Brandon McInerney’s Father Dies

The LA Times reports:

The father of an Oxnard teenager accused of gunning down a gay classmate who was romantically attracted to him has been found dead, Ventura County authorities said today.

Bill McInerney, 45, was found shortly before 8 a.m. in the living room of his Silver Strand home by a friend, said James Baroni, Ventura County’s chief deputy medical examiner. The friend was supposed to drive him to a court hearing in his son’s murder trial, Baroni said.

Very sad. Just at the time his son needs him the most. Whilst it’s unacceptable that Brandon should have killed Lawrence King, homophobia that violent does not come out of the blue. To try him as an adult is to continue the brutality his father may already have inflicted on his life, but it’s hardly surprising. The US still has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child – one of just two UN member states not to do so.


5 responses to “Brandon McInerney’s Father Dies

  1. Yes, we have not succumbed to the abomination the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. America – to some remaining extent – still believes in both its own sovereignty and the rights of parents.

  2. That’s just stupid. It’s got nothing to do with sovereignty – human rights transcend the sovereignty of nation states, and for good reason. The US knows this, because it co-founded and was one of the initial signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but has since maintained a habit of opting out from standing up for human rights it finds inconvenient.

  3. No, it’s not stupid. Not subjecting the American people to the atrocities contained within UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of the few wise decisions our leaders have made.

    Maybe should read the text of the convention and what it is actually designed to do before you laud it so.

    I’m all for protecting children, but I’m – like all freedom loving Americans – dead set against allowing the level of state intervention in parenting – all under very vague and broadly worded auspices.

    If you, think of it as a case the devil being in the details.

  4. Actually what you’ve said (as with pretty much all your previous contributions) is bereft of intelligence, compassion, insight or pretty much any value other than bleating nonsense for the sake of it. Atrocities? In the UNCRC? Do you even look at what you write?

    The right to life? Terrible thing if you feel like trying children for crimes as adults and then killing them. Freedom of conscience, thought, religion? Atrocious! Protection from physical or mental violence? Diminishing infant mortality? The Convention isn’t vaguely worded, and its aims aren’t ambiguous; then again if you don’t believe that states should be held to universally held human rights norms then you’d probably have issues with those things.

  5. As far as I can see all people have these rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That’s it. If that is not up to the standards of some extra-national body, so be it.

    Here’s a link to the UK’s interpretation of the UNCRC –

    Much of what’s in it may be well suited to a Socialist nanny-state, but they have no place in America.

    The UNCRC’s aims ARE good; it’s the specifics of what they think is required to reach those aims that I don’t like and find atrocious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s