http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/gay-slaying.htmlIt isn't the 21 years. It isn't the plea deal even. The comments below from posters are crazy, as usual. It's the absolute bigotry of the whole "logic" behind the excuse of "homosexual advances" defense that bothers me. It is insane that this could conceivably reduce first degree premeditated death penalty eligible hate crime gun specification
murder to voluntary manslaughter.... "Voluntary manslaughter" is traditionally just murder with "adequate provocation," to reduce the charge
I.) First, let's go with just the facts of what the kid did: 1.) He got and brought a loaded gun into a school with the intention of killing another student.
2.) He sat with the gun in a room full of students and deliberately sat behind his victim.
3.) He waited until his victim was facing the front of the room and shot him repeatedly in the back of the head.
II.) Sounds like pretty clear murder doesn't it? Now let's add some information:1.) The victim was a slight of frame, feminine homosexual.
2.) The kid who shot him was a documented white supremacist who has lots of "white power" propaganda. On this basis, he believes homosexuality is an abomination.
3.) The school, tried to keep the gay kid from being gay.
III.) "The defense:"1.) Gay kid was openly gay.
2.) Gay kid occasionally flirted with boys.
3.) Gay kid flirted with his killer before the incident. (though not immediately before or even the same day)
IV.) Argument:Let's even assume for a second that the gay kid really did flirt with his killer repeatedly; that doesn't logically follow as a defense. Break it down into its component parts, a.) Someone who you don't like at all and lets even say are repulsed by; b.) makes advances towards you; c.) but despite these advances doesn't actually do anything (it's flirting). Here, the killer did not like gays and allegedly a gay kid was hitting on him. Imagine, for the sake of argument, it was an incredibly unattractive girl whom no one had any interest in at all who flirted with the guy.... See how it becomes clear when you replace "gay" with "very unattractive girl" as the undesirable party making the undesirable advances, how it is completely unacceptable to freaking kill the person? Much less by pumping bullets into the back of their head in front of an entire classroom of students...?
And, all of that actually assumes the gay kid really did flirt with the white supremacist kid who killed him? It's entirely possible he never, ever flirted with the kid who killed him, which really blows the defense away.
V.) Trial History and ResponseThe prosecution cut the 21 year plea deal rather than risking a second trial that could deadlock like the first one did. The first trial deadlocked.... Think about that, faced with the admitted, uncontested evidence that the jerk shot the gay kid in the back of the freaking head in front of a room full of people, about half the jurors wouldn't convict the white supremacist of first degree murder, which he very clearly committed.... The prosecution was afraid of another deadlock.... Thus, they cut the plea deal to make sure the killer served 21 years rather than going through trial forever....
VI.) Summation:WTF? Where were the parents who let kid have loaded gun and raised kid as white supremacist? How the hell did kid get loaded gun in school? How did he shoot gay kid in the back of the freaking head in the middle of a crowded classroom? How did even part of a jury think "gay kid was gay and flirted with boys," made it less than premeditated murder.... This was not a "heat of passion" defense. He planned to take the gun into school in advance to shoot gay kid. He shot gay kid exactly as planned. They'd never let that fly with a boy shooting an "unappealing" girl or a girl shooting an "unappealing" boy. Moreover, no flirting happened even allegedly that day, but only on prior days.
Bigoted. Gay life not worth as much....