07/25/2008
Lawrence King's Killer Brandon McInerney to be Tried as Adult
Ventura County Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily ruled yesterday that Brandon McInerney, the 14-year-old who shot and killed his classmate Lawrence King at school in February and was charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime, can be tried as an adult. Said Daily: "I cannot say that this is unconstitutional."
According to the Ventura County Star, "Before making his ruling, Daily heard legal arguments for about 30 minutes from McInerney's lawyer, William 'Willy' Quest, and from a prosecutor, Senior Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox, on whether the teen can be tried in adult court rather than juvenile court. In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 21, which widened prosecutors' authority to file charges in adult court against juveniles 14 and older without having to go to a judge. Before he made his findings, the judge called for a 20-minute break to go back to his chambers to read the California Supreme Court cases cited by Quest and Fox in their legal petitions."
Quest, as well as a coalition of gay groups including Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Equality California, Gay Straight Alliance Network, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, had urged the court to try McInerney as a juvenile.
McInerney's arraignment is now scheduled for August 7.
More from the County Star on the arguments heard in court.
Meanwhile, folks are rightly still outraged about the Newsweek cover story on the King murder published this week.
Writes Sara Whitman in the Huffington Post: "Read the article and you'll be informed that in fact, Larry was the problem. He was always the problem. And while kids are experimenting with sexuality at younger and younger ages overall, being gay is dangerous. Heterosexual play is fine but, 'Kids may want to express who they are, but they are playing grown-up without fully knowing what that means.' What does that mean? The article is one of the poorest forms of journalism I've ever read. If it is an Opinion piece, okay, but to write 'Even as homosexuality has become more accepted, the prospect of being openly gay in middle school raises a troubling set of issues' and to state it as fact?"
You may remember a similarly horrible piece published in Time shortly after the killing which suggested that gay groups exaggerate the amount of bullying made against kids because of their sexual orientation in order to make the situation sound more dire and drum up the need for legislation.
For all our Lawrence King coverage, click HERE.
Previously
McInerney Lawyer Promises Not to 'Gay Bash' in Lawrence King Case [tr]
Arraignment of Teen who Killed Lawrence King Postponed [tr]
Attorney for Lawrence King's Killer Faults School for Shooting [tr]
Posted 8:20 AM EST by Andy in Bullying, California, Crime, Lawrence King, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Time and Newsweek take every opportunity to make homophobia seem like a natural reaction to something that is wrong. I hate that the mainstream media in the USA permits this kind of crap. In the end a CHILD was brutally murdered for being himself. I think rational people around the world are horrified and disgusted.
Posted by: CCH | Jul 25, 2008 9:07:43 AM
I can't take any upset over the Newsweek story seriously if it's coming from any of the gay advocates who argued that the killer should NOT be tried as an adult. Pick which side you're on and stay there.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Jul 25, 2008 9:23:02 AM
What happened to Lawrence King is truly a terrible crime but a 14 year old is not an adult.
Posted by: Giovanni | Jul 25, 2008 9:24:35 AM
The kid needs to be in therapy not prison.
Posted by: daveynyc | Jul 25, 2008 9:31:26 AM
As a Gay manI agree - this kid should NOT be seen as an adult when it comes to his Trial...He should be placed in a Mental facility til the age of 21...then from 21 to 25,he should be made to work Supervised ommunity Services with Charitys that HELP the Under-Privilaged,LGBT people, people with AIDS,Homeless,etc....and at 25..should be reviewed for supervised Probational release...then made to come before the Court and Sate what he has learned! Throwing him in jila the rest of his life is USELESS!
Posted by: Disgusted American | Jul 25, 2008 9:41:00 AM
As a Gay man I agree - this kid should NOT be seen as an adult when it comes to his Trial...He should be placed in a Mental facility til the age of 21...then from 21 to 25,he should be made to work Supervised Community Services with Charitys that HELP the Under-Privilaged,LGBT people, people with AIDS,Homeless,etc....and at 25..should be reviewed for "Supervised Probational" Release...then made to come before the Court and Sate what he has learned! Throwing him in jail the rest of his life is USELESS!
Posted by: Disgusted American | Jul 25, 2008 9:47:03 AM
Therapy will not cure a sociopath.
Therapy will not keep that murderer separate from civilians.
Therapy will not reduce the cold-blooded nature of the crime.
Therapy will not bring back Lawrence King.
If someone is hateful enough to react hostilely to expressed affection, belligerent enough to smuggle a loaded gun into a school full of teenagers, reckless enough to fire that gun within a few feet of two dozen other people, and callous enough to terminate a human life at point-blank range in front of his friends and classmates ... that someone is adult enough to be tried like one.
Posted by: sparks | Jul 25, 2008 9:52:03 AM
.
Good, it's just what he deserves.
At fourteen you know a gun is not a plaything. And you also know what you're going to do with the gun when you plan and strategize about how to sneak it into school and then into the classroom.
I'll be really pissed if they DON'T seek the death penalty for special circumstances.
.
Posted by: David B. | Jul 25, 2008 9:57:29 AM
Yes, and sending this kid to prison will what - make him an embittered, career criminal by the time he gets out? Oh the wonderful, law-abiding things he'll learn behind bars...
A 14 year old does not understand the consequences of his actions. Yes, this kid must have been raised with a real messed up world view to carry out something like this (and should be appropriately separated from mainstream society and undergo intense treatment), but at that age horomones, peer pressure, and parental influence are all acting in ways that can really distort a kid's reality.
Posted by: scientitian | Jul 25, 2008 10:02:52 AM
He should NEVER get out! He should NEVER be allowed access to civilization EVER AGAIN!!
The "Newsweek" story reads like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." The message is clear: dress and act "like a girl" and you deserve to be shot twice at point blank range in the back of the head.
WHERE THE FUCK IS GLAAD????!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jul 25, 2008 10:10:12 AM
David, I believe GLAAD is busy handing out an award to some mediocre network TV show for giving a gay character two lines of dialogue.
Posted by: jeff | Jul 25, 2008 10:20:34 AM
The person that owned the gun that the kid used, should be in prison. The gun should not have been accessable to him in the first place!
Posted by: SONNIE | Jul 25, 2008 10:57:39 AM
I support the decision. If you did an adult act such as killing an individual then you deserve adult punishments.
Brandon made Lawrence King's life useless, he deserves to live a useless life. Maybe we need to have modern and appropriate sexual harassment training to prevent future tragedies.
Posted by: Matt from California | Jul 25, 2008 11:05:07 AM
That's accessible, forgive the misspelling.
Posted by: SONNIE | Jul 25, 2008 11:06:18 AM
Actually, most of the articles in Time and Newsweek are horrible, not just this one. I gave up reading them years ago. Opinions masquerading as facts is hardly a problem only in coverage of gay issues.
Posted by: anon | Jul 25, 2008 11:53:58 AM
I fully and completely agree with the ACLU and the coalition of various gay political organizations who petitioned the court to try Brandon McInerney as a juvenile.
I am more concerned with the parenting McInerney has received and the accessibility to a handgun these parents provided their juvenile son in the brutal murder of Lawrence King. The extent of hatred to this fatal extreme is a learned response.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Jul 25, 2008 12:05:33 PM
When Andy first told us about the murder I wanted Brandon McInerney hung. For having that attitude I was chastised by some of my favorite people on Towleroad. I backed down. Now, the state has decided McInerney should be tried as an adult. Well, so be it. . I don't care how they bring McInerney to trial. When I look at the pictures of Larry King his eyes look so frightened--frightened as a little boy and as a teenager. It's all just so very sad.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jul 25, 2008 12:26:37 PM
You commit an adult crime, you get treated like an adult. 14 is plenty old enough to know better. He should be in prison the rest of his miserable little life.
Posted by: Bobby | Jul 25, 2008 12:28:13 PM
Anyone who thinks a 14-year old should be tried as an adult understands *nothing* about adolescent development. Awful.
Posted by: Jordan | Jul 25, 2008 12:49:44 PM
As an instructor (albeit a professor at a college) I know that an 18-year old is legally "old enough to know better." But 'should,' 'could,' 'would,' and 'is' are direct factors of parenting. When those legally responsible 18-year olds (and I have absolutely no problem holding their feet to the fire of the text and spirit of the law) have parents with the emotional skills of teenagers, I'm not surprised when their children are developmentally retarded. I shudder to think what 14-year old Brandon McInerney learned at the dinner table when he complained to his parents about sexualized behavior from another student. Trying him as an adult will teach him nothing; placing him "in prison the rest of his miserable little life" serves no rationally compelling purpose. As homosexual men and women, we suffer from sufficient Old Testament justice and justifications from heterosexual society. We do not need to add to this misery.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Jul 25, 2008 1:09:35 PM
But Laurence Ballard and Jordan, all these years taking the high road and allowing heterosexuals to run over us, excuse me, PAVE over us and our rights, it's long past time we stood up and fought back. Crimes against homosexuals are increasing daily. Parts of the religious communities and the government wants to ban us from adopting children, fostering children and marrying each other, and you people still think taking the high road is the best plan. Well, you have fun under the pavement, I'll be the one fighting back for me and for you.
Posted by: Bobby | Jul 25, 2008 1:29:40 PM
Go on and fight back, Bobby. Just realize that trying a juvenile -- particularly one in the stage of adolescent development that is most volatile -- as an adult doesn't exactly qualify.
Posted by: Jordan | Jul 25, 2008 2:06:08 PM
One needs to learn the difference between specifics and generalities. The precipitating event here is a discussion regarding a juvenile being tried as an adult--specifically, a 14-year old boy. It has nothing to do with with asphalt and sublimation. Unless you're like me, in your mid-fifties, I'll wager I've spent more time and fought in more battles for the rights of homosexuals than a good many here. The suggestion that no one is standing up and fighting back against heterosexual bigotry unless this adolescent is tried as an adult in court, would be insulting, if it wasn't so hysterical.
Misplaced and misdirected anger against a 14-year old murderer is not the standard by which we fight. Neither is it passive and effete to say so. Further, it will do nothing to end the crimes, the legislation, the detestation directed toward us by certain religious communities and governments and individuals.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Jul 25, 2008 2:18:30 PM
I am surprised by all the folks here who argue that imprisoning McInerney "achieves nothing," that it will make him an "embittered, career criminal," and that factors regarding "adolescent development" mean he should be held to a different standard of justice than an adult.
People talk a lot about how the justice system should protect society and rehabilitate criminals - that's fine by me, but only if the priority of actual justice comes *before* rehabilitation and protecting society. For example, a killer who is subsequently paralyzed from the neck down (no longer a threat to society) should still go to prison for his murdering his victim. Why? Because he deserves to be *punished* for what he has done, even if he can never hurt anyone again. Whether he becomes embittered is irrelevant, and whether society is made safer is irrelevant. The whole reason statues of "Justice" are shown as blindfolded exemplifies this belief: justice is about the individual, and justice is always degraded and cheapened when it becomes interested about making life easier or safer or more comfortable for society.
And it's not just for punitive justice that this standard applies - in terms of civil liberties, we all have heard this argument: "but if we give you rights there will be riots and society will collapse!" The correct answer to that concern is - "so what?" If society wants to destroy itself because justice grants black people equal rights, that is society's choice - justice should still be done anyway. If Mcinerney chooses to become bitter and violent because justice demands that he be punished for what he has done, that is unfortunate - but justice should still be done anyway.
That brings up the next question - is MCinerney's punishment just, especially considering his young age? Well, for many crimes we hold younger people to a different standard because we consider them to have different levels of insight and comprehension and self-control when compared to adults. This standard is based on one thing: how do other children of the same age generally behave? What level of insight do kids that age have when it comes to right and wrong? I would venture to say that most teenagers do some pretty obnoxious and unethical stuff - stealing cash from grandma's purse, vandalizing mailboxes, shoplifting, etc. etc. However, very few teenagers carry a gun to school, walk up to someone and shoot them in the head, and then flee. McInerney's behavior certainly seems to cross the line in terms of standard "adolescent development." His actions show premeditation (bringing the gun to school) and a knowledge of wrongdoing (running away) that is way beyond the pale for standard teenage behavior. Most 14-year-olds never do anything like this. Unless Mcinerney has some mental deficiency that makes him unable to tell right from wrong, I see no reason why he isn't just as guilty as the 20-year-old who's had a tough life who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of passion. There is insight, there is deliberate intent to kill, and there is a victim who posed no physical threat to him.
Posted by: Yeek | Jul 25, 2008 2:29:07 PM
There is a demonstrated difference between justice and revenge. Equity and punishment. Our justice system is designed for retributive justice. And when there is a menace to the common good, the common safety, society needs to incapacitate serious, felonious, threats--which is not the same as punishment. The concept of punishment as a pathway to offender rehabilitation was abandoned a generation ago and is no longer held within our criminal justice system, moreover punishment does not help the victims. If anything, within our system, governmental punishment focuses on the rights of the offenders. As it will in the case of The State of California vs. Brandon McInerney. If anything, the wrong McInerney will be on trial.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Jul 25, 2008 3:30:20 PM
Laurence, it's all symptoms of a bigger disease. Sorry you can't see that.
Yeek, you are absolutely correct.
The McInerney boy repeatidly shot King with the intent to kill him, all bacause of homophobia. I believe McInerney's parents should be put on trial also.
I do not feel sorry for the killer. He deserves to be locked away forever where he can't pollute others with his way of thinking.
An adult would recieve a life sentence. Why is this boy's actions any different and why should the law go easy on him?
Posted by: Bobby | Jul 25, 2008 3:33:46 PM
Well, Bobby, perhaps the answer to your rhetorical question lies partly in the arguments of Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Transgender Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Equality California, Gay Straight Alliance Network, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and your own eloquent description: he is a juvenile, not an adult. Which in no way diminishes the horror and tragedy of his actions. I, too, have precious little sympathy for a 14-year old Nazi-obsessed killer. Lawrence King was murdered by a boy who has been taught to hate and justifiably kill homosexuals. But trying Brandon McInerney as an adult and punishing him with a lifetime of incarceration will not help the fight against homophobia. If anything, it is a strategy which risks playing into the hands of our enemies. It is a mirror image of that ugly need of fundamentalism for punishment, for retribution, for revenge.
Posted by: Laurence Ballard | Jul 25, 2008 5:21:06 PM
In regards to CCH, "homophobia seem like a natural reaction to something that is wrong" this usually IS normal in kids. They're going to respond in any number of ways to this sort of thing and, as a gay guy, I'm sorry but I can't call this a hate crime. 1st degree murder, yes, but not a hate crime because imagine what was going on through Brandon's head. Like everyone said, they were children. Children aren't adults and don't think like adults all the time, especially when SEXuality or SEX is involved. Come on now. Had Brandon been 20, it would be a different story.
Posted by: J | Jul 25, 2008 7:21:31 PM
BOBBY, Those damned BULLETS didn't know how old that MURDERER was!
Posted by: SONNIE | Jul 25, 2008 8:09:16 PM
The usefulness of punishment through jail time or more severe punishment and his and culpability at age 14 are actually two separate issues that are being conflated. The former is actually a superimposed theory of justice. The theory of right or wrong, rather than usefulness is often the justification behind rulings. You are punished because you did wrong, not because it will help you (the offender) or even the victim. And apparently, this region of the country has determined that 14 year olds and higher know right from wrong. Debate that separately if you will.
Posted by: B | Jul 25, 2008 10:33:43 PM
"I'm sorry but I can't call this a hate crime. 1st degree murder, yes, but not a hate crime because imagine what was going on through Brandon's head. Like everyone said, they were children."
I don't follow this logic at all. In my opinion, children are if anything MORE likely to hate simplistically than adults. It's usually their parents' fault, but they are less likely to have a nuanced view of identities of any kind.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jul 26, 2008 12:15:55 AM
This killer should be tried as an adult for sure, and some of the media is now showing him in a sympathetic light. He should and will be tried as an adult for the cold blooded homophobic killing he committed . Society needs to see that there are consequences for such horrific hate crimes.
Posted by: chad | Jul 26, 2008 2:20:06 AM
This killer should be tried as an adult for sure, and some of the media is now showing him in a sympathetic light. He should and will be tried as an adult for the cold blooded homophobic killing he committed . Society needs to see that there are consequences for such horrific hate crimes.
Posted by: chad | Jul 26, 2008 2:22:19 AM
The Newsweek article didn't outrage me. It just made me sad. Sad for a world in which the Larrys and Brandons have so little stability, so little parenting, so little support. I cannot say whether Brandon should be tried as an adult or not, or go to prison for life. I don't envy the Solomonic task before his jury. I do know, though, that many of the people posting comments here seem to be projecting their own experiences onto the situation, and holding Brandon responsible for all the bullying they received in their lives. Just because Larry was gay, doesn't mean he was without fault, or could not be an aggressor - it sounds like he very publicly humiliated another troubled young person, who did not have the maturity to laugh it off or react appropriately.
Posted by: K Dub | Jul 26, 2008 12:06:26 PM
B, I completely agree with you.
Laurence, you seem to be gong back to that "common good" theme, which in my opinion is the exact antithesis of justice for the individual. What is "best for society" has no place in determining whether or not a person should be punished for a crime, or (on the flip side) whether a detested individual or minority should have certain civil rights.
There are times, of course, when we can punish someone and attempt to rehabilitate them while they are being punished. However, rehabilitation and creating a more harmonious society are secondary goals that must never outweigh the goal of justice.
As far as justice vs. revenge goes, that's one of those "freshman English" debates where people love to get all red in the face but nobody really defines the terms they're arguing about. My little Webster's defines revenge as "inflicting punishment in return for injury."
By that definition, revenge merely describes a motive, not a quality (like "justice"). Revenge can be just, or it can be unjust. Shooting someone in the head because of some perceived slight is a form of revenge that is unjust. Publicly humiliating someone who molested you as a child is form of revenge that is just (in my opinion). Both are revenge, but only one is just.
The punitive aspect of our justice system strives to be a method of socially approved, equitable, considerate revenge. The system tries to use reasonable argument from both sides, existing social standards, and the opinion of 12 people who are intimately associated with the details of the case to determine whether punishment is indeed due in return for injury. I think that's appropriate and what we should ask for in this case.
Posted by: Yeek | Jul 26, 2008 12:47:06 PM
the wringing of hands over the fate of this sociopath makes me ill. weren't we all fourteen once? did any of us plan a murder over a perceived insult? did we go to sleep and wake up the following morning and put two bullets into the head of a defensless person?
no? then shut up about it. i am sick of the psycho-babble. this kid is twisted and should be put away for life for the assassin (yes, assassin) that he is. end of story.
Posted by: nic | Jul 26, 2008 1:19:41 PM
With respect to the Newsweek article... this is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me; I'm cancelling my subscription. Newsweek used to publish noteworthy articles on current issues, but nowadays it's just a weekly version of USA Today. That combined with the fact that its editor in chief is a pretty blatant right-winger (very transparent during his Sunday news show appearances) makes me not want to support this publication any more.
Posted by: Paul | Jul 27, 2008 10:25:00 AM
I totally agree with Sara Whitman 100%. We hear so many stories about kids bringing guns to school, nobody seems to care. But a boy dressing up in girls clothes, wearing makeup, open about being gay, OUTRAGEOUS! HE SHOULD BE STOPPED! *shakes head*
Posted by: Jai | Jul 28, 2008 10:42:55 AM
I live in Camarillo, and I used to live in Port Hueneme, where this whole situation happened.
My mom is very good friends with Lawrence's mother.
He used to come over with her all the time.
He was one of the sweetest kids I had ever met. He would come over just to play with our animals. [we own a pet store, and we have quite a few animals]
And the way he was when he would play with our dogs or horses, was just so kind. They were his friends.
He never deserved to be treated the way he was. And the way the media is trying to almost turn people against him is disgusting.
Take it from someone who knew him very well, he did not deserve this.
Also, on a side-note, I knew Brandon as well. His brother was in the young marines with my brother.
He was a very troubled kid, and should have been helped many years ago.
Larry's mom tried talking to counselors many times about it.
But to no avail, and now it's too late.
Posted by: Alex | Jul 28, 2008 2:41:02 PM
I live in Camarillo, and I used to live in Port Hueneme, where this whole situation happened.
My mom is very good friends with Lawrence's mother.
He used to come over with her all the time.
He was one of the sweetest kids I had ever met. He would come over just to play with our animals. [we own a pet store, and we have quite a few animals]
And the way he was when he would play with our dogs or horses, was just so kind. They were his friends.
He never deserved to be treated the way he was. And the way the media is trying to almost turn people against him is disgusting.
Take it from someone who knew him very well, he did not deserve this.
Also, on a side-note, I knew Brandon as well. His brother was in the young marines with my brother.
He was a very troubled kid, and should have been helped many years ago.
Larry's mom tried talking to counselors many times about it.
But to no avail, and now it's too late.
Posted by: Alex | Jul 28, 2008 2:42:56 PM
Ha! And what's so ironic about the Newsweek article is that its writer, Ramin Setoodeh, is one of the gayest men I've ever seen. Just listening to him talk was borderline shocking, knowing that he wrote that idiotic article.
Posted by: John | Aug 10, 2008 8:10:07 PM