Saw this and thought it might be of some interest. Perhaps Barrister can give us some insights as to why they had a mistrial. Also happened in Oxnard. I wonder if Jaron was there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.O._Green_School_shooting the Wiki entry for more info.
QuoteLos Angeles (CNN) -- A judge declared a mistrial Thursday after jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked in the murder trial of a teenager accused of gunning down a gay classmate in their Southern California classroom.
Ventura County Superior Court confirmed the ruling in the eight-week trial of Brandon McInerney, who was 14 at the time of the shooting in 2008.
The nine-woman, three-man jury panel said its last vote resulted in seven in favor of finding the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, CNN affiliates reported.
McInerney was tried as an adult on charges of first-degree murder, use of a handgun and a hate crime.
McInerney, now 17, allegedly shot 15-year-old Lawrence King, an eighth grader at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, twice while both were typing papers in a computer lab for their English class, authorities said.
King, an openly gay teenager, was seated in the middle of the classroom with two dozen students and their teacher when McInerney allegedly shot him in the back of the head, authorities said.
Friends said King was proud of being openly gay. He liked wearing jewelry and makeup to school, and he often wore high-heeled boots with the school uniform. He asked his teachers to call him Leticia instead of Larry. Some students bullied him, pupils said.
The prosecution alleged McInerney had planned to shoot King over unwanted sexual advances, and said that McInerney had white-supremacist leanings, according to affiliate KABC.
The defense contended McInerney had a violent upbringing. It also argued that King taunted and flirted with McInerney, ultimately sparking the fatal confrontation, KTLA reported.
The trial was held in Chatsworth, in neighboring Los Angeles County, because the defendant successfully sought a change of venue in the high-profile case, said Ventura County Chief Deputy District Attorney Mike Frawley.
Who cares?
If the kid shot him he shot him, none of that bullshit in any way mitigates his guilt.
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2011, 03:32:29 AM
Who cares?
Well we did have a thread about this back when the incident happened.
As someone who has no clue about law, it surprises me that bringing a gun to school and then shooting someone in the back of the head can even be considered voluntary manslaughter, instead of murder.
And in front of two-dozen witnesses as well. It seems to be a pretty simple case.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 02:19:51 AM
Friends said King was proud of being openly gay. He liked wearing jewelry and makeup to school, and he often wore high-heeled boots with the school uniform. He asked his teachers to call him Leticia instead of Larry.
How odd the article lists those things as demonstrations he was openly gay.
Anyway...yeah how this is not an obvious case of murder is just bizarre. The guy had an obvious motive and did so publicly in front of everybody.
Let's not forget that we don't know all facts of the case, and the jury does. All we know is that the defendant shot the guy in the back of the head in front of 20 people.
Quote from: Zanza on September 02, 2011, 06:08:00 AM
As someone who has no clue about law, it surprises me that bringing a gun to school and then shooting someone in the back of the head can even be considered voluntary manslaughter, instead of murder.
In New York, it can sometimes be dropped to Criminal Possession of a Weapon!
In the olden days you could kill a guy for insulting you. Better, more innocent times.
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2011, 08:06:40 AM
Let's not forget that we don't know all facts of the case, and the jury does. All we know is that the defendant shot the guy in the back of the head in front of 20 people.
This is why I was curious what Barrister had to say. It sounds open and shut to me. Perhaps the prosecution overreached, but it sounds like murder to me.
I don't care for trying a minor as an adult. I know that's popular with prosecutors but it strikes me as wrong. Also noticed that the step-father of the victim seemed to sympathize with the shooter over his own son, which is kind of sickening.
Actually, I can see how a jury might get hung over premeditation in an urban area with gang problems- in a rural area, bringing the handgun to school might be enough to prove premeditation, but Oxnard? Of course, that's mental masturbation. I'm sure in a case like this, "lesser included charges" should and would come into play, down to aggravated murder.
Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14. Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here. At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 09:25:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2011, 08:06:40 AM
Let's not forget that we don't know all facts of the case, and the jury does. All we know is that the defendant shot the guy in the back of the head in front of 20 people.
This is why I was curious what Barrister had to say. It sounds open and shut to me. Perhaps the prosecution overreached, but it sounds like murder to me.
I don't care for trying a minor as an adult. I know that's popular with prosecutors but it strikes me as wrong. Also noticed that the step-father of the victim seemed to sympathize with the shooter over his own son, which is kind of sickening.
The article isn't clear, but it sounds like the jury was deadlocked between murder and manslaughter, not guilty versus not guilty.
Having gone through a youth homicide trial myself - they're tough. You don't want to think of kids being capable of this kind of stuff. Minsky's suggestion of "jury nullification" sounds logical.
Beeb: been meaning to ask you--I've been watching Law & Order reruns late at one (one was so old schoole it had Paul Sorvino and Captain Philly Fade).
Are there any legal penalties for breaking a verbal plea agreement? What standing does a plea deal have in law?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14. Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here. At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.
There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like". Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult). It's really disgraceful in my opinion. It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 09:51:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 09:25:11 AM
Quote from: DGuller on September 02, 2011, 08:06:40 AM
Let's not forget that we don't know all facts of the case, and the jury does. All we know is that the defendant shot the guy in the back of the head in front of 20 people.
This is why I was curious what Barrister had to say. It sounds open and shut to me. Perhaps the prosecution overreached, but it sounds like murder to me.
I don't care for trying a minor as an adult. I know that's popular with prosecutors but it strikes me as wrong. Also noticed that the step-father of the victim seemed to sympathize with the shooter over his own son, which is kind of sickening.
The article isn't clear, but it sounds like the jury was deadlocked between murder and manslaughter, not guilty versus not guilty.
Having gone through a youth homicide trial myself - they're tough. You don't want to think of kids being capable of this kind of stuff. Minsky's suggestion of "jury nullification" sounds logical.
I posted the Wiki thing which gives a bit more info. It sounded like the defense was arguing that the victim was sexually harassing the shooter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 02, 2011, 09:55:21 AM
Beeb: been meaning to ask you--I've been watching Law & Order reruns late at one (one was so old schoole it had Paul Sorvino and Captain Philly Fade).
Are there any legal penalties for breaking a verbal plea agreement? What standing does a plea deal have in law?
Very good question. It was so good a recent case from Alberta went all the way up to the SCC just this year.
Rather than type out a long summary, I'll just post the SCC headnote:
QuoteThe accused drove her motor home through an intersection and struck another vehicle, killing a husband and wife and injuring their young son. She was charged with several Criminal Code offences, including dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and parallel charges for impaired driving. Counsel initially entered into a plea agreement according to which the accused would plead guilty to a charge of careless driving under the provincial Traffic Safety Act with a joint sentence recommendation for an $1,800 fine in return for which the Crown agreed to withdraw the Criminal Code charges. When the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of the Criminal Justice Division of the Office of the Attorney General saw the proposed resolution, he initiated an inquiry which led him to conclude that Crown counsel's assessment of the strength of the case was flawed. In his view, a plea to careless driving in the circumstances was contrary to the interests of justice and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Crown counsel was thus instructed to withdraw the plea agreement and to proceed to trial. In response, the accused brought a s. 7 Charter application alleging abuse of process and seeking a court direction requiring the Crown to complete the plea agreement. The application judge held that negotiations between counsel after charges are laid are matters of tactics or conduct which are subject to review by the court, and that the repudiation of the plea agreement, in this case, was not justified. He concluded that the accused's s. 7 Charter right to security of the person had been breached and he directed the Crown to proceed with the agreement. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the repudiation of a plea agreement is a matter of prosecutorial discretion not reviewable by the courts, subject to the doctrine of abuse of process.
Held: The appeal should be dismissed.
The crucial importance of the distinction between prosecutorial discretion reviewable only for abuse of process and matters of tactics or conduct before the court governed by the inherent jurisdiction of the criminal trial court to control its own process was fully canvassed and explained in Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, 2002 SCC 65 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 65, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 372. Subject to the abuse of process doctrine, supervising one litigant's decision-making process — rather than the conduct of litigants before the court — is beyond the legitimate reach of the court. The Crown's decision in this case to resile from the plea agreement and to continue the prosecution clearly constituted an act of prosecutorial discretion subject to the principles set out in Krieger: it is only reviewable for abuse of process. Prosecutorial discretion is not spent with the decision to initiate the proceedings, nor does it terminate with a plea agreement. So long as the proceedings are ongoing, the Crown may be required to make further decisions about whether the prosecution should be continued, and if so, in respect of what charges.
There are two categories of abuse of process under s. 7 of the Charter: (1) prosecutorial conduct affecting the fairness of the trial; and (2) prosecutorial conduct that contravenes fundamental notions of justice and thus undermines the integrity of the judicial process. While s. 24(1) of the Charter allows for a wide range of remedies, this does not mean that abuse of process can be made out by demonstrating a lesser degree of harm, either to the accused's fair trial interests or to the integrity of the justice system. Achieving the appropriate balance between societal and individual concerns defines the essential character of abuse of process.
The repudiation of a plea agreement may well constitute an abuse of process, either because it results in trial unfairness or meets the narrow residual category of abuse that undermines the integrity of the judicial process. The more difficult question in this appeal is how the initial exercise of prosecutorial discretion — Crown counsel's offer to resolve the matter on the basis of a plea to a lesser charge — should figure in the analysis regarding abuse of process. A plea agreement should not be regarded as a contractual undertaking. Vitiating factors, such as mistake, misrepresentation or fraud, which usually inform a private party's right to resile from a bargain, do not fully capture the public interest considerations which are at play. However, the analogy can usefully underscore the utmost importance of honouring the agreement. The situations in which the Crown can properly repudiate a plea agreement are, and must remain, very rare. Moreover, the reasonably defensible test applied by the application judge to Crown counsel's decision to enter into a plea agreement is not the appropriate measure to determine whether there is an abuse of process. Indeed, it is the circumstances surrounding the repudiation of a plea agreement which should be reviewed to determine whether that decision amounts to an abuse of process. Reviewing for "reasonableness" a decision made in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion runs contrary to the constitutionally separate role of the Attorney General in the initiation and pursuit of criminal prosecutions as well as the principles set out in Krieger.
Given that acts of prosecutorial discretion are generally beyond the reach of the court, there is good reason to impose a threshold burden on the applicant who alleges abuse of process. A court should not embark on an inquiry into the reasons behind the exercise of prosecutorial discretion without a proper evidentiary foundation. However, evidence that a plea agreement has been entered into and subsequently reneged by the Crown meets the requisite threshold. Further, to the extent that the Crown is the only party who is privy to the information, the evidentiary burden shifts to the Crown to enlighten the court on the circumstances and reasons behind its decision to resile from the agreement. The ultimate burden of proving abuse of process, however, remains on the applicant.
In this case, the Crown's repudiation conduct cannot be considered so unfair or oppressive to the accused, or so tainted by bad faith or improper motive, that to allow the Crown to now proceed on the dangerous driving Criminal Code charges would tarnish the integrity of the judicial system and thus constitute an abuse of process. Indeed, the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, in good faith, determined that Crown counsel's assessment of the strength of the evidence was erroneous and, on that basis, having regard to the seriousness of the offences, concluded that it would not be in the public interest to terminate the prosecution on the criminal charges. This can hardly be regarded as evidence of misconduct. Finally, the accused was returned to the position she was in at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing before the plea agreement was entered into and thus suffered no prejudice as a result of the repudiation.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2011/2011scc34/2011scc34.html
So - a plea deal doesn't have a great deal of 'legal standing' - until it is acted upon. Once it is acted upon - say, by entering a guilty plea, then it would be far more enforceable.
And that all focuses on the Crown. From the accused - I always assume a plea deal is worthless up until the moment the accused actually says the word "guilty", or puts their signature to an agreed statement of facts.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14. Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here. At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.
There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like". Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult). It's really disgraceful in my opinion. It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.
How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?
BB in one sentence.
Delaying the trail is. All defendants are entitled to a swift trial.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14. Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here. At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.
There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like". Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult). It's really disgraceful in my opinion. It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.
How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?
I don't like trying kids as adults. We don't grant adult rights to children. There is an assumption that they aren't old enough fully understand their actions. So we don't let them vote or run for office etc. Trying a kid as adult but refusal to grant adult rights feels like trying to have it both ways.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14. Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here. At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.
There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like". Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult). It's really disgraceful in my opinion. It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.
How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?
I don't like trying kids as adults. We don't grant adult rights to children. There is an assumption that they aren't old enough fully understand their actions. So we don't let them vote or run for office etc. Trying a kid as adult but refusal to grant adult rights feels like trying to have it both ways.
So it's disgraceful to do things you don't like. Gotcha. :thumbsup:
If it makes you feel any better, we don't try kids as adults. Instead, once they've been convicted (and if we've given notice), we can apply to have them sentenced as an adult.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:14:09 AM
So it's disgraceful to do things you don't like. Gotcha. :thumbsup:
Um yeah. He thinks it is disgraceful to do things that he finds disgraceful. Don't we all?
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2011, 10:16:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:14:09 AM
So it's disgraceful to do things you don't like. Gotcha. :thumbsup:
Um yeah. He thinks it is disgraceful to do things that he finds disgraceful. Don't we all?
Your reasonableness is a disgrace.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2011, 10:11:41 AM
Delaying the trail is. All defendants are entitled to a swift trial.
No Trial of Tears? :(
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2011, 10:16:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:14:09 AM
So it's disgraceful to do things you don't like. Gotcha. :thumbsup:
Um yeah. He thinks it is disgraceful to do things that he finds disgraceful. Don't we all?
I have enough common sense to make a distinction between things that I merely don't like, and things that I find disgraceful. For example, I don't like mustard on my hamburgers. But if you put it on your hamburger, I don't find that disgraceful.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Raz lacks that enough common sense to make the distinction. I would have expected a bit more out of you, though.
Quote from: dps on September 02, 2011, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 02, 2011, 10:16:47 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:14:09 AM
So it's disgraceful to do things you don't like. Gotcha. :thumbsup:
Um yeah. He thinks it is disgraceful to do things that he finds disgraceful. Don't we all?
I have enough common sense to make a distinction between things that I merely don't like, and things that I find disgraceful. For example, I don't like mustard on my hamburgers. But if you put it on your hamburger, I don't find that disgraceful.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Raz lacks that enough common sense to make the distinction. I would have expected a bit more out of you, though.
I have enough common sense to make a distinction between matters justice and matters of condiments.
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2011, 03:32:29 AM
Who cares?
I can't wait til the Saracens drive you to the sea and take your women. Again.
Quote from: Faeelin on September 02, 2011, 09:19:59 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 02, 2011, 03:32:29 AM
Who cares?
I can't wait til the Saracens drive you to the sea and take your women. Again.
Then he'll be forced into situational homosexuality?
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 09:51:38 AM
The article isn't clear, but it sounds like the jury was deadlocked between murder and manslaughter, not guilty versus not guilty.
Yeah but that's exactly what's retarded. If you try him as an adult, it's clearly murder. If you don't, then it's neither murder nor manslaughter (or at least, not one you could get an adult punishment for).
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14. Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here. At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.
There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like". Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult). It's really disgraceful in my opinion. It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.
How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?
I don't like trying kids as adults. We don't grant adult rights to children. There is an assumption that they aren't old enough fully understand their actions. So we don't let them vote or run for office etc. Trying a kid as adult but refusal to grant adult rights feels like trying to have it both ways.
I generally agree. However in the interest of popular sense of justice, there should be a criminal liability of parents/guardians in some form in such cases. If a child commits a hate crime, the parents are likely guilty anyway, either through negligent neglect or active inspiration.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2011, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2011, 10:06:53 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2011, 09:46:20 AM
Terrible crime, but he should not be tried as an adult for an offense committed at age 14. Perhaps that is driving the jury nullification here. At least I hope it is that and not some homophobic animus toward the victim.
There a local case going to trial soon (hopefully) where a 15 year old kid killed her 9 year old neighbor so she could "Know what it feels like". Our prosecutor is trying her as an adult (he's postponed the trial for over two years though, I think he's waiting till she gets a little older so the jury will be more inclined to see her as adult). It's really disgraceful in my opinion. It hasn't helped that the prosecutor has refused to share evidence with the defense.
How is pursuing a legally available sentence "disgraceful"?
I don't like trying kids as adults. We don't grant adult rights to children. There is an assumption that they aren't old enough fully understand their actions. So we don't let them vote or run for office etc. Trying a kid as adult but refusal to grant adult rights feels like trying to have it both ways.
I generally agree. However in the interest of popular sense of justice, there should be a criminal liability of parents/guardians in some form in such cases. If a child commits a hate crime, the parents are likely guilty anyway, either through negligent neglect or active inspiration.
Fun fact: there are already laws which cover accomplice liability, and it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason. Anyway, how are things going at Miniluv?
P.S. "negligent neglect," huh? :P
I'd give the kid a parade.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 03, 2011, 02:06:20 PM
it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason
That's exactly my point. If we should not try kids as adults for hate crimes, and it is not illegal to teach children that fags, niggers, mooselimbs etc. are evil, then adults who teach kids these things and their kids then act on it and commit hate crimes should be criminally liable.
Edit: Btw, why "fags" but "blacks" and not "niggers"?
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2011, 02:22:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 03, 2011, 02:06:20 PM
it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason
That's exactly my point. If we should not try kids as adults for hate crimes, and it is not illegal to teach children that fags, niggers, mooselimbs etc. are evil, then adults who teach kids these things and their kids then act on it and commit hate crimes should be criminally liable.
Edit: Btw, why "fags" but "blacks" and not "niggers"?
Niggers are a protected group. Fags are not.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2011, 02:22:10 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 03, 2011, 02:06:20 PM
it's not illegal to teach your children that fags/blacks/Muslims/white people/Republicans/whoever are evil for a reason
That's exactly my point. If we should not try kids as adults for hate crimes, and it is not illegal to teach children that fags, niggers, mooselimbs etc. are evil, then adults who teach kids these things and their kids then act on it and commit hate crimes should be criminally liable.
Edit: Btw, why "fags" but "blacks" and not "niggers"?
To get your goat, of course. But a valid point. Substitute "fags/niggers/sand people/honkies/anarchists" for the above.
But, yeah, teaching hate is protected speech, and that's important. If it goes beyond that, criminal law already applies. I don't know what more you could ask for. If I would like to say that I-95 ought be lined with the crucified corpses of rich people, but I fear that one my son may nail Jim Walton to a tree, that's called a chilling effect, and it's a problem.
Or how about an example that mirrors your own prejudices: I simply teach my child that Christianity is an evil doctrine, and that a great many Christians actively practice evil, and, when he takes this to heart, he kills Fred Phelps. Criminal liability for me?
I am saying that when it comes to adult-to-adult speech, hate speech (when it is not a direct incitement to violence) is protected. The flip side is that if the recipient of the hate speech acts upon it and commits a violent crime, he or she gets indicted.
However, it is different with kids. A kid is not indicted (or at least, under most circumstances) shouldn't be. But the flip side of this should be that the one who teaches hate speech to a child (and the child then goes on to commit a violent crime, inspired by this speech) should be criminally liable.
Is it hard to understand?
In your example, yes, you should be criminally liable if your kid goes on to kill a Christian.
That's pretty totalitarian of you there, droog.
What about Nazis? Can I still raise a kid to hate Nazis?
Good thing for free speech that most people don't hate parents as much as Marty does.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 03, 2011, 03:33:13 PM
That's pretty totalitarian of you there, droog.
What about Nazis? Can I still raise a kid to hate Nazis?
You shouldn't teach your kid to hate anyone *to the point that would cause your kid to go out and kill people*. Period.
It is your responsibility to make sure your kid is raised as a law abiding person. If you tell your dog to attack a man, and your dog kills him, you are liable, even if you were just being playful. I don't see how it should be different with kids.
Let us take it a step further. Since it takes a village to raise a child, everyone in the kids hometown should be tried for the kids crime.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2011, 04:02:07 PM
You shouldn't teach your kid to hate anyone *to the point that would cause your kid to go out and kill people*. Period.
It is your responsibility to make sure your kid is raised as a law abiding person. If you tell your dog to attack a man, and your dog kills him, you are liable, even if you were just being playful. I don't see how it should be different with kids.
It would be much cleaner and simpler if you took out the part about "to the point that would cause." If your kid kills someone, you're liable.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2011, 01:55:05 PM
I generally agree. However in the interest of popular sense of justice, there should be a criminal liability of parents/guardians in some form in such cases. If a child commits a hate crime, the parents are likely guilty anyway, either through negligent neglect or active inspiration.
See, that's just the sort of thing I'd expect a child-raping faggot like yourself to say. Your hatred for breeders is showing.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2011, 03:25:49 PMIs it hard to understand?
yes. it is hard to understand how you could ever think this a valid idea. maybe it is your own unique brand of gayness that condemns your rationale
Raise your kid to ride a horse, shoot a bow, never to lie and to hate the glittertard.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
Raise your kid to ride a horse, shoot a bow, never to lie and to hate the glittertard.
But glitter is so shiny. :weep:
Quote from: garbon on September 03, 2011, 05:04:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 03, 2011, 04:41:19 PM
Raise your kid to ride a horse, shoot a bow, never to lie and to hate the glittertard.
But glitter is so shiny. :weep:
So is the blood of a Martinusoid when you spill it on the pavement.
Fair. -_-
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 03, 2011, 05:18:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 03, 2011, 05:06:09 PM
Martinusoid
Egad, there's others of him? :o
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediabistro.com%2Ffishbowldc%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F01%2Fperez-hilton.jpg&hash=8f45b3db02a56c6f0fd2647532ccb1ea4877a816)
:lol:
...... And he pleads to voluntary manslaughter for 21 years...
QuoteIn plea deal, youth gets 21 years for killing gay teen
[....]
In an unusual arrangement, the 17-year-old pleaded guilty to second-degree and voluntary manslaughter. In return, prosecutors agreed not to go forward with a second trial, which could have resulted in a life sentence.
The family of the victim, Larry King, broke their silence on the case outside court Monday, saying that they supported the sentence but believed school officials hold deep responsibility for what happened.
"Larry had a complicated life, but he did not deserve to be murdered," said the youth's father, Greg King.
McInerney's first trial ended in a hung jury in early September, with jurors torn between murder and manslaughter. Some jurors said they believed the district attorney's office was being overly harsh in trying McInerney as an adult and several showed up Monday wearing "Save Brandon" bracelets.
Greg King said he was satisfied by the deal reached with his son's killer, given the "unpredictability of juries."
"Twenty-one years is a long time" King said. "At the end of the day, this is something we can live with."
[....]
Prosecutors said the first trial showed that the case was too emotional to take to trial a second time.
"The first jury was unable to keep their emotions out of it," Ventura County Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Mike Frawley said. "This really tugged powerfully at people's hearts,"
During the first trial, prosecutors portrayed McInerney as a budding white supremacist who hated homosexuals and was enraged by King's sexuality and aggressive flirtations. Jurors rejected that contention and the hate crime allegation was dropped when prosecutors announced last month that they would retry McInerney.
Defense lawyers argued that McInerney was the product of a violent and dysfunctional home and had reached an emotional breaking point in response to King's advances. At Monday's hearing, McInenery's family left the courtroom without comment after the plea agreement was announced.
McInerney's mother, Kendra, sobbed loudly as her son, clad in a dark blue jail jumpsuit, answered "guilty" to the two charges — one of the few times he has spoken in the courtroom.
[....]
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1122-gay-shooting-20111122,0,425342.story
Quote from: Razgovory on September 02, 2011, 10:12:36 AM
I don't like trying kids as adults. We don't grant adult rights to children. There is an assumption that they aren't old enough fully understand their actions. So we don't let them vote or run for office etc. Trying a kid as adult but refusal to grant adult rights feels like trying to have it both ways.
Once the kid commits murder, he is evaluated by a psy wich will determine if he's old enough to fully understand his actions. Like an adult man, presumed to understand the difference between right or wrong can be evaluated and it could be determined that indeed, he did not understand what he was doing while committing his crimes.
I don't see the problem in that.
Quote from: Martinus on September 03, 2011, 02:22:10 PM
That's exactly my point. If we should not try kids as adults for hate crimes, and it is not illegal to teach children that fags, niggers, mooselimbs etc. are evil, then adults who teach kids these things and their kids then act on it and commit hate crimes should be criminally liable.
Edit: Btw, why "fags" but "blacks" and not "niggers"?
one could teach his kids that all fags are God forsakken monsters and deserve a cruel death as well as an eternity of suffering in hell, unless they repent and change their evil ways, while at the same time emphasizing that it's God's duty to punish the sinners and he alone should punish them, by his own means, not by human intervention.