am i missing something? HE is the murderer here. why does this film try to justify it or tell any part of his side. he was some wanna be neo natzi who shot and killed a kid because he was gay. he doesn't get to have his side shown.
this is ridiculous.
Its America...douchebaggery is glorified here.
Watch Me Win
This was very upsetting to see as well. Sadly, people are still afraid of homosexuality. Guaranteed if Larry shot Brandon at school, Larry would given the life sentence. Our justice system is so flawed.
shareIf you think this documentary is bad...
About a year ago I actually came across a documentary that was fully about Brandon and it made him look like the innocent one in all of this. I didn't know who he was or what it was about at the time so I just kind of watched it mindlessly, but I remember seeing those bracelets and seeing all the interviews of his supporters. They never even mentioned Larry's side of the story.
I've never fooled anyone. I've let people fool themselves.
They don't support what he did, they sympathize with the fact that he was bullied and humiliated by Larry. Also, many believe that he shouldn't have been tried as an adult and that there's no evidence that it was a hate crime.
shareNormal, well adjusted individuals do not sympathize with anyone who commits a heinous premeditated crime in response to something as benign as an unwanted crush.
Abnormal, maladjusted individuals would because they are seeing a fellow abnormal maladjusted individual like themselves.
We appear to have some of those abnormal maladjusted individuals on this message board as well.
Oh well...we can't all have had decent parents.
Watch Me Win
i just thought it was very sad. and it made me feel hate in my heart for the brandon supporters. and i don't want to feel like that because then i'm no better than them. who in their right mind would say larry bullied brandon? bully? really? the kid was so small and wore heals and a dress. i doubt he was much of a threat. brandon was just hateful and probably disgusted because he hates gays and "wanted to make it stop" so he committed premeditated murder. i hope anyone who sympathizes with this guy gets one of there loved ones taken away from them by someone else and that the killer has supporters just to rub it in their faces.
shareBullying doesn't have to be physical. By publicly giving Brandon unwanted attention, knowing it would embarrass him, Larry was using the fact that he was gay as a tool to bully Brandon. This wasn't a one time thing, he did it several times and not just to Brandon, though Brandon was the focus. When his teacher confronted him about his behaviour, Larry said he liked to make the boys squirm. That's what you call a mitigating factor, and the jurors rightly recognized this as well as many other people.
shareMaladjusted are the ones who ignore bullying and want to treat 14 year olds as adults. Should people that age also be allowed to vote and buy alcohol/cigarettes? How about driving and getting a gun license, should that be allowed too since 14 year olds are now adults according to some people?
shareShould people that age also be allowed to vote and buy alcohol/cigarettes? How about driving and getting a gun license, should that be allowed too since 14 year olds are now adults according to some people?
Maybe. But I certainly won't rule out a proper punishment for a crime simply because someone doesn't enjoy certain priviliges. It would be patently absurd to do so. You grasping at straws now?
Watch Me Win
You can't even admit that a 14 year old isn't an adult and would even consider them being able to buy alcohol/cigarettes/guns and I'm grasping at straws? Nice try there budz.
shareOur current laws prohibit the sale of alcohol/cigarettes/guns to persons under 18 or 21 depending on the state. If one sells any of those things to a person under the age they have broken the law. Committed a crime. A crime that they knew they were committing. People who knowingly commit crimes are punished to the full extent of the law.
Look it up. You'll find that murder is a crime as well, subject to the same consequences for the perpetrator.
Not sure why this is such a problem for you, but then again look at your profile picture. I don't think I'm talking to MR. SAT's.
Watch Me Win
Then why does juvenile court exist? Shoudn't everyone be subject to the same laws and punishments regardless age?
sharePremeditated murder.
All murder cases have mitigating circumstances. You say it as though this case is unique.
As I've said before, every inmate in San Quentin can give you a reason why they did what they did. Could be as simple as "I was broke and needed money".
I mean, who wants to be broke? Could drive someone to murder.
Weird how we still put these people behind bars or put them to death isn't it?
It isn't fair right? They had a reason and yet there wasn't any bracelets or sympathy for them.
Watch Me Win
Being a 14 year old teen who's been bullied and embarrassed in front of his friends isn't the same as a grown up who's broke and kills for money. If anything, killing for money is an aggravating factor. What was that you said about grasping at straws? You're not the brightest star in the sky are you..?
shareI am having trouble interpreting this chimera world you believe you live in. Im speaking about the Earth we live on where things dont conform to our fantasies. You are speaking about some play-do world of your design where things contort to your desires at convenience.
Watch Me Win
Being a 14 year old teen who's been bullied and embarrassed in front of his friends isn't the same as a grown up who's broke and kills for money.
When did I say it was acceptable? Even the jurors everyone hates so much didn't want to acquit him, the deadlock was over what to charge him with. They all agreed though that it wasn't a hate crime.
shareA child/teen who commits a PREMEDITATED crime (and yes it was premeditated, he could have easily left the gun but no he went back inside and got the gun. Plus telling Larry's friends they won't see him again) should be tried as an adult. It's very sad people's environment can drag them into crime but I really cannot see any sympathy for Brandon. He got to graduate, he will see his family and friends again. He can move on with his life and put it past him but those who have Larry in their lives cannot. They weren't even allowed to name a tree after him, that is just cruel. But just my opinion how wrong this all went.
shareExactly! He will be released when he's 39. Still plenty of time to have a nice life. Larry is dead! His life is over.
shareHow can you sympathize with the individual who started the entire pattern of bullying when he picked on Larry King? Seriously, you're basically sympathizing with the instigator, who in reality, brought the retaliatory bullying on himself.
What evidence is there that Brandon bullied Larry? The movie never mentioned anything and neither did the few articles I read. Please link your source.
shareWhat evidence is there that Brandon bullied Larry?
Anectdotal, just like the evidence that Larry bullied Brandon.
Can't have one without the other, despite how badly you yearn for such a fallacy.
Watch Me Win
Actually, Larry's behaviour has never been in dispute. All the things he did with regard to Brandon and the other boys has been docutmented and corroborated by other students and teachers. He did it all in public in front of Brandon's friends and peers, because he got off on the attention, which is why Brandon went *beep*
sharehe was bullied by Larry????? you believe that defense bullshyt?
Clearly Larry was the victim from the word go.
He killed Larry because he has unwanted advances made by him by a homosexual. he could have just walked away, but he didn't. this was clearly a hate crime.
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share
he was bullied by Larry????? you believe that defense bullshyt?
Clearly Larry was the victim from the word go.
Brandon was a victim too. His mother was a drug addict and when she and the kids became homeless, she sent Brandon to live with his incredibly racist father. His oldest brother had strong ties to neo-nazis. Brandon was indoctrinated from a young age. With that said, he made the choice to shoot a kid in the head. That's where the sympathies end. At this point, Brandon is likely a lost cause whose only refuge is the white supremacy groups in prison. I saw the stuff about him graduating a year or two ago. He did write a letter taking responsibility for what happened but he has shown no remorse at all.
share
Watch Us Win
Why do you idiots keep saying "why does this documentary support Brandon?" ...
The filmmakers are not the people in the film. Its a documentary about the murder, why wouldnt they interview the defense attorneys? or show footage of the 'save brandon' camp if its there? If you want a one sided documentary where they only talk about how sad it was that Larry got killed, then make your own. sheesh.
I <3 Emily Blunt
Actually, this documentary is blatantly biased against Brandon. It seems to glorify all Larry's supporters and deliberately humiliates the pro-Brandon jurors. The fact that it shows that there actually might be another side to the story in the reason for this idiotic thread.
I would give this documentary a low grade because the bias is too overt, and because there are too many interview clips of kids rambling on and on.
What's funny is that perhaps the most informative person interviewed was the bigoted Hispanic teacher, who had taught Larry the year before. She does spew a lot of nonsense, but she also makes the salient points, (1)middle-school aged boys ARE homophobic, and (2) she went to the principal a week earlier and told her that if someone didn't stop Larry's acting out, the boys were going to take him out back and beat him to death.
I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout
She does spew a lot of nonsense, but she also makes the salient points
Let's examine them, shall we?
(1)middle-school aged boys ARE homophobic
Hmmm. Middle school logic solves this one pretty easily. See, Larry was a middle-school aged boy. He was obviously not homophobic. How can this be?
middle-school aged boys ARE homophobic, Larry was a middle-school aged boy
So much for that 'point'- to say nothing of the fact that it is her ridiculous and irresponsible opinion about the whole of middle-school aged boys.
2) she went to the principal a week earlier and told her that if someone didn't stop Larry's acting out, the boys were going to take him out back and beat him to death.
Yet no physical violence ever occurred. Only 1 boy did anything, and that was to kill him from behind with a gun. I'm not sure what her 'salient' point is here? That she can project onto others, specifically 'middle-school aged boys'.
again- this is, at best, an opinion. An opinion that is really quite offensive to the boys of that school at that time as well.
If you're giving out grades, start with your own post. I can't see it getting higher than a D. Credit for at least typing it.
Watch Me Win
yeh, she fueled this fire too, i bet, with comments and such where other people heard her spewing her hatred.
she's a danger to children and should be removed from teaching.
How dare she condem someone to hell?
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share
Using a gay boy to prove that straight boys aren't homophobic is the height of idiocy. You really are a moron. And there was more than one teacher complaining/warning of Larry's behaviour yet you choose to play dumb and act like everyone was lying. Pathetic.
shareNow you are saying there were other teachers against what Larry was doing? But the rest of the time most people like to act as if everyone was on his side and poor Brandon was all alone. This movie showed how many homophobic teachers and people were against Larry. The teacher practically saying he should have been beaten should be fired.
shareThe teachers weren't against Larry, they were concerned that his behavious would cause him problems with other students. The problem was that the lesbian AP chose to ignore all the warnings and in fact, her and the teacher who gave the dress seemed to have encouraged Larry's behaviour.
shareThe problem was that the lesbian AP chose to ignore all the warnings and in fact, her and the teacher who gave the dress seemed to have encouraged Larry's behaviour.
It's all there in the coroner's report. The problem was that a bullet was shot into Larry's head. It lead to his death.
Watch Me Win
The coroner's report doesn't explain the circumstances that lead to the murder.
sharelead to the murder
Right. Not involuntary manslaughter, not aggravated assault, not criminally negligent homicide...murder is the word you used.
Murder: the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). A person who commits murder is called a murderer.
Again, your word.
Appreciate your input.
Watch Me Win
The fact that he killed Larry has never been in dispute. It didn't occur in a vacuum though, there were mitigating circumstances which the jurors took into consideration.
mur·der
[mur-der]
noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)
And from your same wiki page:
Mitigating circumstances
Some countries allow conditions that "affect the balance of the mind" to be regarded as mitigating circumstances. This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder.
Try again budz.
Some countries...that's pretty cool. So I guess they are taking the trial on the road to argue the case in all courts around the world? If you can tell us what 'some countries' do has to do with what the country the crime took place in does I would love to hear it.
This means that a person may be found guilty of "manslaughter" on the basis of "diminished responsibility" rather than murder.
Again, pretty cool but you referred to the act as murder, not manslaughter. Tell you what...when you make up your mind come on back and talk with the adults.
there were mitigating circumstances which the jurors took into consideration
As opposed to what? Putting their fingers in their ears and not listening to the defense attorney? Can you provide a case in which this happened? Pretty sure it would result in a mistrial. All jurors take mitigating circumstances into consideration- by definition that is what a juror does.
Like I said, when you make up your mind and have anything resembling a sound argument do come back.
Prevail
"Some countries" includes the US. Whether I call it a murder or killing doesn't make a difference as I'm not speaking in legal terms. You can have fun playing semantics but it has no bearing on my argument and makes you look like a fool.
Jurors don't have to accept the mitigating circumstances simply because the defense presents them. They have the choice to believe them or reject them. In this case they made the right decision by taking them into consideration, much to the dismay of the ignorant and emotional clowns who were calling for the head of a bullied 14 year old.
You really seem to get your panties in a knot over this. Why so emotional?
Jurors don't have to accept the mitigating circumstances simply because the defense presents them. They have the choice to believe them or reject them.
Irrelevant. They hear the circumstances as part of the trial. They must take them into consideration by virtue of hearing them. As far as what they accept or reject, you'll forgive me if I don't recognize your fantasy that you're an X-Man with the ability to read the minds of other human beings of whom you've never met or spoken to. If I recall, there were more than the 3 jurors shown in the film, so please...don't insult our intelligence further by suggesting having heard them we know what the others were thinking. I've served on a trial jury- it isn't a hive mind.
Also, it has nothing to do with emotion. It is checks and balances. If you get to come here and practice dbaggery, I get to call you out on it. Be really cool if you don't criticize others for doing something and in the same post do it yourself. It's kinda weird. Are you ok?
Watch Me Win
Lol, so it's irrelevant whether jurors believed the defense or not? You're really grasping at straws. All the jurors rejected the notion that it was a hate crime and a majority thought it was voluntary manslaughter, so obviously they must have believed a lot of what the defense argued. You're very illogical and emotional over this case. Why is that? It's obviously affected you personally to the point where you'll attack anyone that has a differing view. Don't hold it in, share with everyone what's bothering you...
shareAll the jurors rejected...
Following many delays and a change of venue, McInerney's first trial began on July 5, 2011, in the Los Angeles district of Chatsworth. That trial ended on September 1, 2011 when the judge, Charles Campbell, declared a mistrial due to the jury being unable to reach a unanimous verdict.
The trial ended without a verdict and was declared a mistrial by the judge, Ventura County Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell, on Thursday, September 1, 2011, after the jury reported that they were hopelessly deadlocked and unable to reach a unanimous verdict. There were eight weeks of testimony with almost 100 witnesses, and the jury had been deliberating since August 26, 2011. The jury had taken four votes and the last vote was split between seven jurors voting for voluntary manslaughter and five jurors voting for either first-degree or second-degree murder.
What exactly was that post supposed to show? I already said most voted for voluntary manslaughter and you just confirmed it with your post.
If you're somehow suggesting that they didn't reject the hate crime aspect then you need to do more reading:
But jurors universally rejected the prosecution's contention that the shooting was a hate crime
I've yet to refer to this as a hate crime. Before you suggest that someone do more reading, try it yourself.
You keep talking about emotion, but isn't that what would obscure your view to the point that you can't discern one poster from the next? Or are you just deliberately being dishonest again?
The next time I argue anything about a hate crime will be the first time.
it's fun watching you fail.
I guess this is where the predictable IMDB cliches portion of your posts begins. Cool.
Watch Me Win
Now you're in denial about what you wrote, cute. Why don't you explain what the purpose of that post was (the one with the quoted text), and why you highlighted the part in red? You did it in response to my writing that "All the jurors rejected [the notion that it was a hate crime]."
Come on, let's hear it. If it wasn't to [incorrectly] address the universally rejected hate crime aspect then why did you quote that sentence from me? It'll be fun to see you scramble for another mindless and sarcastic response that does nothing to deflect from the fact that you've proven yourself to be an ignorant, irrational and emotional jack@ss. You've already lost and you don't even know it, keep trying though...
All of my posts about this topic remain on the threads. You just copy and paste any post where I ever said I thought it should have been a hate crime. That is all you need to do.
Think about it...that's all you need to do to back up your claims.
It doesn't matter if it was considered a hate crime or not. First degree murder is punishable by 25-life in prison. Go to prisons around the country- you will find plenty of inmates, sentenced to life for murder, with no hate crime charge.
If anything it sounds you condone a situation where the murderer weaseled out of a proper punishment due to a technicality. Plenty of juveniles are serving life sentences for less heinous and more ambiguous circumstances. This victory dance you continue to do based on the fact that it wasn't deemed a hate crime is weird. Is that how you determine the morality of an action? Whether or not a panel of jurors agree on a guideline based definition of a hate crime? Jurors found OJ not guilty too. I guess that wraps that up too huh? OJ didn't do it- because the jurors say so.
Pretty neat.
You've already lost and you don't even know it
Based on how you seem to define a win, I'll take that.
Watch Me Win
[deleted]
It's not so simple when one takes into account the fact that he was being bullied and humiliated by the kid he shot. The reason it's important that the hate crime charge was rejected is because by charging him with that the prosecution was ignoring all of Larry's provocative behaviour leading up to the shooting. Thankfully the jury knew better than to buy into the prosecution's lies.
shareThe reason it's important that the hate crime charge was rejected is because by charging him with that the prosecution was ignoring all of Larry's provocative behaviour leading up to the shooting.
Or perhaps the prosecution was being responsible in their due dilligence to keep a dangerous precedent from being set. This murder was planned and deliberate.
Thankfully the jury knew better than to buy into the prosecution's lies.
Even if what you said were true- that they ignored his behavior- how are those lies? It's a lie if they do their job? How does that work? By refusing to categorize his behavior the same way the defense did? Isn't it incumbent upon both the defense and the prosecution to frame their arguments the way they did?
The lack of hate crime charge in this case really isn't even the issue for the more lucid members of this discussion. It's that anyone would not consider it a 1st degree murder is disturbing.
Perhaps the real hate crime took place in that jury room.
Watch Me Win
It's a lie because the prosecutor had no evidence that it was an actual hate crime, yet still chose to charge him with one. She knew of Larry's bullying but chose to pretend like it never occurred. That's called overreaching, just like trying him as an adult for first degree. She screwed up and now you cry and whine about it every day.
shareSo every prosecutor who did not win their case was lying. I think I see your *ahem* logic.
well thought out.
At least you spelled 'whine' right finally.
Watch Me Win
All those words and still no answer as to why you posted that quote in response to my statement about the jurors rejecting the hate crime aspect. Are you too scared to admit you made a mistake? Does your ego not allow it? What is it? You obviously thought this:
due to the jury being unable to reach a unanimous verdict
Did any of them think it was first degree murder, after considering the mitigating circumstances?
Watch Me Win
So every prosecutor who did not win their case was lying.
Still can't answer my question huh? Your ego's so big you can't admit when you've screwed up.
shareIt's a lie because the prosecutor had no evidence that it was an actual hate crime
If mitigating circumstances show that Brandon felt bullied or harrassed, we have to admit why. It was based on Larry's sexual orientation. Larry didn't threaten Brandon physically, he didn't take his lunch money. The whole silly notion that Brandon was 'bullied' is based on Larry's sexual orientation. So these mitigating circumstances that you are relying on to absolve Brandon are the very thing that inform us it could be a hate crime. The prosecution wasn't lying- they were doing their job and were well within reason. It's kind of immature and very intellectually dishonest to suggest that the prosecution was lying. What is that?
As the OJ trial demonstrated, juries can and do make mistakes. Only a moron would suggest that whatever a jury of human beings decides is a reflection of what exists in the historical absolute.
Watch Me Win
Interesting how different people see different things. I didn't think the documentary in any way tried to justify what Brandon did.
Instead I saw it show how stupid and ridiculous the people are who support Brandon instead of seeing him for what he is: a murderer.
I saw the documentary showing Brandon's supporters in a sarcastic, ridiculous way. I thought it called out his supporters and showed how racist and homophobic Brandon, his supporters, and particularly many jurors were.
So maybe those who think this is a bad documentary *are* missing something. It makes the fools look like fools without letting them know that is what the film-markers are going to do. Show them for the bigots they are.
If there are any questions about the point of view - the end comments make it clear this is a documentary clearly about how Larry died as a result of bigotry - which continues in Oxnard (and most of the world) today.
Decisions are made by those who show up! So VOTE!
Very good post. This movie showed the bigoted teachers and jurors for what they were, just by letting them open their mouths! Brandon's brother letting us in on the racism or the jurors talking about how it was not a hate crime, yet if Larry had just hidden that he was gay he would still be alive. It is very sad that people like this still exist in 2013.
shareI needed a drink at after watching this documentary.
share