Defense attorney of Lawrence King's murderer: it's the victim's fault

just wrong

That's all I can say, this is just wrong. It makes my stomach upset whenever one of his lawyers tries to blame the victim for this.

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:57:48 AM CDT

Brandon's Defense Fund

Brandon's Defense Fund
http://brandonsdefense.com/

---

by: sjohnston286@gmail.com @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 18:30:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No surprise there.

Ultimately it is the lawyer's job to defend his client by any means possible within the law. To do any less would be unconscionable on his part.

The problem is not the lawyer. It is the fact that the lawyer knows that he can actually get this one to fly. As long as lawyers know that a jury will look at LGBT victims in a poor light, the "panic defence" will work.

---

by: Carbonchild @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM CDT

And therein lies the problem

The defense is morally repugnant and ethically abhorrent. But as long as it keeps working....

What we really need is for a judge to deny the defense's argument, pointing out that we do not allow for a "prostitute panic defense or a "person of color panic defense."

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does the judge

have any way to stop this, to say "that's not a legitimate defense" and instruct the jury to ignore it?

Incertus

---

by: Incertus(Brian) @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe so, yes

All it would take is for a judge to declare that A) the situation does not fit the defense as previously allowed or B) the defense is bogus and cannot be used at all.

Option B is unlikely, at least at trial. The sad fact is, the defense has been used, and used successfully. Something like is more likely to happen on appeal, with the result that the appeals court will send it back to trial with an order to the defense to try again.

I'm not familiar enough with case law to say how likely is option A.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes. We passed AB 1160...

...so California is one of the handful of states that has guidelines on the "gay panic"/"trans panic" defenses.  AB 1160 does the following:

...amend jury instructions to state that the use of societal bias, including so-called "panic strategies," to influence the proceedings of a criminal trial is not permitted. It would also direct the Office of Emergency Services to develop materials for city and county prosecutors explaining how to prevent bias from affecting the outcome of a trial.  This legislation is named in the memory of a transgender teenager from Newark, California, who was attacked and killed in 2002.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 21:42:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It seems

thst they are saying Kings tactic of flirting back at those teasing him was somehow the worse or more real harrassment.

Answering back to bullies is bullying now?

But wait of course, the gender non conformity was the first harrassment and all else flowed from that, silly me, I forgot that freedom of expression only applies to 'normal' people.

Cause of course we shouldn't expect 12-14 year olds to just accept difference and go on should we? It's all those different people who should know thier place and stay away or hide their different cultures, religions, ethnicities, sexualities and all the other myriad human differences.

How dare people be different and expect to be accepted as if they were normal.

I am physically sickened by this pathetic attempt at an excuse for murder.

---

by: battybattybats @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM CDT

It's cliche but...

... in this day and age two wrongs still do not make a right.

In this case it lead to escalation. Was the escalation King's fault? No because he probably thought if he made them as uncomfortable as they made him they'd leave him alone. In the end he pushed a button on Brandon that lead to this. Unfortunately the school, for whatever reason(s) they had, did not step in and do something to diffuse the problems now a jury has to handle the aftermath and it is up to them.

One of the problems we adults have is we keep seeing adult attributions in kids. Right now we're all playing armchair quarterback in this whole thing focused on Larry and Brandon. "Brandon killed Larry because of his sexual orientation and/or gender expression!" is the cry and the reaction to the Newsweek article proved no on is interested in listening to anything that might not paint Larry as a saint.

In the end none of us know what was going on in that school. None of us know what happened between these two. And we won't know until everyone is in a courtroom, under oath, telling what happened.


Jon aka The Angry Fag
http://www.theangryfag.com/
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheAngryFag

---

by: TheAngryFag @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:24:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, while we're at it...

Quest said he believes school administrators supported one student expressing himself and his sexuality - King - and ignored how it affected other kids, despite complaints. Cross-dressing isn't a normal thing in adult environments, he said, yet 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds were expected to just accept it and go on.

Hey, that's a good point. Let's see if we can extend it, right?

* There's some young man who's family is Orthodox Jewish, and he's really into it... yarmulke, shawl, maybe a copy of the Torah with him at all times. And say he's got a classmate that's real hardcore Catholic, in, shall we say, the 'Mel Gibson system of belief'. Is it therefore okay for the Catholic kid to shoot the Jewish one, especially if the Jewish kid may want to invite the other kid with him to temple?

* How about a young African-American boy who's really into his 'African ancestory', including celebrating Kwanza, talking about Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr... almost a real-life version of Huey Freeman from the Boondocks. Is it okay for someone to shoot him too, especially if he tries to lobby the school-board to put more emphasis on Black History Month?

* Or, how about a kid who's really into his Christian faith,  complete with 'hip' slogan tee-shirts, prayer during lunchtime and at the start of class, and a Bible with him? Is it okay to shoot them, especially if they keep pestering their schoolmates about their belief in Jesus, going to church, and so on?

The fact that this defense-lawyer appears to take the defense of 'that boy ain't right' seems to indicate, at least on a base level, that there's something really messed up in our society, but I'm sure that's nothing anyone who comes here doesn't already know. You'd think these people believe that King should've been hauled out into the football field and put down 'The Lottery'-style or something.

If the jury buys even a word of this crap, then I personally pray that the rest of their lives are haunted by the poor young man whose life was snuffed out thanks to his sociopathic classmate, just for being different.

'Be yourself, no matter what they say,' -- Sting, 'Englishman in New York'

---

by: Shannon Spencer Fox @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM CDT

That is the kicker.

This defence will work until juries who are representative of society start throwing it out as the bullshit that it is.

---

by: Carbonchild @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:40:30 AM CDT

see my post below...this is already law in California

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

.... I'm afraid this will be very effective.

My husband, who was in law enforcement.. also was in a Franciscan seminary.. and hates it when he is 'accused' of possibly being gay. He says that as a teen  and young adult, and even now he would allow this defense..as a type of 'testosterone insanity' plea I guess.. just like road rage... gay rage.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM CDT

Road rage?

I could imagine experiencing road rage. If I shot some guy because I lost it in traffic they will not blame the victim.

---

by: Carbonchild @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Even if

the guy was really driving like crap and deserved it.

Sorry, I live in south Florida and road rage is the normal state of affairs down here. :-)

Incertus

---

by: Incertus(Brian) @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

California bill AB 1160

If I was Brandon McInerney or his parents I sure wouldn't be impressed with my defense lawyer, in fact if they were well advised they would file for a mistrial already.  

Why?  Because there's a 2006 law passed in California,the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act, AB 1160 which SPECIFICALLY requires that instructions to the jury say that the "gay panic defense" is not admissable.

Here's a short summary of that law:
"AB 1160 would amend jury instructions to state that the use of societal bias, including so-called "panic strategies," to influence the proceedings of a criminal trial is not permitted. It would also direct the Office of Emergency Services to develop materials for city and county prosecutors explaining how to prevent bias from affecting the outcome of a trial.  This legislation is named in the memory of a transgender teenager from Newark, California, who was attacked and killed in 2002."

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:51:31 AM CDT

So what about the judge and Da?

Can either of them call the defense lawyer on using an illegal defense?

Or is it a question that would come up on appeal if the killer is found not guilty?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant."  The Colbert Report

---

by: Lev Raphael @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

A lawyer can challenge a law...

I don't know if that's what's going on here or not. But a lawyer can, theoretically in good faith, challenge an existing law if they don't believe that law should stand.

---

by: the.sue @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:04:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Harassment

Perhaps that's why there is the specific comments that King was the harasser.

Rather than 'panic' it's the 'harrassment' thats being used as the defence, an attempt to dodge around this bill? To paint King as the evil harasser rather than answering back against harassment?
 

---

by: battybattybats @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:03:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Link for info on AB 1160, with more info on the law...

...which came into effect January 1, 2007, is on Equality California's website here.

Equality California, the Transgender Law Center, Lambda Letters and the Transgender Equality Alliance worked hard to get AB 1160 into law.

-----
~~Autumn~~

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.
--Henry David Thoreau

---

by: Autumn Sandeen @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 21:52:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Doesn't Mean Anything Really

Because while a jury can be instructed to ignore X, Y, or Z it does not remove it from their minds. It is sort of like retractions in the newspaper. Once it is out there, it is out there.

Jon aka The Angry Fag
http://www.theangryfag.com/
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheAngryFag

---

by: TheAngryFag @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 11:27:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is the lawyer's job

Saying that this child's lawyer shouldn't use whatever he has available is the same as saying that some individuals aren't worthy of defense, who makes that decision? The lawyer has to defend his client. This is just as important for an unpopular client as it is for a more sympathetic client.

The job is on the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant met all the elements for the crime charged. The prosecutor must also convince the jury that the defense may have a theory, but that this theory does not meet the legal standard to negate any of those elements.

I'm not saying that I think this defense should work. I'm saying the system should be allowed to work.

---

by: the.sue @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:00:16 AM CDT

Nope

Cause such a defence is not related to whether a crime was or was not comitted nor as to how it was committed.

It's an attempt at justifying and excusing the crime. That's different.

Is this justifiable manslaughter in self defence like resisiting assault with excessive force or like a battered spouse defence?

Not even close! This is an ethicly invalid argument.

---

by: battybattybats @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In which case...

The prosecution should be able to make that case to the jury and the jury would find the defendant guilty.

---

by: the.sue @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:25:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Legal argument

Is not a memetic meritocracy where any argument can be made to sway the jury.

There are arguments for many reasons that are considered invalid because they are too rhetorical or misleading. Attempts to use such arguments are struck down, the lawyers cautioned or even found in contempt and even disbarred for not heeding such warnings. Judges in non-jury trials accepting and allowing such arguments (In Australia at least) have had their judgements questioned, overturned and have ceased to be judges on account of such.

This kind of argument should absolutley be one of them.

---

by: battybattybats @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:32:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

In a perfect world maybe,

but as wee have seen in many instances, this type of defense can work.

Any sane person should see that killing someone who expresses affection for you, when you don't share those feelings is, well... not logical. If it was a reasonable defense the streets would be filled with the bodies of men killed by women who were hit on.

One reason California's law was enacted was because, sane logical people sat down and asked the following questions.
A. Is the guy being "flirted with" harmed by the attention?
B. Could he ignore the unwanted attention or walk away?
C. Is being "flirted with" the equal of killing someone, as in the case of self defense?
D. Regardless of case made, do juries believe "gay panic" defenses, showing that they are allowing their beliefs regarding LGBT individuals to color the outcome?
E. Finally, is it acceptable to kill anyone based on disapproval of their sexuality?

They made the right choice and said, this type of defense is not acceptable. Some may feel this was a bad idea. But one of the first lessons learned by this country was that our laws should be above such panic defenses (i.e. the Salem Witch trials).

If you believe that gay panic is an acceptable defense and should not be banned. You should know that other types of defenses are also banned. For example: in a case of an individual killing their children and wife, a defense lawyer for can not make a case that the person is innocent because "god told them to kill." They can make a plea that the defendant is mentally ill in such a case, but voices from  god is not an acceptable defense.      

Help defend equality, visit One Kalamazoo http://www.onekalamazoo.com/

---

by: Mattkazoo @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

an idea

a constitional amendment banning "gay panic" defense cases.  this is low.

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:11:42 AM CDT

Remix

Cross-dressing isn't a normal thing in adult environments, he said, yet 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds were expected to just accept it and go on.

A lot of things aren't "normal" for example, I was getting on the train here in the Chicago Area and saw a man that just about made me jump out of my skin at first glance.  He has some sort of neck problem that makes his head sideways --- So do I have a right to kill him, just because he made me jump a little?  What this defense lawyer is suggesting is that the kids have a right NOT to accept it and go on.  That fair treatment is unreasonable to expect out of adults and especially children.

By this  "panic defense" the following can be considered reasonable:

Your honor, her dress just made me so horny, I was so excited, I raped her.  Horny Panic!

Your honor, that diamond necklace just made me so happy, I was so very upset that I couldn't have it, so I stole it.  Covet Panic!

Your honor, when I saw Terrence touch that white woman, I got so upset, I had to kill him.  Interracial Panic!

Your honor, she said I was lowsy in bed, I was so upset that had to kill her and dump the body in the river.  Machismo Panic!

Yes, I now know the plantiff is actually from India, but I didn't know that when I saw him get on my plane.  I was so upset at seeing someone who looked to me like a terrorist, I couldn't stop myself, so I beat him within an inch of his life.  Terror Panic!

It seems that all you have to do is get really really really upset by someone or something and then whatever response you have is not only understandable, it's the right response, above reproach, question or punishment.  Apparently murder, theft, rape only apply to people who planned it out for months and calmly executed the crime.  Those that suddenly had the idea while upset are exempt?  Uh, I don't think so.

This is essentially a remix of "I wasn't thinking..." which is never a good excuse.  

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:49:13 AM CDT

Another Example

How about this one:

Your honor, because I'm gay my Fundamentalist Christian neighbor kept yelling at me to "turn or burn" and "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve".  So, I couldn't take it anymore and I killed him.  Fundie Christian Panic!

---

by: Jon Michaels @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 14:17:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this wasn't even panic

  This wasn't panic, it wasn't even defense. The aggressor in every encounter was McInerny. And when Lawrence King showed he wasn't afraid of McInerny, McInerny did the one thing that King couldn't defend himself from. A gun.

 McInerny, had a cooling off period at home after all. Got the gun, loaded it and brought to school and shot King while King was at his computer in class.
That is hardly self defense. King wasn't threatening McInerny. And to plan to bring a gun and who you're going to shoot with it, takes malice aforethought and cool calculation. Even to get a gun past school authorities.

Nope, this wasn't panic folks. This was a cold blooded execution.
And any judge or jury that see it other than that, or any kind of 'defense' at all is the reason why equal justice is elusive for a gay person. Sadly, even an innocent gay child who was in the environment he's rightfully entitled to.

  The legacy of hate against gay people shouldn't extend to the hearts and minds of jurors and judges. And Karen in Kalifornia is right. The defense attorney isn't even allowed to use that defense.
But he might sneak it in anyway, as did the defense attorney of Matt Shepard's killers.

   Better heads hopefully will prevail. It's right that this kid is being tried as an adult. And he should spend the rest of his life in prison.
His stupid parents set him up for it, unfortunately.
Angry violent parents who had guns in the house, who raised and angry violent child with easy access to those guns.
Somebody was going to get killed...  

---

by: Regan DuCasse @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:07:07 PM CDT

God. So that's why it happened! If only

people had told Larry King to dress like "straight white man" he would have ben fine. If only he had taken the bullying without responding, if only he had been the typical queer victim rather than coming back with retorts, he might have been fine.

Enough.

So, as long as we look, act and portray ourselves as straight, we will not be shot.

If that fails, we must accept the discrimination and abuse as natural; if we respond, we deserve to die.

School Adminisrtrators:
Make sure your gays look straight
If they dont,. tell them to suck up the abuse.

Enough.

We came too far and worked too hard to not respond, AS A COMMUNITY, to this. Larry King died because Brandon was brought up as a homophobe and was so angered at Larry's flirting when Brandon abused him verbally that he killed the "uppity faggot."

Larry King was one of us, and in a sense, we are all Larry King.  He, in his own way, fought against discrimination as hard as any of us have and he paid for it with his life.

This defence, this accusatory defence loaded with it's "back in the closet for you" message cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Larry would have answered back; we have to asnwer on his behalf.

I tell you Chica that no greater abomination exists than women denying their spirit of sisterhood and instead becoming the oppressor. -Rebeca, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

---

by: MauraHennessey @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 15:17:41 PM CDT

....does anyone know?

What the prosecutor's office there is doing. can one file and 'amicus' brief in a murder trial?? If so the ACLU, GLSEN, etc should be on it!!

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 19:14:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Beyond Sad

My heart swells for Lawrence. I know what he went through. I have seen the way he was treated. No, I was not there, but I have still seen it. I saw it everyday when I was in public school. Sometimes things happened to me personally, until I learned how to duck under the radar, how to go on quiet and unnoticed. For self survival, I learned how to become invisible.

I think we all know that the only reason any kid in Lawrence's position would say anything back to any harasser would be to make some attempt, even a weak one, to stand up for ones self. If Lawrence did indeed "tease" his killer, I am confident that it was done in an attempt to "hold his own" with the words, actions and threats that were made to him to begin with. Not backing down to confrontation or taunts is especially important in the development of males. You may not be well respected, but if you can stand up for yourself, in any way, at least you can carry your head high in that regard. I think this is what Lawrence's strategy was.

This all starts at home. I would like to know where McInerneys' parents stand on GLBT issues. In fact, because he is a minor, I think they themselves should be held accountable to some extent for the actions of the child they raised. They created a child who did not start out with any notions on what was acceptable or not. He learned it. He in fact, most likely learned it from them. Even if part of his prejudice stemmed from peers, it would be his parents responsibility to iron out right from wrong. They failed in raising him to have respect for all life. They failed in raising him to be an understanding youth when confronted with something different. They should be deeply ashamed, and even more ashamed at this "legal strategy".

Ironic that we live in a world where the KKK can be listed in the yellow pages as a "fraternal organization" while GLBT alliances in schools are controversial and sometimes forbidden.
It's all just "beyond sad"...............

---

by: zbriboy8 @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 15:31:49 PM CDT

Wonderful

I love this philosophy. From what I've heard, he either genuinely was asking out a kid he liked, or was just doing it to get back at a kid who was bullying him. Either way, somehow he's responsible for the other kid freaking and shooting him?  Lovely.  

---

by: Ferin @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 17:53:51 PM CDT

God.

That is awful. And not the first time I've heard it, either. When I set up a facebook event page for the Day of Silence at my school, it unleashed a carnival of homophobia and victim-blaming.

I forget where I heard this, but it's so true: difference shouldn't be a death sentence.

"What do you mean you don't believe in homosexuality? It's not like the Easter Bunny, your belief isn't necessary." - Lea DeLaria

---

by: MissNomered @ Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 18:02:57 PM CDT

And that's what pushed me off the fence.

I'd been undecided about whether I thought it better to have him tried as an adult or as a juvenile, though I was leaning toward adult.  (Not that I actually have any say in the matter but I've been following this matter closely).  After reading that his attorney was going for the "gay panic defense" I'd had it and fell firmly into the try-as-an-adult camp.

If Lawrence had  been wearing a crucifix and trying to get others to learn about Jesus his death would be heralded as "persecution" and his killers head would be demanded on a stake.  Now King is the blame and his killer is a victim.  Bull! I've had it with this nonsense.  


"If a bullet should go through my head let that bullet go through every closet door."
Harvey Milk

---

by: Buffy @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 13:49:29 PM CDT

Not "just doing his job"

While it's true that defense attorneys are obligated to to make the best argument they can for their clients, there here are a variety of arguments that aren't allowed in court because society considers them illegitimate and unacceptable.

If a student killed another student for dressing "differently" because they wore a yarmulke or a head scarf, or a t-shirt with a biblical quote on it, we'd call it for what was: religious bigotry.

If a white student killed a black student for creating a "disruption" simply by attending school, we'd call it for what it was: racist.

If a teenage boy shot a girl he didn't like because she kept flirting with him, we wouldn't consider that a justifiable provocation.

Society and the law don't consider any of these valid excuses for the accused's actions, or reasons for lesser punishment. As mentioned, California specifically outlawed the infamous "gay panic" defense in the wake of the public revulsion about its use by the murderers of trans woman Gwen Araujo-a law that Quinn seems to be trying to do an end-run around by claiming it was King who was doing the harassing, when in fact King was just standing up to a bigger, stronger bully. A bully who allegedly decided to put the "uppity faggot" in his place: six feet underground. This wasn't a panic. This wasn't a provoked killing. It was a planned, cold-blooded execution.

To echo MissNomered, being different shouldn't be a death sentence, and a "back to the closet" defense shouldn't be tolerated.

---

by: LenaD @ Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 14:35:27 PM CDT