Family of gay boy slain in California blames school

[wildcat]

Click here.

My opinion: the school didn't kill him. Find the person(s) who did.

[XP715]

"King was a ward of the court and living at a shelter for abused, neglected and emotionally troubled children at the time of the shooting."

There's your answer. His family who probably could give a f@#k less about him otherwise has suddenly come out of the woodwork because they're viewing their son's death as a meal ticket and knows the school department has way deeper pockets than whoever actually killed him.

[Drew Dowdell]

Two things:

1. They know who killed him.

2. The school initially tried to blame the killing on the victim by saying "He provoked it by dressing 'gay'"

[Camino LS6]

Am I missing something here?

Seems to me that the school is negligent in allowing a gun to be in the building. The rest is just irrelevent after that.

[A Horse With No Name]

Am I missing something here?

Seems to me that the school is negligent in allowing a gun to be in the building. The rest is just irrelevent after that.

+1

Chris

[VenSeattle]

There are sooo many things wrong with this...

[PONTIAC06]

There are sooo many things wrong with this...

agreed, and it seems there is plenty of blame to go around...

[Cremazie]

They cannot blame the school for allowing their son to dress the way he did. His parents have no idea about the real issue... It is a hate crime and just because he dressed that way doesn't mean he was less of a person.

[daves87rs]

That is just sad in this day and age....

[bobo]

This is a sad story all the way around. There's plenty of blame to spread around, but it's unfortunate that there would be a civil suit. The school allowing Mr. King to dress femininely should not be an issue, but sexual harassment should be an issue if it was knowingly allowed.

[loki]

some may find this a horrible thing to say, but there should not be anything such as a "hate" crime. crime itself is a hateful action, unless it's a need, like stealing food or self defense.

treat people on an individual basis. murder is never random, sometimes the victims are.

[bobo]

In regards to hate crimes, I do think there are things that justify enhanced penalties. For instance, scrawling racist epithets on property goes beyond mere vandalism.

[Drew Dowdell]

Targeting someone because they fall into a specific demographic is worse than just randomly beating up some bystander on the street. The former requires malice and forethought, the latter is just stupidity.

If hate crimes aren't worse than regular crimes, why do we make such a big deal about Auschwitz? That was just a hate crime on an industrial scale.

[cletus8269]

not to detract from the topic, but concentration camps were technically war crimes, or crimes against humanity. jews gypsys homosexuals POW's traitors and political prisoners all went to concentration camps.

Edited August 18, 2008 by cletus8269

[loki]

Targeting someone because they fall into a specific demographic ....

again... group targets. hating "groups" create random targets, because if you can't control things like who your parents are, that includes "race", ethnic background, or growing up situation, then how are they truely "chosen"...

"hate" crimes is just one more way to divide people and make one person (group) worth more than others outside that group... inequality. That thinking is what allows things like the holocaust and such to happen.

[trinacriabob]

We're not kidding, here. There is plenty of blame to go around.

As far as the dress code goes, I don't know what to say. Someone could have informally given him some advice that this would create problems for him and it was up to him to "take it or leave it." At least he came to school wearing clothes. In the 90s, there was a college kid at Berkeley (where else?) that decided that the dress code was too confining for him, so he decided to go to school not wearing ANY clothes. The school ultimately acted and incorporated "anti-nudity" language into its by-laws, code of conduct or policies, and he had to stop. Incidentally, within the last year or so, he made the news, telling of the troubled life he's had since Berkeley that he ended by committing suicide. The nudity part was funny, but this part was not.

As far as the harassment part, I've read that it was bilateral. The boys tormented him for dressing this way and he was reportedly overt in his flirting. If this is true, then neither party was correct.

Lastly, this is the 2nd time in 30 or so years that Oxnard, CA, a nice and not ridiculously priced coastal location in Ventura Co, has been rocked by a teenage trauma. I will never forget as a teen reading in the Los Angeles Times that a young girl was walking past the HS or middle school playing field on her way home and a gang of boys decided to attack her. They did all kinds of weird things to her -- the bottom line is that her reproductive tract was severely damaged. I think the community insisted that these kids should be tried as adults. I think they were tried as adults. The same should happen here. While the perpetrator was probably uncomfortable, nothing justifies what he did. It was premeditated, IMO.

Edited August 18, 2008 by trinacriabob