Talk:Murder of Larry King: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Schools C‑class This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. California C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in California may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

1, 2, 3

To view both sides of any issue. Please consider this external link.

Brandon McInerney Defense Fund Information http://brandonmcinerney.com/

Thank you for a fair review, Sdjoslin (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure how it can be used in this article, though. That website doesn't actually present much information, aside from the fact that the defense is seeking to raise funds. -kotra (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link itself isn't helpful but there are other links on that page that are. Banjeboi 19:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the most up-to-date picture we can find? Does anyone have a more recent image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.10.153 (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can wait until NPOV issues have been addressed. However the above text, from the Newsweek article, that King had other prior strong reactions, at 10 no less, and was the subject of a "burn book" would be, IMHO, good additions. Banjeboi 21:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there still NPOV issues even after the major overhaul? Exploding Boy (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't a clue but the tag is still there. Frankly I'd like to close and archive the entire discussion and start a new one with any actionable items. Banjeboi 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support that, especially since whoever put it there hasn't ever discussed his or her reasoning here on the talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These may help:

• 14-year-old Brandon McInerney: Ventura County's Sacrificial Lamb by Michael Mehas, 3 August, 2008; Ventura County Star.
• McInerney's Lawyer: I Won't Gay-Bash - As the arraignment of Lawrence King's accused killer, Brandon McInerney, gets postponed again, both the prosecuting attorney and the public defender talk to The Advocate by Peter DelVecchio, The Advocate, 13 June, 2008.
• School blamed in killing of gay student: Attorney for youth facing arraignment on murder charges says officials failed to defuse tensions. by Catherine Saillant, 8 May, 2008; Los Angeles Times.
• Senseless Murders, Senseless Times
• Accused Treated as Adult in Gay Student's Killing by Gloria Hillard, National Public Radio.
• California Gay Boy, 15, Slain by Classmate, 14 by ANDY HUMM, 21 February 2008.

Some more: — Becksguy (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• van de Mark, Brian (2008). "Coming out in adolescence". Gay & Lesbian Times. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 9, 2008
• Saillant, Catherine (2008). "Teen accused of killing his gay classmate had white supremacist materials". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 2, 2008
• "Documents: SoCal murder suspect had racist items". The Mercury News (From AP). 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 2, 2008
• "County, school district reject King family claims". Ventura County Star. 2008. Retrieved 2008-10-13. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Text "last" ignored (help) Published: October 1, 2008

I've been thinking this for a while now, the lead really doesn't sum up the content of the article very well. Is the plan to wait until the event unfolds in it's entirety? — Realist² 13:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up to now, I don't think there has been any plan. Only damage control. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much, it might only cause further flame wars. There is plenty of time after all. — Realist² 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lede is not the best, but it was the result of some give and take, and I think we should leave it alone until the trial starts, or something major happens that requires other changes to the article. The preliminary hearing is currently scheduled for October 14, 2008. There will be enough drama at some point, and we may still have the issue of the "sexuality as weapon" content to deal with. Or not. Moni is right (as usual). — Becksguy (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Clear consensus is to not include at this time.— Becksguy (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigators seized white supremacist materials, including doodlings of Nazi swastikas, from the bedroom of Brandon McInerney... ^[1][2]

Before getting into a brouhaha on the article page, lets first discuss here if/how to include this information. Also see the additional sources I added above to Benji's list. There are several sources for this particular new information, I just included the two listed, as Associated Press and LA Times are sufficiently reliable. — Becksguy (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the articles yes, but think it should be mentioned if the articles have bearing on how McInerney was being raised. Did his parents know about this? Did they condone it? Was this something he was doing completely on his own, or was systematic racism the way he was being raised? I don't think 12-year-old racists decide they want to draw swastikas just because. --Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has almost no context, Moni. See my comment below. — Becksguy (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not blow this out of proportion Becksguy. Both of the sources you have provided mention that the items found in Brandon McInerney's bedroom were items that Brandon was using to write a school paper on Adolf Hitler. Both sources further say that Brandon had best friends in school who were black and Hispanic. Let's not twist the story here and mislead the readers. The last thing we need is for the main article to become the horrible POV mess it was in before I managed to save it and help get it to be NPOV. Furthermore, you must remember the BLP policy in this case. These allegations that the prosecution are making are damaging to McInerney and his family and these same allegations have not been proven as fact in a court of law. Wikipedia has no business using allegations as a proven fact. Caden S (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for opinions on how and if to include new information is not blowing anything out of proportion - being labeled/associated with white supremacy is a very serious allegation. However, I agree its far too early to add this info to the article. I'd rather wait until its actually introduced in court as evidence. Also, Wikipedia is not concerned with discovering truth; it is a medium to report verifiable evidence: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. And to be clear, that doesn't mean that we add information from every source on earth just because its available we have WP:WEIGHT, WP:VS and WP:BLP to consider as well. If the neo-Nazi Paraphernalia is used as evidence in court to establish a motive, at that point it should be added to article to reflect that, just as any evidence that is introduced against King by the defense should eventually be added as the trial progresses. In both cases, if any evidence is deemed inappropriate/dismissed, that would also be reflected in the article via a reliable source as well. My basic opinion: lets not add anything until the trial starts and we have concrete information. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to fall under the umbrella of WP:BLP. I'm inclined to not include this unless it can be shown to be relevant in his prosecution. I would like to note that the prosecution hasn't actually alleged that McInerney was a white supremacist, just that they found the materials in his room. This information was actually released due to a request by the defendant's attorney, not as an attempt to smear him and his family. Still, this information can wait until or if it comes up in his trial. AniMate 07:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I brought this topic up for discussion, I also feel that it's too far soon to add this new information to the article. At this point, this is not much more than the reported fact of discovery and a few statements by both sides with very little context that would add to a readers understanding of the subject. There is also the issue of WP:BLP in this case since it's a serious allegation. McInerney's former lawyer (William Quest) claimed without collaboration that the material was being used for a school paper on Adolf Hitler and said that it's disclosure by the prosecutor is a "stunt" to hurt his client. The prosecutor said it was a primary consideration in the hate crime charge. We all need to remember that everything people are saying, even if reliably sourced, about McInerney's possible motives are speculation at this point. And that includes the theory about King asking McInerney to be his valentine, or any other theory. So no to inclusion. — Becksguy (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has been up for five days now, and we have a surprising amount of agreement among the contributing editors that the content should not be added now. Therefore, I'm marking this thread as {{resolved}} with clear consensus to not include this information. If the situation changes sufficiently, for example during the trial, then we can obviously reconsider. — Becksguy (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times, 26 July 2008 Dr. J. Boost (sent as op-ed) Sai Kung Hong Kong Dear Editor(s) – I was, let's say, not feeling too good this last week, when I came across a leader article in 'Newsweek' on the death of that boy who wanted to be a girl. Nothing wrong with that itself, wanting to be a girl, I mean - but a big question: Why did his classmate shoot him? The answer seems to lie in the other boy, Brandon, not feeling loved - but stalked, persecuted, molested. Thus, the big question: was it murder or the self-defense so often proclaimed by the female side when unwanted affection hurts. So: Was Larry female? - He thought he was. Can a girl/woman do what is a crime when a boy/man does it? - Brandon thought so. - Or maybe, he did not think - was just disturbed - felt helpless - like a girl who is accosted against her will. Homosexual emancipation has gone a long way from the "closet" - but has it been a good way? - Think of California's law SB777 which, more or less, makes heterosexuality a “hate crime”. I am not hostile or aggressive - nor is my op-ed. So, would you dare print it? Yours in great tolerance - but understanding defense. Dr. J. Boost

• * * * *

                                    Obituary to Larry King

-A boy killed his classmate – he felt molested by that girl - because “she” wasn’t one-

No death is not a loss. And no life should be lost over someone's “gender” orientation.

I do not call it sexual orientation, because it is not actually a matter of sex. That is exactly what homosexuality in both forms tries to abdicate: one’s own sex; complemented by the wish to replace it with the appearance of what is admired in someone else as the image of oneself in one’s own mind. In so far, homosexuality is Narcissus worshipping the picture in the mirror pool:

The real sex, given at birth by Mother Nature (call her God or what you will), is material reality and on dry land – the behavioral mirage, “gender” floats without substance on the surface of the pool.

Many people live in their own world. Sometimes, those worlds are not real, but we are shown them by all our media, sometimes as “enviable” (for some), like the shallowness of “Sex and the City” and sometimes “admirable” (for some others), like the fear-driven longing for “Super-Hero” or ‘Bat-Messiah’. If that is their world, let it be – but let them not rule ours.

We all want to be loved. Our dreams may take us far, but in our actions, we must still recognize the wishes, wants, and feelings of the person our longing aims at. We do recognize and accept it when a girl feels stalked or molested. And even if she shoots and kills, we'll grant her the status of a self-defender.

I am not sure how far the approaches of Larry to Brandon went - but obviously too far. Removing the stain from homosexuality and promoting understanding and tolerance, should not be mistaken for a free permit to demand the same sexual attitude from others.

The "coming out" is a good thing - but it is not a "liberation" into sexual anarchy. That is where the mistake lies in the homosexual movement: That it has turned from defense into aggression. When homosexuals at Cope Cod harass heterosexual couples and sneer them as "breeders!" - and when the Presidenta of the NOW declares that "a feminist can only be a women who is openly professed lesbian", something has gone wrong.

My son who was 16 and out with me on a day trip to Cape Cod was frightened, not to say terrified by the looks and accosting he experienced. As said before: Something is wrong with expecting that everyone feels homosexual – just because s/he is tolerant and, maybe, understanding.

What is "coming out of the closet" should not be a sexual attacker - but someone who can now seek friends - and, if they share the sentiment, lovers. But only if they share that. They also must still have the freedom of choice.

And that is where things are still going badly wrong: Marriage is one thing that has been clearly defined as a union which also has reproduction in mind – all religions are, basically, attempts at understanding nature – which also means understanding and accepting sex: SEX – not “gender”! And no homosexual union can reproduce. It can only “borrow” a sperm or a womb, or buy it (like a new dress or car) – Therefore, a homosexual union can –and should be- a Civil Union, with all the legal rights of the Civil Law and, therefore, the correct in legal equality – but not a Marriage.

Likewise: any person should not hate homosexuals - but be free to chose the friends they wish to. But if you look at California's Law SB777, the product of (pseudo-)"feminist" Senator Ms. Kuehnl, we are now moving towards criminalizing heterosexuality as "hate crime".

This boy, Larry - and he was a boy, even in a dress - fell victim to a misguided aggressive "coming out". And if his teacher, Ms. Epstein wished to "bring forth her agenda" - well, I won't congratulate her. She seems to have taught him many things - but not the teachings of tolerance, which both sexes must observe, but of demanding from others to “be like us”.

Somehow I wonder: If heterosexuality is so bad - where do all these homo-genderals come from? Another planet? The baby-bottles of "Brave New World"? They will have to accept that they would not exist without that "terrible" other way, the heterosexual reproduction.

Understanding and respect is good - but it must come both ways. - But if it does not? That is what we have seen in this case. The question is only: Was Brandon acting in defense – or is he a murderer, as prosecutors in California want to see it.

As pointed out before: if a girl takes measures –and even weapons- against a molester, she will have all our sympathy as being the first victim. Seldom does the molester get that – if ever. Why then, are the tables so much turned here – so much that Newsweek gives the stalker victim status on its front page? –

The answer to that, I suppose: Because He was a Girl – at least in his mind. It’s in a way, “Boys Don’t Cry” in reverse – but the “He-Girl” in that film did not stalk, did not pester others. So, it’s not the same.

The real question will have to be: If we accept Larry’s girlhood – does that make it impossible to see anyone like “her” as molester or rapist? We have, so far had homosexual rape recognized as rape – but only among men! Larry would be the first “female molester” killed by a victim in self-defense. - What if the one with the gun had been a girl, too?

Maybe, there will be one god thing coming out of this: the development of true equality before the law – the disappearing of our still very present double-standards in the always present presumption of “Male = Perpetrator vs. Female = Victim”.

So: Was Brandon the first victim, the one who could not be protected, because the Law is now twisted to protect only the persons of “protected minorities – “minorities” like women, coloured people, disabled persons, homo-gendered persons – protect them whatever they do?

Could the school not have interfered? Should the school not have interfered?

But they could not. The law has been twisted from removing discrimination into giving privilege. Maybe, if we are lucky, and Brandon gets a decent defense –this might be a case for the Innocence Project- this could be Precedence Majeur and make the law protect everybody again.

Dr. J. Boost