Boy accused of killing gay classmate bragged he had guns at home, police say

Oxnard junior high school student Brandon McInerney bragged that he had guns at home if he ever wanted to kill someone, a police investigator testified at the youth's pretrial hearing today in Ventura County Superior Court.

McInerney made the comment to another student at E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard sometime before walking into the classroom and allegedly gunning down gay classmate Larry King on the morning of Feb. 12, 2008, said Oxnard police Sgt. Kevin Baysinger.

“Brandon said if he ever wanted to kill anybody, his dad had a bunch of guns and he had the capability,” Baysinger told the court. Other witness testified that McInerney, then 14, and King had been feuding over King's alleged romantic overtures toward McInerney.

McInerney was clearly irritated after King, 15, reportedly said, “Baby, I love you,” the day before the shooting occurred, based on interviews with students. Other students reported similar threats, he said.

McInerney reportedly told one of King's friends the day before the shooting, “Tell Larry goodbye because you're not going to see him again,” Baysinger said. Other students reported similar threats, he said.

The testimony came during the first day of a pretrial hearing to determine whether the case should go to trial.

Prosecutor Maeve Fox laid out a history of conflict between the boys and McInerney’s threats. She brought Ventura County Medical Examiner Ronald O’Halloran to the stand to describe the two bullet wounds to King's head. One bullet entered near the base of the boy's neck, the other went into his skull, he said, describing starkly clinical autopsy photos on a stand next to him.

Defense attorney Scott Wippert sought to show that King provoked violence by taunting McInerney with his effeminate dress and romantic pursuit. At one point, Wippert sharply questioned Oxnard police Officer Ramiro Albarran.

“Did you inquire if Larry King was making sexual advances toward McInerney … you do realize he’s charged with first-degree murder? That he was provoked?" Wippert said.

Testimony is expected to resume this afternoon.

-- Catherine Saillant

Comments

[Bill]

Clearly God made a big 'oops' in leaving the protection of ANYTHING to the Heterosexual.

What kind of ANIMALS raise their children in this manner?

Oh, right.

[Desi30354]

This is a much more sad case than I've heard in a while. Larry King, a child who had his whole life ahead of him, is dead. And this other kid, the shooter, has ruined his life. Even if he isn't given many years this will follow him for the rest of his life.

I'ts easy after the fact to have 20/20 hindsight and point fingers at the parents who had guns in the home and the school for not being psychic enough to see this coming. But fact of the matter is, these things will continue happening until we as a society begin to take the shame from homosexuality away who our children will not react this way towards and advance.

It's very sad. No one should be shoot for what he/she says but no one should endure daily harrasment either. Without knowing more about the case it's hard to make a judgement call. I simply hope the best for the two families involved.

[Zach]

"Provoked?" I know that defense attorney is just doing his job, but a defense like that is despicable. People can be eliminated because who they are upsets someone else? Homicide is justifiable if the victim displays unwanted affection toward the perpetrator? What about the reverse, should a stalker be free to kill his target because the affection they don't return "provokes" the stalker?

This is really the lamest of defenses, no provocation short of threatening the life of one's self or loved ones can even remotely justify killing another person in cold blood.

[Bryan]

“Did you inquire if Larry King was making sexual advances toward McInerney … you do realize he’s charged with first-degree murder? That he was provoked?" Wippert said.

So because the KID may have made "sexual advances" it's somehow okay to MURDER him? Nice defense. Kids taunt each other all the time, and I seriously doubt the taunts only went one way. It's a stupid and immature thing to do, but most kids are stupid and immature. Having been one, I know.

What this kid did is commit a HATE CRIME. Wippert should ask himself if it was a girl making the advances on McInerey would it still be okay to murder her in response to provocation?

[Tom Henning]

Here comes the old "gay panic" defense.!

Since when is flirtation, and even saying "I love you" a provocation for anything? The defense should be ashamed.

Gay and lesbian couples hide their affections every day in America precisely because same-sex affection is seen as a legitimate reason to assault someone. To see it in a murder case is disgusting.

[alawyer]

This is NOT the gay panic defense. It would be the gay panic defense if the accused were an adult who was accosted in a bar for a minute or two, but here you had a boy who had just turned 14, made it clear that he had no romantic interest in another student, and was continually harassed by the boy - who clearly recognized that this behavior was both inappropriate, unwelcome and likely to lead toward emotional issues for the targeted boy. This was a sick form of bullying and provocative by design. It was the flip side of physical bullying - emotional bullying - by a kid who likely had already been physically bullied himself and enjoyed the power of causing emotional distress to other students. He was using his gayness here as an emotional weapon - he wasn't really interested in the other boy at all. The gay boy knew that other kids got upset at being targeted and that they then suffered ridicule from other students, so he did it purposefully. Gay adults do not continually shower interest on people who they know are not gay. They recognize that this can cause an adverse emotional response, because many people are raised to believe that homosexuality is not acceptable. It is not right to kill or even to be homophobic. But when a middle school kid is being targeted by an emotional bully, it is understandable that the results can be tragic. This is why kids that age should never have access to weapons - they overreact. I am sorry that boy is dead - but he should have been counseled by school officials not to make sexual comments to people who he knew were not interested in his advances - and for whom the advances would themselves lead to bullying by other students. 13 and 14 is primo age for this sort of problem and school administrators need to be vigilant in ensuring that kids do not suffer this sort of emotional distress in the school environment. If a girl were being continually harassed by a football player to the point of an emotional distress and then killed the kid, I would likewise believe that manslaughter and juvenile handling were appropriate.

[Alicai1969]

I doubt seriously that it is okay for a girl to kill a boy who is harassing her. There are legal channels one pursues including restraining orders--if we decide to kill people because of inappropriate behavior the world soon becomes the OK Coral. I also find it interesting that those who think it was okay for the gay kid to be killed would say that a child that was being harassed by a non homosexual who resorted to violence was a cry baby who didn't know how to handle the "rite of passage" that comes with bullying blah, blah, blah...

[Johan]

Emotional bullying?!?

So if a boy tells a girl, "Baby I love you," it's okay, but if a boy tells a boy the same words it is emotional bullying...

Your bigotry reeks to high heaven, sir. Your argument is as despicable as it is illogical. One statement of King's, completely without context, is enough for you to say that he had it coming.

How do you know what was going on between them? How do you know that King wasn't being bullied and this was his way to tease back? How on earth do you come to the conclusion that the words "I love you," justify murder?

[CivilRightsActrivist]

I read this article and sorry I did. My concern is that is seems to be another example of journalistic sensationalism. Is it really important that the intended victim is homosexual? Or should the focus have been more upon the awailability of weapons and the danger inherant for juveniles of age 14 having access to guns kept by parents. I cannot ignore the harmless comments of one teen saying to another "I love you" to another is probably important, too. Would this even be a story if the two children were heterosexual. Was there a need to identify the intended target as being gay? He is only 15. I think more of us need to say "I love you" regardless of age, race, gender AND sexual orientation. What a better world this would be.

[CivilRightsActrivist]

Have you ever heard of anyone attacking someone for being heterosexual?

[Gus V]

This discussion should be directed should be directed
toward homosexuality. First and foremost it is wrong! Naturally,
a pair of the same sex can't reproduce
naturally. From the three main religions it is wrong
period. As people that belive this, it is wrong to
to stand by and let our country accept this
behavior.

[BobC562]

@ Gus V: You're way off topic. First, not all religions view homosexuality the same way. The word didn't even appear in the Bible until (yet another) rewrite in 1949. If the fact that a same sex couple can't reporduce is giving you the basis for denying their relationship, how about infertile couples? Or couples who make the decsion not to reproduce? But this isn't a story about same sex couples, it's a story about a kid who was a psychopath, planned and executed a fellow classmate. A kid who, the evidence at the three day hearing showed, would while in Juvie run across a room and start pounding on another person who did nothing but enter the room. I'm certainly hoping, Gus, that you aren't suggesting that Larry's murder was justified.