Welcome to Jestertunes! If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Feel free to leave a comment, read through the archives, and enjoy yourself. See you again real soon!
Dave over at The Watters Edge sent me an email yesterday morning asking if I would check out his latest post.
Hey Jester, Would love your opinion on a post I did today since you are one of my favorite opinionated gay bloggers. --Dave
Since flattery (and gifts) gets people just about anything they want, I clicked over to the post and discovered that he had written about a situation that had taken place out here in California this past week. I’m not sure how much coverage it got in the rest of the country, but out here the news was all over it between yet another Hilton DUI and Britney Spears picking up kleenex at Ralph’s Grocery.
There was another school shooting, this time in Oxnard. Unlike the “typical” scenario* the shooter was not a lonely outcast who had finally grown tired of being picked on. This time the shooter picked his victim on purpose, because the victim hit on him.
Both the victim and the shooter were 14 year old boys.
From Dave:
[The victim, whom we will call] Bob went to school in full makeup, wore feminine clothing, and hit on other boys at school.
The boy that shot Bob, was quiet, had never been in trouble before and obviously couldn’t deal with Bob’s advances.
But wait, there’s more.
Bob was a ward of the state. Bob was a ward of the state against his father’s wishes. Bob was taken out of his home at Bob’s request by family services because Bob’s father “did not accept Bob’s lifestyle choice” and would not allow Bob to go to school in full makeup and feminine clothing.
The state encouraged Bob to express himself with the makeup and the clothing.
It is my humble opinion the the state greatly contributed to the death of this minor.
I have to disagree that the state “greatly contributed” to his death. I’m actually quite impressed that the state recognized the importance of Bob’s situation and agreed to remove him from his father’s custody in the first place. How bad must Bob’s life with his dad have been that before the age of 14 he successfully petitioned the state to escape? In other states, wouldn’t the answer have been, “Tough shit, kid, you’ll be 18 soon enough?”
If you want to fault the state for something, fault them for failing to fully recognize the real dangers faced by gay and transgendered teenagers. But I don’t think that was a “great” contributing factor to Bob’s death.
Dave addresses the blame that must be placed at the feet of Bob’s father:
He should have had a better rapport with his son and let him know that people are scared of what they don’t understand and can react violently to things they find unusual.
Yes, he should have. However that would have required Bob’s grandparents to instill that belief in their son, and so on further up the chain. Most of us raise our kids how we were raised. We pass on the bad habits and attitudes of our family unless we make a conscious effort to break the cycle. Even with that conscious effort, many abused kids still become abusers. Is Bob’s death his father’s fault? No. Bob’s shitty life was his father’s fault. The fact that Bob had to ask the government to help him escape his father is his father’s fault. The fact that Bob’s father could not realize the special needs his (probably) transgendered son had is his fault.
Ultimately the shooter has to be held responsible for what he did. But he was 14. How responsible can you find a 14 year old for anything? Just turned 14 by the way, 1 week after his 14th birthday is when he did the shooting and will therefore be tried as an adult by the state.
I have to fault his parents to a large degree. How can you not know your child is so wound up about something that he’s going to kill someone? Where did the kid get the gun? (I haven’t been able to find out yet) If he didn’t get it from home where did he get the money? Guns are not cheap.
How anti-gay was the home this kid was raised that he’d shoot a kid that was hitting on him?
A 14 year old boy can (in most cases) father a child. A 14 year old boy can get married in some states. A 14 year old boy can understand and comprehend that pointing a weapon at another living thing and pulling the trigger will result in the harm or death of that living thing. A 14 year old boy knows that there are consequences for his actions. Has he never been punished for anything in his life? I do not believe that the shooter had any question in his mind that it might be wrong to kill Bob. He made what I would call an adult decision and should therefore face adult consequences. I don’t believe there is any “magic age” that should determine the readiness of a person to commit a crime, drink a beer, drive a car, or have sex. I understand the need to legislate it, but I don’t believe it’s a very effective system.
The shooter’s home life may not be that “anti-gay.” It could simply be that the shooter’s family is simply “gay ignorant.” It’s possible that his parents had never approached the subject of homosexuality with him. It’s more than possible that the shooter’s family had never really even discussed sex or for that matter drugs, smoking, or any other “adult” theme with their child. I think the shooter’s access to a weapon is definitely something that can most likely be blamed on the parents. The fact that this kid was having such difficulty with the sexual advances by Bob and those difficulties weren’t noticed or addressed by his parents is definitely something that can be blamed on his parents. How can you not realize your child is so upset that he could literally kill someone? How can you not provide your child with the education necessary to understand people who are different from you?
The state took the child out of a safe home because the kid wanted to pursue a lifestyle choice. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Wearing makeup and feminine clothes is a lifestyle choice. You can be gay and wear regular clothes and no makeup. Would the state come and take a girl out of a home because her parents would not let her wear makeup and slutty clothes? Absolutely not. Would the state take a boy out of a home because they did not let him drink booze and do drugs? Absolutely not.
Bob was fed, Bob had a roof over his head, Bob was not beaten or abused, he had rules that he didn’t like and the state had no right to take him out of that home.
I think Dave is working from a faulty starting position here: if Bob was transgendered, dressing in feminine or girl’s clothes and wearing makeup was less a “lifestyle choice” than an external expression of an inner torment. I doubt seriously that Bob wore makeup to piss people off. I doubt seriously that Bob enjoyed the torment that he surely suffered at the hands of other 8th graders. If the state recognized that Bob was not able to get the evaluation and psychological counseling that transgendered individuals need, they absolutely did the best thing for Bob by removing him from a home that could be emotionally and mentally abusing him. It’s not the same as not letting him drink booze or letting a girl wear “slutty” clothes.
Dave says that Bob was not beaten or abused, but is that the same as saying that Bob was in a nurturing or healthy environment? No, it’s not. Without a bit more information it’s hard to conclude that the state was wrong to remove Bob from his father’s care. I have to assume the case for removal was quite compelling, as the state does not historically, arbitrarily, decide to separate kids from their parents.
Finally comes the blame the victim mentality. Bob should not have hit on the shooter. To this I say, Bob should not have hit on the shooter after the shooter had rejected initial advances. But this was not the case, Bob, even after being told to stop, continued to harass the child that shot him.
This smells a bit like the “gay panic” defense to me. We will likely never know to what extent the shooter was “harassed” by Bob. Did the shooter take an odd look as a sexual advance? What was said? On how many occasions? What sort of encouragement did the shooter give Bob? In my experience as a gay teenager, I had to have a written engraved invitation to get the confidence to “hit on” a guy. I can look back on times when in retrospect I’m CERTAIN that a friend of mine was asking me for sex and because of my fear of being outed (and rejected) I ignored those not-so-subtle come ons. I think it’s far more likely that Bob expressed interest in the shooter, either directly or via a friend and the shooter became so embarrassed and humiliated that he felt he had no choice but to murder Bob.
Plenty of blame to go around. But if you are a parent the way you can avoid something like this happening is to let your children know, there’s nothing wrong with being gay, and how to properly resolve conflict. Be a role model. Treat even the people you hate with at least a modicum of courtesy and respect, to show them that you try and treat people even those you hate the way you’d want to be treated.
Finally a point that I feel like I can completely agree with Dave about. Even if you want to teach your children that you (and your religion) believe that homosexuality is wrong, the overwhelming point should be made that violence and hatred is never acceptable. A gun is no way to settle a conflict. All people, even those who are different from you, deserve respect. There’s a reason “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” is called the “Golden Rule.” It’s supposed to supersede all other rules!
While a tragic confluence of errors and bad parenting contributed in some ways to this unfortunate situation, the blame is laid squarely on the shoulders of the 14 year old shooter. He made the decision to take a life in cold blood. He had the forethought to bring a weapon to school. He had hundreds upon hundreds of opportunities right up to the moment he pulled the trigger to change his mind. He had presence of mind to devise a plan to carry out this murder. His parents, Bob’s father, and especially Bob should not be on trial.
If Bob had simply been another “normal” straight kid who made an enemy at school would we be having this discussion? The fact that we have to explain that Bob was homosexual or transgendered in an effort to find meaning in the shooter’s actions shows how far we really have to go to find acceptance, even among the gay community.
What do you think?
* I hate that there’s such a thing as a “typical” school shooting.
Don’t forget to join me this Sunday evening on The Mr. Fabulous Radio Show! February 24th, 2008 at 7pm EST. Call in and talk to us live by calling: (646) 652-4911
