I think I'm going to be sick: US teen killed because he was gay

[pastelspectre]

This is just horrifying. To see people STILL can't accept gay's, that's just sad. I'm disappointed. And...he said he wanted...to give ''unwanted advice''? Haha. Accused people will do anything to win and just slip away, to get away with what they were accused of. Especially if it's true. It's sad to see what our society has grown to be.

 

[twocows]

I'm not in the courtroom and thus can't know the specifics of the case, but I will say that if what he is accused of is true, that's pretty horrible. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that what the defense says is true, as well. I'll let the jury decide.

 

[Eruption]

Or the fact that he was 14, and it is a scientifically proven fact that at that age a persons brain in not developed enough to signifigantly consider the results of long term actions.

Just another crime that is only gaining attention due to the victim being of a diffrent sexual orientation.

Obviously a 14 year old's brain isn't fully developed but, if he couldn't see that this was wrong at that age then he probably deserves to do time or even better make his parents do time for such poor upbringing.

Maybe a 14 year old isn't responsible for all his or her actions but murder is something that a 14 year old should be responsible for.

 

[blue]

That's just wrong on every level, nobody should be judged for their sexuallity let alone killed.

 

[Gothitelle.]

How can you be so apathetic? If someone is killed b/c they are gay, then make the punishment more severe to deter violent acts from other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Looking at your other posts it seems like you have a religious vendetta against gay people, even though you are half black. Don't you think their should be hate crime laws for black people? Then why not gay people?

Furthermore, his parents or any other adult influences should be incriminated. They have created this homophobic monster. Gothitelle, think children should be educated about gay people now? So they don't kill gay people.

According to the prosecution, this kid is a whire supremacist who hates gays. According to the defendent and the defense, he killed the guy because of his unwanted advances, in short a rage of passion to put it.

Right now, we don't know why he was killed. But what I meant by my statement is that I hope that they can prove with HARD EVIDENCE, not EMOTION, that this kid is indeed a white supremacist who killed the kid JUST because he was gay. If they can prove it to me, then I will belive it.

For now, we don't know if that's the case. Well I don't know depending on when the case was tried. But it seems like people are quick to say HOMOPHOBE! because all they see is a white, conservative, straight kid, and a gay kid who this guy shot for reasons unknown. I don't know why this kid was shot nor do I have any sources on why, however I am not quick to say homophobe.

Even if it was a gay guy who shot a straight guy, I'd still feel the same way. Prove to me that this guy was shot for the reason speculated.

As for your last question, yes I do think that some education is necessary. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Åzurε]

Pardon, but I felt a need to put this out there.

How can you be so apathetic? If someone is killed b/c they are gay, then make the punishment more severe to deter violent acts from other gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

That's special treatment towards a social group being endorsed by the courts. Which, to my understanding, is a no-no.

Looking at your other posts it seems like you have a religious vendetta against gay people, even though you are half black.

wat

Don't you think their should be hate crime laws for black people? Then why not gay people?

Personally, I think there should be laws against hate crimes for human people. Not laws against hate crimes for black people, or gay people, or straight white conservative Christian people. Demanding equality is one matter, demanding elevated status is another.

Furthermore, his parents or any other adult influences should be incriminated. They have created this homophobic monster.

So much of people's actions comes from their surroundings. I'll agree with you here, though to what extent they should be incriminated, I'm unsure. In the end, it was the boy's decision.

Gothitelle, think children should be educated about gay people now? So they don't kill gay people.

Define "educated". Because, taken in the context of the other thread, it sounds a lot like government-sponsored efforts to convince students of a certain stance on a social issue. How about teaching something on human worth? So they don't kill people. Of course, in my opinion anything on that topic that has lasting substance to it wouldn't work to it's fullest in secular or multiculturalistic public schools, but that's another matter entirely.

Good debate topics rarely stay neatly in their boxes, neh?

 

[Gothitelle.]

That's special treatment towards a social group being endorsed by the courts. Which, to my understanding, is a no-no.

Personally, I think there should be laws against hate crimes for human people. Not laws against hate crimes for black people, or gay people, or straight white conservative Christian people. Demanding equality is one matter, demanding elevated status is another.

Omg someone understands!

That's what I've been saying. I hope the courts make their decision on evidence not the victim's sexual orientation.

 

[Åzurε]

Really? Motive is a MAJOR factor in a crime and the punishment!!! And yes it is evidence, duh!

He killed a gay person, therefore he killed the gay person because he hates gay people. Mmm... no. While it's certainly possible, probable even, people tend to lie in situations like these and it's worth examining the matter before deciding that it was, in fact, a hate crime.

If you think killing someone is all the same, then drunk drivers would be on death row! Motive is very important.

I think killing someone based upon the condition of their physical being is a hate crime. And from a very personal perspective, I'm of the opinion that we're far too lenient on certain sorts of criminals.

I think If gay people killed straight people for no other reason than the sexual orientations it is a hate crime. But you are implying that simply b/c he was gay that it may be called a hate crime. I don't think you understand a thing about legal processes!

I think what I don't understand here is your post. =/ Honestly, I'm getting lost. I would urge you at this time to take a chill pill. And conduct yourself civilly. I rather think the whole non-traditional sexuality issue is a personal matter for you, and it's understandable that you'd be passionate about it. Don't let that keep you from making a decent argument.

I'm not implying that it's a hate crime because he was gay. I meant what I said, and what I said is this: Doling out harsher-than-normal punishment on the killer because he killed a homosexual, rather than any other target of a hate crime, is unfair and demonstrates bias by the government for a social demographic.

Stop putting words in my text box.

 

[Musician of Literature]

What the (fill in the blank)?!?!?!

This is just freaking ridiculous that people would kill someone over their own feelings. So a boy may have feelings for another boy. Cool with me (as long as I am not that boy), he lives his life and I live mine. It's sad that people do not respect the diversity of this world, ya know, the different cultures, beliefs, etc. and that instead, people decide to DESTROY all of the diversity in the world. You know, civilizations should be able to believe what they want and not be persecuted for it. All sorts of religions we learn about, and just because people didn't like the way others believed, they were killed. Now here it is again, a killing over a belief. Brendan McIenery can just rot with Hitler and Stalin in he**.

 

[.Fenris]

Yeah, sure, the gun was already loaded, cocked, the safety off, and up against his head when he pulled the trigger... /sarcasm

At one point he had to realize he was preparing to kill another human being, so, I'd hit him with 1st degree murder.

 

[Myles]

Yeah, sure, the gun was already loaded, cocked, the safety off, and up against his head when he pulled the trigger... /sarcasm

At one point he had to realize he was preparing to kill another human being, so, I'd hit him with 1st degree murder.

But 'any murder' isn't the definition of first degree murder.

 

[-ty-]

This is why children need to be taught tolerance though the education system. Children like this are not taught tolerance by their parents, and may harm or bully others. Those who are bullied, assaulted, and killed are gravely affected by the lack of tolerance. The children who are bullying, assaulting, and killing others are gravely affected by their intolerance; they may face prison-time. I hope that those who advocate against educating students about tolerance of all people, including homosexuals, understand what the consequences of their actions are. A boy may face prison time, and another boy is dead.

 

[Dawn]

it's kind of shocking that he thought it was enough of a reason to kill someone.

I honestly don't find it shocking, mainly because in my eyes it's pretty much a pre-requisite for a person to be mentally ill for them to try and justify murder to begin with.

This is why children need to be taught tolerance though the education system...

I can't help but find myself thinking of and agreeing with something Azure said earlier in the thread.

sounds a lot like government-sponsored efforts to convince students of a certain stance on a social issue. How about teaching something on human worth? So they don't kill people. Of course, in my opinion anything on that topic that has lasting substance to it wouldn't work to it's fullest in secular or multiculturalistic public schools, but that's another matter entirely.

 

[-ty-]

I can see where you're coming from.

It's kinda like teaching children that, in our society, it is wrong to harass or it is wrong to murder, because legal authority deems it is wrong; they teach those two things to children through the educational system. In order for the children to function in society they need to know societal wrongs. Harassment or violence toward a person based off race, religion, or sexual orientation are specifically deemed wrong in laws. It is not forcing them to think homosexuality is correct; it is teaching them that harassing and violence to gay people is wrong, based off legal authority - not forcing a political view.

 

[Dawn]

There's no reason to specifically target violence or harassment against homosexuals when you can target violence in harassment in general just as easily...

In fact, singling them out would probably just be counter-productive, just because of the way peoples minds work.

 

[-ty-]

Well, when we are taught not to bully, harass, or harm other people in school, it is too vague. I do not think that all of the tolerances should be directed toward gay people exclusively. However, tolerance based off race, religion, gender, sexuality, weight, socioeconomic, physical/cognitive impairments, and any other verbal or physical harassment toward a person, motivated purely by where they are "categorized" in these categories. By telling kids, "Don't bully anyone," there is a lack of specifics, and therefore no real change will happen.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Obviously a 14 year old's brain isn't fully developed but, if he couldn't see that this was wrong at that age then he probably deserves to do time or even better make his parents do time for such poor upbringing.

Maybe a 14 year old isn't responsible for all his or her actions but murder is something that a 14 year old should be responsible for.

lolWUT? That's a pretty extreme view you have. We don't punish parents for the actions of their children.

I also oppose hate crimes laws. One of our Founding Fathers said "We punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they hold." A hate crimes charge is an enhancement attached to another charge that punishes someone more harshly because of the sociopolitical opinions that motivated the crime. Without punishing someone for their beliefs, there is still a murder charge which is very serious on its own.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

This sounds like something my neighbours would support. Really.

Just to let you people from not inside the states know that there are areas here where pure hatred brews. I feel sick in this place.

Anyways I personally think its downright horrible but I agree with Freaky here; this is a MURDER we're talking about here. If you think about it almost all crimes are "hate" crimes in that there's some sort of hatred fueling it, whether it be hatred of a race, sexuality or gender or hatred of the fact that those keychains are ridiculously priced. I think its a foolish idea and should be getting the boot. Murder is murder and nothing else, if he murdered the kid for any other reason he should still get the same punishment.

 

[Dawn]

I also oppose hate crimes laws. One of our Founding Fathers said "We punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they hold." A hate crimes charge is an enhancement attached to another charge that punishes someone more harshly because of the sociopolitical opinions that motivated the crime. Without punishing someone for their beliefs, there is still a murder charge which is very serious on its own.

That's an interesting opinion. I've never thought about it that way before. Now that I do, I find myself agreeing with you.

It's my opinion that murder is one of the few crimes that can be punished with extreme prejudice. By that I mean all you need to know is whether they did it or not and you're ready to punish them to the maximum extent of the law. (See: Be able to prove it in court) The actual harshness of the punishment should be dependent on what degree it is and nothing more.

Well, when we are taught not to bully, harass, or harm other people in school, it is too vague. I do not think that all of the tolerances should be directed toward gay people exclusively. However, tolerance based off race, religion, gender, sexuality, weight, socioeconomic, physical/cognitive impairments, and any other verbal or physical harassment toward a person, motivated purely by where they are "categorized" in these categories. By telling kids, "Don't bully anyone," there is a lack of specifics, and therefore no real change will happen.

At the same time, singling them out is giving preference where none is deserved. (As if to say, these guys deserve it less than those other guys. That's the subliminal message that is being sent, believe it or not.) Doing such undermines the goal you're trying to achieve because it's failing to properly teach kids that violence and whatnot in general is wrong.

When I think about it, I honestly don't think our schools have what it takes to realistically fight this problem. Perhaps we simply need to consider other ways to fight the problem that might be more successful?

 

[Myles]

Hate crimes can be against anyone as long as prejudice is involved. It's not singling them out because every crime against them isn't considered a hate crime, only ones that are motivated by prejudice. Someone could theoretically be prejudice against heterosexuals and perform a hate crime against them; the law would recognise this.

The actual harshness of the punishment should be dependent on what degree it is and nothing more.

The degree it is, is determined based on the person's motivations.