Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Larry King’s Caretakers Seek to Profit from his Murder

Timothy Kincaid

February 14th, 2009

Lawrence King was adopted at age three by Gregory and Dawn King. According to the Kings, he never bonded with them. In November 2007 he was removed from their home and placed in a group home after he complained that Gregory King was physically abusive.

But none of that is stopping the Kings from seeking to be paid for their loss. And they are not above trashing Larry in order to get some cash.

To celebrate the one year anniversary of Larry’s death, Gregory and Dawn king have filed a wrongful death lawsuit assigning the blame for Larry’s murder on Larry himself and faulting everyone in sight. (SJ Merc)

The 18-page lawsuit filed by King’s parents and brother names nearly two dozen defendants. It claims that everyone from King’s teacher to his social worker failed to urge the effeminate teen to tone down flamboyant behavior. The suit also claims they failed to heed McInerney’s alleged threat to kill King a day before the shooting.

In addition to his teacher and principal, the suit names McInerney and his parents; the nonprofit Casa Pacifica, a shelter for troubled children where King had been living; counselors; a county social worker, and the Ventura County Rainbow Alliance.

The school and shelter knew that King’s behavior was “sexually assertive” and threatening but failed to take action, the suit contends.

The shelter gave him “cross-dressing clothes and makeup and women’s boots,” and the Rainbow Alliance encouraged King to make sexual advances on McInerney, the suit claims.

While the Kings can sue anyone they think has cash for wrongful death in every state in the Union, in Utah gay people don’t have the right to sue anyone at all for the loss of their devoted and much loved and cared-for partner.



February 14th, 2009 | LINK

The timing is likely not coincidental: the statute of limitations for many torts in many jurisdictions happens to be one year.

Timothy Kincaid
February 14th, 2009 | LINK


Per the Ventura County Star, they had another year.

Stefano A
February 14th, 2009 | LINK


I think you have mis-read something somewhere.

The Kings filed the lawsuit because because the one-year limitation for filing such a suit was expering this month.

They Kings first had to file a claim, which they did in August 2008.

California state law requires plaintiffs seeking damages from public agencies to file claims first. If they’re denied, the plaintiffs have six months from the date of rejection to sue.

The claim was promptly rejected 12 August 2008, four days after the Kings filed it.

Thus, the deadline for filing the lawsuit was February 12 2009.

Stefano A
February 14th, 2009 | LINK


The county claim was rejected 12 August.

After a claim is filed it has to be acted upon within 45 days. If no action is taken at all the claim is considered rejected by default. The school took no actions so the claim against the school thus was considered to be rejected by default in late September 2008.

That would have given the Kings until March 2009.

However, because the county is included in the lawsuit with all the other bodies being sued, the Kings had to file by 12 February 2009. Otherwise, they’d have had to have left the county out of the suit.

Stefano A
February 14th, 2009 | LINK


The Kings filed the lawsuit because because the one-year limitation for filing such a suit was expering this month.

That should be six-month limitation, not one-year.

Stefano A
February 14th, 2009 | LINK

For the source of the info in my posts, see the coverage from The Ventura County Star by Kathleen Wilson “Slain student’s family files claim against district, county” August 2008; “County, school district reject King family claims”, October 2008, as well as the “King family files wide-ranging lawsuit” of 14 February 2009 by Kathleen Wilson, Cheri Carlson and
Raul Hernandez.

As for your sentiments regarding the lawsuit and how that “blames” Larry King, I agree. I’m sure McInerney’s criminal defense are delighted the suit was filed.

February 14th, 2009 | LINK

I think that this case is going to be an uphill climb for this family. Even if a jury finds that the school district or someone else did not adequately protect this kid from being killed, the very nature of the filing indicates nothing but contempt for the kid on the part of the suing parents. They are not going to come accross as very simpathetic in the courtroom. They are also going to have to overcome the question of what their loss is with a kid they never bonded to and who they reportedly abused.

They may seek to trash everyone else, but every awful thing they did to this kid and anyone else is going to come out in a trial. They may regret filing this lawsuit in the long run.

David C.
February 14th, 2009 | LINK

They may seek to trash everyone else, but every awful thing they did to this kid and anyone else is going to come out in a trial. They may regret filing this lawsuit in the long run.

Well, just maybe, that force that protects and looks out for all children is acting here to expose just what this child had to endure. I hope so.

Regan DuCasse
February 15th, 2009 | LINK

I think I’m going to be sick. I can remember SO vividly, all the situations that gay children found themselves in, from their bio parents, to foster parents.

I volunteer for gay young people and those in the GLASS (gay and lesbian adolescent social services), have similar stories of abandonment and abuse. Mostly because they are gay.

It’s not surprising that the Kings didn’t bond with Larry (Letitia), and that he ended up in a group home.

His troubles were worse than those of McInerny.
But young King didn’t bring a weapon to school, even though HE was the one who was threatened with violence.

Parents, bio or foster make HUGE mistakes. I think that the state, and any public entity has a job to do with parents, schools and clergy in educating them on the proper care of gay CHILDREN.
They will just have to come to terms with the biological factors of homosexuality and it’s manifestation in the young.
Abuse is no excuse and can’t and won’t resolve into mental and physical health for young gay children.

NARTH and all the rest like them be DAMNED for the kinds of fear mongering and incompetent interference with parent/child function and care when it comes to this issue.

And throwing this poor boy under the bus is despicable.
He was beyond innocent in this. What could he do?
How could he have defended himself when the adults around him, responsible for him…were the failures in learning to deal with HIS need and RIGHT to be himself?!
His utterly harmless, expressive, and entertaining SELF?

There has to be a serious moratorium demanded from our leadership on dealing with gay young people AS people, not animals or convenient vehicles for abuse.
And their straight peers require something too. They look to the adults for signals that they EMULATE.
And some kids would rather just have the LK’s of the world as simply a friend.
And for that THEY shouldn’t be punished and left to wonder why the adults aren’t making sense.

I’m so furious I could spit.

February 15th, 2009 | LINK

One’s first inclination is to see these people as family and feel sorry for them. But as more and more I saw how they were acting and learned more about them it because quite clear that they are a rather dysfunctional couple who probably shouldn’t have been allowed to adopt. The “father” has repeatedly shown contempt for Larry in comments he has made. They don’t deserve a cent as far as I’m concerned.

Timothy Kincaid
February 16th, 2009 | LINK

Stefano and Kip,

Thanks for the clarification on the timing.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.