MovieChat Forums > Valentine Road (2013) Discussion > Trial by juries

Trial by juries

posted 10 years ago by KolaDude
51 replies | jump to latest

This is the fundamental problem with our legal system. You grab twelve random people off of the street, give them a crash course in the law, and ask them to listen to a type of information they have never had to listen to before and make a determination.

The Academy doesn't give out awards this way, neither are Grammy and Golden Globe winners chosen in this fashion. Why are we as a society making life and death decisions in this fashion?

You take 12 random people, put them in a situation they are completely unaccustomed to and shove a bunch of information that they are unfamiliar with down their throats, you leave a lot of room for personal bias to come into play.

I'm not going to even get into my personal opinion of some of the people in this film but if we used legal professionals who have the training and experience to make these decisions they would be able to do a much better job of checking their personal biases at the door and a lot of these cases would turn out differently.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

So because you disagree with the verdict the US should reconsider it's legal system? You're aware that all the jurors voted to convict him for the murder right? The problem was they couldn't agree on the charge.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

the results of this particular trail aside, trial by jury is absolutely ridiculous for the reasons I said. Also, you are wrong. The majority wanted to convict him of manslaughter which is not murder.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

If you read my post you'll notice I said "the jurors voted to convict him for the murder, not of murder. What I was pointing out was that no one thought he was innocent of killing Larry. They just couldn't agree on the count. They way people here are crying about the jurors you'd think they voted to acquit him.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

The fact that they wanted to convict him OF the murder is irrelevant to my original point. The bottom line is that regular people forced to be on juries don't know what they are doing. For the record, this was not voluntary manslaughter. It was premeditated murder, but the jury was too biased and stupid to understand what the standard for murder is.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

There were mitigating factors which were obviously taken into consideration when the jurors came to their conclusion. Such factors allow for lesser charges to be considered, it happens all the time. In countless cases, defendants make deals or plead guilty to lesser charges just to avoid tough sentences. The law isn't as black and white as you think.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

The fact that this happens often strengthens my point that trials by jury are ridiculous because regular people are not legally knowledgeable enough to make these types of decisions. The proposed mitigating factors do not change the fact that this was a premeditated murder.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

You didn't read my whole post. There's cases that never get to trial because the defendants plead out in order to get a better charge/sentence. Getting rid of the jury system wouldn't affect that because those cases never make it to court. If Brandon was being tried by a judge he would've simply plead guilty before the first trial instead of the second.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

If trials were not decided by a jury he wouldn't have the chance to plead guilty to a premeditated murder. the judge would force him to stand trial and he would have been found guilty.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

Defense attorneys regularly make plea deals before trial. Why do you think it would be different without a jury?

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

Prosecuting attorneys are forced to accept plea deals because they are faced with dealing with the impending ineptitude of juries, as was the case with this case. The prosecution had no intention of pleading this murder out until they went through a whole trial that resulted in a mistrial that they later found out was the result of at least one biased juror.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

That's not true. Plea deals occur for a multitude of reasons. First of all though, you assume that prosecutors are automatically guaranteed a conviction if not for juries, which is quite simply not the case. No one can predict what will happen at trial and sometimes it's worth the risk to make a deal in order to ensure some kind of conviction. Also, in a lot of cases the State wants to avoid a costly trial who's outcome isn't guaranteed, so they initiate the process of making a plea deal.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

I am not automatically guaranteeing convictions if not for juries. Juries make just as many mistakes in favor of the prosecution because of bias. In this case, they made a mistake in favor of the defense. The reason why it is risky to seek the truth in a trial is that jurors are inexperienced and under-educated in the law. If jurors knew what they were doing, it wouldn't be a risk to seek out the truth in a courtroom. Also, the prosecution primarily seeks out a plea deal if it makes sense, not because of cost. This case was an example. They actually went through a trial but got a mistrial as a result due to the ignorance and bias of the jury. They pled out because they had no other choice since regular people are so biased and stupid.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

How was the jury ignorant and biased if they all thought he was guilty? The only reason for the mistrial is because they couldn't agree on which count. If anything, you should blame the prosecution for trying a 14 year old as an adult and for not being more reasonable with the charges.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

Thinking he was guilty when part of his defense involved accepting the fact that he was guilty of the act (because of the facts of the case) does not make them not ignorant. A bunch of them thought that a premeditated murder was manslaughter which is ignorant of the law on a basic level.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

The problem is that the over-zealous prosecutor tried a 14 year old as an adult, so she made it such that the jurors would have to convict him of a lesser charge if they didn't think he deserved life in prison.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

they tried him as an adult because he committed an adult crime (EXECUTION OF AN INNOCENT PERSON). also, he could have been convicted of murder and not served life in prison. I'm sure the ignorant jurors didn't realize he could be convicted of murder and didn't have to get life in prison. just another argument for why dumb jurors shouldn't be allowed to decide these things.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

They didn't have to try him as an adult, it was a choice the prosecution made. If you're convicted of first degree murder as an adult in California the chances are that you're getting life without parole. Best case scenario is 25 to life and worst case is death penalty. The prosecutor went to far considering he was only 14 years old. If a 14 year old is an adult then they should also be able to vote, drink, smoke, and have sex with anyone.

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

Every state permits juveniles to be tried as adults for certain criminal offenses. It is estimated that as many as 250,000 youth annually are prosecuted as adults.
I'm afraid your lincoln log world where nothing you deem 'unfair' is permitted simply does not exist.

Turn a fan on full blast, stand in front of it, and pee.

Watch Me Win

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

Fortunately in this case the jurors rejected the notion that a 14 year old should be considered an adult. I know it hurts for you to accept this but that's the legal system and you have to get over it.

The prosecutor messed up and has left a bunch of bitter haters crying over her failure. Pathetic.

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

I know it hurts for you to accept this but that's the legal system and you have to get over it.

I've never had trouble accepting our legal system. I accept that the world is filled with simple minded morons too. If I come here and speak out against them (and in this case TO one of them) it doesn't mean I don't accept that they exist.

You playing with those Lincoln logs again?

Watch Me Win

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

The simple minded moron is the person who can't judge a case based on reason and logic, but rather relies on emotion. Activists like you are exactly the kind of people who shouldn't be on juries. You have your mind made up regardless of the facts.

[–] Helena727 9 years ago

Fortunately in this case the jurors rejected the notion that a 14 year old should be considered an adult.

Not true. They rejected the notion that it was a hate crime (although it clearly was -- LGBT-phobic Brandon shot a gay boy who liked him), and the LGBT-phobic jury clung to the misguided idea that such an "allowable" prejudice justifies assaulting or killing someone.

Bias against LGBT people, and against all women, are the last two societally sanctioned prejudices -- and both are sick, and both need to be eradicated.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

I never said that they HAD to try him as an adult. What I said is that given the criminal's crime (i.e. execution of an innocent person for something beyond trivial) treating him as an adult was warranted as opposed to treating him as a child and waiting for him to commit another heinous act against society once he became an adult. This is especially true given the prosecution's knowledge of his behavior while in juvenile detention (he instigated several unnecessary fights). Regardless of the fact that the chances are that one gets life in prison for being convicted of first degree murder, what I stated is still accurate. The jury still had the option of not giving him life in prison if they wanted. Ignoring the law and acquitting him of the crime he committed is a ridiculous alternative.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

There's no reason to treat him as an adult when he was 14 years old. There's a reason why kids can't vote, drive, smoke or drink. It's not reasonable or just to apply youth laws only when it's convenient. It's not like it was 2 weeks before his 18th birthday.

Kids fighting in juvenile detention is not out of the ordinary, and the only insight we got into it was the prosecutor's heavily biased opinion. The videos had no audio and no context was given (ie had there been previous altercations between the two) so it's impossible to judge based solely on that.

None of the jurors voted to acquit. Seven voted manslaughter and the other 5 split between 1st and 2nd. Also, I don't think it's possible to be convicted of 1st degree and not have a life sentence if it's a hate crime, so the jury did well in rejecting that part of the prosecution's case. The fact that they dropped the hate crime charge for the second trial, and ended up making a deal before the trial even started shows that they knew they were reaching with 1st degree as an adult charge.

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

There's no reason to treat him as an adult when he was 14 years old. There's a reason why kids can't vote, drive, smoke or drink. It's not reasonable or just to apply youth laws only when it's convenient. It's not like it was 2 weeks before his 18th birthday

There's that pesky emotion of yours again. Weird considering how much you seem to indict others for the same thing. Logic and reason dictates that one accept the fact that every state permits juveniles to be tried as adults for certain criminal offenses. Who cares how you feel about juveniles being tried as adults? How is that germane?

Hypocrites can be fun, but I've never understood them.

Watch Me Win

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

Lol, talk about deflection. So now you've resorted to "I know you are but what am I?" Nice. The post wasn't addressed to you, yet somehow you feel obligated to insert your mindless drivel. It seems you've developed an unhealthy obsession with me.

Who cares how you feel

I never said it matters how I feel, you're the only one who thinks their opinion is the be all end all. What's important is that many of the jurors felt the same as I did, and Brandon got a sentence that was relatively just for the crime he committed when his age and the circumstances are taken into account.

You seem severely butthurt by the outcome, that makes it even more enjoyable to watch you b!tch and wine here so keep it up champ.

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

What's important is that many of the jurors felt the same as I did

Impossible, as you were not privy to all of the testimony, all of the evidence, all of the circumstances. You read a newspaper, saw it on the news. You don't know how any of those individuals felt.

This is what I'm talking about- you lie to make yourself sound informed. You were a spectator. Please, stop insulting the very concept of intelligence with your Monday morning QB routine.

b!tch and wine

No beer?

Watch Me Win

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

If you want to argue that people under 18 shouldn't be tried as adults, talk to your legislators. But, the fact is that he was legally being tried as an adult. At that point, it is not the jury's place to decide whether he should have been tried as an adult for themselves. Their only responsibility was to determine the merits of the case before them without considering his age. The fact that they admit that they were unable to do this proves my point which is that jurors are incapable of overcoming their emotions and subjectivities in order to try a case properly.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

I know that 7 of them voted for manslaughter and all of them rejected the notion that it was a hate crime, so I think it's safe to say that many of them felt the same as I did. You act like there's so many ways to interpret what happened, when in fact it's pretty cut and dry.

You don't know how any of those individuals felt.

Lol, three of them were interviewed in the movie specifically to discuss how they felt. You're not very good at this are you..

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

What's important is that many of the jurors felt the same as I did

Lol, three of them were interviewed in the movie specifically to discuss how they felt

3/12= .25

25% of sometyhing now qualifies as 'many'?

Pretty cool.

so I think it's safe to say that many of them felt the same as I did

Again, unless you did more than just read about the case in the papers there is no way you and any of the jurors felt the same way. It's like saying you felt the same way as an athlete on your favorite team if they win or lose. You can guess all day long, but ultimately you have to admit you possess insufficient data.

Watch Me Win

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

7/12 = 0.583

58% felt it should be manslaughter, just as I felt.

12/12 = 1

100% of them felt it wasn't a hate crime, just as I felt.

Keep trying son...

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

The prosecutor is the one who was guided by emotion when she chose to ignore all of Larry's behaviour leading up to the shooting and trying to charge Brandon with a hate crime. You say the jurors couldn't overcome emotion but that ignores the fact that they were all ready to convict him, they just couldn't agree on the charge.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

Nothing the prosecutor did violated the law. She had the ability to apply to have Brandon charged with a hate crime and he was. What the jury did violated the law. They willingly ignored what the law asked them to do. The fact that they were all ready to convict him of A crime is irrelevant to my point. The law allows for the prosecution to argue for a defendant to be tried as an adult. The jury is not allowed to just ignore that on their own.

Again, my point is valid. Jurors are dumb and unable to properly do their job as jurors under the law.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

You don't seem to understand my point. For all you know, the main reason the majority of the jurors voted for manslaughter could've been because they took into account the mitigating circumstances, the main one being that Larry was bullying Brandon. That has nothing to do with age, it deals with the facts of the case and comes down to which legal team did a better job in presenting their case. No doubt there's a lot of dumb jurors out there, the Trayvon trial being a perfect example, but these ones all voted to convict, and you can't say it was only about age because most of them have never given their reasons. The three who were interviewed made it clear that along the disagreeing about the adult charge, they also believed Brandon was being bullied. And all of them rejected the hate crime notion, so one can only assume that they thought Brandon had other reasons for his actions, such as the fact that he was being bullied and humiliated. So that just means the defense put on a better case, not that they're dumb.

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

For all you know, the main reason the majority of the jurors voted for manslaughter could've been because they took into account the mitigating circumstances

Which means for all you know it WASN'T the main reason.

Could we be getting closer to your admitting you lack sufficient data? Once you do we can move on to the next lesson in obvious observations...water is wet. I'm anticipating some difficulty in getting you to admit that too.

Watch Me Win

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

You don't have very good reading comprehension do you...

I never said I know the reason, what I said was that there's no evidence to suggest age was the only reason he wasn't convicted of 1st degree, so it's impossible to blame the jury for something you don't know. You're very good at winning arguments against strawmen, congratulations.

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

First of all, you were the one who tried to bring up the belief that his age is a reason for the jury to not convict him of first degree murder. Hopefully, you'll stop bringing up his age and him being tried as an adult since it's not relevant to the fact that those jurors engaged in a gross dereliction of their duty. If anything admitting that they were unable to ignore Brandon's age (one of their explicitly stated duties) shows how bad those people were at being jurors.

Second, you keep saying that the fact that he felt bullied and humiliated (something that I think was made up after the fact but we can agree to disagree on that point) as a mitigating factor that somehow makes this not a premeditated murder. All that is is the reason that he committed the premeditated execution, not some kind of mitigating factor that lessens the nature of the crime. The bottom line is that because of his anger towards the victim, he planned out and executed premeditated murder. The fact that he had a reason that made it justifiable in his head does not make it not premeditated murder.

There is nothing the defense could have said or did say that would allow any reasonably intelligent person who has checked their biases at the door to not think that this was a premeditated murder. AS such, I feel quite comfortable calling the jurors who came to their erroneous legal conclusions dumb (at least as their intelligence pertains to the law).

If you honestly think that this was not premeditated murder because Brandon felt humiliated and bullied and then asked no authority figures for help against Larry before planning and killing Larry the next day, you're no better than the jurors who are unable to either understand the law even after it is explained to them or unable to objectively judge the facts of a case in an unbiased fashion.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

Requisite 'jurors didn't agree it was a hate crime' post is forthcoming.

Maybe he's trying to reach 1000 of those posts? He's gotta be close.

Watch Me Win

[–] imadbasayev 10 years ago

Brandon felt humiliated and bullied and then asked no authority figures for help

From wiki:

Later that day [the day before the shooting] King was seen "parading" back and forth in high-heeled boots and makeup in front of McInerney. According to a teacher, a group of boys were laughing at McInerney who was getting visibly upset and assistant principal Joy Epstein, noticing McInerney's reaction, wagged her finger at him.

The school turned a blind eye to Larry's behaviour. This was confirmed by several teachers at trial. Whether you like it or not, jurors are allowed to take mitigating factors into consideration, otherwise most of the time there would be no need for a trial.

The shooting wasn't confined to one event. It was a situation that built up over time and could've most likely been avoided had the school acted differently. Obviously that doesn't justify what Brandon did (which is why you don't see anyone arguing his innocence), but it gives it context, which when taken into account explains why the majority of the jurors correctly voted for manslaughter and a few for 2nd. You can't claim biases simply because they believed the defense's case.

If your argument is that all premeditated murder should automatically be first degree regardless of circumstance then you're also wrong:

mitigating circumstances n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the prosecutor charges or influence reduction of the penalty upon conviction. Example: a young man shoots his father after years of being beaten, belittled, sworn at, and treated without love. "Heat of passion," or "diminished capacity" are forms of such mitigating circumstances.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mitigating+circumstances

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

Did any jurors vote for first degree murder? Where does this notion come from that what the majority votes is correct and somehow rewrites the minority?

Saying the jurors felt the way you did is patently absurd. They heard testimony. They deliberated. What did you do? Read the VC Star a few times?

Are you that obnoxious so as to suggest that juries make the right call by the simple virtue of making one at all? Or that juries are 'correct' when they agree with your 6 o clock news informed estimations of a given case?

Watch Me Win

[–] KolaDude 10 years ago

Your post in no way refutes the fact that Brandon asked no authority figure for help. Bottom line, he had other options and chose premeditated murder. He should have been fully held accountable for that choice.

The necessity for trials arise for many reason, the primary reason being that the facts are often in dispute (this was not true in this case, the necessity of a trial here was due to the fact that the defendant was not willing to accept full blame for what he had done).

There are mitigating factors that make a premeditated murder not first degree murder (a classic example being someone who could not tell right from wrong when they planned and committed the crime). However, being made fun of by your friends because someone parades in front of you and then asks you to be their valentine is not a mitigating factor that turns premeditated murder into manslaughter.

The jurors were biased first by brandon's age (which they were legally obligated to not be) and also were clearly biased by the fact that Larry was a boy that wore women's clothing. If it had been a fat, pimply girl that did the same sorts of things causing Brandon to be embarrassed and Brandon shot and killed her, I bet they would have no problem finding him guilty of 1st degree murder.

Anyway, you apparently believe that if someone upsets you over time and you plan out a murder and then execute it, that is manslaughter. That's pretty ridiculous in my opinion. If a skin head called me the n-word every chance they got for a month that would be very upsetting to me. If I decided to plan out and then kill that person for that reason, that would still be 1st degree murder. Being upset by someone over time is not a mitigating factor that turns 1st degree murder into manslaughter.

BE YOUR OWN FANBOY

[–] igetitfaster 10 years ago

If it had been a fat, pimply girl that did the same sorts of things causing Brandon to be embarrassed

You mean if she 'sexually harrassed' him? Isn't that what we call it when one middle school age kid likes another middle aged school kid?

Teachers everywhere better rein in fat pimply 8th grade girls with crushes on boys or we are going to have a string of murders.

When Michael Crichton wrote Disclosure he should have considered the main characters to be 8th graders. Would have been more believable methinks.

Watch Me Win

[–] davidwile 10 years ago

Hey folks,

I have not watched the film as yet, and I never even heard about this killing before. Obviously I do not have any information on which to base any informed decision about the trial and how well or poorly the prosecution, the defense, the judge, and the jury performed.

Given what I noted above, I have served as a juror on several criminal cases (including murder), and I have testified in numerous civil cases as an investigator. Based on my experience serving as a juror on criminal cases, I can most definitely say there are a lot of dumb folks serving on criminal juries, and I never served on a jury where about half of the jurors obviously had no idea of the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." In my experience, there was always a presumption of guilt rather than innocence by most of the jurors. In every trial on which I served, there was also at least one person who complained about wanting to get a quick verdict so they could get home for supper, the ball game, or whatever. Since then, I have often thought I would seriously consider a bench trial rather than a jury trial if I were ever charged with a crime.

I believe it was the original poster who has repeatedly noted the jury in this case did not do what they were required to do in respect to considering the defendant as an adult. To this grand proclamation, I would ask if anyone ever heard of the term "jury nullification?" The judge can tell the jury all about the law and what it requires of the jury, but the fact is, when the case is given to the jury for consideration, the jury can go wherever they like. If the jury decides they disagree with the charges as brought by the prosecution, they can vote to find the defendant innocent. In some instances this may be good, and in other instances this may be bad, but in all instances the very idea of jury nullification is a legitimate part of our justice system.

One well informed and reasonable juror can keep an innocent person from being found guilty, but one biased or prejudiced and unreasonable juror can also force a mistrial. Our justice system is not perfect by any means. It is based on old English law and re-defined by our own Constitution. I do not know what happened in the subject case, but I do know some jurors can be very dumb, I know police and prosecutors can abuse their powers, and I also know defense attorneys can abuse the system as well. As a regular citizen, I have no control over the police, the prosecutors, the judges, nor the defense attorneys. All I can do if called to serve on a jury is to leave my bias and prejudice at home, do my best to analyze the case presented on the merits of our justice system, and finally do my best to serve the system as a single juror.

I look forward to seeing this film, but I doubt if I will know all there is to know about the case after watching it. Filmmakers are also able to "abuse" the system if they choose to do so.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] Helena727 9 years ago

I look forward to seeing this film, but I doubt if I will know all there is to know about the case after watching it. Filmmakers are also able to "abuse" the system if they choose to do so.

If you've still not seen it, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by how balanced this film is and by the film-makers' inclination to raise questions rather than push an agenda.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

[–] Helena727 9 years ago

The prosecutor is the one who was guided by emotion when she chose to ignore all of Larry's behaviour leading up to the shooting ...

imadbasayev, by your "logic," every girl or woman who has ever been subjected to the unwanted verbal advances of some man has the right to assault him. And yet if that were *ever* sanctioned in this misogynistic society, I'm quite sure you'd be uber-vocal in your condemnation of each and every such woman.

Why are you so angry, so filled with hate, so unable to live and let live? Just as humans' bodies are simultaneously alike and unique, so are humans' psyches. Larry had the right express his sexuality; Brandon had the right to disapprove -- but he did NOT have the right to harm Larry because he (B.) was so psychologically frail that he couldn't cope with some attention from a gay or bi boy.

Your right to swing your arm ends where my body begins. So does your right to legislate what anyone can/cannot feel sexually, can/cannot wear, and can/cannot do with another sexually consenting adult.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

[–] bmoviebimbo 9 years ago

its

[–] Helena727 9 years ago

You're aware that all the jurors voted to convict him for the murder right?

imadbasayev, your post simply proves the OP's point about general ignorance. The jurors did not "all" vote "to convict him for the murder." Seven of the jurors believed he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter (which is not murder), and five thought he was guilty of murder. In the various nations' legal systems that I know of, homicide -- the killing of another person -- includes various charges; in the US, it includes first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. These are different charges; each carries a different penalty and a different stigma.

And, people are convicted of crimes, not for crimes.

And, "its" is a possessive pronoun; "it's" is a contraction of "it is."

And, the past participle of "plead" is "pled" or "pleaded."

And, jurors disagreed on the "charge," not on the "count" (which is different.)

And and and ....

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

[–] imadbasayev 8 years ago

Moron, that's why I specifically wrote they voted to convict him. I added the words "for the murder" because I don't disagree that he killed the kid deliberately, I just happen to believe, along with many, many other people, that he was pushed and bullied to it by the dead fairy. Next time try to understand what you're reading before criticizing it, you dump truck.

[–] Samuraibro 8 years ago

"Dead fairy"? Wow, you're repulsive.

[–] imadbasayev 8 years ago

What's repulsive is that people defend and justify the sexual bullying of a teenager simply because the bully was a degenerate sodomite.

[–] PirateMetalFan 9 years ago

Kola, wait till you are picked for jury duty. The other guy is right. It's not black and white at all.