Home › Crime, Courts & Public Safety › Courts
Judge OKs adult trial for teen suspect
Attorney sought juvenile court for fatal shooting case
Download this story as a podcast!
Brandon McInerney
RELATED STORIES 
STORY TOOLS 
Relying on past court decisions, a judge ruled Thursday that trying a 14-year-old boy accused of murder in an adult court does not violate the constitution, swatting down legal arguments raised by the boy's attorney that it was cruel and unusual punishment to do so.
"I cannot say that this is unconstitutional," said Ventura County Superior Court Judge Douglas Daily.
Teenage defendant Brandon McInerney of Oxnard is charged with first-degree murder and a hate crime in connection with the Feb. 12 killing of classmate Larry King, 15, who sometimes wore makeup and told friends he was gay.
McInerney is accused of shooting the Oxnard youth as students worked on English assignments in a classroom at E.O. Green School in Oxnard.
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.
After his ruling, Daily set McInerney's arraignment for Aug. 7.
Outside the courtroom, Fox said: "The judge followed the law so I wasn't really surprised. I am just relieved."
Fox said Daily's ruling on the constitutionality of the state law "pretty much" eliminated the possibility of the district attorney sending McInerney's case to the juvenile justice system, where penalties are generally less severe than adult court.
"So, per the law of California, the (case) is going to stay in adult court," she said.
Quest said the district attorney took only a couple of days to file charges against his client in adult court without knowing all the facts about McInerney, King and the circumstances surrounding this case.
"The problem is their office, once they make a decision, it's hard for them to change course," said Quest.
He said this is the first he's heard that the district attorney has decided that McInerney will be tried in adult court.
During a previous courtroom hearing, Fox had indicated that the District Attorney's Office could decide to send the case to the juvenile criminal justice system after more facts came to light.
McInerney was in court wearing a white T-shirt and dark blue pants. He sat quietly, much of the time looking directly at the judge.
His mother, who has appeared at all his hearings, was sitting nearby and left in tears after the court proceedings.
Quest told the judge that he might file a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal, 2nd District, Division Six in Ventura.
In an interview, Quest said he was disappointed by the judge's rapid decision.
"I just wished he would have spent a little more time thinking about it," said the attorney.
In the courtroom, Quest spent much of the time attacking the constitutionality of Proposition 21. He said it gives prosecutors the power to send a juvenile offender into the adult criminal justice system, where a sentence of 51 years to life, such as the one McInerney is facing if found guilty, can be given because state law mandates it.
Also, the attorney said, Proposition 21 prevents judges from looking at the facts surrounding the criminal cases of juveniles such as McInerney.
In addition, Quest said, jurors who find a juvenile guilty have no say about the sentencing.
McInerney's case, Quest told the judge, could be the first of its kind that challenges Proposition 21 based on the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the state and federal constitutions.
"It's a case of first impression. It's a very important case," Quest told the judge.
Fox told Daily that a judge already sits as the "13th juror" in a courtroom and can throw out a jury verdict, for example by lowering a first-degree murder to second-degree. She said this changing of a jury's verdict has been done before by judges at the Ventura courthouse.
"The law does not allow you to murder anyone at any age," Fox told the judge. She said that while she might feel "sympathy" toward McInerney because of his age, there is no legal defense for not trying him in adult court, she said.
During the hearing, Quest relied primarily on the People v. Dillon, a 1983 California Supreme Court case, to shore up his legal arguments.
In that case, a jury convicted a 17-year-old defendant of first-degree murder with gun enhancement for shooting the victim at least nine times during an attempted marijuana theft, according to Quest. After hearing all the evidence, the jury sent a letter to the trial court stating that it appeared that the "juvenile acted like a minor."
Quest stated in his legal petition, "Only after being instructed not to speculate as to why defendant was being tried as an adult did the jury reach a verdict."
In that case, the judge concurred with the jury and believed that life imprisonment was much too harsh, given the lack of maturity of the 17-year-old. The judge sentenced the defendant to the California Youth Authority.
Later, however, an appeals court ruled that the judge had no jurisdiction to sentence the defendant to the California Youth Authority. The 17-year-old received life in prison with eligibility for parole in 20 years.
Still later, the California Supreme Court reversed the appeals court and reduced the sentence to second-degree murder and ordered the trial court to sentence the defendant to the Youth Authority.
Fox told the judge that state law mandates that if there are special circumstances in a murder case involving juvenile defendants, the district attorney is required to file in adult court.
So, even if the judge sided with Quest's legal arguments, Fox said she could, hypothetically, go back and file a "lying in wait" special circumstance against McInerney and by law, the case would have to be transferred back to adult court.
Posted by slkrchck on July 25, 2008 at 12:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bullying is wrong and murder is worse. brandon was no helpless victim, but stalking should be taken seriously and dealt with. he was too immature to know how to deal with unwanted advances by himself. he took the wrong path. and now, we're calling him a man. men (like larry) and women alike should be taught to respect other people even and especially if they have a sexual interest in them. and men (like bear) and women should know how to deal with such situations without resorting to murder. they're acting like teenagers........all of them.
Posted by lakerboy805 on July 25, 2008 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a tough gig to be picking this jury...
Posted by BigJake on July 25, 2008 at 1:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The law, so far, has spoken. I do not like the law, but it is our law; and we are a nation of laws, not men.
Posted by CommandoAngel on July 25, 2008 at 5:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wee Willie spends all of his time attacking the law, the judge, the D.A., everyone except the killer. Where is the sympathy for the victim?
Do these arguments mean that every time a defendant, adult or otherwise, "acts like a juvenile" when they commit a crime, they should be tried in juvenile court? There they would scream they are cheated because they are not entitled to a jury.
One more thing: It is not just because he is a juvenile that the jury does not get to decide on his sentence. That happens in adult cases also. Another attempt to mislead the public by Willie Quest.
Posted by DoctorDude on July 25, 2008 at 6:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Draconian.
Posted by chiques on July 25, 2008 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Life's consequences. At this age a humans should know basic social surviving knowledge (if they aren't retarded or autistic) such as "not playing on the freeway" or "picking fights with the wrong people". This same knowledge is learned by approximately 99% of kids, and some just don't have that sense. In this case, Brendan was "playing on the freeway" and just ruined his life.
Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 25, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with you MMSHOOT, this was hardly a minor crime and life in prison in not death.
Posted by rebel123 on July 25, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sad day for society. Draconian means severe and merciless. I agree. We should be more evolved than this. By the same logic that allows 14 year olds to be tried as adults, why don't we also let them vote, drive cars, marry without parental consent, be subject to the same labor laws as adults....and the list goes on. A 14 year old is not an adult.
Posted by dennis on July 25, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a tragic case. Clearly the crime was heavily influenced by the immaturity of both Brandon and Larry in dealing with their sexuality. To try the boy as an adult seems ridiculous. No, judge, it is not unconstitional; it is just unconscionable.
Posted by dennis on July 25, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
a second problem with the "try them as an adult", approach is by the time the trial goes to jury, the child is often a man. So instead of seeing a frightened junior high student, the jury may see a full grown man sitting in front of them. If the child grows into a large black body, he is as good as in prison for life.
Posted by Ms_California on July 25, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe he should be tried as an adult. His sentencing will not fit that of an adult crime though. Most would be life in prison or death. I find it hard to believe that a jury would offer either of those options or if a plea bargin will be reached as well. I am interested to see how this plays out. I feel for both families but justice and precidence needs to be served here so these types of crimes stop being committed by our children.
I do have to say that I hope I don't get picked for this trial, what a heartbreaker it would be.
Posted by MidTwn on July 25, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When Proposition 21 was passed by voters some people thought that this law would ONLY apply to young gang members. NEWS FLASH!: This law applies to ALL 14+ year old youth. You reap what you sow!
Posted by dmickey on July 25, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Brandon picked up that gun KNOWING he was going to take another life.
Posted by 805grl on July 25, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dennis -A frightened jr high kid?? Not when the "junior high kid" had that gun in his hand, and very carefully pointed the gun at the head of the other "frightened jr high kid" shooting him, more then once in the head. Do you really hear yourself? Justice should be served for the victim! To bad for the killer his life will be spent behind bars, but I have no sympathy for him. And his mother should have stepped up along time ago, maybe if the killler wasnt being raised by other people she could have helped?? who knows? too late for that. I voted for prop 21 at 18 years old, and at 14 I fully understood the concept of murder and what that would do to my life!! Larry deserves justice.
Posted by dennis on July 25, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
805..You seem to be confusing justice with vengeance.If the 14 year old brain was fully wired to perceive consequences, a lot of young people would live longer.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This murder was obscene, but where were the parents, guardians and teachers when King was walking around in school cross-dressing and/or in makeup?! He should never have been allowed to be openly gay at 15. He should never have been allowed to wear makeup at school. That said McInerney's life is over.
Posted by bubbles on July 25, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms. California, that's the whole point. Neither the jury, nor the Judge, have any say whatsoever in the sentence Brandon will get if he is convicted. In fact, the jury will have no information about the possible sentence. The law automatically dictates a sentence of 51 years to life, and no male has been paroled from a life sentence in the State of California in decades! The reality is, Brandon will never get out of prison if he is convicted in adult court...never.
Posted by Ms_California on July 25, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bubbles... and larry will never come back from the dead. Why should one be spared and the other not? Trust me, his sentence will not be that of an adult crime. No one is going to give him a death sentence. Obviously you have never been on a jury because that information is announce to the jury during the sentencing phase of a murder trial. The whole point is for the jury to sit down and offer their recommendation of sentencing to the judge. If this kid's attorney is any good, he will get a "kid friendly" sentence. Which in my opinion is lucky for him. He knew exactly what he was going to do that day. He set off to school to KILL Larry King. Plain and simple!
Posted by mauid2005 on July 25, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
With all of the media attention this case is getting, how will there be a fair trial? I don't just mean here in Ventura County, but the nation. Honestly, I don't believe there would be as much press had Larry not been gay. When I first heard about the shooting, I was adamant that Brandon should be tried as an adult. But as the stories unfold and new facts (if you can call them facts) come out, I am torn.
I can't speak for either boy but I do know that at age 14 (and even at 13, 3 weeks earlier!) I knew that taking a gun to the back of someone's head and pulling the trigger would 99% lead to death. I also know that I would be undoubtedly messed up for the rest of my life.
From the numerous stories, it appears Larry given the freedoms to wear what he wanted, with no authority trying to intervene. I'm sorry but I don't know any 8th grader females that would be parading around school in stilettos and I honestly feel the school administration failed both students. I personally feel that the school administration, Casa Pacifica, and the parents of both boys are to be held accountable. There were plenty of signs of trouble - someone should have stepped in.
I am, in no way at all, saying what Brandon did is inexcusable but it can almost, sadly, be understandable. I'm grateful for the justice system, even when it fails us. Hopefully that isn't the case this time.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is one thing to be a gay adult today. It is quite another to be a boy cavorting around a high school in eyeliner and lipstick. This would never have happened if someone had stepped up and said "Lawrence, stop wearing lipstick" and etc. and/or helped him or stopped him from pursuing Brandon who clearly at 14 did not have the maturity to handle his unwanted advances.
Posted by bubbles on July 25, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Brandon is not facing the death penalty. Minors in the United States cannot be given the death penalty! This isn't China. There will be no sentencing phase in this trial.
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that this tragedy will only be compounded if there is No chance for Brandon! Vengece is NOT justice. As I see it two lives are lost! It is very sad.
Posted by Common_Sense on July 25, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did anyone read the Newsweek article on this. The most interresting thing about it, in my opinion, was a small line that discussed what was being taught in class at the time. They were learning about World War II and it said something to the effect of Brandon focusing on Hitler. They also mention he was hanging out with shady group from the beach. This hinted to me about some type of racial stuff with him (the Hitler comment especially). Perhaps there is a little more to this story and may further explain the hate crime charge???
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sunny: The deck was and is stacked dramatically against BM. I can't imagine being his father.
Posted by herefor35years on July 25, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ALL SAID AND DONE LEGALLY, BRANDON IS A KID
AND HE NEVER HAD ANY HELP. ALL THESES ADMINISTRATORS ARE NOW RUNNING AND HIDING.
H E I S A KID
Posted by Ms_California on July 25, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When I was in HS alot of the guys and girls wore eyeliner and lipstick.. I grew up in the "punker" era and no one was killed by anyone else at my school. Brandon had issues and what he did was unacceptable, disrespectful and terrible. People need to quit making excuses for what he did. It was hate pure and simple. He knew what he was doing. At 14 or 35 you know that a gun will kill someone! Com'on this is nothing new to our world. hate and guns are in the news daily. Just because someone looks or acts different than you do doesn't mean they deserve to die. If Larry made comments to Brandon that made him feel uncomfortable why would it be any different of how boys act with girls in school. Can you remember when you were in school and a boy/girl in your class had a crush on you? The teasing and comments that were made? Sexual tension at the peek! Kids in Jr HS have hormones that are raging! They don't know how to express themselves sexually. Brandon took these comments too far and killed this child for no reason.
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCfromMD_ You are right, this kids life has been in turmoil since before he was born, he has never had a chance!
Posted by Ms_California on July 25, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
herefor35years.. you have to ask for help to get help.
Posted by jinjin on July 25, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate to bring up the question because it is asked so frequently - where were the parents for both of the children? Where did the gun come from? Where is their responsiblity in all of this? I don't believe at 14 this child understood how this would impact his life or the lives of others - his thoughts are not that mature. School administrators aren't responsible for this - how does a parent let a boy go out with lipstick and stilettos even if he is gay - how about respect for others? And Brandon's hatred of the boy - where did he learn this? I see this mostly as a failure of parenting. At 14 children do not have the maturity to act as adults and understand the consequences of their actions.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 25, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Read the Newsweek article again. Regarding what Brandon is accused of, there doesn't appear on the surface to be much of an argument. As to the adult or adults who may have allowed the situation to reach the point where Brandon felt, however wrongly, that he had to kill Larry, we have yet another issue. Both boys needed help. Was inappropriate and agenda driven help offered to one boy while totalling ignoring the needs of the other one? Were those needs even known to staff? I don't know the answers to those questions. The answers may well play a role in mitigation at the penalty phase of the trial, if it goes that far.
Posted by herefor35years on July 25, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
U JUST USED THE WORD CHILD.
IT GOES BOTH WAYS.CHILD CHILD CHILD CHILD.
Posted by oxnard40 on July 25, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Have any of you read the cover story of Newsweek this week?
Posted by floydspinky71 on July 25, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel123: The issue here is not that we should let them vote, drive cars, marry without parental consent, etc. We're not asking them to keep up with the economy or know about national security, etc. At age 14, they should know that murder is a crime. It's a lot simpler than that.
Posted by PHguy on July 25, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People keep saying larry should not have been allowed to wear lipstick or be openly gay at school. What would have happened if someone would have told him not to and he killed himself? You all would be instead saying that he should have been allowed to do what he wanted and express himself. The facts are he did what he did, and was murded by another human being. We have laws and a legal process to follow in this country, and thats where I believe it should be handled. Instead of complaining about the laws, why dont you try to make a change.
Posted by aroma on July 25, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To all of you who are against him being tried as an adult...what do you think his punishment should be? Get a couple of years in juvy with some counseling and then released to back into society? Give me a break!!! He knew exactly what he was doing, he planned to takes someone's life, this was and still is pre-meditated murder! I bet if he was some gang member a lot of you would have no problem with him being tried as an adult. I agree that the "adults" in his life should have stepped up and raised their child better, they should have taught him to have some tolerance. And to those of you who said Larry should not have been allowed to be openly gay. Wow you ignorance is incredible, how could you say that? Why should he have not been able to be himself? Because the other teens didn't like it? You mean to tell me Larry should have dresses and acted like the other teens wanted him to? Put them before himself? Get real! We all have the right to be who we want to be. I admire Larry's courage to have been able to say he was gay at such a young age especially in a society where there are many grown men and women afraid to be themselves. Larry King is nothing less then admirable.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is one thing to be an emo in makeup, but you know that straight kids in high school DO NOT wear makeup and women's clothes....King should not have been allowed to dress in female clothes. I would bet the district prohibited cutoffs and otherwise had some dress restrictions but never (being the Left Coast) said a word to Lawrence.
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This murderer, and that is exactly what he is, is now facing charges of 1) murder; 2) hate crime. Some comments I've read blame Larry. Let's take the gay and age aspect out of the equation. "person shoots and kills another because he hated him and what he did". Now the theme changes, dosen't it? 14 yr olds smoke, drink, have sex, marry, and also kill. How dare you defend actions such as those!!
Posted by alex.poet on July 25, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You're right, VCfromMD, that might have helped the problem. But its also obvious that you have no idea what it's like its like to be in Oxnard's Junior High's. A hateful place, where boys exhibit machismo ruthlessly against those who are different and weaker. Those young boys entering puberty and realizing that they are not like everyone else need to conform in order to be safe?
I was coming to terms with my own sexuality at Fremont. I knew I was different, and I sure as hell didn't want to be different, but there was nothing I could do about it. And it wasn't just internal, everyone else saw it too. I was called fagg0t almost daily, and people picked fights with me all the time. OF course, I was suspended with the other kids when caught defending myself.
I hated my life, and I especially hated that school so I left at the end of the 7th grade to a private Christian school where the jackasses are closely monitored and there is a Christian sense of tolerance and community.
Seriously, wake up! That poor kid who was shot, was 5'1, without a family to lean on, and dressed strangely because that's his identity also had to defend himself against the constant hurl of insults and fists. Brandon had nearly a foot on him, and was known by his classmates for his repeated attacks on Larry. What is Larry supposed to do? Tattle on Brandon to an administration that is more likely to cause problems than resolve them? His only defense in putting his strangeness in their faces, and it not only kept the jerks away, it also cost him his life.
So you can go cavorting with your ideas on what's acceptable in a junior high. You know what sounds acceptable to me? How about Oxnard starts teaching tolerance and conflict resolution to her students as soon as puberty starts, like the 5th or 6th grade and make it an ongoing conversation with EVERY student until they graduate high school.
Maybe then someone in Oxnard can go through an entire 12 years of school without a murder or stabbing or bomb threat. Maybe if we taught inclusion instead of xenophobia then Oxnard can finally be a safe place to send your kids to school
RIP Larry, you will get the justice that you deserve.
Posted by lilmamma on July 25, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This case is tragic all the way around and we will never know the true hows, whys, and whats of this case. We do know that a young gay man is dead and a young troubled boy is on trial for murder. I wish the adults in their lives were on trial for murder because the administrators failed and their parents failed them miserably.Unfortunately he won't be the first 14 year old to spend his life in prison and he won't be the last. If you do the crime you have to do the time.
Posted by mauid2005 on July 25, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I've read the Newsweek article (http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790?fro...)and it does state (correct or not) that Larry was living at Casa Pacifica for a few months prior to his death and that Brandon was living with his father, who, like many parents, had to commute to work. There's your answer to "Where were the parents?"...
From what I've read, Casa Pacifica didn't try to counsel Larry, instead they pushed him towards whatever he wanted - For Christmas, the home gave Larry a $75 gift card for Target. He spent it on a pair of brown stiletto shoes. I'm sorry but that should not have been allowed.
In today's age, everyone is so freakin' concerned with being "pc" and afraid to step on toes. Larry is being turned into the poster child for the gay & lesbian community. Why? Brandon may have had a fascination for Hitler and could have killed Larry for the mere fact that Larry was bi-racial.
The facts are simple - we will never know what caused Brandon to shoot and kill Larry. We will only know what the press, defense attorneys and prosecutors want us to know and it will be twisted every which way to further causes.
Larry being gay may just be the tip of the surface to this unfortunate crime.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PH...if Lawrence would have killed himself if he had been told to stop wearing girl's clothes, I would not have blamed anyone but him...he needed counseling as much as Brandon.
Posted by PHguy on July 25, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These days everyone resorts to saying someone needs counseling for this and that. Why did larry need counseling? because he was brave enough to express who he was, or because he was being bullied daily? I think you need counseling.
Posted by oxnard40 on July 25, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gen... Isn't that an interesting article. Newsweek is really showing where things could have been changed and fixed.
Posted by mauid2005 on July 25, 2008 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not saying that Larry should not have been allowed to express himself, however, just because he was gay doesn't allow him special rules. As a male, he had a dress code specific to males. That should have been enforced - if not at home, then definitely at school. I remember leaving my house dressed "correctly" but the minute I turned the corner, the skirt was rolled up and some makeup appeared on my face. If I was out of control or out of dress code, administration called my parents. That should have been done in this case.
Adolosence is a tough enough time for anyone - male or female - and for Larry to be coming to terms with a "different" sexuality makes it that much harder. I do agree that there should be some tolerance taught in schools - but not just for the gay community but for EVERYONE. 50 years ago, 30 years ago, 10 years ago and heck 5 years ago - things were done differently. Every day our society changes and not everyone handles change the same. We are a melting pot that continues to grow.
Posted by mauid2005 on July 25, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oxnard40 - that article really did shed light on so much. The problems lie within us all - parents, family, community. It definitely makes one think.
Posted by aroma on July 25, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"From what I've read, Casa Pacifica didn't try to counsel Larry, instead they pushed him towards whatever he wanted - For Christmas, the home gave Larry a $75 gift card for Target. He spent it on a pair of brown stiletto shoes. I'm sorry but that should not have been allowed."
WHY? Why should this have not been allowed? Because he was a boy? Because boys aren't allowed to wear these kinds of shoes? Larry was who he was, he was Gay and was brave enough to admit it and go against what the rest society thought he should be. Casa Pacifica did not "push him towards whatever he wanted" They understood him and let him express himself, be who he wanted to be regardless of his physical gender.
Posted by PHguy on July 25, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gen, I agree with your point that if there was a dress code against that kind of dress for males, he should have been required to abide by it. I also agree that tolerance needs to be taught and handled differently, like you said the way it was 5, 10, 30 even 50 years ago.
so do you still hike up the skirt and put on the makeup after you leave the house and get around the corner? lol
Posted by 805m0mma on July 25, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a tragic story no matter how you look at it. Both kids needed help and it seems as if they were both reaching out for it. In no way am I putting blame on Larry King, but I also think if Casa Pacifica or E.O Green put their foot down and didn't allow him to dress in woman's clothing then it may not have gone this far...at my daughters school in Camarillo they can't even wear flip flops to school without getting a call asking to bring decent shoes to wear...dress code is outlined in the handbook.
It sounds like the school was aware of tension between Brandon and Larry and really did act on it...I'm sure they figured it was just another incident that would blow over. Hate crime? I'm not too sure of. I think Brandon was just tired of being teased and embarrassed by Larry...and it seems from the articles that Larry just teased him to get a rise of of him and really didn't mean anything by it???
Uniforms in the Oxnard School District should be mandatory.
Posted by PHguy on July 25, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
805m0mma, E.O. Green is in the hueneme school district
Posted by originalcali on July 25, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, why are irresponsible people allowed to own guns? Seriously, we need to have tougher gun control laws. Or better yet, ban them alltogether...
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCfromMD, your comments seem as if you would like to see everyone dress a certain way, to your expectations; act a certain way, to your expectations. That is the beauty of this nation. To exercise the rights you have. What's more important, that I think you're lacking, is tolerance, acceptance, understanding. Close minded, narrow minded thoughts only create instances such as these:murder, hate. Try to experience it. I think you would be a much better person!!
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Alex, teach other kids to tolerate someone wearing girl's clothes?! Sorry. Not going to happen (and I would argue against it as there are norms (even in California) ). I was 5'2" and 85 pounds as a high school freshman and got beat up regularly by bullies. I wanted to shoot the bullies. It was bad enough to be small in high school, but I would have been stupid to wear girl's clothes and lip gloss (had I been gay which I am not). He was a victim, but WOW, he made his own worst enemy, especially hitting on a straight kid that did not appreciate it.
Posted by PHguy on July 25, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCfromMD, you said you wanted to shoot the bullies... you need to understand that the community in which EO Green is in is an area with a very high violence rate. It is almost a daily occurence. and i dont mean that we just hear that someone got shot in nearby los angeles, but that someone got shot in oxnard. its sort of a normal thing, so with that in mind if a kid(or adult) decides he wants to shoot someone and is not in the right frame of mind, its more likely that it will happen in our area.
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCfromMD, WHY NOT?? Why not have tolerance, understanding? Think about what you have written!!!
Posted by mauid2005 on July 25, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
aroma - I don't mean that just because Larry is male he shouldn't be allowed to wear heels. I don't think Larry knew what he wanted, maybe he was finding himself - whomever that is, we'll never know.
Posted by vickicassidy2 on July 25, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have often wondered if this young boy was also gay and was full of self hatred about himself. You have to wonder what is home life was like and why this triggered such rage.
Posted by oxnard40 on July 25, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
96 .7% of you would make an inappropriate comment if you saw an 8th grade boy dressed in high heels and make-up.
Get off your high horse.
The shooting was wrong and Brandon should get tried as an adult, but don’t come in here with your gay tolerance non-sense when most of you would gawk at Larry for being different.
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
805 mOmma, your comments should be well taken, but let's see if they're correct. We, in our society, have individuals that challenge our system requiring them to say God in our pledge of allegence in our schools, in the Boy Scouts, etc. Now your are saying to have specific dress codes? Not to dress in women's clothing? Let's look at our entertainment, bands, etc. This is our society!! Flip Flops create a hazard for the safety of your feet and toes. It's not a "dress code" thing as you percieve it. What about Larry's actions? Shall we prohibit self expression for fear of annoying another? Shall we tell our children how to act, what to say also? Proper rearing is essential. That includes understanding, tolerance, acceptance. I watched Schindler's List recently, just as a reminder of how horrific an individual can be!!
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oxnard40: BUT WOULD WE KILL???
Posted by rebel123 on July 25, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not a question of excusing Brandon's crime, or whether Larry should or should not have been allowed to dress the way he did, or whether or not Brandon knew shooting someone was wrong. It is about a society that is ready to label a 14 year old as an adult for purposes of serving "justice". There is scientific proof that the brain of a 14 year old has not yet developed to the point where they can fully comprehend the long term consequences of their actions. That does not mean that Brandon didn't know he was going to shoot and kill Larry. That means his brain is not developed to the point where he can rationally think out the whole picture and process all the information AS AN ADULT would. Kids lack impulse control. That does not excuse his crime but it should certainly give pause to calling him an adult and serving so called justice accordingly. Vengeance and justice are not the same thing. I would also like to state that both these young boys lacked proper counseling and this whole tragedy should and could have been avoided. All adults connected with this bear responsibility for Larry's life lost and Brandon's life destroyed.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PH: I need counseling because I suggest a boy should not wear stilettos? COME ON! So for you it's all right for a man to walk down the street in a dress? Let's teach them young that it is ok to be gay and wear skirts and lip gloss! Try that anywhere but WeHo and NYC or South Beach. There are norms and homosexuality is not normal. This boy should not have been injured, much less killed, but I do not feel that we should give quarter to gays (and before you flame me, no, I am not a religious nut. I am an atheist and I simply think that homosexuality is disgusting). That being said, Larry should never have been harmed. At 15, his sexuality should only have come up.
Posted by oxnard40 on July 25, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I would also like to state that both these young boys lacked proper counseling and this whole tragedy should and could have been avoided. All adults connected with this bear responsibility for Larry's life lost and Brandon's life destroyed."
Well said rebel123
Posted by sslocal on July 25, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 10:04 a.m.
VCfromMD, WHY NOT?? Why not have tolerance, understanding? Think about what you have written!!!
Tolerance and understanding are fine but when this difference is thrown in people face time and time again it is unacceptable. Larry should have been made to comform to the standards set by the school district. Just like the rest of the children.
It may well have save his life.
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal; "made to conform"??? Hitler thought the same thing, shame on you!!!
Posted by LivinInPoorMansPV on July 25, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love it, ......do an adult crime do adult time. so when we hear of 5 year old's picking up a gun and shooting there brother/sister, they too should be tried as an adult. How about the 7 year old boy that wanted to take his baby sister to the beach, put her in the car and started driving...the country laughed about it on David Letterman. That little boy should rot in prison, right?
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
....his homosexuality should only have come up in the context on how to express his homosexuality appropriately for his age, ie, at 15, by NOT hitting on on other boys at school and by NOT wearing women's clothes. Some of you live in a bizarre world where this is acceptable.
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How do you know that perhaps Brandon hadn't been sexually abused by a man when he was younger,and being constantly harassed by King he flashed back to that time causing him to stop it before it happens again?? You don't know so you shouldn't judge!! If that happend to him as a child would you still want him to spend the rest of his young, long life in prison with sodomits?
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 25, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The clothing worn by Larry was not even in accordance with the dress code for females at the school. He was afforded a free pass because of his espressed gayness. It may well be, given his reported RAD diagnosis, that he wasn't even gay but was simply using gayness as a vehicle with which to gain attention.
Also, to you who continually throw stones at the Kings, be aware that within the context of RAD, false accusations of abuse are a frequent symptom. False accusations are used to garner attention and, for kids who are wise to the "system," are pretty much a guaranteed way to be removed from a home. Larry would have rebelled at attempts to provide level, structured and unwaivering discipline along with love ... which is absolutely essential when dealing with a RAD kid. Social workers and even mental health "experts" are all too frequently snared in that trap with the result that adoptive, foster and biological parents alike are often unjustly labeled as abusers. I don't know the situation here, but feel it necessary that you understand the basics that even all too many social workers don't understand. To this writer, it seems apparent that Casa Pacifica folks didn't have a clue. Instead of driving him to school each day, they could have let him be schooled at their facility.
If you doubt what I say, check out symptoms here:
http://www.radkid.org/signs_and_sympt...
If Brandon was being harassed, did anybody on E.O. Green staff have knowledge? If so, didn't they have a legal duty to intervene. Hopefully, whoever ends up hearing the case won't disallow, and keep from the public, such information.
Posted by granmama on July 25, 2008 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This truly is a tragic case. Both boys are victims - bullying is not acceptable. Too many young lives have been lost from bullying either from suicide or murder. Please go to Bully Police and read the tragic stories. http://www.bullypolice.org/ Brandon is a first-offending youth and to my knowledge has never been in trouble with the law, so why shouldn't he be given the benefit of discipline, punishment, rehabilitation, counseling, and education within the juvenile justice system. I believe Proposition 21 should be revised to return the age to over 18 and above for adult sentencing. I just don't believe a child of 14 should be tried and sentenced as an adult. All the reports I have read emphasize the brain is not fully developed - this was referenced in Roper v Simmons on the ruling for the death penalty for those under age 18 and the mentally disabled. Life without Parole is a death sentence for juveniles. Please go read this very informative report, http://www.ytfg.org/documents/JEHT_Se...
Posted by hotwildflower on July 25, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know how to bring this up without being attacked, but if this situation was a 15 year old boy chasing a 14 year old girl to the degree that Larry was chasing Brandon, from what I am hearing...I think someone may have stepped in and told him to knock it off.
I also read this story on MSN over the weekend that went into much more detail about the vice principal who is a lesbian and really encouraged Larry to express himself and discouraged staff from telling him otherwise. From what I read in the story, I think alot of this comes down on her for using jr. high students to push her own personal agenda of forcing them to accept homosexuality when they are having a hard enough time dealing with their own changes...
As for this ruling, I am disappointed, I think Brandon, who obviously is in the wrong and needs to be punished, but I think he was failed on so many levels, just as Larry was. They are both victims here and will never have a chance to right the wrongs.
Posted by PHguy on July 25, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
myOpenyun, so now your saying that "the man" is too tough on "the white man"? oh my... im done.
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCfromMd: Think about what you have written, AGAIN!! It is called the real world, in a real society that allows freedom of expression. Is it illegal? Why don't you be the first to institute laws of unacceptable behavior? Of course, I would think that if Larry could change things, he would. If Brandon could change things, he would. But you seem to allow unacceptable occurances to be profound in your life. I may not agree with seeing a man in a dress or heels, but do I really care? Does it affect my home life? My pesonal life? the way I rear my children? NO! I am not going to change the world.
Posted by softballmom805 on July 25, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you remember when you were 14? I do and I didn't think the same way I do now as an adult. As we develop into adulthood we mature mentally, emotionally and pysically, the age difference between 14 and 18 can really make a difference. He should not be tried as an adult.
Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 25, 2008 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like this forum went from the "trial as an adult" talk to who is anti-gay
and there are lots of assumptions are being made and there is still the witch hunt for a scapegoat for the guardians saying that either allowed the children to bring in questionable clothing and the other, a gun. has anyone here ever defied their parents and ditched school, wore the gang related attire, taken drugs, brought things to school that they weren't suppose to? when you're a kid, you can find a way...has anyone thought of that? Larry's heels and Brandon's gun? the point is someone was shot and in an act of aggression. have him be your neighbor...
Posted by Adam_Monroe on July 25, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOO HOO!! Justice is well on its way to being PROPERLY served...it wont bring back Larry, but at least there can be appropriate ramifications for the perpetrator!
Posted by sslocal on July 25, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ogdon272,
I hardly think this equates with Hitler.
The rest of the kids had to dress according to the rules established by the district. To allow him to "be different" was a violation of these rules and invited ridicule and other unacceptable behavior. The district must bear some fault in this.
Posted by alex.poet on July 25, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCfromMD, yeah this bizarre world is called the 805.
I've taken a look at E.O. Green's dress code which is available on the internet - They do have a uniform policy already, standard catholic school wear. Brandon is a gender bender, and statistically they always HAVE and always WILL exist. So in a country where education is mandatory for all of its citizens, be them straight, gay, or whatever, is it too much to ask for a safe school.
You don't seem to get it - people in California will NEVER do what YOU think is acceptable behavior and dress. People do what they need to do to be comfortable in their own skin. Perhaps Larry was a long journey to discover who he really is.
Oh, and by the way, you need counseling because you wanted to kill your tormentors.
Brandon needed a mentor, something that Casa Pacifica can only do so much about, and his parents already disowned him for - what was that you used - that's right- he's digusting.
See, this is why Brandon did what he did, because you think he was disgusting in the way he conducted himself. He pissed all over your gender roles and chose his own way. He was bullied and harassed all the time because he was true to himself and chose to be comfortable in his own skin.
You don't have to be a religious nut to be a bigot, and with each post you sound more and more like one. Its obvious that you are disgusted by what you cannot understand, and its also obvious that people who don't conform to that "bizarre" narrow-minded thinking of yours need to be told to change so they fit in?
Please tell us, when is it okay for LGBT to be themselves in public?
Posted by 805m0mma on July 25, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Equitable_Enforcer-well said. I have a child diagnosed with RAD (she is young AND my biological child) and it is a serious matter that does need prompt and consistent attention and counseling...and it seem like Larry was not properly given that.
Posted by originalcali on July 25, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hotwildflower, when you refer to the article on MSN, is that the Newsweek article or something different?
Posted by Stew_Pedasols on July 25, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
equitable--it is apparent in many articles that you are a friend of the king family--you defense of them is commendable since you are defending your friends but to seek to blame other agencies for what the current situation is concerning. didn't it state in newsweek that the family already had difficulty with Larry at previous schools and at home and that they couldn't control the situation and were even "attacked" at their home and had to change Larry's school? it's kind of like playing hot potato and now that there was a hand off and there was the loss of life, the last person to touch it is to blame--it would seem the trouble started at the home long before the change of school and residence.
Posted by hotwildflower on July 25, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe it was Newsweek.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ogdon: the "real" world should not allow boys to wear girl's clothing. I am sorry you feel that this is acceptable. It's revolting to me. What a shame the gay principal shoved her agenda on these two. "tolerance" apparently means do whatever the hell you want to do whenever and wherever--like the two men french-kissing in a line in front of me and my children at Disneyland last weekend. Let me guess...this is okay with you?!
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal: your "made to conform" statement relates to Hitler. I said nothing of the school district. Do you know how many "different" persons there are. So by allowing him to "be different"..."invited ridicule and unacceptable behavior". What do you suggest after he was "made to conform" to dress standards? maybe put a nylon stocking in his mouth? Or would you tie him up with his braclets and necklaces until his actions were "made to conform"
Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 25, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I too, went to the EO Green website and nowhere does it say you can’t wear heeled shoes. It does reference distracting attire but that is a judgment call that I would not want to make. My 15 year old has blond and pink streaks in her hair…it’s distracting to me but not to others in our family. I also went to Casa Pacifica’s website. They have quite an extensive clinical services department so I am not sure how we can comment on counseling services that were made and/or used by Larry. Isn’t counseling confidential anyways? I read the Newsweek article and as I said before I didn’t like it however they have a comment section much like this one. Well not so much like this one, it had some really disgusting comments but one struck me as interesting. It was from Maeve Fox and she stated that the article was rife with inaccuracies and reminded the readers about the disclaimer at the end of the article.
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
alex.poet, Correction Brandon was not at casa pacifica Larry King was!Larry King needed a mentor you are right abouth that, but even though it is okay to be whatever sexual being you want, it is NOT okay to harass others!
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think a girl with pink streaks in her hair is not as distracting as a boy with high heel pumps on, give me a break!
Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 25, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
See that is your OPINION. You give me a break.
Posted by opns on July 25, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gen, your right, even his Larry’s little brother saw the signs –
Casa Pacifica, Child protective services, School board, and parents –
You ought to all be a shamed of yourselves, this was a candle burning on both ends and appropriate action was not taken. These were young and un-educated, uninformed and bruised youngsters trying their limits and boundaries and sexual being to the end.
Yeah intervention is expensive, but please, this was an extreme case, and even little brother saw it.
We live in a not so accepted society – and to the gay website – are you happy now?
You get to exploit this little boys death even more. How outrageous and despicable.
And to the parents – you should all be locked up for your crimes –
Poor kids – my condolences to them, brothers – but poor old Brandon is gonna have to be tried as an adult due to the neglect of the above.
A little boy is now in heaven looking down and probably asking- What happened?
It wasn’t my time yet. How come nobody came to help me. They tried, but they failed me. And, Brandon, ‘I’m sorry, I didn’t know’.
I didn’t know these little guys, but I grieve for them.
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
VCfromMD: I think you should have had the French-kissing men arrested, immediately!! lol. After all gay marriage is legal in California. I am resigned to reality. I am tolerant and try to be understanding. However, I feel your thoughts are destructive, narrow minded,and indicative of why people resort to court rulings to aggressively institute their rights. Live and let live.
Posted by sslocal on July 25, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ogdon272,
You are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
If Larry wanted to be gay, so what. He was still a boy going to a county school that had dress codes. By being made to conform I mean his parents/guardian should have been called to pick him up or to bring proper clothing that conformed to standards.
By trying to force your gay agenda you breed the very thing you are trying to avoid, intolerance.
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That is most peoples OPINION, and that has to be taken into account, look we can all be what we want but when we are at school, work , etc. most of us have to dress and behave professionally, and that is life... is it not?
Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 25, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
True sunny, I agree but the dress code does not gender specify. I don't know if it can but it certainly could prohibit heeled shoes of any kind, which I think it probably will next year. They prohibit steel toe shoes.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sorry to disappoint you Alex, but I understand homosexuality. call me a bigot if it makes you feel better about yourself. I don't agree with your sweetness and light version of the world. Being gay has NEVER been accepted or acceptable beyond a few square miles in three states. While you don't want to hear it THOUSANDS of years of human history have never supported being gays. I can't wait for November to support normal, acceptable, dignified human behavior.
Posted by ogdon272 on July 25, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sslocal: Last time for you!! You have exposed the true ignorant person you are. "trying to force your gay agenda". I am not gay, I am married and have two kids, but that shouldn't be of importance to you. I can quote you in every comment you make for the bigot, prejudice person you truely are. I was right all along, that's why you have "ss" in you name!!
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is normal (why should we tolerate) about putting a body part in the last part of the human digestive tract? Riddle me this Batman!
Posted by VOR on July 25, 2008 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Equitable_Enforcer, from the sound of it if Larry did suffer from RAD then my heart goes out to the King family. It only goes to show the devotion they had to their son and the amount of frustrations they dealt with on a daily basis.
It also sounds like the county, school and Casa handled Larry wrong from the beginning. They did just about everything wrong you could do when dealing with a RAD kid, including having Larry live at Casa. Seems to me all these high dollar shrinks that are on the county payroll could have seen the symptoms early on and done the right thing in which case this tragedy could have been totally avoided.
Hopefully this will raise awareness about RAD so that other kids and families are not torn apart by unknowing social workers and other tragedies can be avoided.
Posted by hotwildflower on July 25, 2008 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can't we all just get along? We can have intelligent debates on ther without name calling. Homosexuality is a very sensitive subject and there are people on both sides of the debate that will draw hard lines. You're not going to change the other's mind.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 25, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stew, I am not defending anybody. I am merely trying to surface factual information regarding a condition that was noted in the Newsweek article as a possible explanation for behavior. There is more evidence to support the theory that Larry was used as a pawn to further an agenda and, that as a consequence he was placed in harm's way, than there is to support the concept that his parent's are somehow to blame for what happened. Hopefully, all the facts will surface. If Casa was contributory, we should know. If the school administration played a part, we need to know that, too. As for the Kings, too many of you are already sure in your minds that they are guilty ... of somthing.
Posted by alex.poet on July 25, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sunny - thanks for the correction. I try to keep my names straight, but sometimes I mess up in the heat of the moment.
I guess you guys don't understand how this evolves. Let me give you a play by play on what its like.
Larry shows up to school in heels and lip gloss.
Lunchtime comes by – a group of boys go over to him and start calling him names, pushing him around. At 15, he’s rather small.
What options does he have? Should he go tattle to some administrator – yeah he probably did try that. Does he merely need to sit there and take the abuse? He’d obviously lose if he decided to fight them.
So Larry decides to get away from them by freaking them out. Accusing his harasser of being gay and saying he likes them.
I imagine Brandon had a disposition towards Larry very similar to that of VCfromMD, one of disgust. He can’t handle it so temporarily leaves Larry alone.
There are no secrets in Junior High. All the other kids know that Brandon can’t handle being called gay, so they all decide to call him gay. Brandon blames Larry for his misfortune.
I’ve heard that he asked his father what to do, and his father was the one who told him to shoot Larry, and put him in his place.
Brandon obtains a gun, and brings it to school, he waits til he has class with Larry. Larry teases Brandon, and turns around to go back to his work. Brandon pulls out the gun and kills Larry with multiple gun shots to the back of the head.
Much can’t be said about Larry’s parents either. They put him in Casa Pacifica because he was not their ideal son. His gender bender ways meant that they couldn’t love him like they loved his younger brother. Maybe VCfromMD is his father who became disgusted with his own offspring.
SSLOCAL - sounds like your argument about his parents stepping in went out the window. How many children need to be tossed out of their family homes because of their sexuality until you think that this about a gay agenda promoting intolerance.
There is a gay agenda because how parents and peers treat LGBT children in country, and they are sick and tired of all the abuse!
Posted by cslaurie on July 25, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bottom line - for want of thirteen days this boy would not have been tried at all. To try him as an adult is wrong. And to other posters, CYA can hold a juvenile until age 25, so that makes a sentence 11 years. That's a long time when you are young.
Posted by VCfromMD on July 25, 2008 at 12:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hi hot -you are right about that. alex- thx for calling me a bigot (feel better?).
Posted by sslocal on July 25, 2008 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm, talk about intolerant.
Bandon was known to me. His brother is a friend of my children. While I have only met Brandon a few times he seemed troubled to say the least.
By me saying 'your gay agenda' I am not implying that you are gay. I'm sorry if you had that impression.
Also, if you can't express yourself without calling names or resorting to Nazi references, I would ask that you refrain from posting and/or seek the services of a good therapist.
Posted by cslaurie on July 25, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gay agenda??? Wrong is wrong. If the victim was reversed it is wrong to try a child as an adult.
Posted by VOR on July 25, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
alex.poet are you in some sort of dream world? You should really control your speculations on things as they are probably wrong.
I seriously doubt that Brandon's father told him to shoot Larry. Be serious. I also know that Larry's family did not send him away to Casa. Perhaps the rest of your story is correct or plausible but please spare me the drama and inaccuracies about the two families. I am sure they are hurting enough without having to read your wild speculations.
Posted by opns on July 25, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The majority of intelligence has ruled juvenile out- glad to be discussing with serious persons on a serious issue.
I know I heard that quote somewhere - "Can't we all just get along"? Oh yeah, Pacoima, SFV.
Posted by 805grl on July 25, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I totally agree with you aroma. And I have read the article on newsweek.... I havn't changed my opinion on this one!
Posted by babyjanehudson on July 25, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How sad for the lad. But murder is murder and at 14 kids know the difference between right and wrong.
I blame the parents in situations like this, because any children are subjected to the parents' bigotries and beliefs.
If they claim he is a "good Christian" boy, then obviously that religion didn't teach the boy anything about the 10 Commandments, namely, "Thou Shalt Not Kill."
Even a 10yr old understands the act of murder and follow thru with it. Again, it's the parents that mold their children into their image/beliefs/bigotries....
The boy will have to deal with God at a later time.
2 human lives destroyed. Don't you Religious people even care that another human, especially gays, are murdered in cold blood?
I guess not, because your God is a "heterosexuals only" God of hate and intolarance. Stop brain washing our children.
God did create gay children if you like it or not. You will be judged by your own criteria too.
Posted by opns on July 25, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
myop- so so right, if these kids would of been brought up correctly, can you imagine the sort of intelligence that has gone to waste. Again, prosecute the parents, I wish i could of been their parent, it would of been nice to have some sons. What a loss.
Posted by opns on July 25, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
becareful babyjane - don't let the double edge sword get you --
Yeah the 10 commandments say, 'thou shall not kill', it also says, 'honor thy father and thy mother', not 'honor by father and father' and so on.
Not all christian faiths think alike, and further, I know of many faiths where people attend, and don't condone all this is taught. Just because you belong to a certain faith - dosen't mean they all hate gays. Not even. I could care less what the gays believe - it's their right. But easy easy there.
Everyone is given a choice.
Posted by alex.poet on July 25, 2008 at 1:01 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by Ms_California on July 25, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand the comments made "blame the parents".. yes I understand that good and decent upbringing is crucial to a child's wellbeing and how he/she will be as an adult. But when or shall I say, why should it be completely the fault of this boys parents? I mean if anyone is to hold majority of the blame it should be Brandon. Regardless of how f*%ked up his life was HE TOOK THE GUN TO SCHOOL TO KILL THIS BOY! My parental upbringing was not the most picturesque, I had a very abusive parent and one that turned to denying it; but damn it I never wanted to bring a gun to school and kill a class mate nor did I ever want to kill either of my parents! Geez, when are we going to put blame on the person(s)commiting the crime? Not their parents, not their living conditions, not their "possible/made up" mental status, but on them and their acts! I mean hell maybe if I do commit murder I can blame it on society expecting me to wear lipstick and high heels! Excuses people are like a$$holes, everyone's got one and they all use'em! Let's just start taking responsibility for our actions and teaching our children to reach out, not act out if something is bothering them. That not every child or person in this world is going to look, act or think like they are. That there are differences in everyone whether it be a boy with lipstick on or not! It's ok at Halloween and no one blinks an eye. The world is changing and we need to learn to change with it and adapt to the times. People are full and more open to self expression, instead of mocking them, teasing them or making them feel different engage them. You do have the right to wear or not wear lipstick and heels and you have the right to teach your child they don't have to. But we shouldn't have the right to judge people for who or what they are! As we wouldn't want them to judge us based on our imperfections!
Posted by alex.poet on July 25, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey JOKER - its called a prostate. And what goes on in other people's bedroom is none of your business, perv.
Posted by mac_tire_224 on July 25, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_California, Nicely stated.
Posted by pweinman on July 25, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He brought the gun to school for one reason. He pulled the trigger 3 times. 3 bullets went into Larry Kings head. Young Brandon deserves what is coming to him, JUSTICE!
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Veracious1 is right, and you people belong in Somalia and the U.S. states should join the rest of the civilized world and not put such punishment on a 14 yr. old (By 3 weeks)! I don't see this a JUSTICE!!
Posted by slkrchck on July 25, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
where did my comment go? it took me like 10 minutes...........
gosh i'm tired.
Posted by Ms_California on July 25, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sunny .. this 14 yr old MURDERED another child! You must be one of those parents that doesn't believe in punishing your children for back behavior. I am sure that if Larry was your child you would have a totally different view!
Posted by alex.poet on July 25, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sunny, I'm just curious, if you we're the judge what kind of sentence would you hand down.
I'm stuck on this one - for him to only spend 4 years in juvie is not enough - but life in prison seems too much.
I guess I think justice would be served if he had a twenty to thirty year sentence... which is most likely something he can get a deal with the DA.
California Hate Crime statutes state that he will have an augmented sentence. If some of the other commenters are right, and he murdered Larry because he was biracial, he could face the death penalty.
# P.C. 190.2(a)(16) – Special circumstances imposing the Death Penalty or Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin.
# P.C. 190.3 – Special circumstances imposing Life Without possibility of Parole if the victim was intentionally killed because of sexual orientation, gender or disability.
# P.C. 422.75 – Penalty for felony committed because of victim’s race, color, religion, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability or sexual orientation shall be enhanced one, two or three years in prison, if the person acts alone; and 2, 3 or 4 years if the person commits the act with another.
Posted by Face on July 25, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Since it is not unconstitutional, then the entire Juvenile system should be scrapped. Why pay for two systems? I know people here are not going to be happy until they see a child put to death. They should post a video of his killing by the state to satisfy those here. You can all wring your hands and grin as he dies on the table.
Posted by patticakepatti on July 25, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If I remember correctly, Brandon witnessed his father shooting his mother. His parents are partly responsible for exposing him to what they did. This boy was not given a good start in life. It does not excuse what he did nor does it make it right. A life was needlessly lost. But if you look at the big picture, he was only 14 at the time. He was being taunted and harassed. Yes he planned it, that is obvious, but by no means should he be tried as an adult, because it is clear he is not.
Now if this was gang related, I would have not problem with the guilty party being tried as an adult. Gang life will either kill you or send you to prison, there's no need to try these fools as juveniles, they have no hope.
Brandon is going to be sent to an adult prison, any chance of making a productive citizen out of him after that is gone.
Again, I am not condoning what he did by any means. He planned this and should be charged with 1st degree murder, but as a juvenille, because that is what he is.
The judge used very poor judgement in his ruling and the DA's office needs to get off their high and mighty arses and stop making everything flipping political. There's no doubt in my mind that there is some sort of agenda behind this. Or perhaps someone in the DA's office is incapable of taking the responsibility of admiting a mistake, now that would sound more like it!
Posted by Haberstit on July 25, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay,
I get it. You are an adult when you turn 18.You are 14 and we are going to try you as an adult. Lets say the judge is not a superior court judge but he can preside as one.This kid deserves harsh punishment and possibly life in prison.I think that there is a strong possibility that he is insane and should not be allowed to return to society within the next 30 years.If someone sentences him to death they should be brought up on charges themselves.
Posted by SUNNY on July 25, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms_Cal- Not that it is any of your business but I have lost a child, and know the grief that goes with that and my children are punished for misbehaving but not physically! But I believe in forgiveness and fairness. I don't see any point in compounding the loss of life in this case!
alex_ to answer your question I believe he should do 15yrs. like he would be sentenced to juvenile court! Don't you think that Brandon getting counseling and help would be more fitting. Maybe some kind of sexual abuse happend to him when he was young I don't know , but I do know society might better be served if one day Brandon was able to help other kids who might shoot a kid, by talking to them about his experience. I don't know but I do know that I am against any child being thrown away!
Posted by slkrchck on July 25, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why would the admin be held responsible? because she's gay and probably told larry to stalk brandon until brandon gives in? or maybe she really hated brandon because he's supposedly a supporter of hitler and she's jewish. but wait, her partner is catholic......like hitler and she may have conspired with brandon to rid the world of larry. no? that would leave too many more gay children in her school. and if brandon was concerned about killing and hating homosexuals..why was only larry targeted? what could larry possibly have done that was so bad that brandon would kill him openly, without even trying to hide himself like our drive-by shooters do? he must have been so disturbed that he would forfeit his own freedom to kill larry.
brandon needs the full weight of the law on him. but killing larry certainly didn't make a man out of him.
another thing......if larry killed brandon in an act of unrequited love..........would larry be charged with a hate crime for killing a straight "man"? and would this make larry a "man" as well?
Posted by patticakepatti on July 25, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I highly suggest everyone here get a recent copy of Newsweek. This is on the front page and includes a very lengthy article.
Posted by alex.poet on July 25, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
According to stolenboy.com:
"Ms. Fox charged Brandon with Count I, murder, which carries a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life with no possibility of parole. She also charged him with a gun enhancement that carries a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life with no possibility of parole and a hate crime enhancement that carries a 1 to 3 year consecutive term. That’s 51 mandatory minimum years of Brandon’s life. The kid who, if three weeks younger, would never be considered fit for adult court, is now headed for the death sentence."
51 years... Maybe Larry could have lived to 51.
I think the DA is in a tight spot here because of all the national attention.
If Brandon is smart, he'll plead no contest and tried to get reduced charges.
I think 51 is too much. He deserves a second chance... but not for a LONG time.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on July 25, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Larry's family disowned him because he was gay."
It is quite clear that many are posting without reading in depth all the posts ... and not reading the Newsweek article. Larry's father had no problem with Larry being gay ... IF, in fact, he was gay, which is questionable. There was the everpresent challenge of Larry's conduct, almost all of which was within the classical symptoms of RAD, as surfaced in the Newsweek article. Larry was removed from his home because it was alleged that his adoptive father struck him. Because of the RAD diagnosis, the charge of physical abuse should only be taken seriously if there was substantiating evidence.
The facts should all come out in trial.
Posted by slkrchck on July 25, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
just because newsweek said it doesn't make it true. it's media and we all know how irresponsible the media will be.
some of us on the inside know the truth. and larry's dad as well as casa pacifica know exactly why he was there.
Posted by whatever on July 25, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He should not be charged as an adult. While some feel gays have rights, NO ONE person has the right to make advances on someone of the same sex without knowing if that person is gay and yes you can tell if they are. The murdered kid played a part in his own killing by conducting himself as he did. As harsh as it it, when you play the part to try and make everyone accepting of others you take away their rights to have their own beliefs. While killing is wrong, it should make those pushing agendas take a second look. Why do you think violence is prevalent. It is push push push to make people accept others. Why? You won't change a single mind. He should be tried as a juvenile and then released after a short while so he can go on with his life, and realize that the actual killing was wrong and those in charge should have seen this coming with the way the boy dressed and presented himself to others.
Posted by patticakepatti on July 25, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It will be interesting if in fact ALL the facts do come out in trial.
Regardless of the attention this is bringing, it is clear Ms. Fox has a personal agenda in this case. Yes, absolutely, Brandon deserves to be punished, but at 14 years of age, shouldn't he have the opportunity to rehabilitate??? He will never get that in an adult prison and god forbid if he is ever released after having spent 51 years in an adult prison.
DA Ms. Fox has karma to deal with.
Posted by Ms_California on July 25, 2008 at 2 p.m. (