Rash Of Violent Anti-Gay Hate Crimes In Long Beach

Long Beach has been the location of at least three attacks on gay men in the last two weeks.  Long Beach is the third largest city in California and is well-known for a prominent LGBT community. They have an openly gay, Latino city councilman named Robert Garcia who is quoted saying that "These incidents have no place in our city."

The Los Angeles Times reports:

Avila, who was walking ahead of the group, passed a man arguing with a woman on the sidewalk. The man stopped long enough to use a slur against Avila as he passed, he said.
[...]
The man ran away, but Avila and another friend chased him several blocks until police arrived, he said.

The suspect, Jorge Jhovanoy Ibarrias, 21, was arrested and charged with felony battery in addition to a hate crime. He has pleaded not guilty, authorities said.

Three days later, near East 4th Street and Orange Avenue, another man was beaten and called slurs. That case is being investigated as a battery and a possible hate incident, though not a hate crime, Fernandez said. The difference, he said, is that police do not believe that hatred specifically against gays was the initial motivation.

Four days after the second attack, on Sundayabout 1:30 a.m., several men walking on Broadway, two blocks from the site of the initial incident, were approached by another group that used slurs against them, police said. A fight broke out before the groups separated. But the group that made the insults returned shortly afterward with several other people and assaulted three of the men who had been walking down the street, police said.

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0 who posted the video of a local ABC affiliate coverage of the story shown above.

POLL: CA Voters Reject "Tough On Crime" Policies

Excellent news from California! In the midst of a financial meltdown California voters are beginning to realize that they can not continue to spend billions of dollars locking up non-violent criminal offenders in more and more prisons.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The ailing economy far outweighs crime as the top concern for most people today, the pollsters said. That, along with the court order, could help explain voters' new receptivity to changes long sought by prisoner-rights advocates:

— More than 60% of respondents, including majorities among Democrats, Republicans and those who declined to state a party preference, said they would support reducing life sentences for third strike offenders convicted of property crimes such as burglary, auto theft and shoplifting.

— Nearly 70% said they would sanction the early release of some low-level offenders whose crimes did not involve violence.

— About 80% said they approve of keeping low-level, nonviolent offenders in county custody — including jails, home detention or parole — instead of sending them to state prisons. The same percentage favors paroling inmates who are paralyzed, in comas or so debilitated by advanced disease that they no longer pose a threat to public safety.

The pollsters noted that people don't generally favor the release of convicted criminals. But "when it comes to prisons," said Linda DiVall of American Viewpoint, "voters are looking for solutions that don't raise taxes or take money from other priorities like education."

Only 12% of respondents said they'd be willing to accept less state spending on healthcare or education to pay for more prisons. And less than a quarter of voters want to pay higher taxes to build prisons or ship inmates to private lockups in other states to comply with the courts.

This year the state plans to spend $9.8 billion on prisons, making it the third-highest general fund expenditure, behind education and healthcare.

"We spend such a large portion of our budget on crime and prison systems, and we get so little for it," said Amanda Hixson, 59, a Democrat from Sacramento.

Politicians determined to burnish their law-and-order credentials try to scare the public about releasing inmates early, Hixson said, "but some guy who's got three pot busts just isn't going to be that terrifying on the street."

I look forward to voting on ballot measures in 2012 which will finally end this madness which seeks o bankrupt the state by spending ridiculous amounts on criminal justice as compared to education.

Larry King Murder Trial Opens With Anti-Gay Arguments

The long-awaited trial of Brandon McInerney for the February 2008 execution-style murder of Lawrence King opened on July 5th with the prosecution and defense painting very different pictures of the two teenagers involved.

The los Angeles Times is covering the trial (quite well) and started by summarizing prosecutor Maeve Fox's opening statement.

Fox, a veteran Ventura County prosecutor, led the jury through a 90-minute outline of the case, starting by flashing a large photograph of a cherubic-faced King on a projector. She next showed the defendant's booking photos, portraying a tall and muscular McInerney with shaved head, taken within hours of the killing.

McInerney was angry with King, she said, because King had decided he was no longer going to take the bullying that he had been subjected to for years. Slight and "very effeminate," King had only girls for friends and was shunned by the boys, Fox said.

But after King was removed from his home and placed into a children's shelter, he underwent a change in attitude, the prosecutor said. He became more confident in school and started wearing high-heeled boots, makeup and jewelry along with his uniform. School rules did not prohibit this.

King knew it was within his rights to assert a budding feminine identity, and he took full advantage, she said.

"Larry King for the first time in his life wasn't taking it anymore," Fox said. "He started to give people what I prefer to call the proverbial chin, only it was more profane."

The defense attorney is Scott Wippert who has already been held in contempt by the judge for mentioning McInerney's statements to police that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charles Campbell had previously ruled would not be heard by the jury.

Wippert's 30-minute opening statement focused on both of the boys' troubled backgrounds and on McInerney's inability to deal with the humiliation of having an openly gay boy flirt with him at school. In contrast to the district attorney's slide show presentation, Wippert simply stood before the jury and talked, occasionally consulting his notes.

McInerney reached an "emotional breaking point" and saw no other way to stop the sexual harassment by King, Wippert said. His own violent and dysfunctional family offered no help, and school officials had made it clear that King was permitted to flaunt his sexuality, even if it was disruptive, the defense attorney said.

He called the prosecution's allegation that McInerney was acting out of white supremacist beliefs a red herring. He said that the Nazi iconography and copies of Hitler's speeches found in the boy's room were related to his work on a World War II paper.

There was no hate crime, just the frustration of an adolescent with nowhere to turn, he told the jury. "Why would a student complain when everyone knows about it and no one is going to do anything about it?" he posited.

Wippert suggested that a psychologist will testify that McInerney was in a dissociative state at the time of the shooting, not in touch with the reality of what he was doing. He also told the jury there is evidence that King had been making inappropriate sexual comments at school since the fifth grade.

"He did shoot Larry King," Wippert said of his client. "He did this out of a heat of passion, and that is voluntary manslaughter."

MadProfessah has been following this case very closely for years. Involuntary manslaughter would be a travesty of a result. I am a strong opponent of the death penalty and also do not approve of trying 14-year-olds as adults but since California passed Proposition 21 passed allowing the practice McInerney should be tried to the fullest extent of the law. There is no question McInerney executed Larry King (with a gun, no less!), and that the boy's sexual orientation and gender identity was involved in Mcinerney's decision to end Larry King's life.

Buju Banton Sentenced To 10 Years

Buju Banton, the notoriously homophobic, Grammy-winning Jamaican reggae star, has been sentenced to 10 years in prison in the United States  following his conviction earlier this year on federal drug charges.

The Jamaican Gleaner reports: 

Jamaican reggae superstar, Buju Banton, 37, has been sentenced to 10 years, followed by five years of probation, in the Florida District Court in the United States this morning.

US District Judge, James Moody imposed the sentence when Buju, whose real name is Mark Myrie, appeared in a Tampa Federal Courtroom this morning.

MadProfessah has participated in public protests against appearances by Banton, due to his song "Boom Bye Bye" which had horrendously homophobic lyrics. Of course, one never likes to see anyone go to jail but Banton has been unrepentant in his disdain for the LGBT community. Karma is a *****!

Cop Serves 220 Days For Killing Unarmed Black Man

Johannes Mehserle claimed that he shot Oscar Grant by mistake,
using his gun instead of his Taser, and a jury with no Black members agreed

The former BART police officer who shot and killed an unarmed Black man while holding him restrained face down on the ground on New Years Day 2009 has been released from prison this morning after serving an astonishing (and sickening) 220 days in prison after being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter (as I blogged about last fall).

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

E-mail and phone notifications made at 12:01 a.m. today said Mehserle had been released, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's online inmate locator also said he had been freed.

[...]

Mehserle, 29, was sentenced to two years for shooting Oscar Grant in the back while the 22-year-old Hayward man lay face down on the platform at Oakland's Fruitvale BART Station after being pulled from a train.

Mehserle has been imprisoned in Los Angeles County Jail since being convicted July 8. He was eligible for release with credit for time served before his trial and what is known as "good time" credit: one day for every day spent behind bars.

[...]

Mehserle testified that he had thought he was firing his Taser stun gun instead of his pistol as he was trying to arrest Grant for allegedly resisting an officer. The case drew widespread outrage, prompting the trial to be moved from Alameda County to Los Angeles. The jury there acquitted Mehserle of murder.

[Mehserle's attorney] Rains said at least eight other law-enforcement officers across the country have similarly mistaken their Tasers for their service weapons and were never criminally charged "and, in some cases, not even disciplined."

On Sunday, several hundred protesters marched peacefully from the Fruitvale BART Station to 14th Street and Broadway in downtown Oakland.

The saddest part of this case is that it must be considered progress that Mehserle was even charged with murder, since as the lawyer says, this was one of the rare times that the "peace officer" offending actions were caught on video and a public outcry finally lead to a criminal prosecution for murder.

Illinois Becomes 16th State To Abolish Death Penalty

Illinois abolished the death penalty this week when Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed SB 3539 into law, which was passed by the state legislature in January. There are now 16 states (not even 1/3 of the Union) which do not have their ability to waste money to kill their own citizens, regardless of the criminal conviction.

The New York Times reported:

Dozens of family members of victims had signed a letter to the legislature supporting the bill, arguing that capital trials and appeals “drag victims’ loved ones through an agonizing and lengthy process, which often does not result in the intended punishment.”


The current and future mayors of Chicago took different sides, with Mayor Richard M. Daley supporting capital punishment, and Rahm Emanuel, who will became mayor this spring, saying the ban was the right thing to do.


Illinois joins a wave of states that have reconsidered capital punishment. New Jersey abolished the practice in 2007. The New Mexico Legislature ended the death penalty in 2009. New Mexico’s newly elected governor, Susana Martinez, a Republican, has asked the Legislature to reinstate it, though bills to do so have stalled. The Connecticut legislature voted to abolish the penalty last year, but the governor at the time, M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, vetoed the measure.

Governor Quinn issued a statement:

Since the General Assembly passed this bill, I have met or heard from a wide variety of people on both sides of the issue. I have talked with prosecutors, judges, elected officials, religious leaders from around the world, families of murder victims, people on death row who were exonerated and ordinary citizens who have taken the time to share their thoughts with me. Their experiences, words and opinions have made a tremendous impact on my thinking, and I thank everyone who reached out on this matter.


After their guidance, as well as much thought and reflection, I have concluded that our system of imposing the death penalty is inherently flawed. The evidence presented to me by former prosecutors and judges with decades of experience in the criminal justice system has convinced me that it is impossible to devise a system that is consistent, that is free of discrimination on the basis of race, geography or economic circumstance, and that always gets it right.


As a state, we cannot tolerate the executions of innocent people because such actions strike at the very legitimacy of a government. Since 1977, Illinois has seen 20 people exonerated from death row. Seven of those were exonerated since the moratorium was imposed in 2000. That is a record that should trouble us all. To say that this is unacceptable does not even begin to express the profound regret and shame we, as a society, must bear for these failures of justice.


Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it. With our broken system, we cannot ensure justice is achieved in every case. For the same reason, I have also decided to commute the sentences of those currently on death row to natural life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole or release.


I have found no credible evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on the crime of murder and that the enormous sums expended by the state in maintaining a death penalty system would be better spent on preventing crime and assisting victims’ families in overcoming their pain and grief.


To those who say that we must maintain a death penalty for the sake of the victims’ families, I say that it is impossible not to feel the pain of loss that all these families share or to understand the desire for retribution that many may hold. But, as I heard from family members who lost loved ones to murder, maintaining a flawed death penalty system will not bring back their loved ones, will not help them to heal and will not bring closure to their pain. Nothing can do that. We must instead devote our resources toward the prevention of crime and the needs of victims’ families, rather than spending more money to preserve a flawed system.

As a long-standing member of Amnesty International, I say "Congratulations!" to Illinois. Governor Quinn has now signed into law death penalty abolition and civil unions enactment. The state is becoming a more progressive by leaps and bounds.

WATCH: Houston Cops Pummel Black Male Suspect, 15

Hat/tip to Color of Change