Mistrial declared in CA gay student killing

Post Reply New Topic

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge on Thursday declared a mistrial in the case of California teen who shot a gay classmate in the back of the head during a computer lab class as stunned classmates looked on.

Jurors were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the degree of Brandon McInerney's guilt for killing 15-year-old Larry King. The nine-woman, three-man panel said they took a series of votes — the last one with seven in favor of voluntary manslaughter and five jurors supporting either first-degree or second-degree murder.

Prosecutors now have to decide whether to re-file murder and hate crime charges against McInerney, now 17, who was tried as an adult. They had offered a plea deal of 25 years to life if he pleaded guilty, but his lawyers passed. A first-degree murder conviction carried a maximum sentenced of more than 50 years in prison.

King's family rushed out of the courtroom on Friday, declining comment. McInerney's friends said prosecutors tried to sensationalize the case by calling it a hate crime by a budding white supremacist.

"This should have never gone to trial," family friend Craig Adams said outside of court. "The fact they pushed him to try him as an adult was the real crime."

Ventura County prosecutor Maeve Fox contended McInerney, then 14, embraced a white supremacist philosophy that sees homosexuality as an abomination. Police found Nazi-inspired drawings and artifacts at his house, and a white supremacist expert testified the hate-filled ideology was the reason for the killing.

Fox also argued the attack was premeditated, noting at least six people heard McInerney make threats against King in the days leading to the shooting.

She said McInerney told a psychologist hired by defense lawyers that he wanted to kill King after he passed McInerney in a school hallway and said, "What's up, baby?"

"He's basically confessed to first-degree murder in this case," Fox said during her closing argument.

Defense attorneys acknowledged McInerney was the shooter but explained that he had reached an emotional breaking point after King made repeated, unwanted sexual advances. McInerney snapped when he heard moments before the shooting that King wanted to change his name to Latisha, the lawyers said.

The defense psychologist said he was in a dissociative state — acting without thinking — when he pulled the trigger at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, a city about 60 miles northwest of Los Angeles.

McInerney's lawyers also said he suffered physical abuse at home from his father, who has since died, and didn't receive the proper supervision that would have kept him out of trouble.

"He is guilty and he should be held responsible, but he is not a murderer. He is not a white supremacist," defense attorney Scott Wippert said during his closing argument. "He is a 14-year-old child who didn't know what to do and had no one to guide him."

McInerney did not take the stand during the nine-week trial. To find McInerney guilty of voluntary manslaughter, jurors had to find him not guilty of first- and second-degree murder. They began deliberating last Friday.

The school administration has been accused of being more concerned about defending King's civil rights than recognizing that his behavior and what he wore — high heels, makeup and feminine clothing — made other students uncomfortable.

The shooting roiled gay-rights advocates and parents in Oxnard. They wondered why school officials hadn't done more to stop the harassment against King by students, including McInerney.

The case labored in the court system for more than three years as McInerney's lawyers sought numerous delays. Campbell was eventually persuaded to move the trial from Ventura County to neighboring Los Angeles County because of extensive news coverage that threatened to bias jurors.

King's family sued the school district for failing to protect their son. The lawsuit is pending.

http://news.yahoo.com/mistrial-declared-ca-gay-student-killing-trial-231913063.html

From what I can see, it is first degree murder without the charge of hate crime. There was evidence he killed the other boy for sexually harassing him not because he was anti-gay. It was pre-mediated, he brought the gun to school, and he killed the other boy in cold blood. Doesn't matter if he was bullied or not. He is a danger to society for having to resort to murder to solve his problems.

Lock him up for a long time. I won't want someone on the streets like that.

First-degree murder, plain and simple.

These are the same kind of people who ask for blood after a student goes on a shooting rampage because of constant bullying. Why should this be treated any differently if you have those kind of beliefs? Self defense from sexual harassment is not the same as self defense from attempted rape.

He doesn't have to be charged as an adult but murder is murder is murder is murder. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

I cant understand why the jury was considering second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. This murder was willful and premeditated ∴ first degree.

He shot him in the back of the head?! That isn't manslaughter, that's for sure.

This 'hate crime' and 'white supremacist' stuff is just a distraction.

Hi, everyone,please help me understand why SIX people did not report threats that went on for days...this is the age of Columbine and Virginia Tech; if you hear a threat, you report it. I fail to understand how/why actual sexual advances can be made to someone who was harassing HIM (4th sentence from end of article). Was the harassment reported? McInerney 'suffered abuse'; was this known/ reported? Any attempt to get him out of a dangerous home? There was something very wrong in King's home, he was living in a group home at the time of his death, and told friends he'd 'never been happier'. How/where was the gun obtained, how long missing from the owner, why not,AGAIN, reported missing? Was the 'What's up, baby' comment a sexual advance or just a sad little show of bravado from a boy who was being intimidated? If McInerney snapped, if he was in a dissociative state,acted without thinking, he must have been carrying that gun around all the time, otherwise it was premeditated, obtained and brought to kill that boy. Which it did. Rest In Peace, Larry; where you are, no one can hurt you anymore...Sylkat

If the the McInerney kid was being harassed by the victim, he just should have hauled off and punched him - problem solved. I don't buy for a minute that this kid was being "worn down" by sexual harassment. The simple fact is, King was murdered quite simply because of his sexuality. And the white supremacist, homophobic trash he had in his room was valid to introduce as evidence, as it provides a motive. I personally suspect King was "harassing" him because he knew this loser was a homophobic race baiter. I also suspect the real reason why this case ended up with a hung jury was because some of the jurors somehow felt that a gay kid deserves to have his brains splattered in the class room.
Back in school, I took more than enough s**t from jocks and bullies, but as much as I would have loved to have struck back, I would never have seriously considered killing anybody.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hi everyone, thanks for the replies. I see good points in both letters. if McInerney snapped when "What's up,baby" was said directly to him, most teenagers would have slapped,punched, or verbally attacked right then and there. Sounds to me that he didn't have the gun on him at that time. Another important point is that BOTH kids had some kind of emotional problems(understatement of the month?); King had been removed from his home, what was being done for McInerney? I'm also not understanding why the last straw would be a decision to change his name; was/is McInerney phobic about transsexuals? is that what King had decided; go all the way, surgery and hormones, or just wanted to live as a girl? A lot I don't know. The logistics concern me, too; if King just told him he was to be called Latisha from now on, why wasn't he facing him when he was shot? Oh, another thing, did either boy make either sexual comments or threats towards anyone else? If so, was this reported, and what,if anything, did school administration do? Thanks in advance for information/ clarification, Sylkat
I love humanity, it's people I can't stand

I think we are all being rather presumptuous here.

This was, after all, a fourteen year old boy. Are we in a position to decide whether or not his actions and intentions were sufficient to meet the elements of any of the offences being considered by the jury? How many people commenting here even know the distinguishing elements between the three offenses?

That being said, I don't think much of John_Bronwing's apologist screed, either. Describing the victim's behaviour as predatory, the Adminstration's conduct as deliberate, and ascribing the accused's behaviour to these is making presumptions that are not supported by the evidence that I have seen.

Perhaps we should all bear in mind that the actual jurors who have heard the entire case are in a better position to judge than we are.