Oxnard student declared brain dead

sacredsin · #31 15th February 2008, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Celticflower

So stick with what we do know -- student A had a gun in school and used it to shoot student B in the head resulting in the death of student B.

Should student A be charged and tried as a juvenile or an adult?

Still charged as an adult. I remember being 14 (it was only five years ago) and I and (my peers) knew that if we murdered someone we'd have to pay the price, possibly twenty years or more if we committed such a crime. The kid knew what he was doing and that it was wrong so he still deserves to be tried as an adult.

Meshavrischika · #32 15th February 2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by sacredsin

Still charged as an adult. I remember being 14 (it was only five years ago) and I and (my peers) knew that if we murdered someone we'd have to pay the price, possibly twenty years or more if we committed such a crime. The kid knew what he was doing and that it was wrong so he still deserves to be tried as an adult.

I can't believe 20 years would be sufficient... even for an adult.

I can't see there being much value left in this kid after 20 years in jail anyway (after all, jail is where alot of people learn to break the law in better more effective ways and become hardened at the same time). I'm not saying I don't advocate strict punishment, but with kids it makes me sad. No one taught him well enough for him to realize that his life is pretty much 100% gone at this point because he had a negative opinion about someone and decided to act on it in a violent way. At least as an adult, there's a little more time for self discovery (sometimes). Sometimes I wonder if the death penalty wouldn't be better used if only because we're just creating more criminals with long term jail sentences for juvenile offenders. Letting them off is just not an option.

sacredsin · #33 15th February 2008, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by ElsanRandiMom

I can't believe 20 years would be sufficient... even for an adult.

I can't see there being much value left in this kid after 20 years in jail anyway (after all, jail is where alot of people learn to break the law in better more effective ways and become hardened at the same time). I'm not saying I don't advocate strict punishment, but with kids it makes me sad. No one taught him well enough for him to realize that his life is pretty much 100% gone at this point because he had a negative opinion about someone and decided to act on it in a violent way. At least as an adult, there's a little more time for self discovery (sometimes). Sometimes I wonder if the death penalty wouldn't be better used if only because we're just creating more criminals with long term jail sentences for juvenile offenders. Letting them off is just not an option.

Lol, it was just a number I picked. It doesn't matter to me if its higher than that, but regardless we knew if we murdered someone we'd be in jail for most or the rest of our lives.

You do raise a good point though and I agree that our jail system needs to be changed due to the overwhelming amount of criminals that once are put in jail tend to go back over and over again. I wish we had better ways of punishing people and ensuring they'd never be back in jail again.

IisJustMe · #34 15th February 2008, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by Trevorocity

However sensationalizing the victims sexual orientation only serves to justify the shooter's actions in the minds of anti-gay activists.

That's as bad as what the LA Times did. Since when do all "anti-gay activists" -- and by the way, what exactly is that? -- think homicide is the answer? That's insulting to those who hold "You shall not murder" in the same regard, if not higher, as "You shall not lie down with a man as you lie with a woman." It is an inflammatory statement and I'd urge you to edit it out.

Originally Posted by Trevorocity

As we have already seen a number of posters immediately jumped to the defense of the shooter. It implies that the "gay-panic" defense is alive and well in the minds of spiteful bigots.

This is also a misleading statement, though I suspect it is not intentional, but comes from your emotional reaction. Any shooting, regardless of motive, is reprehensible, and the facts should be left to the police, not media trying to sell toilet paper and mouthwash. Also, I reread the thread before continuing with my reply. There isn't a single reply on here that defends the shooter. My post was condemning of the sensationalistic approach to the story the Times took and offers no opinion on guilt or innocence. I see none that reach any conclusion of innocence.

Originally Posted by Trevorocity

Since Matthew Shepard was killed that lame excuse has much less traction with juries than it did in the "Good ol Days" when you could beat and kill gay men with impugnity.

This is just plain inaccurate. For one, it assumes the general population ever collectively thought it was "OK" to beat up gay men. That's just plain bogus, and sounds very much like the rhetoric of a gay activist, if I may be excused for drawing a possibly erroneous conclusion. Also, the jury in the Matthew Shepherd murder case found the men guilty of murder. It came out after the trial that the men didn't even know he was gay. Their motive was simple robbery. The gay community wants to continue to push the idea it was a hate crime, but they didn't even know Matthew Shepherd. They saw money and a lot of credit cards when he paid for some drinks, and decided then to rob him.

Originally Posted by Trevorocity

BUT every lawyer still tries it anyway hoping the jurors' inheirent bigotry will override their common sense. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

And again, this is an hysterical reaction to the sensationalist approach of the newspaper story, and has no bearing to the known facts whatsoever.

Trevorocity · #35 15th February 2008, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

It came out after the trial that the men didn't even know he was gay. Their motive was simple robbery.

Amazing how that came out AFTER the trial when Aaron McKinney's bizarre defense strategy included testimony that he had accidentally attended a gay-affirming church with his girlfriend and when he realized it stormed out furiously and in tears. Amazing because testimony also revealed that McKinney was overly concerned that people might think him gay and he was outraged that Matthew Shepard made a pass at him; worrying that his friend would think him gay. Even MORE amazing because these events apparently occurred BEFORE the robbery and beating. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. They must have just forgotten that they didn't know Matthew was gay until after the trial.

Their original motivation may have been "to rob somebody" but they chose Matthew Shepard as their target because they knew he was gay and they thought he would be an easy mark.

Originally Posted by IisJustMe

The gay community wants to continue to push the idea it was a hate crime, but they didn't even know Matthew Shepherd. They saw money and a lot of credit cards when he paid for some drinks, and decided then to rob him.And again, this is an hysterical reaction to the sensationalist approach of the newspaper story, and has no bearing to the known facts whatsoever.

No I must admit I never knew Matthew Shepard, I wish I had. He would be about my age now if he had lived. I met his mother when she came to Denver once.

Meshavrischika · #36 15th February 2008, 04:31 PM

My aunt knew him and worked at the school he attended in Wyoming. She was heartsick (and rightly so). Regardless of why these kids died, they died at the hands of someone else and that person, whatever reason they did it, needs to be punished. I'm not sure any murder is more heinous than another and I don't know that I support hate crime laws for murder.

Dannager · #37 15th February 2008, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Morcova

Is the other child any less dead because his murderer is a teenager?

That's not what the justice system exists to answer. We prescribe penalties based on the social harm inflicted given the circumstances of the crime. For instance, if a five year-old killed a 25 year-old, you could make the same argument - the 25 year-old is no less dead because his murderer is an infant! At the same time, however, you wouldn't dare make this argument because you're cognizant of the fact that toddlers cannot be expected to appreciate the consequences of their actions. The same holds true, to a large extent, for teenagers. The inhibitive functions of their brain are not fully developed until partway through an individual's teen years, which means that a teenager stands a good chance of being unable to properly assess whether a course of actions is acceptable.

Granted, that doesn't mean that they should not be responsible. We know that teens are capable of making well-reasoned decisions many times, and that despite having underdeveloped reasoning abilities most teens do not engage in this sort of violent behavior. It serves merely as a mitigating factor which should be taken into account during the prosecution - in this case, treating the defendant as what he is: a teenager.

IisJustMe · #38 15th February 2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Trevorocity

Amazing how that came out AFTER the trial when Aaron McKinney's bizarre defense strategy included testimony that he had accidentally attended a gay-affirming church with his girlfriend and when he realized it stormed out furiously and in tears. Amazing because testimony also revealed that McKinney was overly concerned that people might think him gay and he was outraged that Matthew Shepard made a pass at him; worrying that his friend would think him gay. Even MORE amazing because these events apparently occurred BEFORE the robbery and beating. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. They must have just forgotten that they didn't know Matthew was gay until after the trial.

Nice subterfuge. It's a shame you didn't think someone would remember the case, or at least could find the trial history online. (Actually, it's amazing you didn't realize that would happen.) The alleged "gay panic" defense was never presented. The judge wouldn't let it go before the jury. Also, there's no evidence the defense would have been accurate, and the jury obviously didn't believe the "hate crime" aspect of the case because they rejected the first-degree murder charge because they did not unanimously agree the crime was premeditated. McKinney was found guilty of felony murder -- a death occurring in the process or as the result of a felony crime -- after his co-defendant Russell Henderson reached a plea bargain with the DA three days before the case went to the jury.

Originally Posted by Trevorocity

Their original motivation may have been "to rob somebody" but they chose Matthew Shepard as their target because they knew he was gay and they thought he would be an easy mark.

That's not what the jury believed, and it is not the crime for which McKinney was convicted, nor that to which Henderson pleaded guilty. The "hate crime" aspect of the murder is kept alive by all the hysterical gay activists, but the truth of the matter is, robbery was the sole purpose of the murder. What is really criminal is that web sites such as "The Daily Camera" and "Wikipedia" still carry such brazen unsubstantiated "facts" as "McKinney and Henderson plotted to pose as homosexuals and lure Shepherd ..." when the indisputable fact of the matter is the jury did not believe any of that.

Meshavrischika · #39 15th February 2008, 05:37 PM

um... IJM... that's not my quote... don't know what happened... but I didn't say that at all.

IisJustMe · #40 15th February 2008, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by ElsanRandiMom

um... IJM... that's not my quote... don't know what happened... but I didn't say that at all.

I don't know either. I cut-and-pasted from the top of the "Reply" box when I was composing. The web site's been doing some wonky things lately. I edited and did the same thing again, and it looks like it worked this time. Let's see if it still says the same thing an hour from now. LOL