Brandon McInerney (l) shot Larry King (r) twice in the head at point blank range.
Strike another win for unscrupulous defense attorneys that use the Gay Panic Defense. Breaking news from CBS:
See UpdateA judge has declared a mistrial in the case of a California teen accused of murdering a gay classmate at a junior high school three years ago.
Jurors on Thursday told Judge Charles Campbell they were unable to reach a unanimous decision whether Brandon McInerney was guilty of killing 15-year-old Larry King.
The jury had been deliberating since Friday on whether McInerney, now 17, is guilty of first-degree murder in the slaying of King at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard in 2008. Jurors also have the option of voluntary manslaughter, which carries a maximum 21-year prison term.
Much ado was made about Larry King's sexual orientation and the way he dressed, testimony and evidence of such was allowed to be introduced in trial.
Defense attorneys do not deny McInerney killed King, but they said their client snapped when he heard moments before the shooting that King wanted to change his first name to Latisha.
So he heard Larry wanted to change his name? Well, does that seem like a good reason to walk up to a person and shoot them,
not once, but twice in the head at point blank range, as Brandon McInerney did to 15 year-old Larry King?
I guess that's the way you do it, blame the victim. He was asking to be shot in the head with his flagrant gayness or gender non-conforming. Why not? Really, all you need is a single homophobe on the jury to think he had it coming to hang a jury. What are the chances 1 of the 12 people you select hate gay people? In America, unfortunately your odds are pretty good there, particularly if you're savvy in the voir dire process.
Oh sure, you may not get an acquittal. But if you can show that the victim was notoriously gay, or gender non-conforming, well then you can confuse the process enough to derail it.
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, GLSEN has released this statement, it's sadder and kinder than the thoughts going through my head right now.
“The mistrial declared today is hardly a surprise,” GLSEN Executive Director Eliza Byard said. “This was always destined to be a case with little resolution and no winners, whatever the verdict. The central facts remain the same: homophobia killed Larry King and destroyed Brandon McInerney’s life, and adults failed both young men because of their own inability to deal forthrightly and compassionately with the multiple challenges they each faced. The jury’s indecision is a sad reflection of our collective inability to find common ground and invest in a better future for all youth and a culture of respect for all.”
I can't say much. Except I think our legislatures should be looking into passing laws disallowing this "blame the victim" defense strategy that seeks only to muddy the waters about who is, and is not entitled to justice.
Many states have done so to ensure the Justice system does not assault a woman a second time after a rape. This is really the very same dynamic at play.
Update: Mindful nature has brought something to my attention.
your quote is wrong, and it makes it look like you made something up here. Your block quote isn't from the link you provide and you changed a very important fact.
You say:
A judge has declared a mistrial in the case of a California teen accused of murdering a gay classmate at a junior high school three years ago.
Jurors on Thursday told Judge Charles Campbell they were unable to reach a unanimous decision whether Brandon McInerney was guilty of killing 15-year-old Larry King.
but the article you link says:
Jurors told Ventura County Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell they were unable to reach a unanimous decision on the degree of Brandon McInerney's guilt for killing 15-year-old Larry King.
I am a huge fan of yours, so I am having that sinking feeling one gets when a hero goes astray. I know I'm a stickler for these things, but since there were zero votes for not guilty, your quote is simply factually wrong. Is this a paraphrase done to make the story look worse than it is? (It is bad enough!)
CBS, my source must have updated the piece since I posted. I assure my readers I would not "make something up" or alter a source that I have quoted. I fortunately still had the original in a browser window, and took a screen shot, if my assurances are not sufficient evidence of my good faith.