NonOffensiveName posted:

---

They might as well paint bullseyes on gay people and say its open season

---

aon_mixed posted:

---

i think it would be funny if there were roving bands of people painting bullseyes on gay people

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

What's ridiculous is that this kid has a sorry excuse for a father and he didn't teach his son that his "flirting" was appropriate. Instead he expected the school to raise his child for him.

I would like to know what "aggressively flirting" means. I suspect that if this had been a guy doing this to a woman you'd probably have a case for a sexual assault charge. The school was caught in the middle, had the done what should have been done and expelled the kid his father probably would have sued the school for discrimination, since CA apparently has a law that requires schools to allow boys to wear women's accessories with their school uniform, there is no telling what other ridiculous laws they have that tie their hands when it comes to disciplining gay students.

---

regulator_cracka posted:

---

If it makes you feel better, you can shoot a black person in cold blood and get off almost scot-free for it today too.




I shutter to think what would happen to a gay black person.

---

JD_HOGG posted:

---

Wow, so we have a junior high school kid starts wearing high heeled womens boots, and hitting on the other boys who are just starting to hit puberty and discover that girls aren't so bad after all. And the school administration feels that the best way to handle it is to let it roll and do not tell the flamboyant kid to tone it down in school. They really let that flamboyant kid down. If a male student was making passes at girls and they reported it, they would have intervened. Well, what can you say. It's California. They're all retarded in California.

---

JD_HOGG posted:

---

regulator_cracka posted:

---

If it makes you feel better, you can shoot a black person in cold blood and get off almost scot-free for it today too.




I shutter to think what would happen to a gay black person.

---

Protected class, they are very rare.

---

Fozzie_Bear posted:

---

JD_HOGG posted:

---

regulator_cracka posted:

---

If it makes you feel better, you can shoot a black person in cold blood and get off almost scot-free for it today too.




I shutter to think what would happen to a gay black person.

---

Protected class, they are very rare.

---

Like Asian crossdressers

---

ferdinand.the.great posted:

---

NON, you tried really hard to seem like you aren't being a douchebag this time, and I commend you for it, but you're acting as though the kid being gay means punishment should be especially harsh, or something. You want to put a teenager to death? That's disgusting. You think 21 years in prison is "almost scot-free"? Are you kidding me? That kid's life is over. At a time when he should be gaining vital life skills, he's not. By the time he's out of prison, he'll be completely useless in the job market, and will probably turn to crime just to get by, landing him back in prison. If you think this sentence would be any different if it were a straight victim, you're delusional.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

ferdinand.the.great posted:

---

NON, you tried really hard to seem like you aren't being a douchebag this time, and I commend you for it, but you're acting as though the kid being gay means punishment should be especially harsh, or something. You want to put a teenager to death? That's disgusting. You think 21 years in prison is "almost scot-free"? Are you kidding me? That kid's life is over. At a time when he should be gaining vital life skills, he's not. By the time he's out of prison, he'll be completely useless in the job market, and will probably turn to crime just to get by, landing him back in prison. If you think this sentence would be any different if it were a straight victim, you're delusional.

---

shouldnt it be especially hard? I mean thats why he was accused of a HATE crime on top of first degree murder which is what he was guilty of.  Even the law allows punishments to be extra harsh when the circumstances warrant it.  The defense made no bones about why the kid was shot, it was because he was gay.  That pretty plain and simple.  They might as well have said he had twinkie rage and thats why he killed the gay kid.  This jury wasnt going to convict the straight kid no matter what.  No I dont think the sentence would be different if it were a straight victim.  The verdict would've been different though if the jury had convicted him on the charges that they should have instead of going on bias against the gay victim's inappropriate behavior.  This behavior does not justify the use of deadly force unless the gay kid at the time was literally trying to force a sexual organ down the straight kid's throat or anus or something. Again Im not taking up for the gay kid's action, he was wrong 200% but it doesnt justify sacrificing his life for it.  How fast do you think a jury would convict me if I went out to a bar and a women hit on me and I pulled out a gun and blew two holes in the back of her head for it and then tried to claim it was just "straight panic"? If he wanted to be a productive member of society in the first place I doubt he would've carried a gun to school and shot a kid for being gay and making sexual advances at him.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

ferdinand.the.great posted:

---

NON, you tried really hard to seem like you aren't being a douchebag this time, and I commend you for it, but you're acting as though the kid being gay means punishment should be especially harsh, or something. You want to put a teenager to death? That's disgusting. You think 21 years in prison is "almost scot-free"? Are you kidding me? That kid's life is over. At a time when he should be gaining vital life skills, he's not. By the time he's out of prison, he'll be completely useless in the job market, and will probably turn to crime just to get by, landing him back in prison. If you think this sentence would be any different if it were a straight victim, you're delusional.

---

shouldnt it be especially hard? I mean thats why he was accused of a HATE crime on top of first degree murder which is what he was guilty of.  Even the law allows punishments to be extra harsh when the circumstances warrant it.  The defense made no bones about why the kid was shot, it was because he was gay.  That pretty plain and simple.  They might as well have said he had twinkie rage and thats why he killed the gay kid.  

This jury wasnt going to convict the straight kid no matter what.  No I dont think the sentence would be different if it were a straight victim.  The verdict would've been different though if the jury had convicted him on the charges that they should have instead of going on bias against the gay victim's inappropriate behavior.  This behavior does not justify the use of deadly force unless the gay kid at the time was literally trying to force a sexual organ down the straight kid's throat or anus or something. Again Im not taking up for the gay kid's action, he was wrong 200% but it doesnt justify sacrificing his life for it.  How fast do you think a jury would convict me if I went out to a bar and a women hit on me and I pulled out a gun and blew two holes in the back of her head for it and then tried to claim it was just "straight panic"? 

If he wanted to be a productive member of society in the first place I doubt he would've carried a gun to school and shot a kid for being gay and making sexual advances at him.

---

RavofMT posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

ferdinand.the.great posted:

---

NON, you tried really hard to seem like you aren't being a douchebag this time, and I commend you for it, but you're acting as though the kid being gay means punishment should be especially harsh, or something. You want to put a teenager to death? That's disgusting. You think 21 years in prison is "almost scot-free"? Are you kidding me? That kid's life is over. At a time when he should be gaining vital life skills, he's not. By the time he's out of prison, he'll be completely useless in the job market, and will probably turn to crime just to get by, landing him back in prison. If you think this sentence would be any different if it were a straight victim, you're delusional.

---

shouldnt it be especially hard? I mean thats why he was accused of a HATE crime on top of first degree murder which is what he was guilty of.  Even the law allows punishments to be extra harsh when the circumstances warrant it.  The defense made no bones about why the kid was shot, it was because he was gay.  That pretty plain and simple.  They might as well have said he had twinkie rage and thats why he killed the gay kid.  This jury wasnt going to convict the straight kid no matter what.  No I dont think the sentence would be different if it were a straight victim.  The verdict would've been different though if the jury had convicted him on the charges that they should have instead of going on bias against the gay victim's inappropriate behavior.  This behavior does not justify the use of deadly force unless the gay kid at the time was literally trying to force a sexual organ down the straight kid's throat or anus or something. Again Im not taking up for the gay kid's action, he was wrong 200% but it doesnt justify sacrificing his life for it.  How fast do you think a jury would convict me if I went out to a bar and a women hit on me and I pulled out a gun and blew two holes in the back of her head for it and then tried to claim it was just "straight panic"? If he wanted to be a productive member of society in the first place I doubt he would've carried a gun to school and shot a kid for being gay and making sexual advances at him.

---

sexual organ? come on homophobe, you can say dick, or penis. it doesn't make you gay

---

JD_HOGG posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

ferdinand.the.great posted:

---

NON, you tried really hard to seem like you aren't being a douchebag this time, and I commend you for it, but you're acting as though the kid being gay means punishment should be especially harsh, or something. You want to put a teenager to death? That's disgusting. You think 21 years in prison is "almost scot-free"? Are you kidding me? That kid's life is over. At a time when he should be gaining vital life skills, he's not. By the time he's out of prison, he'll be completely useless in the job market, and will probably turn to crime just to get by, landing him back in prison. If you think this sentence would be any different if it were a straight victim, you're delusional.

---

shouldnt it be especially hard? I mean thats why he was accused of a HATE crime on top of first degree murder which is what he was guilty of.  Even the law allows punishments to be extra harsh when the circumstances warrant it.  The defense made no bones about why the kid was shot, it was because he was gay.  That pretty plain and simple.  They might as well have said he had twinkie rage and thats why he killed the gay kid.   This jury wasnt going to convict the straight kid no matter what.  No I dont think the sentence would be different if it were a straight victim.  The verdict would've been different though if the jury had convicted him on the charges that they should have instead of going on bias against the gay victim's inappropriate behavior.  This behavior does not justify the use of deadly force unless the gay kid at the time was literally trying to force a sexual organ down the straight kid's throat or anus or something. Again Im not taking up for the gay kid's action, he was wrong 200% but it doesnt justify sacrificing his life for it.  How fast do you think a jury would convict me if I went out to a bar and a women hit on me and I pulled out a gun and blew two holes in the back of her head for it and then tried to claim it was just "straight panic"?  If he wanted to be a productive member of society in the first place I doubt he would've carried a gun to school and shot a kid for being gay and making sexual advances at him.

---

He didn't shoot the kid because he was gay. He shot him because he was being harrassed. That's not a hate crime.

---

ferdinand.the.great posted:

---

NON, you tried really hard to seem like you aren't being a douchebag this time, and I commend you for it, but you're acting as though the kid being gay means punishment should be especially harsh, or something.

You want to put a teenager to death? That's disgusting. You think 21 years in prison is "almost scot-free"? Are you <effing> kidding me? That kid's life is over. At a time when he should be gaining vital life skills, he's not. By the time he's out of prison, he'll be completely useless in the job market, and will probably turn to crime just to get by, landing him back in prison.

If you think this sentence would be any different if it were a straight victim, you're delusional.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

blockquote] right...and if it was a girl throwing himself at the straight kid Im sure he would've shot her in the back of the head too right?  get real, you cant separate the two

---

vn_anon63xxx posted:

---

What you are missing is that the gay kid was basically bullying the straight kid. That may SOUND strange, but I could see that in an extreme case where the school fails to protect the straight kid from unwanted advances that this sort of unfortunate act is somewhat justifiable. Imagine if if was a straight guy doing that to a girl and the school protects THE GUY instead of the girl being bullied? What if you had the boy's father and sister ENCOURAGING the straight guy to torment the girl? At some point the person being bullied is going protect themselves. The funny part is that the GLBT community somehow managed to get CA to pass a law to protect gays from bullying. It was the GAY KID who was bullying the straight kid, not the other way around. I've listened to interviews with both the father and the sister of the dead kid. WOW, are they out to lunch. They ENCOURAGED the gay kid to pull this crap on straight boys. Now, they act as if it was the gay kid who was bullied. The parents of the gay kid and the school are the ones I blame in this. With the new law you basically give gay kids the right to bully straight kids and it will be the straight kids who get punished.

---

lady_selene posted:

---

My favorite part of the article is

"After the trial, Larry's mother, Dawn King, said she had gone to administrators to ask them to stop what she believed was her son's inclination to act out for attention — even if it was negative attention. But she was turned back, the mother said.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."

Um hello, your the parent not the schools, get off your rump if you think your sons behavior is going to cause him trouble!

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

vn_anon63xxx posted:

---

What you are missing is that the gay kid was basically bullying the straight kid. That may SOUND strange, but I could see that in an extreme case where the school fails to protect the straight kid from unwanted advances that this sort of unfortunate act is somewhat justifiable. Imagine if if was a straight guy doing that to a girl and the school protects THE GUY instead of the girl being bullied? What if you had the boy's father and sister ENCOURAGING the straight guy to torment the girl? At some point the person being bullied is going protect themselves. The funny part is that the GLBT community somehow managed to get CA to pass a law to protect gays from bullying. It was the GAY KID who was bullying the straight kid, not the other way around. I've listened to interviews with both the father and the sister of the dead kid. WOW, are they out to lunch. They ENCOURAGED the gay kid to pull this crap on straight boys. Now, they act as if it was the gay kid who was bullied. The parents of the gay kid and the school are the ones I blame in this. With the new law you basically give gay kids the right to bully straight kids and it will be the straight kids who get punished.

---

Ugh bullying is just another hot topic word people like to throw around now.  Everyone is jumping on that band wagon now and the real kids(usually the ones who are gay but dont want to come out yet) who are suffering from bullying get lost in the crowd yet again. Plus if he was really being bullied you hit punch kick or otherwise ignore a bully until he goes away.  You dont take a 22 caliber gun to school and shoot them twice in the head. Even if the straight kid was being bullied, he wasnt being harmed in any way physically so that doesnt justify using deadly force.  Not that a gay student bullying a straight student is anymore right than the reverse.  The least he could've done was take a page from the gay bullying handbook and off himself instead of offing the person who was bullying him. 

I just cant see unwanted sexual advances justify killing someone no matter how bad it is.  What he did was cold blooded murder and he should've fried for it plain and simple.  I do agree though all the adults failed horribly in the straight kid and the gay kid's life and they do share a great deal of the blame in all of this.  Ultimately though the decision to pull a gun on someone and shoot them to death was the straight kid's decision.  He should've had to take responsibility for that action but the adults in his life are now in a way trying to make up for the failure of the other adults in his life.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

vn_anon63xxx posted:

---

What you are missing is that the gay kid was basically bullying the straight kid. That may SOUND strange, but I could see that in an extreme case where the school fails to protect the straight kid from unwanted advances that this sort of unfortunate act is somewhat justifiable. Imagine if if was a straight guy doing that to a girl and the school protects THE GUY instead of the girl being bullied? What if you had the boy's father and sister ENCOURAGING the straight guy to torment the girl? At some point the person being bullied is going protect themselves. The funny part is that the GLBT community somehow managed to get CA to pass a law to protect gays from bullying. It was the GAY KID who was bullying the straight kid, not the other way around. I've listened to interviews with both the father and the sister of the dead kid. WOW, are they out to lunch. They ENCOURAGED the gay kid to pull this crap on straight boys. Now, they act as if it was the gay kid who was bullied. The parents of the gay kid and the school are the ones I blame in this. With the new law you basically give gay kids the right to bully straight kids and it will be the straight kids who get punished.

---

Ugh bullying is just another hot topic word people like to throw around now.  Everyone is jumping on that band wagon now and the real kids(usually the ones who are gay but dont want to come out yet) who are suffering from bullying get lost in the crowd yet again. Plus if he was really being bullied you hit punch kick or otherwise ignore a bully until he goes away.  You dont take a 22 caliber gun to school and shoot them twice in the head. Even if the straight kid was being bullied, he wasnt being harmed in any way physically so that doesnt justify using deadly force.  Not that a gay student bullying a straight student is anymore right than the reverse.  The least he could've done was take a page from the gay bullying handbook and off himself instead of offing the person who was bullying him. 

I just cant see unwanted sexual advances justify killing someone no matter how bad it is.  What he did was cold blooded murder and he should've fried for it plain and simple.  I do agree though all the adults failed horribly in the straight kid and the gay kid's life and they do share a great deal of the blame in all of this.  Ultimately though the decision to pull a gun on someone and shoot them to death was the straight kid's decision.  He should've had to take responsibility for that action but the adults in his life are now in a way trying to make up for the failure of the other adults in his life.

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

lady_selene posted:

---

My favorite part of the article is

"After the trial, Larry's mother, Dawn King, said she had gone to administrators to ask them to stop what she believed was her son's inclination to act out for attention — even if it was negative attention. But she was turned back, the mother said.

"I knew, gut instinct, that something serious was going to happen," she said. "They should have contained him, contained his behavior."

Um hello, your the parent not the schools, get off your rump if you think your sons behavior is going to cause him trouble!

---

no matter how strict a parent is at home, once the child is out the door in the morning they have no more control over the situation than trying to get the school to go along with their wishes. It's really not that different than the devout religious household that stops a girl from dressing too sexy for school, but if she wants to do it, she'll just buy the clothes, or borrow them from friends, and change her outfit when she gets to school.

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

vn_anon63xxx posted:

---

What you are missing is that the gay kid was basically bullying the straight kid. That may SOUND strange, but I could see that in an extreme case where the school fails to protect the straight kid from unwanted advances that this sort of unfortunate act is somewhat justifiable. Imagine if if was a straight guy doing that to a girl and the school protects THE GUY instead of the girl being bullied? What if you had the boy's father and sister ENCOURAGING the straight guy to torment the girl? At some point the person being bullied is going protect themselves. The funny part is that the GLBT community somehow managed to get CA to pass a law to protect gays from bullying. It was the GAY KID who was bullying the straight kid, not the other way around. I've listened to interviews with both the father and the sister of the dead kid. WOW, are they out to lunch. They ENCOURAGED the gay kid to pull this crap on straight boys. Now, they act as if it was the gay kid who was bullied. The parents of the gay kid and the school are the ones I blame in this. With the new law you basically give gay kids the right to bully straight kids and it will be the straight kids who get punished.

---

Ugh bullying is just another hot topic word people like to throw around now.  Everyone is jumping on that band wagon now and the real kids(usually the ones who are gay but dont want to come out yet) who are suffering from bullying get lost in the crowd yet again. Plus if he was really being bullied you hit punch kick or otherwise ignore a bully until he goes away.  You dont take a 22 caliber gun to school and shoot them twice in the head. Even if the straight kid was being bullied, he wasnt being harmed in any way physically so that doesnt justify using deadly force.  Not that a gay student bullying a straight student is anymore right than the reverse.  The least he could've done was take a page from the gay bullying handbook and off himself instead of offing the person who was bullying him.  I just cant see unwanted sexual advances justify killing someone no matter how bad it is.  What he did was cold blooded murder and he should've fried for it plain and simple.  I do agree though all the adults failed horribly in the straight kid and the gay kid's life and they do share a great deal of the blame in all of this.  Ultimately though the decision to pull a gun on someone and shoot them to death was the straight kid's decision.  He should've had to take responsibility for that action but the adults in his life are now in a way trying to make up for the failure of the other adults in his life.

---

It is obvious you cannot look at this situation objectively, trying to have a rational discussion with you is pointless.

---

rabbitslayer posted:

---

So Mr. NonOffensiveName, you believe getting ass raped for 21 years is a reward not punishment?

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

vn_anon63xxx posted:

---

What you are missing is that the gay kid was basically bullying the straight kid. That may SOUND strange, but I could see that in an extreme case where the school fails to protect the straight kid from unwanted advances that this sort of unfortunate act is somewhat justifiable. Imagine if if was a straight guy doing that to a girl and the school protects THE GUY instead of the girl being bullied? What if you had the boy's father and sister ENCOURAGING the straight guy to torment the girl? At some point the person being bullied is going protect themselves. The funny part is that the GLBT community somehow managed to get CA to pass a law to protect gays from bullying. It was the GAY KID who was bullying the straight kid, not the other way around. I've listened to interviews with both the father and the sister of the dead kid. WOW, are they out to lunch. They ENCOURAGED the gay kid to pull this crap on straight boys. Now, they act as if it was the gay kid who was bullied. The parents of the gay kid and the school are the ones I blame in this. With the new law you basically give gay kids the right to bully straight kids and it will be the straight kids who get punished.

---

Ugh bullying is just another hot topic word people like to throw around now.  Everyone is jumping on that band wagon now and the real kids(usually the ones who are gay but dont want to come out yet) who are suffering from bullying get lost in the crowd yet again. Plus if he was really being bullied you hit punch kick or otherwise ignore a bully until he goes away.  You dont take a 22 caliber gun to school and shoot them twice in the head. Even if the straight kid was being bullied, he wasnt being harmed in any way physically so that doesnt justify using deadly force.  Not that a gay student bullying a straight student is anymore right than the reverse.  The least he could've done was take a page from the gay bullying handbook and off himself instead of offing the person who was bullying him.  I just cant see unwanted sexual advances justify killing someone no matter how bad it is.  What he did was cold blooded murder and he should've fried for it plain and simple.  I do agree though all the adults failed horribly in the straight kid and the gay kid's life and they do share a great deal of the blame in all of this.  Ultimately though the decision to pull a gun on someone and shoot them to death was the straight kid's decision.  He should've had to take responsibility for that action but the adults in his life are now in a way trying to make up for the failure of the other adults in his life.

---

It is obvious you cannot look at this situation objectively, trying to have a rational discussion with you is pointless.

---

Im about as object as the jurors who didnt convict the straight kid of the murder he committed :P

---

RavofMT posted:

---

This could have all been avoided if the kid wasn't gay

---

Gaevren posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

vn_anon63xxx posted:

---

What you are missing is that the gay kid was basically bullying the straight kid. That may SOUND strange, but I could see that in an extreme case where the school fails to protect the straight kid from unwanted advances that this sort of unfortunate act is somewhat justifiable. Imagine if if was a straight guy doing that to a girl and the school protects THE GUY instead of the girl being bullied? What if you had the boy's father and sister ENCOURAGING the straight guy to torment the girl? At some point the person being bullied is going protect themselves. The funny part is that the GLBT community somehow managed to get CA to pass a law to protect gays from bullying. It was the GAY KID who was bullying the straight kid, not the other way around. I've listened to interviews with both the father and the sister of the dead kid. WOW, are they out to lunch. They ENCOURAGED the gay kid to pull this crap on straight boys. Now, they act as if it was the gay kid who was bullied. The parents of the gay kid and the school are the ones I blame in this. With the new law you basically give gay kids the right to bully straight kids and it will be the straight kids who get punished.

---

Ugh bullying is just another hot topic word people like to throw around now.  Everyone is jumping on that band wagon now and the real kids(usually the ones who are gay but dont want to come out yet) who are suffering from bullying get lost in the crowd yet again. Plus if he was really being bullied you hit punch kick or otherwise ignore a bully until he goes away.  You dont take a 22 caliber gun to school and shoot them twice in the head. Even if the straight kid was being bullied, he wasnt being harmed in any way physically so that doesnt justify using deadly force.  Not that a gay student bullying a straight student is anymore right than the reverse.  The least he could've done was take a page from the gay bullying handbook and off himself instead of offing the person who was bullying him.  I just cant see unwanted sexual advances justify killing someone no matter how bad it is.  What he did was cold blooded murder and he should've fried for it plain and simple.  I do agree though all the adults failed horribly in the straight kid and the gay kid's life and they do share a great deal of the blame in all of this.  Ultimately though the decision to pull a gun on someone and shoot them to death was the straight kid's decision.  He should've had to take responsibility for that action but the adults in his life are now in a way trying to make up for the failure of the other adults in his life.

---

No one disagrees with you. Of course he shouldn't have shot the other kid. Of course nothing excuses that. NO ONE IS DEBATING THIS. The only thing we're disagreeing on is whether it's a "hate" crime or an effing stupid response to harassment. In all the news stories of bullying/harassment, what's the outcome usually? It's not the victim punching the harasser. When it gets bad enough and they feel they don't have any support from the adults/administration, they generally take 1 of 2 actions. They either commit suicide, or they get deadly. Either way something snaps in them. Again- it does NOT excuse the actions but it's a far cry from a hate crime. Now, if the gay kid had just been sauntering around, cross dressing but otherwise minding his own business, then yes you'd have a pretty good case for a hate crime. But in this case? No.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

Gaevren posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

vn_anon63xxx posted:

---

What you are missing is that the gay kid was basically bullying the straight kid. That may SOUND strange, but I could see that in an extreme case where the school fails to protect the straight kid from unwanted advances that this sort of unfortunate act is somewhat justifiable. Imagine if if was a straight guy doing that to a girl and the school protects THE GUY instead of the girl being bullied? What if you had the boy's father and sister ENCOURAGING the straight guy to torment the girl? At some point the person being bullied is going protect themselves. The funny part is that the GLBT community somehow managed to get CA to pass a law to protect gays from bullying. It was the GAY KID who was bullying the straight kid, not the other way around. I've listened to interviews with both the father and the sister of the dead kid. WOW, are they out to lunch. They ENCOURAGED the gay kid to pull this crap on straight boys. Now, they act as if it was the gay kid who was bullied. The parents of the gay kid and the school are the ones I blame in this. With the new law you basically give gay kids the right to bully straight kids and it will be the straight kids who get punished.

---

Ugh bullying is just another hot topic word people like to throw around now.  Everyone is jumping on that band wagon now and the real kids(usually the ones who are gay but dont want to come out yet) who are suffering from bullying get lost in the crowd yet again. Plus if he was really being bullied you hit punch kick or otherwise ignore a bully until he goes away.  You dont take a 22 caliber gun to school and shoot them twice in the head. Even if the straight kid was being bullied, he wasnt being harmed in any way physically so that doesnt justify using deadly force.  Not that a gay student bullying a straight student is anymore right than the reverse.  The least he could've done was take a page from the gay bullying handbook and off himself instead of offing the person who was bullying him.  I just cant see unwanted sexual advances justify killing someone no matter how bad it is.  What he did was cold blooded murder and he should've fried for it plain and simple.  I do agree though all the adults failed horribly in the straight kid and the gay kid's life and they do share a great deal of the blame in all of this.  Ultimately though the decision to pull a gun on someone and shoot them to death was the straight kid's decision.  He should've had to take responsibility for that action but the adults in his life are now in a way trying to make up for the failure of the other adults in his life.

---

No one disagrees with you. Of course he shouldn't have shot the other kid. Of course nothing excuses that. NO ONE IS DEBATING THIS. The only thing we're disagreeing on is whether it's a "hate" crime or an effing stupid response to harassment. In all the news stories of bullying/harassment, what's the outcome usually? It's not the victim punching the harasser. When it gets bad enough and they feel they don't have any support from the adults/administration, they generally take 1 of 2 actions. They either commit suicide, or they get deadly. Either way something snaps in them. Again- it does NOT excuse the actions but it's a far cry from a hate crime. Now, if the gay kid had just been sauntering around, cross dressing but otherwise minding his own business, then yes you'd have a pretty good case for a hate crime. But in this case? No.

---

Im not even trying to argue that it was a hate crime actually.  The straight kid  shot the gay kid in cold blood and pretty much got away with it.(compared to the sentence he SHOULD have gotten)  The only reason that he did almost get away with it is because the kid he shot was gay.  So it worked in the straight guy's favor that the kid was gay. The jury basically sent the message that if you're a big bad gay its ok for a straight guy to freely shoot you.(again NOT condoning the gay kid's sexual harassment that was wrong)  Straight or gay aside, they didnt convict him of the premeditated murder that he committed.(one of the articles I read said that the straight kid had said he was gonna bring a gun from home and shoot the straight kid - I think it said a student and a teacher testified to that fact)

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

so you condone physically attacking, but pissed he wasn't convicted of a hate crime? you dont have to die for a hate crime charge do you? mental abuse is just as damaging as physical abuse just so you know. way to go sticking with defending harassment though!

---

JoAyanami posted:

---

You want him dead? That's sick and really messed up.

---

levgre posted:

---

20 years in prison is on par for murder. Emotional motivations do not upgrade murders to first degree. Learn a little bit about the law, you nub.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

JoAyanami posted:

---

You want him dead? That's sick and really messed up.

---

But its not sick and really messed up for a straight kid to be able to walk up to a gay kid and shoot him twice in the head?

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

levgre posted:

---

20 years in prison is on par for murder. Emotional motivations do not upgrade murders to first degree. Learn a little bit about the law, you nub.

---

Premeditation does though.  So does the fact that he was charged with a hate crime.  I think you should take some of your own advice "nub"

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right.

Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

JoAyanami posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

JoAyanami posted:

---

You want him dead? That's sick and really messed up.

---

But its not sick and really messed up for a straight kid to be able to walk up to a gay kid and shoot him twice in the head?

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right.

Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

Why oh why did you have to open up that can of worms? NON's responses already make little sense, now you're going to make it worse.

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

[quote=NonOffensiveName]

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right.

Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

Why oh why did you have to open up that can of worms? NON's responses already make little sense, now you're going to make it worse.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

but of thoe two I wouldn't have someone killed just because they made me feel uneasy in a sexual kind of way.

---

levgre posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

levgre posted:

---

20 years in prison is on par for murder. Emotional motivations do not upgrade murders to first degree. Learn a little bit about the law, you nub.

---

Premeditation does though.  So does the fact that he was charged with a hate crime.  I think you should take some of your own advice "nub"

---

Pre-meditation, in a legal sense, is not as clear cut or easy to prove as you think. Especially when you have a stupid teenager who was being provoked. The defense could make an argument he was just bringing the gun to scare the person, or wasn't sure if he wanted to kill him or not. Okay, so add another year or two for a hate crime. You'd still be complaining. You want this upgraded to 1st degree murder, you want blood.

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

[quote=_sooz_][quote=NonOffensiveName]

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right.

Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

Why oh why did you have to open up that can of worms? NON's responses already make little sense, now you're going to make it worse.

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

[blockquote]NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote]_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Jezza_Belle posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

[blockquote]NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote]_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

Why oh why did you have to open up that can of worms? NON's responses already make little sense, now you're going to make it worse.

---

[/blockquote] Because i wanted him to see how ridiculous it is to on the one hand fight for life and on the other, to campaign to end it. Of course, there is very little chance he will see that, as it is already set in his mind that he is right no matter what.

---

[/blockquote] so lets put the shoe on the other foot as they say.  What has a fetus done that was so heinous that it deserves to die just because irresponsible people want a quick fix to their "problem"?

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote] At 14 do you not know that its a bad thing to take a gun to school and shoot someone to death in premeditated cold blood?  That seems more that just a simple "terrible mistake" or a "not good use of judgement" situation to me.

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

it wasnt always legal to have an abortion...just because something is legal doesnt make it the right thing to do. Im not a strong advocate for the death penalty.  It should be used with great caution.  Most people deserve the right to have life.  But when someone has done something to another person so heinous and there is not a shadow of doubt that they are guilty then they forfeit their right to continue that life such as in this case.

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote] At 14 do you not know that its a bad thing to take a gun to school and shoot someone to death in premeditated cold blood?  That seems more that just a simple "terrible mistake" or a "not good use of judgement" situation to me.

---

murder, sexual harassment...both are blatantly obvious...i guess one should register more than the other right?

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote] At 14 do you not know that its a bad thing to take a gun to school and shoot someone to death in premeditated cold blood?  That seems more that just a simple "terrible mistake" or a "not good use of judgement" situation to me.

---

murder, sexual harassment...both are blatantly obvious...i guess one should register more than the other right?

---

I never said or even implied that.  And Ive already said the gay kid was wrong for sexually harassing the straight kid, what more do you want?  Its still not a justification for murdering the gay kid.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

it wasnt always legal to have an abortion...just because something is legal doesnt make it the right thing to do. Im not a strong advocate for the death penalty.  It should be used with great caution.  Most people deserve the right to have life.  But when someone has done something to another person so heinous and there is not a shadow of doubt that they are guilty then they forfeit their right to continue that life such as in this case.

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

[blockquote]NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote]_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

[blockquote]NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote]_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

it wasnt always legal to have an abortion...just because something is legal doesnt make it the right thing to do. Im not a strong advocate for the death penalty.  It should be used with great caution.  Most people deserve the right to have life.  But when someone has done something to another person so heinous and there is not a shadow of doubt that they are guilty then they forfeit their right to continue that life such as in this case.

---

[/blockquote] Wasnt the person in question like 13 when it happened? If so, that is a CHILD. 21 years in prison is going to ruin that kids life, far worse than the death penalty. Plus i dont think i could ever, in good conscience, advocate that a kid be killed.

---

[/blockquote] but you could, in good conscience, advocate for a kid thats still in the womb who hasnt committed murder or any other crime to be killed? LOL talk about hypocrisy... I would've had no problem if they wanted to wait til he was 18 to fry him up.

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

[blockquote]NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote] At 14 do you not know that its a bad thing to take a gun to school and shoot someone to death in premeditated cold blood?  That seems more that just a simple "terrible mistake" or a "not good use of judgement" situation to me.

---

murder, sexual harassment...both are blatantly obvious...i guess one should register more than the other right?

---

I never said or even implied that.  And Ive already said the gay kid was wrong for sexually harassing the straight kid, what more do you want?  Its still not a justification for murdering the gay kid.

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

OH, and the Hate Crime aspect...just STFU with it already. you are blinded with how pathetic it is. i have an inmate that works for me that has a hate crime charge. he killed the black guy that brutally raped his sister. color had NOTHING to do with it, but caught the charge.

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

_sooz_ posted:

---

[blockquote]NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote]_sooz_ posted:

---

[blockquote]NonOffensiveName posted:

---

[blockquote]_sooz_ posted:

---

Im only here to ask you one question: So abortion is "murder", but the death penalty is just fine and dandy?

---

you forfeit your right to life when you forcably and knowingly take the life of another...thats why abortion IS murder.

---

By your logic, those who perform the death sentence are also murderers. They are forcibly and knowingly taking another's life. Where does it end? Two wrongs never make a right. Also, the definition of murder is to illegally kill something. Abortion is legal, therefore not murder.

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

what point are you making? that a gay life is more important? you picked a gay victim over 100000 other child trials why? because a gay life is more valuable to you than a straight life. adults with murder charges can get off in 20...but this kid should be sentenced to death right? you know exactly what was going through a child head as he was repeatedly sexually harassed, and that's just what was put into his head by the gay kid...let alone other kids.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

OH, and the Hate Crime aspect...just STFU with it already. you are blinded with how pathetic it is. i have an inmate that works for me that has a hate crime charge. he killed the black guy that brutally raped his sister. color had NOTHING to do with it, but caught the charge.

---

I havent really even said anything about the hate crime aspect of it...Gay straight bi or whatever Im more pissed about the fact that he got away with PREMEDITATED murder with a 21 year sentence instead of being fried or life in prison without parole. The only bias I have mentioned is the one the jury had against the victim since he was demonized as a sex predator that the helpless lil 14 year old just couldnt fight off anymore.(Im sorry but sexual harassment STILL isnt a justification for murder no matter how bad it is - even if it messes you up in the head which I know it can you can get counselling or something - there is no amount of counselling that will help you if you're shot in the back of the head!)

---

FineYoungCannibals posted:

---

one question, how does a gay harass or bully someone?

do they slap or tickle you to death, or break into your room and paint it pink and put up fabulous window curtains?


how does that work?

---

RavofMT posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

OH, and the Hate Crime aspect...just STFU with it already. you are blinded with how pathetic it is. i have an inmate that works for me that has a hate crime charge. he killed the black guy that brutally raped his sister. color had NOTHING to do with it, but caught the charge.

---

I havent really even said anything about the hate crime aspect of it...Gay straight bi or whatever Im more pissed about the fact that he got away with PREMEDITATED murder with a 21 year sentence instead of being fried or life in prison without parole. The only bias I have mentioned is the one the jury had against the victim since he was demonized as a sex predator that the helpless lil 14 year old just couldnt fight off anymore.(Im sorry but sexual harassment STILL isnt a justification for murder no matter how bad it is - even if it messes you up in the head which I know it can you can get counselling or something - there is no amount of counselling that will help you if you're shot in the back of the head!)

---

I see no difference from a teenager taking his life in his own hands protecting himself, than you saying he should go through the courts and get fried. or worse, 20+ years in prison. I believe it was a matter of time before the gay kids actions would end up being the death of him. His family knew it, friends knew it, school new it. Wish the shooter had a better lawyer

---

Chogram posted:

---

If the straight kid was constantly harrassing the gay kid and the gay kid shot him.

Would you have this same thought?

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

ya, what's the deal with harassment victims...it's just uneasiness...there's nothing wrong with it...just simple bad feelings.

---

Chogram posted:

---

If the straight kid was constantly harrassing the gay kid and the gay kid shot him. Would you have this same thought?

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

ya, what's the deal with harassment victims...it's just uneasiness...there's nothing wrong with it...just simple bad feelings.

---

eh whatever...Im not condoning it at all...but you keep trying to put words in my mouth since you have no other argument. I was picked on and teased(what people call bullying now) in school a good bit growing up. Did I pick up a gun and blow the brains out of the person who was doing it? No? I knew it was wrong even at 14 years old.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

what exactly was he protecting himself from?  Bad feelings? oh noes the big bad gay is making me feel uneasy I SHOULD GO SHOOT HIM!

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

The only reason that he did almost get away with it is because the kid he shot was gay.  So it worked in the straight guy's favor that the kid was gay.

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

ya, what's the deal with harassment victims...it's just uneasiness...there's nothing wrong with it...just simple bad feelings.

---

</blockquote> eh whatever...Im not condoning it at all...but you keep trying to put words in my mouth since you have no other argument. I was picked on and teased(what people call bullying now) in school a good bit growing up. Did I pick up a gun and blow the brains out of the person who was doing it? No? I knew it was wrong even at 14 years old.

---

<blockquote>NonOffensiveName posted:

---

what exactly was he protecting himself from?  Bad feelings? oh noes the big bad gay is making me feel uneasy I SHOULD GO SHOOT HIM!

---

sorry, i did not put anything in your mouth. please explain how i was so far off base with what i said. i also did not say you condoned it with that...but you certainly keep minimizin the effect of harassment. when you were bullied it was a different society...maybe you didn't notice but times have drastically changed in the last decade.

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

The only reason that he did almost get away with it is because the kid he shot was gay.  So it worked in the straight guy's favor that the kid was gay.

---

Nope. Any leniency gained by the defendant was because he was being actively bullied. Rho

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

And the jury nullified some of the defendant's guilt of the crime because of that sexual harassment(obviously because the victim was gay)

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

actually he was being sexually harassed not bullied.  And the jury nullified some of the defendant's guilt of the crime because of that sexual harassment(obviously because the victim was gay)  Like I said before I have not one doubt in my mind that if a girl had been throwing himself at her he first of all probably wouldnt have shot her and second of all the jury would've convicted him straight up of murder 1 if he had shot her.

---

Anebriated posted:

---

his leniency comes from the fact that he is not an adult. you would not give an adult the same leniency if he shot someone because he was being bullied. children are not adults- their brains are different. this is a well known fact of human development.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

The only reason that he did almost get away with it is because the kid he shot was gay.  So it worked in the straight guy's favor that the kid was gay.

---

Nope. Any leniency gained by the defendant was because he was being actively bullied. Rho

---

actually he was being sexually harassed not bullied.  And the jury nullified some of the defendant's guilt of the crime because of that sexual harassment(obviously because the victim was gay)  Like I said before I have not one doubt in my mind that if a girl had been throwing himself at her he first of all probably wouldnt have shot her and second of all the jury would've convicted him straight up of murder 1 if he had shot her.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

the jury was hung(due to their gay bias)

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

the jury was hung(due to their gay bias)

---

Is this based on anything other than your own assumption?

Rho

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

the jury was hung(due to their gay bias)

---

Is this based on anything other than your own assumption?

Rho

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

the jury was hung(due to their gay bias)

---

Is this based on anything other than your own assumption?

Rho

---

Banelord_FF posted:

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

the jury was hung(due to their gay bias)

---

Is this based on anything other than your own assumption?

Rho

---

Don't try talking sense to Non, it won't do any good.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

he could fully appreciate the consequences of his actions. I dont know what 14 year old couldnt appreciate the fact that shooting someone in the back of the head with a gun wont kill them unless they are literally mentally retarded. There was no mental defects or calls for a mental instability trial listed in the articles I read so he has all his faculties in place.

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

the jury was hung(due to their gay bias)

---

Is this based on anything other than your own assumption? Rho

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

Its the process of very simple elimination.

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

Rhodoman posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

the jury was hung(due to their gay bias)

---

Is this based on anything other than your own assumption? Rho

---

Its the obvious result, otherwise they would've convicted him because he committed  premeditated murder.   Basically any jury who wasnt bias would've convicted him in other words whether he was straight gay bi or whatever. Sexual harassment isnt grounds for justifiable murder. When theyre only two choices and they dont choose the right one, there has to be some kind of bias going on.  Its the process of very simple elimination.

---

-Abysmal- posted:

---

NonOffensiveName posted:

---

Its the process of very simple elimination.

---

no, that's not how the trial went, that's how the problem was fixed! 2 rounds, problem solved...now THAT is a simple elimination!

---

Kanga_Roo posted:

---

Personally I think murderers and child molesters should go in for life in 95% or more of cases.

With that said 21 years for a juvie is not inconsistent with what I see as normal sentencing in this sort of case. I'm not seeing a different standard here.

---

levgre posted:

---

Kanga_Roo posted:

---

Personally I think murderers and child molesters should go in for life in 95% or more of cases.

With that said 21 years for a juvie is not inconsistent with what I see as normal sentencing in this sort of case. I'm not seeing a different standard here.

---

The point of the legal system is not in just giving people what they "deserve". Eye for an eye justice is generally pretty fair, but retribution is not the only goal.

It's understandable to give leniency to criminals who can change their ways. Youths are prime examples of this of this.

20 years behind prison walls will seem like a lifetime for a prisoner, especially someone who has only lived for 13-20 years. Now will giving them a sentence beyond this benefit society in some way? I think there is generally diminishing returns.

---

_Elwood_ posted:

---

i thought gay kids liked getting it shot all over their face.

---