Oxnard student declared brain dead

Oh, also, the family decided to donate organs, and Lawrence's body was taken off life support after the organs were harvested. So he is now dead by anyone's definition.

Whoever it was who asked about "brain dead" -- that is a practicing physician or coroner pronouncing death on the basis that brainwaves have flatlined and damage seems severe enough that there is no chance of recovery. The body can be kept "alive" as a vegetable in that state if there is reason to do so, e.g., if brain death is not from a traumatic injury to the brain and a second opinion is desired; if the deceased or his survivors wished him to be an organ donor; if the deceased was a pregnant woman where there is hope of saving the unborn baby.

There is always a chance for recovery, as all brains cells still divide. It is just that the recovery process can take many decades, and so the cost of supporting the shell of the person compared to the chance of them returning to life and the quality of life will be (you can expect some major mental problems if they do recover) is far based on the cut them lose side.
Then again, depending of the damage done, there is a better chance of a person who has fallen out of a plane and gone kersplat reviving (and yes, there is a chance for that, just as there is a chance for a person to walk though a wall, just in both cases, they are so very small). In the end, the chances are often small enough that putting resources towards them is foolish, especially when there are other chances which are much higher which need those resources.

... in other reports on the story, fellow students (several of whom are identified by name) stated that Lawrence King had said he was gay. Also, the Ventura County prosecutor, also identified by name, stated that Brandon McInerney would be charged with murder and use of a firearm in connection with a murder, that hate crime enhancements were being filed ...

Moral: Don't be gay.

Why don't you link those stories in your post, then, so we can all see the facts finally reported?

And if you've read these stories, I'm sure you can provide the name of the prosecutor?

If you really wanted to blow me out of the water, I'm surprised you didn't provide the links to these "other reports." And by the way, being one of the top five "objective reporting newspapers in the country" obviously doesn't mean they abstain from the same kind of hyperbole of the kind in which the others are engaged, I guess.

And again, you are ignoring that the earlier news articles, which didn't always list the names of children, have been shown to be accurate.

Prosecutors would not say why they filed a hate-crime enhancement with the attempted murder count, but several classmates said the 15-year-old victim, Lawrence King, sometimes wore makeup, high heels and other feminine attire.

When we start punishing the perpetrator additionally for being stupid or bigoted, we'll all be in prison.

Now they appear to be accurate, but a newspaper publishing a story about what a reporter "conjectures" or "leaps to a conclusion" about is not exhibiting journalism, but sensationalism. I found this one item interesting:This was posted on the ABC News web site the same day as the LA Times story was published.

Note that ABC is very careful to qualify it's statements about possible motives for the killing. No mention is made in the article about what the suspect may have thought. The word "gay" is not mentioned in connection with the "hate crime" rider nor the suspect. It is only deep in the article that students at the school are quoted in general terms about the victim's behavior. No leaps of conclusion are made by ABC News as were made in the Times' initial article.

I'm not endorsing ABC News as terribly responsible, because they have gone off the deep end themselves on other sociopolitical stories of impact. But they were more responsible here than the LA Times. The Times took no such precautions on Tuesday when the story was written for Wednesday publication, and was perfectly willing to turn it into a "hate crime" -- and in fact, something I had not noticed before, had made it a murder case before the victim was dead -- all before police had completed their investigation or prosecutors had filed charges for anything.

I never contended the victim was not gay, but was upset with the obvious and continuing slanted reporting of the LA Times. In the story published this morning, they still don't quote any of the prosecutors or any police officials to back up their initial and at-that-time unsubstantiated statements it was the "murder" of a "gay student." Yes, what they printed appears to be supported by official comment now, but no one in any official capacity confirmed any of that Tuesday when the slaying occurred, but the Times didn't let that stand in the way of a sensational story.

Also, none of this touches on the absurdity of "hate crime" legislation. Giving someone additional prison time or possibly even putting them to death for what they think is right out of "1984" by George Orwell.

What the suspect allegedly thought about his victim is abhorrent, if true. But the last time I checked, a person could not be punished for thinking in this country, even if it is filth. The crime itself is what is charged, tried and punished. The thought process is a mitigating circumstance and establishes motive, but to punish it is absurd, even if warped or evil. No one deserves to die at the hands of another unless it is the only alternative to the victim threating serious injury or death to someone else. A murder or an assault is sufficient reason to punish someone. When we start punishing the perpetrator additionally for being stupid or bigoted, we'll all be in prison.

Moral: Don't be gay.

You obviously don't understand sarcasm.

Reporting my post is sooo gay.