Oxnard student declared brain dead

JGG · #**101** 17th February 2008, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by horuhe00

Recently, one of Puerto Rico's ex-governors was out eating and drinking one night with friends. Late in the night, the ex governor got into a discussion with a Cuban friend on weather George Bush is a coward and an idiot. The conversation got heated and the ex-governor grabbed the Cuban's hands and stood up to push him. The Cuban got a hand free and punched him in the face. The Cuban broke the ex-governor's nose and glasses, cuting his eye and bone. (I call it a fight between two old drunks.) He wants to make hitting someone with glasses a hate crime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6KbflvTV2A

So, is punching someone with glasses in the face a hate crime?

Did he punch the guy because he wore glasses, or because they were in a heated argument?

horuhe00 · #**102** 17th February 2008, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by JGG

Did he punch the guy because he wore glasses, or because they were in a heated argument?

It doesn't matter. He had glasses. Is it a hate crime?

JGG · #**103** 17th February 2008, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by horuhe00

It doesn't matter. He had glasses. Is it a hate crime?

It kinda does. How likely is it that somebody will be able to sway a jury that this guy was punched for wearing glasses, and not because they had a heated argument?

Convince me that he punched him because he wore glasses and I'll say it's a hate crime. However, considering that you've already told me that he punched him over a heated argument, and what could be seen as self-defense, that's gonna be tough.

IisJustMe · #**104** 17th February 2008, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by Maren

This is the link to the LA Times article from Wednesday, Feb. 13. Can you please show me where they talk of either hate crimes or murder? Doing a search on the article, I cannot find the letters "murder" and the only hit on "hate" was in the word "whatever."

It might help if you reference the correct article. The article you linked here is this morning's article. I was referring to the real Feb. 13 article in the OP, in which the Times said:

Originally Posted by LA Times

If the suspect targeted King because of his sexual orientation, the case could rise to the level of a hate crime, authorities said.

This is not quoting any authority, or stating a fact. It is bringing up a subject for which previously there is no factual basis. The problem with that one sentence, which is actually the whole of paragraph # 10, is that prior to that statement, there was no establishing factual basis for mentioning "hate crime." They had established that the victim acted strange, but no students or authorities were previously quoted as emphatically stating the victim is gay. So-called "hate crimes" are crimes allegedly directed at a person because of their race, nationality or religion. Some states, and California is one, include "sexual orientation" in their laws. No one had said he was gay, at that point.

Secondly, (although I now see the paper had help in leaping to the conclusion that this is a murder case) is this, in which the Times quoted Oxnard PD spokesman David Keith:

Originally Posted by LA Times

"It's something we will look at," he said. "But the case is going to be reviewed as a murder involving the use of a firearm, and that carries a potential sentence of 50 years to life."

The kid is not dead yet. To my knowledge, that's a present-tense statement, though I haven't looked on the web today. To declare this a murder case while the victim is still breathing is ludicrous. The parents may decide to be like Terri Shiavo's family and let the kid live on a ventilator for 15 years when there is really no hope of his recovery. But "brain dead" is not "legally dead" and Keith spoke out of turn and the Times was irresponsible in prompting him to make a statement about a "murder" that officially had not happened yet.

Originally Posted by Polycarp1

the essence of a hate crime is to commit a crime on someone on the basis of a "suspect classification" with the intent of striking fear into the hearts of others of that classification.

That's utter nonsense. A hate crime cannot be considered as being aimed at a group. It is a crime against a single person, or perhaps a limited number of persons, and has nothing to do with "striking fear" into anyone. Plainly and simply, the crime is committed because of one of those three or four qualifiers I listed in my reply to Maren. Filing a "hate crime" rider is nothing more than punishing a thought or opinion, and even though that thought or opinion may be abhorrent and ugly, we still don't do that in this country.

horuhe00 · #**105** 17th February 2008, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by JGG

It kinda does. How likely is it that somebody will be able to sway a jury that this guy was punched for wearing glasses, and not because they had a heated argument?

Convince me that he punched him because he wore glasses and I'll say it's a hate crime. However, considering that you've already told me that he punched him over a heated argument, and what could be seen as self-defense, that's gonna be tough.

I'm one of the people that are against "hate crime" laws. It's just stupid.

Maren · #**106** 18th February 2008, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

It might help if you reference the correct article. The article you linked here is this morning's article. I was referring to the real Feb. 13 article in the OP,

You really ought to look at the articles closer so that you are not making false claims. The article referenced by the OP appears to have been written on Wednesday, Feb. 13 and was published Feb. 14 (date on the article). The headline of the article is, "Oxnard student declared brain dead" and the article states, "Lawrence King, 15, was declared brain dead by two neurosurgeons about 2 p.m. at St. John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard, said Craig Stevens, senior deputy Ventura County medical examiner. King's body remains on a ventilator for possible organ donation, he said. He was shot early Tuesday in a classroom at E.O. Green Junior High School."

It would be tough for the article to have been published on the morning of the 13th when it references an event that occurred at 2 p.m.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

in which the Times said:This is not quoting any authority, or stating a fact. It is bringing up a subject for which previously there is no factual basis. The problem with that one sentence, which is actually the whole of paragraph # 10, is that prior to that statement, there was no establishing factual basis for mentioning "hate crime."

What article are you looking at? It is not the one referenced in the OP. It clearly states,

If the suspect targeted King because of his sexual orientation, the case could rise to the level of a hate crime, authorities said.

"We've heard that and a lot of other things," Keith said. "But I can't say what the motive is until we finish our interviews."

Totten said he could not comment on the specifics of the case until he reviewed the police investigation. But a hate-crime enhancement is something that prosecutors would consider as they move forward, he said.

"It's something we will look at," he said. "But the case is going to be reviewed as a murder involving the use of a firearm, and that carries a potential sentence of 50 years to life.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

They had established that the victim acted strange, but no students or authorities were previously quoted as emphatically stating the victim is gay. So-called "hate crimes" are crimes allegedly directed at a person because of their race, nationality or religion. Some states, and California is one, include "sexual orientation" in their laws. No one had said he was gay, at that point.

False, they clearly state in the Feb. 13 article (the initial report of the attack) that students said that Lawrence had declared that he was gay. It was pretty firmly established -- which is why the first time the LA Times mentions it as a hate crime they also quote the prosecutor stating they were looking at the evidence to determine if it was a hate crime.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Secondly, (although I now see the paper had help in leaping to the conclusion that this is a murder case) is this, in which the Times quoted Oxnard PD spokesman David Keith:The kid is not dead yet. To my knowledge, that's a present-tense statement, though I haven't looked on the web today. To declare this a murder case while the victim is still breathing is ludicrous. The parents may decide to be like Terri Shiavo's family and let the kid live on a ventilator for 15 years when there is really no hope of his recovery. But "brain dead" is not "legally dead" and Keith spoke out of turn and the Times was irresponsible in prompting him to make a statement about a "murder" that officially had not happened yet.That's utter nonsense.

False, I can tell you are not a lawyer or work in law enforcement. From Wikipedia, "This report was the basis for the Uniform Definition of Death Act, which is now the law in almost all fifty states. Today, both the legal and medical communities use "brain death" as a legal definition of death."

And if you don't wish to trust Wikipedia, the article also mentions the medical examiner's comments, "Lawrence King, 15, was declared brain dead by two neurosurgeons about 2 p.m. at St. John's Regional Medical Center in Oxnard, said Craig Stevens, senior deputy Ventura County medical examiner. King's body remains on a ventilator for possible organ donation, he said."

So, if he is still alive as you claim, why are they talking of organ donation? It is also why murder charges were filed while Lawrence was still on the machines.

As for Terry Schaivo, that was not brain death but a persistent vegetative state, which is why there was controversy. It is also why she died of starvation, she still had brain function that kept her vital organs functioning. In the case of Lawrence King, he had no brain activity at all and both heart and lung functions had ceased, he was "kept alive" solely but machines pumping air into his lungs and keeping his heart beating.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

A hate crime cannot be considered as being aimed at a group. It is a crime against a single person, or perhaps a limited number of persons, and has nothing to do with "striking fear" into anyone.

By this "logic", we must conclude that 9/11 was simply an act agains those in the airplanes, in the WTC, and the Pentagon and had nothing to do with "striking fear" into anyone. Much like burning a cross on a persons lawn isn't "striking fear" either. Your claims are ludicrous.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Plainly and simply, the crime is committed because of one of those three or four qualifiers I listed in my reply to Maren. Filing a "hate crime" rider is nothing more than punishing a thought or opinion, and even though that thought or opinion may be abhorrent and ugly, we still don't do that in this country.

Yet you still haven't explained why we use different murder charges based on the thoughts of the person who committed the murder. From the statements you have made in this post, it appears you have little understanding of the law or legal system.

IisJustMe · #**107** 18th February 2008, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Maren

You really ought to look at the articles closer so that you are not making false claims. The article referenced by the OP appears to have been written on Wednesday, Feb. 13 and was published Feb. 14 (date on the article). The headline of the article is, "Oxnard student declared brain dead" and the article [yada yada yada] ... occurred at 2 p.m.

Look before you leap. First, the shooting happened on the 9th. Secondly, I referenced it throughout the post form which you lifted the "Feb. 13th" reference as having been written on the 13th for publication on the 14th. Or did you not know the paper you get on your doorstep every morning was printed overnight, after having been composed the day before?[quote=Maren;43757938]

Originally Posted by Maren

What article are you looking at? It is not the one referenced in the OP. It clearly states,

The quote clearly from paragraph 10 of the story linked in the OP. Anyone can see that. All they must do is look.

Originally Posted by Maren

False, I can tell you are not a lawyer or work in law enforcement. From Wikipedia, "This report was the basis for the Uniform Definition of Death Act, which is now the law in almost all fifty states. Today, both the legal and medical communities use "brain death" as a legal definition of death."

That may be true, but someone cannot be pronounced "legally dead" (the term I used if you will go back and slowly review the post with clarity this time) until they are no longer breathing, either on their own, or on a respirator. If what you have said was the definition of "legally dead' the Shiavo case would not have been an issue because she could not breathe on her own nor feed herself. The reason it was an issue was because the respirator and the feeding tube kept her alive and as long as they functioned, she was not legally dead. So all the rest of the space you wasted on explaining why brain dead is "dead" is irrelevant. In the future, responses should be made to what is actually said, not how what is said might be interpreted or misunderstood. People are free to think what they want to think. Most of us prefer reality, however.

Maren · #**108** 18th February 2008, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Look before you leap. First, the shooting happened on the 9th.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the shooting happened before class in a public school on a Saturday?

Again, from the initial LA Times article printed on the 13th, "A student at an Oxnard junior high school shot another classmate Tuesday in front of two dozen other students who were settling into their first-period English class, police said."

The 12th, the day the shooting occurred, was Tuesday.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Secondly, I referenced it throughout the post form which you lifted the "Feb. 13th" reference as having been written on the 13th for publication on the 14th. Or did you not know the paper you get on your doorstep every morning was printed overnight, after having been composed the day before?

I've referenced things constantly as being written the day before publishing -- go back and check my posts. The date on the article is the date published and not the date written -- I think you agree with that from your comment.

This is why the article dated the 13th is the one that is written about the shooting on the 12th, the article from the 14th (the one in the OP) references Lawrence being declared brain dead on Wednesday the 13th, etc.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

The quote clearly from paragraph 10 of the story linked in the OP.

I pull up the article referenced in the OP (dated the 14th, written the 13th) and paragraph 10 is, " The teenager sometimes wore feminine clothing and makeup, and proclaimed he was gay, students said."

This says nothing about hate crimes but does clearly show that students were saying that Lawrence had said he was gay. If you go down to about paragraph 15, it does speak of authorities saying that it may be a hate crime and quotes Ventura County DA Totten saying that they were being considered. How is this speculation on the LA Times part?

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

Anyone can see that. All they must do is look.That may be true, but someone cannot be pronounced "legally dead" (the term I used if you will go back and slowly review the post with clarity this time) until they are no longer breathing, either on their own, or on a respirator.

I've twice linked information that shows this is false, that brain death is legally the same as death in the United States. If you want further evidence, you should do some reading on the Uniform Determination of Death Act which is the law that officially makes brain death the same as legal death.

If this were not true, then they are illegally harvesting organs from live people as they prefer to harvest organs while the dead donor is on machines to keep the lungs and heart functioning so the organs do not die.

Please read up on the law before making claims about things you do not understand.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

If what you have said was the definition of "legally dead' the Shiavo case would not have been an issue because she could not breathe on her own nor feed herself.

Again, Terry Schiavo was not ever declared brain dead, she was legally classified as being in a Persistent Vegetative State -- something quite different. While she was hooked to a feeding tube, she was not hooked to a respirator -- this is easily demonstrated by her parents' claims that, "their daughter smiled, laughed, cried, moved, made childlike attempts at speech, and attempted to say "Mom" or "Dad"; or "yeah" when they asked her a question. They claimed that when they kissed her, she looked at them and sometimes puckered her lips."

If she were hooked to a respirator, none of these things would have been possible.

Not to mention, as previously stated, brain death is the lack of brain function -- Terri Schiavo clearly had brain function.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

The reason it was an issue was because the respirator and the feeding tube kept her alive and as long as they functioned, she was not legally dead. So all the rest of the space you wasted on explaing whyh brain dead is "dead" is irrelevant. In the future, responses should be made to what is actually said, not how what is said might be interpreted or misunderstood. People are free to think what they want to think. Most of us prefer reality, however.

I've stated and given references that Terri Sciavo was not ever declared brain dead prior to her being declared legally dead. This is the reality. I've noted multiple times now that her diagnosis was Persistent Vegetative State, something quite different than brain death.

And again, while she could not feed herself (again, part of Persistent Vegetative State diagnosis), she did not require any support for breathing or for her heart, otherwise she would have died immediately when life support was removed rather than starving to death.

Edit: If you are going to keep making these claims about brain death and such, would you please provide me with references that show your interpretations on Brain Death, Terri Schiavo being brain dead, etc. are correct as I have given you multiple references that state the opposite, including the relevant law.

JGG · #**109** 18th February 2008, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by horuhe00

I'm one of the people that are against "hate crime" laws. It's just stupid.

Wow, I don't see how I can argue with such a wonderfully crafted argument. "It's just stupid." Inspired.

So explain to me again why this guy should be charged with a hate crime for hitting a guy because he wears glasses, when it was obviously because they were arguing, and the other guy took the first swing? Explain further why this makes hate crimes "stupid?"

horuhe00 · #**110** 18th February 2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by JGG

Wow, I don't see how I can argue with such a wonderfully crafted argument. "It's just stupid." Inspired.

Why should there be a difference if a white man kills a black man because he's black, compared to any other reason (other than self defence)? It is the same act. It is the same result.

Parting from the premise that lawyers, judges and jury can't be completely objective, no matter how many times the law states otherwise, the implementation of a "hate crime" case is subjective and based on the players involved in each particular case.

Originally Posted by JGG

So explain to me again why this guy should be charged with a hate crime for hitting a guy because he wears glasses, when it was obviously because they were arguing, and the other guy took the first swing? Explain further why this makes hate crimes "stupid?"

The Cuban defending Bush (what a surprise) should NOT be charged with a hate crime and any such legislation to make hitting people with glasses a hate crime should not be passed. This particular case is further evidence of the "stupidity" of hate crime laws and their subjectivity.

A white man that kills a black man because he's black should get the same charge as the white man that kills the black man for sleeping with his wife: Murder.