protections simply because heterosupremacists don't like them, then why should society be providing benefits for someone who took the life of another citizen and the people responsible for his behavior?

[reggie the dog]

111. fry him?

As much as I could want to imprison someone for life I cannot condone the state killing someone that no longer poses an imminent threat.

[kevinbgoode]

118. I know...why don't we just make sure the little angel

is always completely surrounded by perfectly acting conformist "macho" men, so society won't ever have to be concerned that he might be an "imminent threat" by seeing the presence of someone who deviates from his security blanket norm.

After all, something tells me that the whole idea of having the right to murder someone who dressed or acted differently than his culturally-imposed image of manhood is based on the social privilege of certain groups who think they can destroy others without taking responsibility.

[Wind Dancer]

167. Sigh!

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

[bluestateguy]

60. Oh please

When somebody murders based on pure homophobia and hate, then I'm not real interested in "treatment" and "education".

I'm just not.

[PDJane]

68. When that person is under 18,

no treatment and education is a waste.

Writing off any human being in that manner is just cruel.

[kevinbgoode]

113. he had no problem writing off a human being.

Are you claiming that the assailant's life was more valuable than the unprotected victims? The victim had no choice in being eliminated from this earth, did he? Should we just assume that the "education" and "treatment" the victim received was that being himself meant automatic murder?

I'm sorry, but the deliberate taking of another human life isn't a petty crime. And while the alleged assailant might be a minor, there are people responsible for his behavior and his actions and his access to a gun.

[PDJane]

172. Another one being deliberately obtuse.

No young person is worth more than another. On the other hand, this young man isn't worth less than another either. He made a mistake. A really awful mistake, no question, and one that cost a great deal all around.

However, I can't bring myself to simply decide that someone's child is so terrible that they don't deserve to live, either. It's not ours to make that decision.

[kevinbgoode]

184. And what mistake did the victim make?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

26. Nope.

We shouldn't try children as adults no matter how horrendous the crime.

[Exultant Democracy]

32. Agree, but the kid needs serious rehibilitation and there should be a way to hold him indefinitly

if he remains as unstable and dangerous as he is right now. It would only increase the tragedy if he was able to get out at 21 or 25 and turned around and hurt someone else.

[truebrit71]

39. Screw that...

Fry the little bastard. That will permanently "rehabilitate" him...

[Exultant Democracy]

44. I think that the death penalty is abhorrent,

I've said so in court when a loved one was murdered. My whole family was in agreement on the issue, who needs more victims.

[rockymountaindem]

71. So now we're supposed to execute children - children - with the barbarity of the electric chair

Let me get this straight. You'd be happy to see a 14 year old kid lined up against a wall and done away with. There's something wrong with that. I'm not saying he should be coddled, but if we're going to start executing 14 year old kids, nevermind the inherent flaws in capital punishment, then this wouldn't be the kind of country I want to live in.

[truebrit71]

77. I'm sorry what part of the crime of murder did you NOT understand?

He forfeit his one life as soon as he pulled the trigger.

Very simple.

This wasn't a mistake, this wasn't an accident it was DELIBERATE.

He's a murderer and should be executed for his crime.

[El Pinko]

80. He is a child.

Good grief, does your mind still function the way it did when you were 14?

I agree that juvenile criminals should be punished, but the courts have consistently come down against executing minors.

:wtf:

[truebrit71]

83. ..."he's a child"...that KILLED SOMEONE...wer're not talking about stealing his lunch money...

..we are talking about CAPITAL MURDER.

Fry the little bastard.

[El Pinko]

88. I understand fully what he did and all of its various implications.

The boy who pulled the trigger in all likelihood does not. He may grow up to be a horrible thug, or he may have an epiphany and spend the rest of his life fighting against anti-gay violence.

That's the beauty of growing up - sometimes people do change into something better and overcome their upbringing and their mistakes and misdeeds.



Luckily for our country, you didn't have a say in writing our constitution.


Children don't have adult rights or adult responsibilities, which is as it should be.

[truebrit71]

110. Wow...you are just completely glossing over the whole SHOT SOMEONE TO DEATH part of this...

...and the irony of this statement is just too much..."That's the beauty of growing up - sometimes people do change into something better and overcome their upbringing and their mistakes and misdeeds."

Too bad the dead kid wasn't given the same chance....:eyes:

Fry the little bastard.

[El Pinko]

175. I have two children so don't tell me I can't imagine what this kid's parents are going through.

Your simplistic attitude smack of someone barely out of college or high school, sorely lacking in real-world experience and the understanding of how children's minds don't always make the right commections or do the right things.


Not that it's comparable, but my brother and I once broke EVERY SINGLE WINDOW of one of the buildings on my grandmother's ranch. It was vacant and unused, so we just assumed she wouldn't mind.

With your kind of thinking, we'd have gone to jail for vandalism. But we just had to work off the cost of the new glass.

My brother and I were not bad kids. The kid who did this may or may not be. Maybe he's sexually confused himself. I have no way to know what moved him to do something so horrible.

I don't know how you can presume to know either, or how you can be so sure that a CHILD is beyond rehabilitation.

[rockymountaindem]

92. I could just as easily ask you what part of *child* you don't understand

Like it or not, our society assumes that people under the age of 18 aren't capable of functioning to the same level of people who are legal adults. Whether you think that's a fair distinction is another argument. If the accused was 17, maybe I'd see your point, but to suggest that we execute an adolescent is beyond the pale. As a society, we do not expect people of that age to function at the adult level. We don't invest them with adult rights and responsibilities. He isn't supposed to take care of himself, and the people who were supposed to take care of him obviously didn't do a good enough job of preventing him from doing something incredibly wrong, not to mention stupid.

Unless you're prepared to start treating every 14 year old as if they are adults and capable of voting, driving, joining the military, drinking, having sex with adults etc. there's no way you can support executing this kid. He should be separated from society until he can demonstrate he's not a risk to society. Maybe that will be when he's 18. Maybe it will be when he's 21. Maybe it will be never. However, executing someone we don't expect to have adult mental faculties is morally wrong and hypocritical.

[malaise]

97. Agree 100%

He's a child.

[truebrit71]

108. That's complete and utter bullshit. When my kid was 14 they knew that MURDERING someone was NOT okay

I will agree with you about this though...he should be separated from society....permanently...

[rockymountaindem]

136. Maybe we should execute 12-year-olds then?

Where would you draw the line? 10? 8? The fact is that we've drawn the line, as a society, at age 18. Unless you want to change centuries of legal precedent, you'll just have to live with it.

[El Pinko]

178. Maybe we should execute newborns who murder their mothers by being born.

Namby-pamby liberals say they're just infants and that they are unaware of the harm their emergence does to the mother's body, but it's obvious that the little bastards are deliberately inflating their heads to make the delivery harder and probably kicked their moms' hearts in the wombs to try and stop them beating.

:sarcasm:

[reggie the dog]

119. there is a difference between

murders and people convicted of murder. Some murders are never convicted (OJ Simpson, W. Bush spring to mind) and sometimes innocents are put in jail. What if the Hurricane had been executed??? How would he have been released after being found innocent?

[mondo joe]

128. And yet he's still a child. There's a reason that we legally distinguish between

adults and children.

Children do not have the full capacity to form consent.

[theHandpuppet]

201. I agree

The 14 year old brain does not work exactly like an adult brain. Just as their bodies are immature, so are their brains. This child needs to be isolated from society at large because right now he is dangerous. But he also needs evaluation and possible treatment. We have no idea yet whether this kid can be rehabilitated. He sounds very damaged.

I also think the parents need to be investigated and possibly held on charges. If you brainwash your kid and transform him into a gun-toting, gay-hating homophobe and he then turns around and kills someone, you should be charged with accessory to murder, among other things. If there are other children in the home, they should be taken away.

Finally, I would like to more about what may have been going on at that school. Very rarely do crimes like this happen without any signs or signals of trouble.

[reggie the dog]

116. natural life in prison

leaves the possiblity of a society killing an innocent person. Hell you could put him in solitary confinement for their rest of his life and you have eliminated the possiblity of another murder.

had the kid done armed robbery, theft, stole a car i could understand trying them as a kid, but murder is a much, much more serious crime.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

41. Very true.

I'm just against automatically incarcerating someone for life at that age.

[mondo joe]

122. I don't believe in trying kids as adults. NT

[Rockholm]

202. Yes, indeed. He should get a kick out of prison.

He will get a lifetime of remembering his heinous crime.

[Irishonly]

25. I wish his family peace

Two families and countless people's lives have been ruined. There must be some way to end the senseless violence. It's so sad and troubling.

[readmoreoften]

192. He doesn't seem to have a family. The victim lived in a center for abused and neglected kids.

The way to end the senseless violence, in this case, is to stop the incessant anti-gay messages that children receive.

[Irishonly]

205. I Didn't See That Part

I am sorry and I agree with you. I am having trouble finding the words to write how deeply all of this disturbs me. I am just so sorry and so sad that a young person lost his life because of gay hatred. I just don't understand why our gay brothers and sisters have to put up with all they do. I probably am saying it badly but it saddens me to see people judged because of who they are.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

27. How horrible!

It's a shame that people can't be who they are without worrying about some homophobe/pyschopath shooting them in the head. This is a terrible tragedy that is, unfortunately, all too common.

[AlCzervik]

28. omg there are no words.

:cry:

[Bluenorthwest]

45. This is why

We keep shouting. Silence=Death. So now you know.

[gollygee]

46. How awful

what a terrible tragedy

:(

[mcctatas]

50. And that is what the power of the religous right breeds

fear, hatred, and dead teenagers. :grr:

[zanne]

55. And acute paranoia. nt

[TCJ70]

74. We don't know anything about this kid...

...what if he just didn't like him?

[mcctatas]

146. That may be...

but the religious right has made attacking differences OK. Maybe the shooter was a died in the wool athiest, whatever, I'm just saying that the religious right's influence over our culture and public discourse for the past several years creates a climate where these things happen.

[readmoreoften]

187. Oh good god. Here come the apologists.

It's clear from the piece that his friends said he killed him because he was freaked out by his gender expression. He didn't know the victim, what possible other reason might it be?

[LeftinOH]

57. Junior high school is the North Korea of our society... you simply cannot

'express your true self' and expect to go unnoticed; more likely, you will be punished by your peers in every way imaginable..up to and including violence. Shooting "fags" is not far removed from what's considered acceptable to the junior high mind-set. Taunting those who are different, much less shooting them is wrong; a youth who wants to live his life openly is wonderful...but I recall the nightmare society of junior high. What happened here is not surprising.

[El Pinko]

69. It's funny that Jr. High is so much worse than High School

At least that was my experience - the bullying, cliques, etc. were much more merciless in Jr. High. By High School people seemed more comfortable with who they were and accepting of others, with even misfits learning to find strength in their differentness.

Must be the age - right in between childhood and more mature teens - a lot of hormones, energy, pent-up frustrations, but they haven't yet developed the capacity to always let it out in constructive ways.

I personally don't think the killer here should go to jail for life. He should go to juvie until he's 18 - and he should have to meet with the family of the victim on a regular basis so that what he did can really sink in.

Maybe they'll even be able to forgive this kid someday.

[knitter4democracy]

61. What a horrible, horrible thing.

I will pray for him and his family and his friends. I will pray for his teachers, the ones who have to pack up his projects to give to his parents, the way my mom had to for all 30 students of hers who died over her 33 years of teaching.

A beautiful light snuffed out for fear and hatred and stupid reasons. That's just plain awful.

[riderinthestorm]

63. Just tears.

:cry: So many lives ruined because a boy decided to paint his nails and wear high heel boots.....

Senseless.

[Steerpike]

67. I could just cry.

This is such a sad event. With all the related issues: the worst part of all this is that people still hate gay men bad enough to kill them.
Even with the strides in Gay Rights that have been made in recent years we still see Gay Panic in the general populace. To me the biggest problem is not guns or gun laws. The biggest problem is the hate filled speech of elements of the religious right. The religious right truly demonizes gay people. Reducing all gays to ciphers of all that is wrong with western civilization. I see and hear this type of speech most everyday.
It's always conservatives and I always call them on their violent tendancys. I ask them why christians always want to kill people. They then look at me and ask me why I hate christians.

[dysfunctional press]

81. just one more reason why school uniforms make sense.

nt

[El Pinko]

84. You know, I'm all for school uniforms, but...

...what an inappropriate thing to say in response to this.

It's almost as though some people are blaming this boy and his choice of clothing for what happened to him.

:wtf:

[dysfunctional press]

91. i'm not blaming the victim for his choice of attire.

but i am saying that school uniforms might have prevented it from happening in the first place.

[El Pinko]

174. The implication was that the clothing was the problem, and it clearly is not.

Even if there was a uniform, even if they forced him to wash off his lip gloss, they can't stamp out every lisp, every swish, every defiant display of "I am ME" from a kid like this, and it wouldn't prevent those who hate from noticing it.

I don't think clothes are the issue here at all.

[KamaAina]

94. In that case, he'd probably have worn the girls' uniform

:P

[reggie the dog]

121. you have got to be kidding

So, some kids cannot handle that others are different from them and they kill the different looking kid. Your solution is to make everyone look the same??????Why not simply teach kids to tolerate people that do not look like they do.

[dysfunctional press]

161. not at all.

school uniforms are the best way to go for a myriad of reasons. this tragic incident illustrates another one.

[reggie the dog]

170. what reasons would that be?

Why should kids have to look the same?

A uniform still would not have prepared the gunman for seeing men in dresses.

[dysfunctional press]

181. trying to stem social stratification is probably the biggest reason.

as well as the fact that kids are in school to learn, not to 'express themselves' and/or be a distraction to others.
most of the parents i know would LOVE for their kids' school districts or schools to institute uniforms as policy, and one even got a seat on the school board in the district we live in and one of the things she wants to accomplish is having uniforms for students. i don't know any parents that are against the idea- at least not in this area.

[readmoreoften]

188. And when he painted his fingernails, he still would've been murdered. /nt

[Chovexani]

194. Thank every god in heaven

That I didn't grow up in your area.

[reggie the dog]

197. my parents were against it

I am against it, I hava a daughter.

Kids are in school to express themselves. That is why they have so many non academic activities in school. Choir, chess club, sports etc.

Also how would uniforms stem social stratification? People from the educated middle classes still have different cultural morés than their working class or poor peers.

[NMMNG]

152. Sure, blame the victim for getting murdered by a homophobe

And here I call you names in violation of DU rules without actually putting those names into words.

[dysfunctional press]

160. i'm not blaming the victim.

and had there been a uniform policy in place, he may not have even been a victim in the first place.

[NMMNG]

162. Yes, he would have

Are you really arguing that he was killed because of what he wore? He was killed because he had the audacity to not stay in the closet like a good little faggot.

[dysfunctional press]

164. on that particular day, he was killed because of what he wore.

or maybe you didn't read the article?

[NMMNG]

165. I read the article

Just because he was wearing something on the day he was killed doesn't mean that he was killed for what he was wearing on that day. He was killed for being gay. Homophobic asshats think they can kill people just for having the audacity to not conform to what they consider "normal", which means being straight. That kid could have worn a button down, tie and Dockers and he would have been targeted just for being effeminate, saying he was gay (which was noted in the article) or any other "deviant" behaviors the bigot chose to target him for.

[dysfunctional press]

166. and you're entitled to your opinion...

but that's what it is...an opinion.

[readmoreoften]

189. Hers is an educated opinion based on actually knowing transgendered youth.

Your opinion is based on ignorance, conjecture, and bias.

Not all opinions are equal.

[KamaAina]

96. He played on the basketball team?!

You mean, like, in the locker room and stuff? And in shorts?! Oh, the humanity! I mean, clearly something had to be done. The entire future of Western Civilization was at stake!!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

:cry:

[readmoreoften]

193. Nah, I think it was the killer that played on the basketball team, not the victim.

The victim also lived in a sex-segregated shelter for abused children. I'm sure every day was a real treat.

[ejbr]

103. Those that taught this boy to hate

must be so proud to know that they have now ruined his life. Now all that is left to wonder is whether their disregard for the gay boy is so deep that it supercedes their concern for the straight. Fuckin' numb skulls.

[GreenPartyVoter]

105. Oh no! Poor baby! *cry*

[ejbr]

106. Those that taught this boy to hate

must be so proud to know that they have now ruined his life. Lord knows they couldn't care less about the young man who was shot. Fuckin' numb skulls.

[JerseygirlCT]

127. Amen to that. nt

[NMMNG]

153. They're probably angry that he's being punished

for doing "God's work". You know, teaching that homo the error of his ways and all.

[uppityperson]

131. Oh hell. My condolences to his family, friends, to Lawrence.

[yurbud]

133. I have kids from Oxnard in my college classes. It seemed like they were beyond

this homophobic crap.

I guess not all of them.

It is still better than when I was a kid (I'm 43). NO ONE would have been openly gay at my high school or junior high.

[XOKCowboy]

148. I grew up in Oklahoma in the early 70s and we had an openly gay student in HS

I'm talking small town OK too. 77 kids in my senior class. His life was a living hell even though he never bothered anybody. He just never hid the fact he was gay. He got beat up several times (for no reason) and of course moved away as soon as he could. It's a wonder he didn't suffer the same fate as this poor kid.

What's ironic is that one of the "cool" guys in the same class was obviously gay but denied/hid it all through school. Once he graduated and moved away he came out (he also became a very successful salesman for a high end car dealership) and I was surprised that some people were actually shocked.

[Horse with no Name]

179. The Senior class president of my High School in 1981

in North Texas was openly gay.
When I lived in Arizona, the Senior Class president 2 years before was gay and blew his brains out during lunch hour.

I can't imagine that the road they travel is easier now than it was then. Some people just handle it differently.

[MedleyMisty]

157. I have to ask - why is it that people on here always lump regions together?

Why do so many people think that one person from one bit of land equals everyone else on that bit of land? People are all individuals. No matter where they were born or where they grew up.

Sorry, - it's just that the OP is why I stand up to prejudice. All kinds of prejudice, from hating on someone because of what they do with their free time to hating on someone because of where they were born to hating on someone because of their sexual orientation. As long as we lump other people into groups and call them the Other and deny them their individuality, this will continue to happen.

[uppityperson]

134. Boy did this other guy dress funny too...

This hits close to home as this could have been my kid who liked to dress flamboyantly during middle/high school yrs. WTF is WRONG with people?

[dysfunctional press]

163. he wasn't "dressed funny" for the time- it was the height of fashion.

personally, i think that students should wear uniforms for school all the way through high school.

it's not just gay students that can get hassled/hurt for the clothes they choose to wear, although most don't end in death.

[Chovexani]

196. Do you honestly think making everyone look the same will stop this shit?

How naive are you? How long has it been since you were in school? I've heard a lot of arguments for school uniforms but this has always struck me as the most asinine. That self-expression that you are so ready to clamp down on has very little to do with clothes. The clothes are an outward expression of what a person feels inside. When you're different, it shines through no matter what you look like. I'm a Goth whether I'm in a black PVC corset, tulle skirt and top hat or blue jeans and a white t-shirt, and I've been this way since I was 14, ironically enough.

One of my best friends in high school went to a school that had uniforms and got his ass kicked daily for being too effeminate. Another was spit on for being the only open lesbian kid in her class (she was extremely butch and later on came out as FtM transgendered).

And shit, if they're not beating your ass over what you look like, they will find something else to beat your ass over. Whether it's the kind of music you listen to, or your hobbies. Only someone with no earthly idea how children--and humans period--behave would think that uniforms are the answer to stopping this kind of thing. This reminds me of those clueless school administrators who banned trenchcoats in the days following Columbine, as if an article of clothing caused a massacre.

[dysfunctional press]

214. never said it would...

but school uniforms make a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. even putting a dent in this kind of shit would make it worthwhile.

[uppityperson]

219. Friend who attended uniform dress code school really liked it.

Said the focus was on education, learning how to learn, rather than learning how to deal with fashion and all the crap that goes along with it. The school decided that there was enough social interacting of that sort outside of school, wanted to limit this type within the school. Of course people found ways to be themselves, just didn't have to worry about fashion, didn't have to spend the money on fashionable school clothes, 1 less thing to deal with so could deal with other types of learning.

Of course it won't stop this shit. Of course. But my friend was very happy to not have to deal with the clothing issue in school.

[uppityperson]

220. Indeed. And fashion changes.

[malaise]

139. This is way too sad

:cry:

[orleans]

140. how horribly sad. n/t

[hulklogan]

141. I'm so upset about this story n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

145. How sad that this horrible tragedy

was hijacked by jackals who see it as nothing more than another excuse to push their pet issue. I think there are more issue wars in this thread (and there are at least two or three different "pet issues" being debated) than there are simple condolences.

[Mountainman]

150. delete

[PlanetBev]

158. I live 20 minutes south of Oxnard

Not one of my favorite areas. I manage some commercial buildings out there. Shootings like this in Oxnard are usually gang-related. I'm really surprised that a kid being gay was the cause of the shooting.

[hasssan1]

159. Very sad, god bless his soul and i hope

the bigot mother fucker who shot him get LIFE and get his ass fucked every day.

[Jed Dilligan]

171. I hope they look at the shooter's parents as accessories

The kid didn't get like that by accident.

[kineneb]

173. a sad commentary on our culture- violence as a solution

I am not sure where the blame lies, but it was not just the shooter, or his parents...in some ways, we all are to blame, for allowing violence to be seen as a solution for one's/society's problems.

at fault-

*the kid
*the kid's parents
*the makers of overly violent movies/tv programs and games aimed at children
*guns in the home without locks
*churches which teach hate
*corrupt leaders, both locally and nationally
*a society that tacitly condones discrimination and violence against those seen as "others"

As long as one sentient being suffers, we all suffer...compassion is the answer, not violence or hatred.

[donheld]

185. What a tragedy

:cry:

[Bluebear]

186. What a shame that God didn't deliver the victim from his homosexuality in time.

bitter :sarcasm:

[readmoreoften]

191. And, the murder victim lived in a center for abused and neglected children.

"King had been under the care of the Ventura County foster care system and lived at Casa Pacifica, a nearby center for abused and neglected children, said Steve Elson, the facility’s chief executive."

Abused and neglected little queer teenage boy. It might not even have made the news if the killer hadn't come into the class and shot him in front of 20 other kids.

[countryjake]

215. god, how heartbreaking. at least this hate crime made the news...

briefly.

So sad and maddening, at the same time.

[readmoreoften]

217. It didn't make it as a hate crime, though, and the news was all local except for

CNN Student News.

It's not being covered as a hate crime at all. In fact, they some reports left out the gender aspects of the report, most likely to be -- you know--respectful to the victim. :sarcasm:

[countryjake]

221. I heard about Lawrence King on CNN on wed. but they called it a "personal beef"...

between the two, rather than the true circumstances. It was on the main news, tho, hidden in between campaign coverage.

Once the kid's trial begins, maybe the hate in it will finally come out. I'll write some letters, to ask why the coverage isn't being reported honestly, for sure. I haven't heard a thing about Lawrence King being taken off life-support or even that he was brain-dead, on the tv.