http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/07/05/Trial_to_Begin_in_Lawrence_King_Murder/
Ahem. Explain this to me...
A young boy goes home one day after school. He believes that another boy might have a crush on him, or he may even KNOW that the other boy has a crush on him. And he gets a gun. And he takes it with him to school the next day, stands directly behind the other boy, and fires not one, but TWO shots, into his head. The other boy dies hours later after being on life support for some time.
Where, in all of this, does manslaughter come into play? Manslaughter is reserved for cases such as drunk driving deaths (which are just as horrible as murders, because they can be prevented, among other reasons), but this kid displays the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of premeditation. He thought about it. It's not like there was a loaded gun sitting around and he just picked it up and it accidentally went off. This is an open and shut case, if you follow the law.
The article says the defense claims that the killer was humiliated by the alleged advances of his victim, Lawrence King. Well, you know what? SO THE FUCK WHAT?!
I'm humiliated by people all the freaking time! People make fun of me, but you don't see me going home, getting my dad's gun, and shooting someone in the back of the head?
This even further proves the killer to be a coward. He couldn't even face his alleged humiliator, who, let's remember, did nothing wrong or evil, or against any rules. All he did was allegedly express an interest. Something he probably would've have gotten over in the coming months as he learned his crush was straight, and not available. It happens to every gay boy at that age.
So explain to me why this killer should get any different sentence than a grown man who commits a similar murder should?
He shouldn't. Yes, I know he was 14, and maybe, developmentally speaking, he wasn't completely aware of the ramifications. But that doesn't mean he didn't know the kid would die. Or that he'd get into serious fucking trouble.
I respect and admire the law a great deal. I even wanted to be a lawyer at one point (mainly so I could get paid to argue with people, hahaha), but because it's simple. IT IS THE LAW.
People complain about technicalities, such as, for instance, OJ's hand didn't fit the glove, and the cop planted it. "It's just a technicality."
NO. IT IS NOT. IT IS THE FUCKING LAW. If a cop (or anyone, for that matter) is discovered to have planted evidence, that is BREAKING THE LAW. Does that mean I think OJ is innocent? Hell no. I think he did it and I think he got away with it. He was acquitted, and we can never try him for the same crime again, thanks to that pesky little document called THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution says, to some beliefs, that we have a right to own guns. I don't particularly like guns, but am I gonna tell someone he can't have him?
Well...I might try. I might try to change the law, or to make it clearer, or make strict laws concerning the types of guns people can have. But I still respect the Constitution, and that American's right to own a gun. I just hope and pray that he'll have sense enough to teach his kids (if he has any), or anyone in that house, for that matter, how to properly use it when necessary, and how to respect and cherish all life, be it human or animal.
What happened to Lawrence King was a tragedy, and yes, some people will think I'm only angry because he was gay. Well, yes, I am. I'm angry that some punk ass kid thought it'd be okay to kill a gay kid. But I'm angry more because someone is dead who doesn't deserve to be dead. I'd feel the same way if it was a straight kid who was dead, and yes, even if the killer had been gay.
LIFE IS SACRED, PEOPLE. Life is what happens. Life. Is. Life.
If you have a problem, talk it out. At most, go and smoke a joint and relax. But do not, under any circumstances, come under the delusion that taking someone's life will make things right. Please, be good to yourself, and to everyone around you.
So...there's that...
Excuse me for sounding prejudiced Mike, but why do you want to shred the second amendment? and I don't necessarily mean you, but liberal dems, in general. You make good points about things being THE LAW and then say you would try and alter gun rights. Do you, in particular, even know why the second amendment exists? It is so that open tyranny cannot overtake the populace. If ordinary citizens can't have guns, what's there to stop Nazi Germany style Gestapo/SS tactics from reigning. In other words if the government decides to use the military on the people, the people will need to be able to have guns to fight back. If they can only have single action rifles, like most "liberal" politicians seem to advocate for, how are people to defend themselves against a rogue government/military? Just sayin.
ReplyDeletethe only problem i have with the second amendment is that it's too broad. it allows for ordinary citizens to have access to assault rifles, and guns that could, in essence, kill a lot of people all at once. i don't know if the founding fathers ever considered that could ever be possible, so i don't know their intent. i just don't see the point in owning an AK-47 to hunt a deer. To me, it just seems that owning an AK-47 would only have the purpose of killing humans. Not injuring, or just to defend yourself, but killing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm wrong, and if so, that's fine, but personally, i just don't care for assault rifles. i don't even like guns, period, and my point about gun laws is that they should exist to protect the mass populace, not so just a few million enthusiasts can own them just to own them. i understand the need for protection. i understand the desire to collect, even. i just don't see why some individuals need to own dozens upon dozens upon dozens of guns, lest they be a reputable, legal seller of guns.
i also understand that some people under the age of 18 know perfectly well how to use a gun properly, and safely, and legally, but that doesn't mean that ALL people under 18 do. i have cousins who've been taught how to respect the power that comes with owning or using a gun, and i get that, i do. but unfortunately, not every kid gets that kind of education about it. i don't have a problem with an adult owning a gun with kids in the home, if the kids are taught properly how to respect the gun, and only use it when absolutely necessary.
i have a problem with an adult having a gun with kids in the house if the kid doesn't know a thing about guns, and could accidentally come upon it or use it and hurt someone. parents who own guns who lock it away and say "don't touch that" throughout the kids' life are just asking for the kid to get curious and start playing with it.
Which is why I said earlier that if I don't like a law, I might consider campaigning to change it, or to enhance, or at least, clarify it. I didn't say I wanted to get rid of all guns (although, wouldn't the world be a bit different if there weren't any?). I only said that I wish those who do own guns would teach their children how to use them properly and to respect all life.
This is going to be kinda haphazardly as I'm about to head to school.
ReplyDeleteYour worries about assault rifles being able to kill a bunch of people at once are somewhat founded in that's what they were designed for. However, what they don't tell you is that the ones you and I can buy aren't fully automatic, they're semi-autos, so they only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, just like a pistol. The 2nd was put in place so that the people could defend themselves against the tyranny the founders had escaped in England. Who's gonna mess with 300mil armed people? George Washington called the 2nd the peoples "Liberty Teeth". For more on the origin and why the 2nd needs to be broad: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
A good argument for people having "more guns than they need" would be if someone were to invade us or the military was turned on the people all those that don't own guns might need one and the "crazy gun nut" could probably spare a few, huh? Either way, none of anybody's business how much private property someone else owns.
Yes, if you're going to have guns in the house you should teach your kids how to use and more importantly how to respect guns. Seems like common sense. But you can't force that on anyone, to each their own. Common sense isn't that common.
Just as a heads up the constitution isn't up for debate, that's not how it works. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers. The constitution/bill of rights are simply enumerations of our god-given, inalienable rights.
Here's a great class on the constitution, declaration, different laws, and so forth. I learned more from it than school. And I'll leave you with the first line from the preamble to the Bill of Rights: "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."
I'm kind of in the middle of this. I don't really like guns either. I don't own one; I've never shot one; I see the potential for rogue individuals to cause a lot of damage. Anyone with more than one or two guns scares me a little. More generally, the ability to kill someone without staring into their eyes and feeling their blood spill out over your hands seems cold-blooded, cowardly, and just too easy. Give me a broadsword any day of the week.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the reason for the 2nd Amendment (as Nathan alluded) was so that the government FEAR the American people. It's a reminder that WE ultimately have authority over any government -- elected or not.