Topic: It is never the parents' fault.

[Pugnate]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26218530/

I hate parents like these...

[Cobra951]

It's always the parents' fault.  They had you, and they raised you.

The family's claim, filed last week in Ventura County Superior Court, said administrators and teachers failed to enforce the school's dress code when King wore feminine clothing and makeup to school.

So it was the school's responsibility to check what the kid was wearing for school.  Of course.  (Right.)

None of this excuses some thug carrying in a gun and shooting him.  I get into huge arguments with my brother about charging minors as adults for some crimes.  I should use this case as ammo next time.

[WindAndConfusion]

Option Sensible: Sue the school district because a bully murdered your kid on school grounds.
Option Retarded: Sue the school district because they let your kid wear make-up.

These being parents we're talking about, the second option was inevitable.

[Quemaqua]

Sue the kid for having no fucking taste in fashion.

[Ghandi]

Sue the kid for having no fucking taste in fashion.

I know. Dresses and makeup are so 2007.

I feel bad for the kid. He was probably so fucked up because he had terrible parents. What better way to piss them off than do dress like a girl?

[Xessive]

This is pretty retarded. I agree with Wind on the idiotic choice of claim.

King, an eighth-grader at E.O. Green Junior High School, was shot in February. Classmate Brandon McInerney pleaded not guilty to the shooting last week. He was charged as an adult and also faces a charge of a committing a hate crime.

An 8th grader is being charged as an adult? How old is this kid?

I know it's a serious crime but a 13-15 year old is a little young to be considered an adult.

Either way I hope the little pussy gets what's coming to him for cowardly using a gun. You have a problem with somebody (for whatever reason) you kick their asses the old-fashioned way, you don't resort to guns (pansy). Equally, the other party may defend themselves the old-fashioned way.

[Cobra951]

An 8th grader is being charged as an adult? How old is this kid?

I know it's a serious crime but a 13-15 year old is a little young to be considered an adult.

Either way I hope the little pussy gets what's coming to him for cowardly using a gun.

You just stated both sides of the argument.  As far as I'm concerned, if you kill someone intentionally out of anything other than fear for yourself or those you love, you forfeit your life.  Age has nothing to do with it.  Charging him as an adult and convicting him of a capital crime is the only way to make that happen.  Otherwise the fucker will walk free in a few years, when he turns 18.  Bullshit.  He has no business being out on the streets, ever.  He proved that.

[Quemaqua]

I think that's harsh.  I agree some kids are just deranged and fucked up beyond repair, but without knowing the specifics of the situation it's impossible to say if there may be something else at work.  And some kids can change.  Adults have far less likelihood of rehabilitation, but some kids still have a chance.

[Cobra951]

Rehabilitation is only one of the criteria for taking away someone's liberty (or life, if rehabilitation is ruled out as a possibility).  The others are:

Deterrence - If you kill, you lose your life, just like when you walk off a 10th story balcony.  The laws of physics are absolute and self-enforcing.  Criminal laws lag woefully behind.  Why not kill someone you hate as a minor, if you know you're getting off light?  Few people are deterred by religious beliefs these days.

Retribution - If the justice system doesn't deliver proportional justice, parents, brothers or sons will.  Endless vendettas are not good for anybody.

Protection of society - Dangerous animals shouldn't be roaming the streets, even if they look like human beings.  They need to be caged or put to sleep.

[Quemaqua]

Well, I don't want to sound soft or like a hippy... I'm not down on letting people get off on all the bullshit they do these days.  I agree that people need to pay the price for their actions.  But with kids, if you can prove the guy isn't a straight-up sociopath, and that he might benefit from help, I'd say it's worth the chance.

[Ghandi]

As far as I'm concerned, if you kill someone intentionally out of anything other than fear for yourself or those you love, you forfeit your life.  Age has nothing to do with it.

At a certain age, most will understand the importance of life and the implications associated with it. Lawfully, I agree with you. But age definitely factors in as far as social and moral obligations.

It's hard to argue that a 14-year-old understands the ramifications of his actions as much as a 30-year-old does, even if the results are the same. Should they pay the same price? Perhaps, and I might argue as such in many circumstances. But to say that age has nothing to do with it is wrong.

[gpw11]

Cold blooded murderers should always be tried as adults as far as I'm concerned.  Of course, its always more complicated than that (manslaughter vs. 1st degree murder, etc.) but I have trouble believing that someone who at the age of 14 kills someone for simply wearing a dress could ever not be a risk. Either they don't understand the effects of their actions or they do - it doesn't matter the danger posed to everyone else is the same. We understand the effects and in a case such as this I'd say they gave up the chance society might make on them already.

[Quemaqua]

I dunno'.  I've been tempted to shoot people for less.

[gpw11]

Um yeah, but they deserve it.  You and I are those special people who get to decide who lives and who dies.

[WindAndConfusion]

Que has twice shot men for wearing dresses, but that was because he didn't realize they were trannies when he picked them up.

Well, he didn't realize it the first time, anyway.

[Ghandi]

Oh, so that's how you two met?

[Quemaqua]

It was those big knockers that won me over.

[WindAndConfusion]

That's not how it happened at all.