I haven't been following this case and trial closely, but I have noticed the coverage in the Los Angeles Times of the trial of Brandon McInerney, who is charged with murdering his classmate, Larry King. Murder is always a very serious matter, but so many murders get little media attention these days. The Los Angeles Times and some other news media have been following this case because the young murder victim identified as gay and would wear some women's clothing and makeup to school.
According to the defense, he also was sexually harassing the defendant. The Left takes sexual harassment very seriously and many on the Left urge the immediate dismissal/expulsion of harassers. Unless those harassers are pro-choice Democrats or are homosexual. Then, everyone else has to learn to deal with it.
But no matter. King, sadly, is dead. And no amount of harassment by him justifies his premeditated murder. If McInerney brought a gun to school, given the laws that expressly make it clear that nobody, especially not a minor, should be doing so, then this was a premeditated murder and McInerney should he held accountable under criminal law. He should not get a break because his victim was homosexual, nor if his victim was harassing him, and neither should he receive extra punishment because of his victim's sexual orientation.
As far as I can tell, this was an evil, callous murder, plain and simple, and we can't excuse that, nor in any way blame the victim. If you're not acting in self-defense or the defense of another, then it is murder and there is no excuse, no justification.
Nor should any religious or conservative media disapproval of homosexual behavior or public crossdressing be blamed. If the Left, especially homosexuality advocates, can blame this murder on general disapproval of homosexual behavior, than logic necessitates they should be blamed when someone who disapproves of homosexual behavior is the victim of a crime, given the things the Leftist homosexuality advocates have said about those who haven't joined their parade, literally and figuratively.
Larry King appears to have been someone who needed help. Under California law, however, his apparent mental issues were accommodated, and, unfortunately, were fed a toxic diet.
But let's not forget that above all else, King was murdered and justice must be served.
Would the Left say the same thing if a white, non-Leftist, heterosexual male was murdered by someone he was sexually harassing?
Catherine Saillant has a recent Los Angeles Times article on the trial.
I don't know Mr. King's previous statements. Is he saying it would have been okay to give his son a dress if the person has previously encouraged his crossdressing? Or is he saying it was wrong to give him a dress either way?
Unless King was coming to school dressed in weaponry or explosives, there was no reason to kill him. None.
If that was a reason, how many teen girls would have shot male classmates (and teachers) by now?
I don't care WHAT group he may have associated with. It's murder, and it isn't any worse if he was a neo Nazi.
How sad.
UPDATE: One of my critics has taken issue with this entry, because I don't endorse crossdressing, homosexual behavior, and catering to obnoxious behavior on the part of teens in school, where the teens are supposed to be learning things, not showboating. Also, it is a problem for my critic that I didn't blame the Illuminati nor the Stonecutters nor the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for the murder.
This entry is about a murder, plain and simple, and the absurdity of questioning whether or not it was murder or something else, given that the murderer brought a gun to a place where they aren't allowed. That shows premeditation. That the victim identified as a homosexual is not relevant to whether or not this was premeditated murder. Yes, it is possible, and consistent, for someone to be convinced that homosexual behavior is wrong and at the same time think someone who murders someone else should be held accountable for murder.
If I should be assaulted or worse, should my critic be held accountable?
According to the defense, he also was sexually harassing the defendant. The Left takes sexual harassment very seriously and many on the Left urge the immediate dismissal/expulsion of harassers. Unless those harassers are pro-choice Democrats or are homosexual. Then, everyone else has to learn to deal with it.
But no matter. King, sadly, is dead. And no amount of harassment by him justifies his premeditated murder. If McInerney brought a gun to school, given the laws that expressly make it clear that nobody, especially not a minor, should be doing so, then this was a premeditated murder and McInerney should he held accountable under criminal law. He should not get a break because his victim was homosexual, nor if his victim was harassing him, and neither should he receive extra punishment because of his victim's sexual orientation.
As far as I can tell, this was an evil, callous murder, plain and simple, and we can't excuse that, nor in any way blame the victim. If you're not acting in self-defense or the defense of another, then it is murder and there is no excuse, no justification.
Nor should any religious or conservative media disapproval of homosexual behavior or public crossdressing be blamed. If the Left, especially homosexuality advocates, can blame this murder on general disapproval of homosexual behavior, than logic necessitates they should be blamed when someone who disapproves of homosexual behavior is the victim of a crime, given the things the Leftist homosexuality advocates have said about those who haven't joined their parade, literally and figuratively.
Larry King appears to have been someone who needed help. Under California law, however, his apparent mental issues were accommodated, and, unfortunately, were fed a toxic diet.
But let's not forget that above all else, King was murdered and justice must be served.
Would the Left say the same thing if a white, non-Leftist, heterosexual male was murdered by someone he was sexually harassing?
Catherine Saillant has a recent Los Angeles Times article on the trial.
"My son is dead and they're crying?" King said. "That's the woman who gave him a dress after complaining that he shouldn't be coming to school in makeup and boots!"
I don't know Mr. King's previous statements. Is he saying it would have been okay to give his son a dress if the person has previously encouraged his crossdressing? Or is he saying it was wrong to give him a dress either way?
Testimony in the fourth week of McInerney's trial on first-degree murder and hate crime charges has centered on the defense contention that McInerney, then 14, believed the school wasn't going to do anything about King's increasingly flamboyant dress and behavior.
The defense has argued that King was sexually harassing McInerney and was allowed to do so by school administrators who claimed to be protecting King's right to wear what he wanted as long as he didn't violate E.O. Green Junior High's dress code.
Unless King was coming to school dressed in weaponry or explosives, there was no reason to kill him. None.
McInerney shot King twice in the back of the head in a school computer lab in February 2008. Defense attorneys said he reached an emotional breaking point after weeks of unwanted flirtation by King.
If that was a reason, how many teen girls would have shot male classmates (and teachers) by now?
Testimony earlier in the week sought to refute prosecutor Maeve Fox's contention that McInerney was a budding white supremacist and was partly motivated by a hatred of homosexuals.
I don't care WHAT group he may have associated with. It's murder, and it isn't any worse if he was a neo Nazi.
But the most emotional testimony came as Boldrin took the stand. She ventured into a previously taboo topic when she blurted out that King "had been beaten" before he was taken from his parents' home and placed in foster care.
How sad.
UPDATE: One of my critics has taken issue with this entry, because I don't endorse crossdressing, homosexual behavior, and catering to obnoxious behavior on the part of teens in school, where the teens are supposed to be learning things, not showboating. Also, it is a problem for my critic that I didn't blame the Illuminati nor the Stonecutters nor the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for the murder.
This entry is about a murder, plain and simple, and the absurdity of questioning whether or not it was murder or something else, given that the murderer brought a gun to a place where they aren't allowed. That shows premeditation. That the victim identified as a homosexual is not relevant to whether or not this was premeditated murder. Yes, it is possible, and consistent, for someone to be convinced that homosexual behavior is wrong and at the same time think someone who murders someone else should be held accountable for murder.
If I should be assaulted or worse, should my critic be held accountable?
No comments:
Post a Comment
I always welcome comments. Be aware that anything you write may be thoroughly analyzed and used in subsequent blog entries.