Posted by high_society on July 12, 2008 at 5:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In all of this that's going on, I sit and wonder if McInerney feels any kind of remorse.

That would be a telling sign of what kind of person he is.

McInerney was raised in an abusive home.

And King lived at Casa Pacifica-

"for abused, neglected and emotionally troubled children"

So you can see here, just how the importance of good parenting obviously lacked in the homes of these two teens, and unfortunately, have now crossed paths.

It's one thing to be a good parent, and your kid do something wrong, for at least you know you tried your best.

But when you officially neglect your duties, you are just as bad for raising a child that is a menace to society.

McInerney grew up in a home where his separated parents argued and did drugs, and not to mention, physically abusive. It's all he knew. They didn't put their child first.

King, I don't know, but for some reason ended up at Casa Pacifica, it's unfortunate.

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 12, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody has yet surfaced the facts on why it is not a hate crime ... and why a particular adult at E.O. Green who facilitated the tragedy has not yet been named publically. To what degree will the lawyers on all sides, including judges, let political correctness quash the truth in this case? Oh, for the investigative reporting of yesteryear.

Posted by gregk on July 12, 2008 at 10:23 a.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by alovebug06 on July 12, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There needs to be a conclusion to all this mess since it is just dragging on and on.

Posted by slkrchck on July 12, 2008 at 11:09 a.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by theholymartyrofgravitry on July 12, 2008 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A child Killed another Child based on their sexuality...WTF "Willy"(Based on the fact that YOU,professionally...are called "Willy"(in the media??)Means alot...(shark)!)What is the difference between black, white, Muslum or christian? Im sure if the Muslum killed him based on...lets say what Alah says...would you bite? or if he was black vs. a white guy?(do we know thats not what it is about?)Black,white,gay,straight,muslum, christian,Mormon,Stupid smart, pretty, Ugly??? SOMEONE IS DEAD

Posted by lyn712 on July 12, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The bottom line is that a child is dead.

Another child was able to find a gun, bring it to school and do this. I feel sorry for both children and their families. Since I am from out of town I am unsure where this gun even came from. Was it from the parents or someone else and are they being held accountable? It always seems to be someone elses fault.

Isn't it time that everyone took responsibility for their actions? It isn't anyone elses fault. The child that made this terrible decision should have known better. And if there were adults that were aware of the problem before hand where were you?

We all have to work and support our families and I understand this but where was the support before this happened?

Posted by slkrchck on July 12, 2008 at 11:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i think it's holy martyr............

Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 12, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"What's complicated here is you have, tragically, King being a juvenile," Quest said. "So there are certain protections afforded juveniles, and there are also several other potential privileges."

Since King is dead, there isn't, in reality, a future to be protected. If Quest is denied the records, I'd be willing to bet that denial will be used on appeal and wouldn't that help resolve this whole matter?

Posted by VOR on July 13, 2008 at 1:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NothingButTheTruth,

Very true, since Larry is dead he cannot be hurt further by revealing his personal records. Bare in mind that those records are pretty much irrelevant to the act of murder Brandon committed.

Remember though, Larry does have a younger brother that is still very much alive and since we have no idea what is in those records, and it is none of our business, it is quite possible that it could effect him in a negative way should they be made public. There are reasons that juvenile records are sealed, and it is a good reason, to protect the children.

I am sure that his younger brother is going through emotional roller coaster rides as anyone would in loosing a brother in such a manner. So I would defer to the family lawyer and the courts to determine what is harmful to the well being of the surviving sibling and take proper actions to protect him from any further ugliness and stress. If this means quashing the request for the files to be made public, then so be it.

I can see some of Larry's school records related to his actions being made available to the defense, but his personal records from Casa Pacifica or any other personal records have nothing to do with Brandon hence should not be made available to anyone.

Posted by lyn712 on July 13, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are right if it had been a knife then no one would have asked where he got it. But the issue is that he did use a gun and he did bring it to school and he did get it from somewhere. The issue is he should have known better. Where there problems between them? Yes there were. But children should not be resorting to using a gun and if it got to that point why didn't someone know that it was that bad. That is what I am asking.
But no matter what the bottom line again is that a child is dead and another child did it. And again I ask where did the gun come from and is the person who owned the gun being held accountable. Because per the law that person can have charges filed against them by the D.A.
And like I said before I do not live in Oxnard now although I did grow up there. Have things changed that much there?

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 13, 2008 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please stop throwing stones at the King family. You don't have a clue as to the facts, I'm sure. Mr. and Mrs. King deserve a medal for giving a loving home to children that I doubt you would have taken in.

In this case, did gay and lesbian advocacy on the part of a public employee somehow facilitate the death of Larry King? Did the effort to "teach" tolerance backfire?

Was a "situation" at the school which should have been reported to law enforcement overlooked ... and by doing so, was a crime committed?

I'd imagine that a gag order is in place, so anybody with direct, first hand knowledge is legally silenced. Teachers at E.O. Green must be given protection from retribution if any of them go against the administration.

Hopefully, the answers to my questions won't be quashed by issues of confidentiality.

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 13, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You all s_uck. Watercooler idiots. Gossip, gossip, gossip. Liars...

Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 13, 2008 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OFD wife, you are so right--there seems to be a lot of people who are throwing out names and trying to bring people down when they need to look at themselves and a lot of other people who would be considered "leading" in a court of law--suggesting the fault of others by posing the questions though they are not knowledgeable about the facts or are trying to create a diversion....gossip is right and if people are influenced by this type of gossip, then they aren't very bright....the kind of people that lawyers like--the easily swayed.

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 14, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not gossip. Questions. When so many are quick to justify "hate crime" charges or to throw rocks at the King family, it is an indication of the mentality that could permeate a jury pool, if tried in front of a jury. Assuming all is as reported regarding the mechanics of the killing, what must be still be addressed is what drove Brandon over the edge. Folks are all too quick to go after police officers when it is perceived that their actions led to a bad result. In this case, adults who should have protected these boys didn't.

Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 14, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is all gossip at this point because no one knows the truth. You only think you do. People believe what they want to believe regardless of the truth anyways. Sad.

Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 14, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Equitable---then if what you say rings true to your ears and all of the adults should be in question, then all of the adults must then include those in the home of Larry yet one of your recent comments frees them from this responsibility. If one, then all--especially the most influential--the parents of both boys--if indeed you want to be fair--or equitable.

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 14, 2008 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, Stew, there is no doubt that parents influence behavior. However, there is more than meets the eye. It may well be that information which would make heroes out of one set of parents will not be disclosed simply to protect other children who might be impacted negatively. My worry in this whole debacle is that the adults who directly facilitated the crime by their misguided advocacy will not share in accountability for the tragedy.

Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 15, 2008 at 12:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To be equitable, you must then assume that there is more to what meets the eye in all cases--it seems there are still some questions that you have that suggest that you too aren't aware of all of the circumstances surrounding the advocacy that you suggest. There also seems to be an air of resentment or personalized anger in your writing--this suggests a lean in your arguments. this makes objectivity difficult at best which can affect the ability to be fair--but this all still focuses on the outside factors that can be learned from in hindsight. The real issues are the facts at hand and the justifiable outcome.

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 15, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What questions have been asked? The past few posts have been completely obscure. Besides what drove Brandon to the alleged crime, or who’s to blame? Where did Brandon get the gun? (Veracious1, you don’t seem to care.) I must be missing more questions. Keep it up, it’s totally interesting…NOT. Equitable, when all is said and done, I hope the heroic ones you are referring to is not Larry’s family. You may be very disappointed.

Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 15, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Veracious--you said it "appears" he knows more than he is letting on....this therefor cannot be "quite justified and appropriate" because: 1.if it only "appears" he knows more, then you're assumptions are based on what "appears" to be and therefor cannot be called "quite justified" or "appropriate" because neither of you really know and 2. if he actually does know more, then--like i stated before, his statements are leaning in favor of parents and against agencies that worked with Larry and are already biased --this takes away from objectivity making statements a little off the "justifiable and appropriate" mark. as i said before--a lot of finger pointing away from the participants is geared towards distraction away from the facts...red tape and run around--a classic way of avoidance.

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 16, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Simply stated, I don't want to see a coverup under the cloak of "confidentiality."

Stew and OFD_Wife, I am asking for accountability regardless of where it is found. Do you believe that public employees, group homes or advocacy groups should be exempt from accountability or that "confidentiality" should cloak their actions?

Check into the well publicized cases of Jocelyn Hernandez and Mario Jiminez. One child is dead. The other may well be dead. Both are cases of incompetent handling within an "agency" and by the courts that led to tragic results. All the public got was excuses and attempts to justify decisions that were made ... but not an ounce of accountability. It doesn't bring Joceln back to life and we still wonder ... where is Mario?

Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 16, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Equitable_Enforcer
I agree with your last post but am I missing something? Isn't it the King family that are fighting to keep the records "confidential"?

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 16, 2008 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mac_tire_224 and TheVeracious1, I appreciate your positions. You are both objective. ALL the facts are what we need here ... which is why I'm for trial in adult court.

To ensure a fair trial, it is my humble opinion that all records should be made available to the court. I don't know why the King family wants to curtail access to Larry's juvenile records. Could it be that information contained therein would be an embarrassment to Larry's sibling?

In any case, it will be interesting to see where this goes.

Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 16, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Equitable_Enforcer
Agreed. I think it was you that I referenced an upcoming Newsweek article. Rumor has it that the reporter was up in VC for several weeks interviewing/investigating. Maybe it will be more enlightening than the Star.

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 16, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd also heard of the Newsweek article in the making. Hopefully, the reporter was able to interview some teachers. It is interesting to note that in both the Jocelyn Hernandez and Mario Jimenez cases, people in authority who were directly responsible for the tragic results were subsequently promoted. Tracy Lehr of KEYT did an excellent piece of investigative journalism in the case of Mario. It was sickening to hear and see on television Andrew Wolf, who is supposed to represent foster kids in court cry "legally correct" while Ted Myers, then head of DCFS cried "confidentiality."

Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 16, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only thing transparent is your lack of understanding of my position--it is not to discredit those who want to discover all of the facts but to have them pursue them in an unbiased way-- not to interject their own opinions as they do so--hence the reference to "leading" as it could be seen in a court of law.

as for this statement:

"Your interpretation of the significance of what you refer to as the 'facts at hand' is biased. You lack objectivity since you have already concluded what is and what is not relevant in this case and continue to oppose the discovery and discussion of all the facts."

you have not stated how my interpretation is "biased" and i have not concluded anything--i only seek to have a more objective discussion as opposed to choosing sides--if you read the comments, you can see how a lot of people have brought their own opinions and assumptions to the table.

and this statement:

"Frankly, the manipulative, misleading and dishonest nature of your comments is more disturbing to me than your position."

if i only ask people to be more objective then how can i be misleading--i haven't interjected any opinions in my statement...it seems you have more emotion and little facts to support any arguments of me being biased towards anything except wanting more objectivity--your arguments are weak at best. it seems you now argue semantics only for the sake of arguing--i argue for more objectivity....you try to quarrel with someone who only wants the arguments to avoid the tabloid style so more objective views can arise. stop your weak witch hunt and discuss the facts you do know and ask informative questions without the letting your opinions could them--can you do that? or would you like to keep clouding the picture? you seem to have a hunger for this....it seems you were cut short many times on many other articles...

Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 16, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

equitable--i don't think anyones actions should be cloaked in confidentiality and i believe all of the facts should come out. i don't think that tabloid sensationalism or childish finger pointing should be allowed--i believe in hearing all sides and facts and coming to a justifiable conclusion.

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 16, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OMG Stew_Pedasols, nicely said. Veracious1 is a complete blow hard.

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 17, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Veraciousbabble1
Not even a little bit close. DB

Posted by VOR on July 17, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Veracious1,

"Someone assumed in an earlier post how the records from CASA would be irrelevant since they would have nothing to do with Brandon. I disagree. "

I think I was the one that mentioned that and I have to disagree with you here. The upcoming trial of Brandon is a criminal trial for the cold blooded murder of Larry. It is not a fact finding mission to see how to fix the system. I am sure that will come later if there is a civil action against the various parties.

What Larry's home life was like, his life at Casa, or any other of his extracurricular activities has nothing to do with Brandon putting a gun to Larry's head and executing him.

The only thing that pertains to this case is what he was doing at the time he was killed. Was this an act of self defense? Did Larry attack Brandon at that instant? Did Brandon fear for his life at that moment? This was a thought out planned execution of an unarmed kid that was not a physical threat.

Remember this is the criminal case against Brandon, not a case against the incompetents that may have let it happen other then maybe the parents that supplied the weapon. So I am sorry, anything in Larry's private life is exactly that. Private. If it didn't happen at school and in particular at the moment when he was executed, then it is irrelevant.

Now if they are going to claim temporary insanity or some lame excuse like that, then the school records of previous actions would probably be part of the evidence, but again anything else in Larry's live has nothing to do with Brandon killing him.

Remember Larry is not the one on trial here, you all seem to forget that. He has already paid the ultimate price for his actions. Brandon is the one that will be on trial for murder and unless he was at Casa, or at Larry's home when Larry was there, any part of Larry's life has nothing to do with him.

I am sure there are reasons not to publicly put Larry's records out for the masses. He was a minor, and has a minor sibling. The courts seal these records for a reason. Mainly for the protection of the minor. I am sure the Kings could care less about themselves. They only care about the safety of their living son and not dragging the memory of their son Larry through the dirt as you all seem so willing to do. Has Larry not paid enough?

Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 18, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Vor, i commend you on your last post. you've presented what i have been trying to say in a different way--yes, we can later review the various agencies and families and try to fix the system later but the facts of the act that ended Larry's life should be the immediate focus.

too many wish to cloud it with the family, various agencies,and the assumptions behind the actions of an already dead child.

veracious,

i have referred to others, if you can recall, by stating there were "a lot of others" who seek the tabloid style of questioning-- so your assumptions of me being misleading by gaining the support of others are-- again,weak at best. your obvious focus is to find a way to present your point without anyone questioning you and if you wish to display any of the "mutual support" that is in your opinion, misleading then here was yours:

"Stew-
Based on the specific nature of the questions being asked, it appears that Equitable-Enforcer already knows the answers which makes Equitable's natural worry and frustration quite justified amd appropriate."

you throw stones when you shouldn't...kinda' like the pot calling the kettle black....except for that it's just you.

..and i know this is a public forum and i'm not trying to control the comments but i guess i like fact finding rather than tabloid...and i have seen equitable pose some decent questions as well as others that i have found questionable at times but when it jumps back to tabloid style "leading" and agendas are being pushed, more gossip and less facts and educated opinions are being raised.

and as far as me being on a damage control team --the only damage control team i would work for is the one that takes the useless and simple minded waste of paper like the inquirer off the newsstands and place them in the comics section because there are so many people out there that don't know the difference...i hope you're not a subscriber.....

Posted by gregk on July 18, 2008 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is just me, has Brandon or his family expressed sympathy or remorse towards the child he murdered?

His first lawyer said that he was saddened to hear that Larry had died. Saddened because his client would now be charged with murder.

His current lawyer, quoted in this article said "What's complicated here is you have, tragically, King being a juvenile"

Is it tragic that a juvenile was murdered, or tragic that because the victim was a juvenile, his case is complicated?

How can we even consider leniency when the accused doesn't acknowledge their crime?

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 18, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What's your point Greg?

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 18, 2008 at 9:54 p.m.

(This thread was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 19, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The murder is the cover story in this week's edition of Newsweek Magazine. As of today, the story can be found by going to http://www.newsweek.com and querying "Brandon McInerney."

Larry had been diagnosed with reactive attachment disorder (RAD). The fact that Mr. King and his family were dealing with RAD, along with the possibility of autism, makes them heroes in my book. I've worked with several RAD children over the years, all over the age of 12. Without exception, they were all on anti-psychotics. One child with RAD can easily take the same amount of effort as all other children in the famly who are not so afflicted put together. If you have not lived with a RAD kid under your roof, you aren't qualified to comment, regardless of education or "agency" experience.

I remember testifying in front of the civil service commission in an appeal by a managerial social worker who had been fired, among other things. due to an inappropriate decision in a case of a RAD kid who sexually molested a young child as a result of said decision. The manager simply didn't have a basic understanding of RAD and he arrogantly failed to heed the advise of a foster parent who had extensive training specifically directed to working with RAD kids. The appeal was lost, I'm happy to say.

The decision process of that social worker reminds me in some ways of that of Ms. Epstein, the lesbian vice principal of E.O. Green. Justice will not be served if she is allowed to continue to feed at the public trough.

RAD kids will lie when it serves their needs. One common symptom of RAD is false accusations of abuse. Many people who care for RAD kids, have a written statement signed by a doctor that is ready for police in the event such false charges are made. Foster children who are unhappy with discipline or stucture, something that is at the root of RAD care, will fabricate stories of abuse or neglect which unknowing social workers will act on in a heart beat. They do this to change homes ... which is actually one of the reasons you hear of kids moving 10 or 20 times.

That said ... parents and foster parents love their RAD kids. Each day, they provide love, support, structure, discipline, consistency. with prayers that their work will bear fruit.

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 19, 2008 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Timearrow/Equitable Enforcer thanks for the link. The article is a complete one-sided tabloid trash piece. When all sides are not permitted to speak, and teachers comment anonymously, I will tend to cry foul. Only when all sides can be heard, then the truth will indeed be revealed.

Posted by VOR on July 19, 2008 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OFD_Wife, excuse me? None of the teachers would speak up because they were threatened with termination or were a part of the problem to begin with I bet. They had the chance to take the high road and tell their side. Could it be that their side would paint the school district in a bad light. I think that this is more the case then not being asked. So get your stories straight and tell your friends they should speak out instead of hiding out.

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 19, 2008 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Voice of Reason, You have no idea what you are talking about. Until all parties speak openly I believe noboby.

Posted by OFD_Wife on July 20, 2008 at midnight (Suggest removal)

VOR, by the way, you are excused...