# 11 yo child faces life imprisonment w/o parole



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I have such mixed feelings and questions about this. I don't know what to make of it. I had no idea that such a juvenile justice policy existed anywhere in the western world. Only in America and Somalia does it exist. What the boy did is horrific and seemingly remorseless but is there a chance he can be rehabilitated? Part of me says no, he deserves life for what he did, that he is a young psychopath .... and part of me says he needs a chance to prove he can be rehabilitated and get a parole in later life. I'm questioning why it was that an 11 y.o. child had free access to his own shotgun designed specifically for a child .... like why didn't his dad have it secured? Surely such a young child can't be considered a mature, responsible shotgun owner to have free access to it without adult supervision?? Will his father also have to face criminal charges for not having control of his child's access to the firearm?

Anybody got any opinions about this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/25/us-boy-accused-murder-appeals



> Lawyers for a child in Pennsylvania who was 11 when he allegedly shot and killed his father's pregnant fiancee attempted today to persuade an appeals court not to try him as an adult under America's harsh system of juvenile justice.
> 
> Unless the lawyers for Jordan Brown who is now aged 13, can convince the judges to change tack, he will be tried in adult court and if convicted will serve an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole. He would become the youngest child in US history to be sentenced to be incarcerated forever.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## primroselane (May 10, 2002)

Maybe his parents could help him out by taking a third of his sentence.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

I give this thread 3 pages before its locked or gone...


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

No good answer here. We just do what we think is right and move on.
If the child is not beyond help, after 7 years in 'the system' as a minor he probably will be.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

What about the father's responsibility in this? Aren't firearms supposed to be secured away from young children when they aren't being supervised by an adult?

.


----------



## megafatcat (Jun 30, 2009)

The father has had his betrothed and child murdered.
His son at 11yrs old is facing a lifetime in jail for those murders.
Yup, 6 months in jail for failure to secure a firearm will teach him and all other gun owners not to do that again!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I'm not saying that a child shouldn't be gifted with a gun and learn how to use a gun responsibly. I was gifted with my first rifle when I was 9 y.o. but I was trained by my father to use it responsibly and to understand the consequences of using firearms and dealing death, but I wasn't allowed access to it without adult supervision.

It is such a tragic situation. I feel the father is as guilty as the child due to his own irresponsibility in this. I think he should be facing charges and jail time himself for promoting and providing his child with the means to commit murder. If the child had not had easy access to a firearm there would have been much less likelihood of him attempting to kill the woman by some other lesser means. A firearm makes it so easy to kill, with no physical effort or courage or strength of character required on the part of the killer child.

:awh:

.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

yep, this thread is gonna get locked and filed.

But to answer your question in a round about way:

What happened in Mexico when drug cartels figured out that kids get short sentences for killing?

Ding, ding, ding....Now kids make up the MAJORITY of drug cartel hitters. A whole slew of them were caught recently...in the US. They ar vicious, brutal and absolutely without remorse. And they go to jail for a few years in kiddy prison and make their real bones if they get caught.

Some people are born without the capacity for remorse. Some are made that way by their circumstances. No parent wants to admit their child is a future serial killer or sociopath or psychopath. They protect them from themselves and delude themselves into thinking they "get over it" or "grow out of it". That is why they, or someone close to them, is usually the first victim.

This has nothing to do with guns. Nothing. Do you think this killer, intent on the demise of his own brother and the woman that carried him, wouldn't do it with a knife?

Instead of looking at the rare examples of sociopathic kids as a justification for disarming the populace, perhaps you should look at the 33 million other people who DIDN"T use a gun wrongly but own them legally that day.

And no, I think he shouldn't be locked up for life.

I think he should be declared a predator and euthanized right where dangerous dogs are.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I'm not saying that a child shouldn't be gifted with a gun and learn how to use a gun responsibly. I was gifted with my first rifle when I was 9 y.o. but I was trained by my father to use it responsibly and to understand the consequences of using firearms and dealing death, but I wasn't allowed access to it without adult supervision.
> 
> It is such a tragic situation. I feel the father is as guilty as the child due to his own irresponsibility in this. I think he should be facing charges and jail time himself for promoting and providing his child with the means to commit murder. If the child had not had easy access to a firearm there would have been much less likelihood of him attempting to kill the woman by some other lesser means. A firearm makes it so easy to kill, with no physical effort or courage or strength of character required on the part of the killer child.
> 
> ...



Actually, I think he should be locked up because he left knives in the drawer....


And lines on the blinds....

And umm....bleach in the laundry (poisonous ya know)

And antifreeze in the garage...

And electricity running in the house! He could toss a hair dryer in the bath.

Let's always, ALWAYS blame the tool rather than the murderer.


----------



## countryboy84 (Dec 8, 2010)

I got my frist gun at birth. Way to young to shot of course but start being taught to shoot and saftey when I was 4. I carried a handgun on the farm by myself starting at age 10. I never shot anyone killed many copperheads and rattle snakes though, the reason that I had a weapon. The eduation that the father failed to give the child is evident, and should be adressed I am just not sure of how. On the issue of the kid, I remember at age 11 I understood that killing humans unless they were going to kill you was wrong, so I figure this kid did too. Life without parole maybe not but tried and stay there a while past 18 I say yeah. He knowingly and willingly took not one but 2 lives and if you are morbid enough to do that at age 11 I do not want to think about what you would do by the time you was 21 without some strong guidense.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

This is a hard one. At 11 children do know right from wrong. 
In our area a 9 year old murdered a 4 year old...after torturing him and violating him. He is still in jail and he is in his 20's. He carried on the rest of the day as normal. The parole board will not let him out on parole as he does not exhibit any remorse. What do you do about that? 
I guess the 11 year old could be put in jail for 20 years then try to parole out and hope the committee can see if he is ready or not. But certainly is was premeditated as he killed her when she was sleeping and shot in the back of the head. The trouble is that we dont want to believe that a child could be evil/flawed/just not normal. Sometimes the blinders need to come off when dealing with a child.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

I've been following this since I'm in the general area. I don't like that the main reason the boy is likely to end up in jail for the rest of his life is that he won't express remorse. It's not like he is defiantly saying "I did it and I'm not sorry". He's still saying he didn't do it....not all that unexpected for a child, or for many adults really. I'm sure someone has explained to the boy that it would help him if he admitted he had done it and said he was sorry. Wouldn't most criminals tell that lie ("I'm sorry") without a second thought?

If he is too afraid to say he did it, that is not the same as being a remorseless sociopath. I don't know which is the case here. I hope those in charge of his sentencing do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I'll wait before I post. Need to get a little bit more sleep.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

From reading the article I get the impression only 44 states have laws under which a juviline can be given a sentence of life without parole. If this upsets the public enough, those in the 44 states should work towards a more compromising solution.


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

It depends on his evaluation. If he doesn't feel remorse then yes keep him locked up for our sake. I wouldn't want him living anywhere near me if he doesn't feel anything.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

The article didn't say, so does anyone know why this child did this? What happened before? I don't like the idea of a child going to prison for life either, but then I think of people like Charlse Manson and how he showed signs of the evil inside of him from an early age. If something had been done to Manson when he was younger, then a lot of people's lives would have turned out differently.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

it's ridiculous to think a child of eleven is adult enough to serve a life sentence. while they may know right from wrong, they haven't the life experience to discern the full value of the actions they make. while it may that they know what they did is wrong, they don't know how wrong. they don't know how precious life is.

sometimes in life there is no perfect answer or justice for every crime. sometimes life just stinks. i think it's disgusting that people feel nothing for this child...so much so that someone would suggest euthanasia is the best answer. if all life is precious, why not so for the eleven year old? i think it is a bit hypocritical to criticize people for vilifying objects and tools while at the same time claiming that these young kids are the primary "tools" used by cartels to carry out "hits". these kids are likely victims as well...victims whose parents have failed in a society that falls further each day.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

It is not about the gun... he would have used anything at hand, the gun just made it a bit easier and less messy.

It is not about a child... crazy/sociopathic happens at any age. It is a matter of no long term thought about consquences, just immediate success of his idea. The fact that he could kill someone and then not freak out and collapse, but rather run out the door as usual with the lady's other kid and go about his day as normal is the real clincher.

For me that is the key part of this whole thing. He was unphased by his actions.
A person, no matter what age, is not going to be rehabilitated and released successfully.

Menatl hospital is a better bet than prison.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> The article didn't say, so does anyone know why this child did this? What happened before? I don't like the idea of a child going to prison for life either, but then I think of people like Charlse Manson and how he showed signs of the evil inside of him from an early age. If something had been done to Manson when he was younger, then a lot of people's lives would have turned out differently.


Another problem with the boy saying he didn't do it is that we don't know the motive. The young woman was shot in her sleep so no confrontation preceded it. The dad didn't mention any arguments the night before. The only thing I ever heard was a possible motive of jealousy because the new baby was also a boy. But that's really just a guess.

I am just a bit concerned about the possibility of the dad being behind it, either shooting her or having the boy do it, telling him that if he just keeps his mouth shut he will go free as a juvenile.


----------



## sticky_burr (Dec 10, 2010)

he needs a long long time removed from the general population.. as well as the person who allowed him access to said weapon. but alas jail or kiddy jail is no place to actually get better. so he is lost RIP to all 3 of them


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

JanS said:


> I've been following this since I'm in the general area. I don't like that the main reason the boy is likely to end up in jail for the rest of his life is that he won't express remorse. It's not like he is defiantly saying "I did it and I'm not sorry". He's still saying he didn't do it....not all that unexpected for a child, or for many adults really. I'm sure someone has explained to the boy that it would help him if he admitted he had done it and said he was sorry. Wouldn't most criminals tell that lie ("I'm sorry") without a second thought?
> 
> If he is too afraid to say he did it, that is not the same as being a remorseless sociopath. I don't know which is the case here. I hope those in charge of his sentencing do.


What if he DIDN'T do it? What if the father did it? What if someone broke into the house and did it? Why did they assume it was the kid?

This kid has just been accused, not found guilty. Yet everyone here is saying how evil he is, and guilty, was there something that I didnt see that said he did it for sure?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sorry!
But I'm just a cold-hearted person and think this so called child deserves to die..

Why do people always make excuses for criminals, no matter what age they are?

The only thing this kid is going to learn is how to survive and kill in jail. It won't change his behavior except when in front of some parole board.. Once he gets released for "good behavior" he will go right back to being a criminal...

So save some money and execute him.. Spend the saved money to help those that may be helped.. This kid can't be helped..

I know a hard way to look at it.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Shygal said:


> What if he DIDN'T do it? What if the father did it? What if someone broke into the house and did it? Why did they assume it was the kid?
> 
> This kid has just been accused, not found guilty. Yet everyone here is saying how evil he is, and guilty, was there something that I didnt see that said he did it for sure?


You're right, he has not been found guilty. Right now they are debating whether or not he should be tried as an adult. If he's tried as a juvenile the life sentence won't be an issue. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11026/1120634-455.stm

On the other hand, they wouldn't be trying him if they didn't have some evidence. My point was that the evidence they have - only the 11- and 4-year-olds were home with the stepmother, the weapon was disposed of along the route to the school, gunshot residue on the boy - could have been set up by a clever adult. The gunshot residue does rule out a stranger IMO.


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

And what if he was firing the gun earlier in the day, target shooting? What if the dad snuck in and did it, that would have been a good alibi for him, "not being there". 

Everyone is condemning the kid before his trial, I remember people jumping on others here for the same thing, telling everyone how someone is just accused and not found guilty until a trial, etc


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The report about a 13-year-old boy who shot and killed his father's fiancee in Pennsylvania described him as using "*his own hunting rifle, a shotgun designed specifically for children"*. According to court documents the weapon used was a 20-gauge shotgun, which is not a rifle


That sentence should show anyone the reporter is *clueless*

They are probably referring to a "Youth Model" which is NOT "specifically designed for children, but in fact is a standard shotgun *just like any other *with a slightly shorter stock



> I wasn't allowed access to it without adult supervision.


There is not one word in the story that says anything about *how* he gained access to the gun. 

Don't *assume *it was "allowed" when the truth is you have no idea


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Shygal said:


> And what if he was firing the gun earlier in the day, target shooting? What if the dad snuck in and did it, that would have been a good alibi for him, "not being there".


I agree. I've heard of adults getting kids to do their crimes on the basis that the kid won't go to jail. That would go a long way to explain why the boy isn't talking....he could be protecting his father. If I was on a jury, that might be my "reasonable doubt". 

But if we're thinking it, the boy's lawyers are certainly thinking it.


----------



## Our Little Farm (Apr 26, 2010)

chickenista said:


> It is not about the gun... he would have used anything at hand, the gun just made it a bit easier and less messy.
> 
> It is not about a child... crazy/sociopathic happens at any age. It is a matter of no long term thought about consquences, just immediate success of his idea. The fact that he could kill someone and then not freak out and collapse, but rather run out the door as usual with the lady's other kid and go about his day as normal is the real clincher.
> 
> ...


I agree.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry!
> But I'm just a cold-hearted person and think this so called child deserves to die..,
> 
> <snip>
> ...


What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

How about th empathy for the woman and her unborn child -- they didn't get a chance.
*IF* the kid did it, and then went to school and bahaved normally, then he sshould get life in prison because he's a little psycopath -- but lets see if he did it befofre we decide that.
Try him as an adult? yes. My only worry is that there would be too many not willing to put a kid behind bars for life and they'd let him off even if there was enough proof that he did it.


----------



## TJN66 (Aug 29, 2004)

Nevada...I am talking about him being tried as an adult with a life sentence for being convicted. Not about innocent until proven guilty. That is a totally different thing.


----------



## shanzone2001 (Dec 3, 2009)

11 years old is plenty old to know that when you point a gun and pull the trigger, someone will die.
Perhaps mental health, but I don't want that kid walking the streets!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Try him as an adult? yes.


I never understood trying a minor as an adult. It seems to me that we have a framework of rules that the legal system is supposed to work within. Then for some cases they simply suspend the rules. Isn't operating outside of the rules exactly what the court is supposed to discourage?

The other problem I have is that the decision to try a minor as an adult is made before the details of the case are presented to the court (i.e., before the trial). It seems to me that if they have to make a decision of whether to throw-out the rulebook, it should be considered during the sentencing phase of the trial, not during pre-trial procedural hearings.

Finally, it's reminiscent of the Gitmo cases, where your rights are suspended and guilt is assumed because you are accused of doing something bad enough. I think it goes without saying that you need your rights the most when that happens.


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> yep, this thread is gonna get locked and filed.


And the reason for that is.....?

I can't speak for others, but unless there's an obvious reason....not sure why it'd be locked. Regardless of whether he was 10 or 100, he shot and killed someone; age alone doesn't lock a thread.

I love how people say "Oh yeah THIS thread'll be locked and gone soon." Half of the time it gets to 7 or 8 pages before it peters out.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

How long does it take to teach a 11 year old not to kill? How long in Prison? Beats me I'd hate to be judge or jury in this case but I think the life without parole thing is pointless for a child.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I have is that the decision to try a minor as an adult is made before the details of the case are presented to the court (i.e., before the trial).


If he's been *arrested and indicted*, evidence HAS been presented to a court, just not the TRIAL court


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If he's been *arrested and indicted*, evidence HAS been presented to a court, just not the TRIAL court


There has been no defense presented at that point. Besides, what about the presumption of innocence?


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

My compromse would be for him to go to a juvinile facility (or better yet a mental center) until his 18th birthday and then transferred to an adult facility for 20 years before gaing a chance at parole.

His father has the SOTTI defense - Some Other Dude Did It.

If a jury is presented with the case they apparently have only two choices, acquite him or let the judge sentence him according to state penalty codes.

Apparently some gun powder residue was found on him, with should be a smoking run for the prosecutors.

Do I hear a plea agreement in the background?


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

Just sad, no matter how you look at this situation, from anyone's viewpoint. A woman is dead, so is a baby that was just about to start his life outside of the womb. This young boy has effectively lost his life at this point, from now on his life will be merely a matter of existing rather than living. If he is fortunate enough to escape the prison system as a young adult by being tried as a child, he will still have to deal with the loss of his childhood and having to spend what are very formative years in the penal system. If he is judged not guilty, he will still have to live with a father who surely will never be able to treat him the same as before this murder, not to mention the other family members.

And what if he is indeed a little psychopath who really has zero remorse for his actions, and never will? No matter the outcome, prison, juvenile lockup, or freedom...who knows what he is capable of in the future? He needs some seriously intensive therapy to determine the level of threat he presents to society before he is allowed to be free again.

Personally, I would be afraid to live with the kid, I'd be too afraid I might not wake up if I happened to ---- him off in some way. (if this is an unallowed phrase, apologies and please adjust it to a suitable phrase moderators) I can only imagine his neighbors feel the same way. Scary, isn't it. There are speculations Ted Bundy committed his first abduction and murder as a young teenager, and the same with Jeffrey Dahmer. Maybe the world is lucky this kid got caught early. Or maybe he is innocent. I do hope if he is vindicated, there is absolutely no doubt about his innocence that will taint him in the future. But I also pray that if he is guilty, that he is going to be safe to be around if he is ever released.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ken Scharabok said:


> My compromse would be for him to go to a juvinile facility (or better yet a mental center)


He belongs in a mental facility. Jail may keep him separated from society, but it's not going to straighten him out. On the contrary, it could make him worse. In the event that he is someday released to society the prison officials won't really know what they're releasing.

The concern is that he might be a sociopath, which may or may not be true. Mental hospitals can diagnose it, treat it, and see that he's not released until it's established that he's not a threat to society. That's the best bet for both him and society.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

Ken Scharabok said:


> My compromse would be for him to go to a juvinile facility (or better yet a mental center) until his 18th birthday and then transferred to an adult facility for 20 years before gaing a chance at parole.
> ?


Whats your Logic? by 38 you outgrow the urge to kill?:shrug:


I wouldn't want to be the one that had to do it but wouldn't it make more sense to leave years and age out of it and say he had to stay in some sorta educational facility till someone( I don't know who does this ,thank God its not me) judges him fixed?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There has been no defense presented at that point. Besides, what about the presumption of innocence?


Defense attorneys are present at an indictment
It's only to determine if there is enough *evidence* to warrant a trial


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Defense attorneys are present at an indictment
> It's only to determine if there is enough *evidence* to warrant a trial


And the presumption of innocence?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And the presumption of innocence?


He's presumed innocent until he's convicted

Why *pretend *you don't know that?


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

Kung said:


> And the reason for that is.....?
> 
> I can't speak for others, but unless there's an obvious reason....not sure why it'd be locked. Regardless of whether he was 10 or 100, he shot and killed someone; age alone doesn't lock a thread.
> 
> I love how people say "Oh yeah THIS thread'll be locked and gone soon." Half of the time it gets to 7 or 8 pages before it peters out.


My guess is that Christy posted when it looked like this was going to turn into a gun thread. They don't always end well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He's presumed innocent until he's convicted
> 
> Why *pretend *you don't know that?


It was your post calling for his execution.

By the way, it's not less expensive to execute someone. The State of Florida spent $7 million jumping legal hurdles to execute Ted Bundy, where it was estimated to cost more like $1 million to hold him in a maximum security prison for his expected life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It was your post calling for his execution.


I think you must be taking some of that Indian medication

You're imagining things that aren't there at all
If you think it is, please copy and paste it here so I can see what I said


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry!
> But I'm just a cold-hearted person and think this so called child deserves to die..
> 
> Why do people always make excuses for criminals, no matter what age they are?
> ...


What about innocent until proven guilty? I'd like to see what comes out in court.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think you must be taking some of that Indian medication
> 
> You're imagining things that aren't there at all
> If you think it is, please copy and paste it here so I can see what I said


Oops! Sorry, that was beowoulf90.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I never understood trying a minor as an adult. .


Because if he is tried as a child, no matter what he did, he walks out on his 18th birthday to rejoin society.


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> Because if he is tried as a child, no matter what he did, he walks out on his 18th birthday to rejoin society.


I thought minors who were convicted could be held until they are 21?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Because if he is tried as a child, no matter what he did, he walks out on his 18th birthday to rejoin society.


Then you better cut a plea deal where he goes to a mental hospital for as long as the doctors say he needs to stay there. I say that's a pretty good deal all the way around.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Then you better cut a plea deal where he goes to a mental hospital for as long as the doctors say he needs to stay there. I say that's a pretty good deal all the way around.


Making the perpetrator out as the victim, _is_ a pretty good deal. 

Now if we could only get the dead woman's family on board.



> The victim's mother, Deborah Houk, has pushed for the toughest sentence for the boy. "I can't stand this 'Oh, he's 11,' 'Oh, his clothes don't fit him,'" she told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review soon after her daughter's death. "He knew what he was doing. He killed my baby."


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Probably a preview of coming attractions.

Kids are learning from adults, that it is more important to settle the score, no matter what the outcome is.



> Boy, 12, sentenced in shooting death


http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/indiana/boy-12-sentenced-in-shooting-death


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> He's presumed innocent until he's convicted
> 
> Why *pretend *you don't know that?


Then why is EVERYONE HERE already saying he is guilty, sick, a psychopath, a killer, should be locked away forever, etc

Hes not GUILTY YET


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

An eleven year old doesn't have the brain development to understand "forever" as in dead, gone forever. He doesn't have the impulse control or skills to control his anger. And an eleven year old should not have free access to a gun. This child should not be tried as an adult. He needs to be put into a secure environment where he can learn to empathize, and learn impulse control. It's horrendous to think any prosecutor or judge in this nation would allow a child this young to be tried as an adult.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Making the perpetrator out as the victim, _is_ a pretty good deal.
> 
> Now if we could only get the dead woman's family on board.


Sorry, but it's an 11 year-old kid we're talking about here. The reality is that a mental hospital is a reasonably good outcome for the circumstances.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Shygal said:


> Then why is EVERYONE HERE already saying he is guilty, sick, a psychopath, a killer, should be locked away forever, etc
> 
> Hes not GUILTY YET


Hogwash. We as individuals can decide if someone is guilty or not. We are not prohibited from doing that because we will not sit on the jury. The jury may not agree with our thoughts, but we are perfectly free to have them. Did you think OJ was guilty?


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

poppy said:


> Hogwash. We as individuals can decide if someone is guilty or not. We are not prohibited from doing that because we will not sit on the jury. The jury may not agree with our thoughts, but we are perfectly free to have them. Did you think OJ was guilty?


Oh come on, I remember a thread here maybe a year back, in which some people took an accusation of guilt, as guilt, and most everyone else jumped on them with the "Hes not guilty, hes just been accused" and the "no one is guilty until proven so" stuff. And there are people here saying he should die??

He could have gunpowder residue from firing the gun earlier in the day. The dad could have come back home, shot her, left again and said "I wasnt home" for an alibi. There are a whole lot of "What ifs" here and Im not going to say that he is guilty or innocent until there are more facts presented


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Oops! Sorry, that was beowoulf90.


LOL I'm used to it by now


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Then why is *EVERYONE* HERE already saying he is guilty, sick, a psychopath, a killer, should be locked away forever, etc



Not *everyone *has said that at all
Don't exaggerate


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And an eleven year old should not have free access to a gun


You don't know that he did.
You're assuming


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > Oops! Sorry, that was beowoulf90.
> ...


Conservatives all look alike to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Conservatives all look alike to me


:nono:

:nono:

:nono:


----------



## Patt (May 18, 2003)

Shygal said:


> What if he DIDN'T do it? What if the father did it? What if someone broke into the house and did it? Why did they assume it was the kid?
> 
> This kid has just been accused, not found guilty. Yet everyone here is saying how evil he is, and guilty, was there something that I didnt see that said he did it for sure?


I agree! the most mind boggling thing to me in this discussion is that almost everyone assumes he is guilty! Hello! What about our innocent until proven guilty rule in America? 

There is zero motive for the kid to have done it, he claims he didn't do it, there may be other people who did have a motive. I hope to goodness most of the people here never serve on a jury.....


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

chickenista said:


> It is not about the gun... he would have used anything at hand, the gun just made it a bit easier and less messy.
> 
> It is not about a child... crazy/sociopathic happens at any age. It is a matter of no long term thought about consquences, just immediate success of his idea. The fact that he could kill someone and then not freak out and collapse, but rather run out the door as usual with the lady's other kid and go about his day as normal is the real clincher.
> 
> ...



I grew up on a Mental hospital that was a farm. Most of the patients had killed someone. They were all mental ill but when I was around 9 years old the closed down the Hospital and turned most of them out into the world with medications. There was an increase in killings but once they were convicted again and sent to prison all of that was taken care of.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There is zero motive for the kid to have done it


There's no way to know that from the few facts given


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Conservatives all look alike to me.


Yes, we know.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

If there's no proof the grand jury will not return a true bill therefore there will be no trial. If there is a trial I think he should be tried like any other killer facing the same punishment.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> What about innocent until proven guilty? I'd like to see what comes out in court.


Fine I have no quarrels with that...In fact I require that.. I just didn't say it because I assumed everyone knew that "Innocent until proven guilty" was a given..
It's the law of the land..
I'm just tired of bleeding hearts giving a criminal a pass on their crime because of some made-up isms, psychosis etc...
Let those responsible for the action suffer the consequences for their actions..


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mekasmom said:


> An eleven year old doesn't have the brain development to understand "forever" as in dead, gone forever. He doesn't have the impulse control or skills to control his anger. And an eleven year old should not have free access to a gun. This child should not be tried as an adult. He needs to be put into a secure environment where he can learn to empathize, and learn impulse control. It's horrendous to think any prosecutor or judge in this nation would allow a child this young to be tried as an adult.


Sorry all I can say is;

Cry me a river!


Tell that to the victims mother... But her loss doesn't matter to some, only protecting the criminal matters to them...


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Well I agree with Mekasmom about a child of 11 not having developed his lifeskills yet. But then society as a whole should be responsible for allowing all the violent shooting/killing games and movies because we all know that a majority of young kids spend a lot of their free time playing/ watching those type of things. So they really have no concept of death as a forever thing when they see an actor shot dead one day and then alive on another show the next day. Maybe to a childs mind if they see it on tv or the movies or games (which are all made by adults) then it must be ok. 
Aren't we all guilty in some way for the way the youth are being raised today? How many people don't discipline their children, and yet it's impossible for teachers and other people to discipline them because children shouldn't be afraid of authority figures? We've done away with punishment for undesirable actions and for making children unafraid of reprisal from even their parents.....sadly we've created monsters


----------



## Kazahleenah (Nov 3, 2004)

how can it be 2 counts of homicide, if the law doesn't recognise the baby as a human until it's born...?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sanza said:


> Well I agree with Mekasmom about a child of 11 not having developed his lifeskills yet. But then society as a whole should be responsible for allowing all the violent shooting/killing games and movies because we all know that a majority of young kids spend a lot of their free time playing/ watching those type of things. So they really have no concept of death as a forever thing when they see an actor shot dead one day and then alive on another show the next day. Maybe to a childs mind if they see it on tv or the movies or games (which are all made by adults) then it must be ok.
> Aren't we all guilty in some way for the way the youth are being raised today? How many people don't discipline their children, and yet it's impossible for teachers and other people to discipline them because children shouldn't be afraid of authority figures? We've done away with punishment for undesirable actions and for making children unafraid of reprisal from even their parents.....sadly we've created monsters


Sorry, but I'm not responsible for the actions of this criminal. Now are responsible? and if so you should also be charged with a crime and suffer the consequences of the law..
I'm amazed at how many people don't want to blame the one who pulled the trigger, but want to blame everyone else for the actions of this kid..
Again if you are to blame then turn yourself in and give up any rights you may have under Canadian law.. May be while you are sitting in jail you will come to realize that the only one that is guilty is the one that pulled the trigger..

Utterly amazing! Blame anyone but the guilty..


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

beowoulf90 said:


> Utterly amazing! Blame anyone but the guilty..


Hes not guilty yet......


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Kazahleenah said:


> how can it be 2 counts of homicide, if the law doesn't recognise the baby as a human until it's born...?


Easy, it is called a double standard.. Typical in the liberal world.. 

According to them only a mother of an unborn child can kill that child. If anyone else does it then it is murder...

Now don't ask me to explain why this is, because I can't.. I don't understand the reasoning/justification behind it..

Just like our ex-Governor here in PA.. It was alright for him to travel down the Turnpike at over 100 mph, yet we the citizens of the State couldn't do that without getting busted for speeding.. Oh and it was a State Trooper driving..

So I guess liberals, politicians and LEO's are above the law, at least according to them...
Typical liberal hypocrisy...


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I say let him free...

I'm sure John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Adolph, Josef, Mao, Pol, all had some run ins with the law when they were young, and someone felt real sorry for them, and released the monsters back into the world.

Let's free the young man. And scrub his juvy records clean when he turns 18. Having a clean record, he could then legally go out and purchase an evil black gun, and slay a couple dozen more innocents.

A monster is a monster.

Anyone think a monster just suddenly becomes a monster when they become 18, or the age of consent.

Sorry, but there are some evil people in this world.

No, don't set him free... if convicted, life w/o parole is correct.

Or, maybe we can send him to one of the more civilized countries, that are more socialized? Reckon any country would take him?

Haven't started reading all the posts on this, but I can figure where everyone lies...

The left believes in punishing the innocent (not punishing someone because he killed an unborn human) and rewarding the guilty. The right believes in punishing the guilty and rewarding the innocent.

The young monster may not know right from wrong. I'd give him parole when he's 40 or 50. If he were in Texas, he'd be lucky to to get just life w/o parole, instead of the death penalty.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

watcher said:


> If there's no proof the grand jury will not return a true bill therefore there will be no trial. If there is a trial I think he should be tried like any other killer facing the same punishment.


This I agree with. I think he should be tried as an adult, because of the type of crime it was. If he's proven innocent, then he walks, but if proven guilty, I would not want to see him walking the streets in just a few years time.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Fine I have no quarrels with that...In fact I require that.. I just didn't say it because I assumed everyone knew that "Innocent until proven guilty" was a given..
> It's the law of the land..
> I'm just tired of bleeding hearts giving a criminal a pass on their crime because of some made-up isms, psychosis etc...
> Let those responsible for the action suffer the consequences for their actions..


From reading some of these posts, it seems some don't know that innocent until proven guilty is a given, but I do agree with not giving criminals a pass because of mental issues. Whether they have mental issues or not, and IMO, to do murder you'd have to have some type of mental condition, I believe if you do the crime, then you pay the price for that crime, regardless of age.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Kazahleenah said:


> how can it be 2 counts of homicide, if the law doesn't recognise the baby as a human until it's born...?


I've made that point numerous times during abortion debates, but if falls of deaf ears. Seems like when it's wanted, it's a baby, but when they don't want it, it's a fetus. :huh:


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

Eleven years old is plenty old enough to understand that if you blow someone's head off with a shotgun they are dead. Gone forever, not coming back, DEAD. I am sick and tired of people saying kids don't understand anything when they do something wrong. Absolute nonsense. Tell me what he thought was going to happen? That her head would grow back? That he was only pretending? Seriously, if he was a hunter he knew darn well what happens when you shoot someone.

Someone posted that he had gunpowder residue on his clothes, and it was his gun. Motive? How about jealousy and the fear he would lose the love of his father not only to the new wife, but the new sibling too? It is an old story that has been retold too many times.

He will get a trial and be afforded all the rights and protection the law allows. Just like any other defendant. IF he is found guilty I say lock him up and throw away the key. I firmly believe some kids are inherently evil, somehow programmed wrong at birth and the cold blooded, premeditated murder of a pregnant woman is enough evidence for me that this person is not eligible to be free ever again.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> Sorry, but I'm not responsible for the actions of this criminal. Now are responsible? and if so you should also be charged with a crime and suffer the consequences of the law..
> I'm amazed at how many people don't want to blame the one who pulled the trigger, but want to blame everyone else for the actions of this kid..
> Again if you are to blame then turn yourself in and give up any rights you may have under Canadian law.. May be while you are sitting in jail you will come to realize that the only one that is guilty is the one that pulled the trigger..
> 
> Utterly amazing! Blame anyone but the guilty..


Read my post slowly beowoulf before you attack me! I said *"society as a whole" * 
Now why do you want to get personal and attack me because I'm from a different country? 
Very uncalled for and very disrespectful! It's amazing the hatred and anger you ameracans show.


----------



## JanS (Jul 28, 2002)

FyredUp said:


> Seriously, if he was a hunter he knew darn well what happens when you shoot someone.


Not sure, but I thought I read that he had a gun for target shooting. He would not legally have been able to hunt in PA till age 12.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sanza said:


> Read my post slowly beowoulf before you attack me! I said *"society as a whole" *
> Now why do you want to get personal and attack me because I'm from a different country?
> Very uncalled for and very disrespectful! It's amazing the hatred and anger you ameracans show.


First off I didn't attack you..

Second, why is it society's fault when some idiot uses a gun to commit a crime?

They banned guns in England and now are considering banning swords, because that is what the criminals are now using to kill their victims..
Yet they still have criminals and victims who are killed.. Imagine that! The society said guns were evil and now when the evil guns are gone, swords are evil.. So much for blaming guns and society..

Yet you wish to blame society for the crimes..

As to disrespectful, well that is a given, because folks such as yourself are constantly trying to blame law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals..

It shows you have no respect for those law abiding citizens who legally carry firearms..
So, since no respect was given, none shall be returned..


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> I said "society as a whole" Saza


 Would not "society as a whole" include every individual in that society? Seems to me you are laying the blame for this crime on every citizen of the United States. Perhaps you should think before you speak(type).


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

bjba said:


> Would not "*society as a whole*" include every individual in that society? Seems to me you are laying the blame for this crime on every citizen of the United States. Perhaps you should think before you speak(type).


Sanza used the term correctly and there is no national discrimination in her usage of it, it is you and Beowulf that are misinterpreting or misunderstanding her usage of it. Sanza said:



> But then society as a whole should be responsible for allowing all the violent shooting/killing games and movies because we all know that a majority of young kids spend a lot of their free time playing/ watching those type of things.


Society as a whole is not the United States, it only includes the society of the United States. Society as a whole means everybody as one entity, everywhere, it is all inclusive, meaning ALL society around the globe. The earth is the whole and all of the people are its society. It is not exclusive of individuals or of individual nations.

Sanza is correct about the violent games and movies, they are a popular commercial commodity everywhere around the world where there is the technology for them to be viewed or played, and they have been condoned and accepted by society as a whole. If they were not condoned by society as a whole we would never have heard of them and there wouldn't be businesses making a killing in money from catering to a global society that revels in violence and blood lust as a means of entertainment.

.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> Society as a whole means everybody as one entity, everywhere, it is all inclusive, meaning ALL society around the globe. Naturelover


So by your and Sanzas' resoning I am responsible for female circumcision, stoning of adulterers, raping of babies to prevent aids, the deaths of protesters in the middle east, beheading of enemies in Mexico, Chechnya, child prostitution in Thailand and etc and etc and etc. I do not accept any responsibility for the evil in this world. That is an idea that reeks of mental illness. Do what you can to forward the good and eliminate the evil.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> He would not legally have been able to hunt in PA till age 12.



That's incorrect.
He could legally hunt small game if accompanied by an adult


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Society as a whole is not the United States, it only includes the society of the United States. Society as a whole means everybody as one entity, everywhere, it is all inclusive, meaning ALL society around the globe. The earth is the whole and all of the people are its society. It is not exclusive of individuals or of individual nations.


The only "society" that* matters *is the one where an individual lives.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's incorrect.
> He could legally hunt small game if accompanied by an adult


Ditto with large game actually.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

bjba said:


> So by your and Sanzas' resoning I am responsible for female circumcision, stoning of adulterers, raping of babies to prevent aids, the deaths of protesters in the middle east, beheading of enemies in Mexico, Chechnya, child prostitution in Thailand and etc and etc and etc. I do not accept any responsibility for the evil in this world. That is an idea that reeks of mental illness. Do what you can to forward the good and eliminate the evil.


No, none of the above. Those things are evil and they are real but they are not what is being discussed. It was violent games, movies (and tv shows) that was mentioned and that are considered normal by society as a whole as an acceptable means of entertainment.

How many of us here can say they have not watched some of the video and internet games, the movies, the TV shows that depict violence and killing? Who has not seen the old cowboys and indians or cops and robbers movies, the war movies, the science fiction and monster movies and horror shows, the mystery murder movies, the current shows on tv such as CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, Bones, etc. etc. that are so graphic, that instruct detail by detail how to murder or maim somebody? Anybody who can deny having ever watched and enjoyed some of that kind of entertainment would be lying to themself.

We have nearly a 100 years worth of successive generations around the world that were raised on that kind of visual entertainment and with each successive generation the depictions of them have become more brutal, more violent, more graphic, more instructive in how to commit violence and more desensitizing of society as a whole.

.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

Society as a whole by your definition is responsible for everything that happens good or bad. 
I think the movies, games and etc. you find fault with are the price of a free society. Some of the things I mentioned are the result of an authoritarian, tyrannic or perhaps just different society. 
There is no "society as a whole". There are loosely Canadian, U.S.A., Japanese, Liberian, well you get the gist, societies. In U.S.A. society there is considerable difference between Texan and Rhode Island societies. In your experience the society of Quebec is quite different from British Columbia. Do not try to place responsibility on others shoulders you may shoulder it however.


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

JanS said:


> Not sure, but I thought I read that he had a gun for target shooting. He would not legally have been able to hunt in PA till age 12.


Target shooting with a shotgun? Skeet perhaps but generally one does not target shoot with a shotgun.

If he has fired that weapon at anything, paper targets, skeet, or anything else, he knows the damage it will do. If he has hunted with his dad he knows darn well the results of shooting something with a shotgun.

I am not buying now or ever that an 11 year old is incapable of knowing that shooting someone in the head with a shotgun is not going to kill them. It is beyond anything close to rational thought to buy into that argument. Kids are far too often let off the hook because they are supposedly too young to know the consequences of their actions and that is absolute BS. Just reading the circumstances here I would bet my paycheck on jealousy being the motive. Time will tell of course.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

This is just one example of the kind of garbage that kids and adults are watching for entertainment. It's so insane it's funny and it just gets crazier and crazier as it moves along. It's got everything violent depicted in it that a person could ask for but it is still desensitizing for children. Murder, mayhem, explosions, mechanical monsters. This is considered acceptable entertainment. Yada yada yada. :stars:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]

[YOUTUBE]yysbbPStfWw[/YOUTUBE]

.


----------



## FyredUp (May 22, 2010)

naturelover said:


> This is just one example of the kind of garbage that kids and adults are watching for entertainment. It's so insane it's funny and it just gets crazier and crazier as it moves along. It's got everything violent depicted in it that a person could ask for but it is still desensitizing for children. Murder, mayhem, explosions, mechanical monsters. This is considered acceptable entertainment. Yada yada yada. :stars:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> ...


And if parents would pay more attention, or better yet ANY attention, to what their kids were watching, the video games they were playing, the kids they hung around with, and knew their own kids well enough to know something isn't right...it really wouldn't matter would it? Too many parents use the tv and xBox as a babysitter and haven't got a single clue what their kids do or think or say. They want the kids to be quiet and leave them alone...makes you wonder why they even had them in the first place.

Funny thing is I watched westerns and war movies and far worse the original non-sanitized Looney Toons cartoons, and gosh the Three Stooges, and I never once thought about blowing someone up, or shooting them, or dropping an anvil on them, or hitting them in the head with a hammer. Were we smarter back 40 plus years ago when I was a kid? Must have been.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

And..................................................................
You would set yourself up as censor and arbiter of public morals. I'll take the idiocy of comic books brought to the big screen, the original pc game Postal, Left 4 Dead 1&2, Day of the Dead to infinity in preference thank you very much.
No matter how much you try to excuse the actions of others it always boils down to personal responsibility. Perhaps the problem is created by those who go to great lengths to excuse the actions of others.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's incorrect.
> He could legally hunt small game if accompanied by an adult


the "mentored youth hunting program" allows for the youth to also hunt antlered deer. the youth must remain at arm's length from his mentor and must share a gun. they must also remain stationary (i assume while in possession of the weapon).

pa hunting and trapping digest 2010-2011


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Now I understand!

Society is to blame only when those defending the criminal have no real defense..

So to those that think society is to blame, then I blame you, please report to your State or County prison and start serving your sentence... 
There is only one word of advise I can give you while serving your sentence..

Don't drop the soap!


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Sometimes some people are sociopaths; not capable of being fixed.

When we were fostering we had a 9 year old boy who was a sexual predator. We spotted it, because of all the training we had to go through. But his therapist refused to accept it, as did his case-worker. But at 11 he fully 'blossomed' into his predator role. Only after creating a victim did the state finally admit that he was a predator.


----------



## Shrarvrs88 (May 8, 2010)

I also believe some children are bad and cannot be fixed. They sure won't be fixed by prison, only learn worse. I think any person, regardless of age, who is capable of committing a crime like this is awful. I do believe in the death penalty, and IF this child dsid commit the crime he is accused of, death would be a mercy for him. 

At 11, I knew what guns were capable of, and I had never had access to one.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

Thank you naturelover for picking up and trying to talk sense to beowulf and bija.
Yes I do take responsibility for looking after the youth - namely the responsibility of raising my children to the best of my ability and they both turned out to be good, hardworking people - No problems with the law, not working & drawing welfare, drugs etc. When they were young I taught them right from wrong, censored their movies and tv and video games, *and* taught them about proper use of firearms, because believe it or not we are not a country without guns. 
AND ABOVE ALL I TAUGHT THEM RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY AND COURTESY TO OTHERS!
Now you show me where I wrote anything about this kid being innocent or that he should not be sentenced if he is found guilty!! So quit twisting my words!
But I do want to ask you why so many people , youth included, in the states are so quick to pick up guns and open fire on other people? Is this type of action what they are taught by their parents and other adults? No? Then these ideas must come from movies and games....This "I've got a gun and I can use it" attitude has to come from somewhere. 
That is what I was trying to get across to you - that maybe if society did not allow children to associate killing with having fun then maybe there would be fewer incidences with guns.

BTW read shanzones' thread about the cell phones and see what kids are doing these days. Yep kids are being brought up knowing right from wrong.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sanza said:


> Thank you naturelover for picking up and trying to talk sense to beowulf and bija.
> Yes I do take responsibility for looking after the youth - namely the responsibility of raising my children to the best of my ability and they both turned out to be good, hardworking people - No problems with the law, not working & drawing welfare, drugs etc. When they were young I taught them right from wrong, censored their movies and tv and video games, *and* taught them about proper use of firearms, because believe it or not we are not a country without guns.
> AND ABOVE ALL I TAUGHT THEM RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY AND COURTESY TO OTHERS!
> Now you show me where I wrote anything about this kid being innocent or that he should not be sentenced if he is found guilty!! So quit twisting my words!
> ...


You talk about "talking sense" to me, yet you want to blame society for the worlds ills.. So there is no sense coming from you.

You say why is everyone so quick to pick up a gun.. How about because the police have failed to capture the criminals or the justice system has failed to keep them in prison or give them the death penalty (in violent crime).
It's folks like yourself that would rather have us be victims and be hurt or killed while we wait for police to respond..

I've been lucky, I've been carrying a licensed concealed weapons since 1985 and have only had to pull it 3 times and fire on one of those occasions. 
On 2 of those occasions, the criminal used a knife to try and rob us (fail on their part) on the other instance a vehicle with a rifle was targeting the back of my home with a rifle.. I assume they were poaching, but fire into my home and I will return fire. No questions asked..They were close enough i could reach them with a 45 acp.. So they were close..

But according to you we should ask them what went wrong in their childhood before we defend ourselves..

Sorry that isn't going to happen! If you wish to cower or act like Neville Chamberlain, then so be it.. I won't..
I hope never to have to draw my weapon again. But I won't hesitate to defend myself or my family if need be..

Oh to add; Prior to 1985 I was in the military for 6 1/2 years.. I even trained with the Canadian paratroopers and went through the Canadian Jump school and earned my Canadian Jump wings which I could wear beside my US Jump wings... Death from above!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But I do want to ask you why so many people , youth included, in the states are so* quick to pick up guns and open fire *on other people?


They aren't.

Thats why it makes headlines when it happens

Less than 1% of firearms are ever used in a crime, and even fewer are used to shoot another person


----------



## Kung (Jan 19, 2004)

Well, wouldja look at that. 4 pages of responses and yet it hasn't been closed.

But boy, us mods are heavy handed and mean and Svengali and rule with an iron grip, don't we.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't.
> 
> Thats why it makes headlines when it happens
> 
> Less than 1% of firearms are ever used in a crime, and even fewer are used to shoot another person


Can you please show us some verifiable statistics on that, because I think that 1% figure may be incorrect.

.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Can you please show us some verifiable statistics on that, because I think that 1% figure may be incorrect.
> 
> .


I would like to see that as well. I think that saying 1% is seriously too high of a percentage.

I was thinking it was more like 0.001%


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Can you please show us some verifiable statistics on that, because I think that *1% figure may be incorrect*.


Yes, it's probably actually LESS than 1 % now since crime rates have steadily fallen for the last decade

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43#key_facts

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kftp&tid=43

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007



> *The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high*. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about *215 million guns in 1999*,1 when the* number of new guns *was averaging about *4.5 million (about 2%) annually*.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 60.4 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 1994 2004.4 The number of NICS checks for firearm purchases or permits increased 3.2% between 2003-2004.


http://gunsafe.org/position statements/Guns and crime.htm



> *Firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned *by civilians*235,000,000*





> *Crimes committed *with guns, per year...1,000,000


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think that saying 1% is seriously too high of a percentage


I'm sure it's less also, but I haven't checked actual figures in a while, and didn't want to make it less than the true figure which is why I said *LESS THAN *1 %

The ownership figures are also too low since it's hard to find current data, and I konw several MILLION more guns are sold each year

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&source=hp&q=gun+sales+statistics&aq=4&aqi=g10&aql=f&oq=gun+sale[/ame]


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> *You talk about "talking sense" to me, yet you want to blame society for the worlds ills.. So there is no sense coming from you.*
> And all the overpopulation, murders, pollution, wars etc is not because of actions of society with their advancement? Man are you delusional! For every action there is a reaction and mankind is screwing up big time.
> 
> *You say why is everyone so quick to pick up a gun.. How about because the police have failed to capture the criminals or the justice system has failed to keep them in prison or give them the death penalty (in violent crime).
> ...




So is that what gives you the arrogant rambo/terminator attitude?
But I'm done responding to any more of your rantings about your imagined wrongdoings by Canadians'.
I've got news for you - we don't give a hoot what you guys do, we're too busy enjoying our own lives to worry if the states is imploding on itself! 
Go for it!!


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

> But I'm done responding to any more of your rantings about your imagined wrongdoings by Canadians'.
> I've got news for you - we don't give a hoot what you guys do,


 Sanza

Then why pray tell are you posting on a predominately non Canadian website trying to


> talk sense


 to us benighted non Canadians? Seems to me you should be "enjoying your own life" and leave us non Canadian savages to our own devices. Self proclaimed moral superiority, in my experience, is generally hypocrisy talking.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

more pick and choose law!

if children shall be tried as adults they should be afforded all right,privilege,responsibility and protection as adults are.

seems a stiff bill of sale!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

bjba said:


> Sanza
> 
> Then why pray tell are you posting on a predominately non Canadian website trying to talk sense to us benighted non Canadians? Seems to me you should be "enjoying your own life" and leave us non Canadian savages to our own devices. Self proclaimed moral superiority, in my experience, is generally hypocrisy talking.


Didn't you know you all make good study material for Canadians? It's like watching through a microscope at an experiment that's growing in a petrie dish ..... take it out and give it a little stir once in a while and then set it back in the incubator to observe what happens in the petrie dish.

 :heh:  

:lookout:

:runforhills:

:smiley-laughing013:

.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

||Downhome|| said:


> more pick and choose law!
> 
> if children shall be tried as adults they should be afforded all right,privilege,responsibility and protection as adults are.
> 
> seems a stiff bill of sale!


I asked my wife one time if a child is tried as an adult and found not guilty does that mean he is to be considered an adult by the government from that point on?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

||Downhome|| said:


> more pick and choose law!
> 
> if children shall be tried as adults they should be afforded all right,privilege,responsibility and protection as adults are.
> 
> seems a stiff bill of sale!


When violent crimes are committed should they not be tried as adults?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sanza said:


> [/B]
> 
> So is that what gives you the arrogant rambo/terminator attitude?
> But I'm done responding to any more of your rantings about your imagined wrongdoings by Canadians'.
> ...


Ok, so be it!

But I never claimed Canadians did any "wrong doings"

As to my arrogant rambo/terminator attitude.. You can come to talk to me when you get shot at and have a choice to make, either ;
call some one to help which may take minutes, hours, days..
Or defend yourself!
Your choice!
I've chosen to defend myself from criminals and enemies, both as a soldier and a civilian..

As to the "bleeding heart" stuff.. Well it didn't work that is why the criminals and enemy soldiers are out there shooting at us.. If so called Peace Talks worked before the fighting began, we wouldn't have war.. But they haven't 

There are many "bleeding heart" programs run by Government, yet we still have violent crimes.. Why? Since they are suppose to prevent this.. Yet all the Government and the bleeding hearts do is scream for more money.. They never fix a thing..

Good examples are the War on;
Poverty
Drugs

Let me know when the Government solves these bleeding heart problems..

Oh so as not to be so arrogant, I'll say 
Please! 
No I won't ask for Sugar on top, because I don't want to sugar coat it..


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

I have a 10 year old. 
She knows what death is, that it's permanent and that a shotgun can do it. Dearly as I adore her - this is _not_ because she is exceptionally intelligent and morally advanced, above and beyond her age group peers. Quite simply, she *IS* old enough to know this.

I am her mother.
I - and *not* society as a whole - decide what video games she plays and what tv she watches.
I - and *not* society as a whole - buy her clothes and determine how she dresses.
I also decide in a large part who she's friends with. This is very simple. As of yet, I control her time. So if she wants to hang with Little Bad Influence - even AFTER our talks on what makes a good friend and how _real_ friends behave - we don't have time today. Or I've already made arrangements for another friend of her to come over.

So it's not TV, video games, the way kids dress these days, friends...
School! Maybe we can blame school!

No, doesn't work. She was in a school where she was not only not getting an adequate education, but being exposed to a great deal of things that children her age shouldn't have to deal with.
Since I am her mother, I pulled her out of school and home school. If I didn't feel I could home school I could have transferred her, sent her to private school, moved to a different area, any number of things. 

So, no, we can't blame school or "society as a whole". Not at 10 or 11 yo especially. And we can't blame too young. 6 is pushing the upper limits of "No, I'm sorry sweetie, dead is forever" and 'Don't do that! That hurts. Just like that would hurt you it hurts other people"

If this kid got his shotgun - and I'm going to assume it was put up somewhere and he wasn't allowed to keep it loaded in his closet where he could just grab it in a fit of rage- I'm going to assume getting and loading the gun took a little thought/effort, went up to his heavily pregnant, sleeping stepmother and blew the back of her head in, then grabbed his back pack and went to school, dumping his smoking gun on the way and had a normal day at school - I'm going to go with psychopath.
And I think that you're born that way. The sooner it is identified and the psychopath is removed from contact with society - the better. I think that someone like that should be in a mental institution because they're harder to get out of and give the inmates less opportunity to hurt each other then prison.

Hey look - Hitler was young once. http://adolf-hitler.gemzies.com/show/entry_8200/Adolf_Hitler_as_a_baby.html
Too bad no one caught on to the growing monster when he was 11.


----------



## Ode (Sep 20, 2006)

I do hope his trial is exceptionally fair and the investigation extremely thorough. This kid does deserve full protection under the law just as anyone should. As a matter of general principle, it is hard to wrap one's mind around the thought of executing a child. I believe that is not a possibility here, though some countries will do it. I don't think prison would be an appropriate place for him should he be found guilty. If he has done this, he has some really bad mental issues that need to be uncovered and treated. It would be the best chance for him of a reasonably decent life, given he would probably be in need of medication, supervision, and containment for the rest of his life. In a prison, he would be an ever-increasing danger to anyone around him. And while I believe in the death penalty, I don't believe that everyone who is sent to a prison deserves to die. This kid could end up as one of those very violent inmates in a prison.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> When violent crimes are committed should they not be tried as adults?


not unless you want to give treat them as adults all the rest of the time.

are they children (even messed up ones) or are they adults?

do we not protect and afford children special protection because they are children?

we as a society say they do not have the legal right to decide certain things for themselves and that they can not do certain things cause the mental faculty's are not there. they are kids. some seem to have better comprehension and ability's then others but they are still kids. 
as such I think you can really only say they have limited comprehension.

I don't care what kid it is they all think they know everything, and some of us remember our epiphany that we really did not. 

I do not think children should be tried as adults.

all for justice to be served but not under the sliding scale.

this is just one of our pick and choose examples in our legal system.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

||Downhome|| said:


> not unless you want to give treat them as adults all the rest of the time.
> 
> are they children (even messed up ones) or are they adults?
> 
> ...


So if they commit murder and are between 0-17 they can't be tried as an adult..

Good luck with that.. you will have all the gang killings done by 17 yo and younger and then being released at 18 or 21 with their juvenile record sealed or expunged..

So you are saying that you want more criminals on the street?


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Downhome, being tried as a child is a _privilege_.
The law is the law, being tried as a child is for those who were subjected to the pressures unique to childhood. For instance; Children are forced to go to school (by their parents), where they might be forced by others (teachers or peer groups) -by mental stress and sometimes physical violence that no adult would have to tolerate, may I add - to do things against their nature. None of these pressures the child can avoid and allowance is made for that _Should Those Circumstances Exist._

Adults can be forced and coerced into things too, but children are forced and coerced far more often. An adult is presumed to have the power/financial ability/experience that if they are in a situation where they are coerced or forced they have either put themselves there or choose to stay. And even in those situations, a lessor charge can be filed, esp if the coercer can be charged as well.

If it comes to light that the boy's father made him do this or something of that nature - he would be tried as a child.

But anyone who, of their own volition, takes a shotgun and kills someone is a murderer, and is tried for the crime of murder.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

I have to disagree.

should this child be found innocent in this case will he be treated as adult there on out?
or shall he return to being a child.

I think some of you misunderstand the differences between the two.

http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=64

he could still get 20 years and with out parole but it would lay solely upon the judge.
a judge who specializes in minors rather then one who deals in a bulk repeat offenders of the adult variety. you also remove a wild card and that would be the jury.


----------



## Otter (Jan 15, 2008)

Ok, perhaps it's just that I don't understand what you're saying here.
It seems to me that you're either saying that ALL of those under the age of 18 have an inherent right to "sacred cow" treatment under the law no matter how heinous the crime and whether or not this individual displays psychopathic behavior, or just the poor judgment or pressures of youth. Regardless of this was an 8 year old who "took a dare" and broke a window, a teen a month shy of 18 who succumbed to peer pressure and got drunk and did something stupid, or an 11 year old who cold-bloodedly blew someone away with a shotgun - they are _all the same_ and _all_ inherently deserving of an exception of the law due to their tender age...

Or
That any "sliding scale" of the law is wrong and from birth we all have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

I'm not only not seeing your point - I missing any part where you suggested a better solution. Could you make it more clear for me just what your argument is? 

And yes, I fully understand the difference between being tried as an adult and being tried as a minor. I just don't see how it is applicable in a case of extreme violence like this one, as under our current system of law, there is _no_ inherent right that someone _has_ to be tried as a minor, a judge can choose to make an exception for minor charges but generally won't when (to pull a quote from your article) _"typically in cases involving very serious crimes such as rape or murder."_


----------



## GoatsRus (Jan 19, 2003)

Page 5 and still going......


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

these delve a little into what I am trying to express.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-18/...juvenile-justice-cameron-kocher?_s=PM:OPINION

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NIV/is_1_6/ai_n25059984/

really you have two issues here, one the defendant is a minor two most would say there
is a mental deficiency (disturbed or lacking in certain facilitys.) under both there are certain protections afforded by law. that is not to say that action can not be taken and justice delivered. my issue is the way our system picks and chooses. 

I think something should be done with this kid, but we as outsiders as well as those only recently brought into the situation, can only speculate. 

the court needs to sort through it, I would prefer to see minors in a juvenile court rather then a criminal court.


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

The cites referenced are nothing more than more opinion and as such as valid as the opinions already expressed. Seems to me this is an issue that is driven more by emotion than fact.


----------



## Sanza (Sep 8, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Didn't you know you all make good study material for Canadians? It's like watching through a microscope at an experiment that's growing in a petrie dish ..... take it out and give it a little stir once in a while and then set it back in the incubator to observe what happens in the petrie dish.
> 
> :heh:
> 
> ...


:thumb:


----------



## jeff1981 (Dec 31, 2008)

There is nothing wrong with life for a crime such as this. It may seem harsh, but what about the other, normal people that this monster might kill if allowed to go free? Frankly the danger to society is too great. The best plan would be to make sure there is adequate time (several years, anyway) for appeals, and then simply put the monster to death. There is no reason, none at all, for keeping a killer alive, unless the killing was in self defense or defense of property.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

The U.S. Supreme Court does not look favorly at the execution of people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.

I am in favor of the death penalty only in that it gives the prosecutor additional bargining chips, such as life with parole in a plea deal.

On life without parole there is nothing to stop a prisoner from continuing to commit crimes while in prison. Perhaps 40 to life would be more effective as it give a glimmer of hope.

I recall some prison has an in-house courtroom where prisoners are tried for their crimes within the prison system. Typically years are added onto their current sentence.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

MELOC said:


> it's ridiculous to think a child of eleven is adult enough to serve a life sentence. while they may know right from wrong, they haven't the life experience to discern the full value of the actions they make. while it may that they know what they did is wrong, they don't know how wrong. they don't know how precious life is.


They do if they're taught how precious it is. I can't understand this belief that "children don't know any better". Quite often, children know much more about things than some adults seem to; kids can look at things without the prejudices and preconceptions that many adults carry around with them, like the belief that *ALL* children are ignorant little innocents.



JanS said:


> You're right, he has not been found guilty. Right now they are debating whether or not he should be tried as an adult. If he's tried as a juvenile the life sentence won't be an issue.


I guess I don't understand this, either. Why is there debate about "trying as a juvenile" or "trying as an adult"? Shouldn't this be based on the age of the person? If they're a juvenile, they're a juvenile. If they're an adult, they're an adult. You don't hear about adults being tried as juveniles.... why should juveniles be tried as adults? If their crime is so horrendous that suitable "punishment" can't be doled out within the juvenile system, then perhaps the system needs to be changed. If the kid is under 18, he's under 18, and is a juvenile.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Say a youth commits a major crime at age 13, is charged, but then takes off. He is found 30 years later. His trial would be under the laws which existed at the time of the crime.


----------



## jeff1981 (Dec 31, 2008)

Ken Scharabok said:


> The U.S. Supreme Court does not look favorly at the execution of people who were under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.
> 
> I am in favor of the death penalty only in that it gives the prosecutor additional bargining chips, such as life with parole in a plea deal.
> 
> ...


That actually sounds like a good, workable system. My main reason for favoring the death penalty is that it seems wrong to allow someone who takes the life of an innocent person the chance to live their own life. It seems to demean the life that they took.... However, I see your point about the court in prison system. I think that would help maintain discipline.


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

Yes, but at the time of the crime, he was a juvenile.

This kid is 11. He'll still be a juvenile when (if?) tried. If there is a "juvenile justice" act in place, why would he be tried as an adult? Legally, he's a juvenile -- how can they try him as an adult just because the crime might be horrendous, etc? He's 11: a juvenile. 

If there is a problem with that system doling out appropriate "justice" for so heinous a crime, then the juvenile justice system itself needs to be changed.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

If he's guilty, lock em up and throw away the key. But, it remains to be seen if he is in fact a murderer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Yet another case of wasted resources if this boy is found guilty in an adult court. Rope is cheap, and effective. a life long incarceration is very costly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> Yes, but at the time of the crime, he was a juvenile.
> 
> This kid is 11. He'll still be a juvenile when (if?) tried. If there is a "juvenile justice" act in place, why would he be tried as an adult? Legally, he's a juvenile -- how can they try him as an adult just because the crime might be horrendous, etc? He's 11: a juvenile.
> 
> If there is a problem with that system doling out appropriate "justice" for so heinous a crime, then the juvenile justice system itself needs to be changed.


Of course there is a problem with the juvenile justice system..... The bleedin hearts will not allow for kids to be held responsible for their actions. :shrug:

I read somewhere once that there is no such thing as a juvenile deliquent..... its impossible to be delinquent when someone is not responsible. Perhaps the parents should be put on trial in these cases and serve the time.... since they are the ones supposedly responsible for the kiddies behavior. If mom and dad were put in stocks on the courthouse lawn when jr messes up, I can assure you that mom and dad would take a different approach to jrs upbringing.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Shygal said:


> *I give this thread 3 pages before its locked or gone..*.


*******************************************
Looks like you were wrong........*AGAIN*.


Am I Surprised???? Not really. It's not much different than you're being wrong about this 
young psychopath either.....the major point of course, being that you haven't killed anyone yet.....
(that we know of).....but that capacity is plainly visible in the liberal left, when we have a 
representative from the great commonwealth of PA., who has made a threat of killing another 
fellow representative (who happens to have an R behind his name and is 'white') for supporting 
the recently passed castle law in that state and which she was violently opposed to seeing enacted. 

Typical liberal 'repressives' who don't want the people to have *ANY* right to a firearm and 
to have the means to actually defend themselves in their own homes. Instead they simply want 
to coddle the killers and give them 'another chance'; no matter how young they may be. 
Some people are sick, sick, sick and simply *CANNOT* be rehabilitated.


----------



## fantasymaker (Aug 28, 2005)

After reading this sentence i didnt belive a word in it"Brown allegedly carried out the killing using his own hunting rifle, a shotgun designed specifically for children. "
Sorry but a rifle isnt a shotgun. If they didnt get that simple fact right Im not going to belive anything they said.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

fantasymaker said:


> After reading this sentence i didnt belive a word in it"Brown allegedly carried out the killing using his own hunting rifle, a shotgun designed specifically for children. "
> Sorry but a rifle isnt a shotgun. If they didnt get that simple fact right Im not going to belive anything they said.


************************************
I saw that part also and at first it concerned me.........


until I realized that it was written up by some namby-pamby, limp wristed 'repressive' 
that doesn't know which end of a 'firearm' that a bullet, slug, or pellets come out of; let 
alone how to even pull the trigger. And that he had an editor and proofreader 
who also gave it their okay. 

The typesetters go with what they're provided from up above, so I'll give them a pass.

Enough said.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

beowoulf90 said:


> You talk about "talking sense" to me, yet you want to blame society for the worlds ills.. So there is no sense coming from you.
> 
> You say why is everyone so quick to pick up a gun.. How about because the police have failed to capture the criminals or the justice system has failed to keep them in prison or give them the death penalty (in violent crime).
> It's folks like yourself that would rather have us be victims and be hurt or killed while we wait for police to respond..
> ...


:thumb::thumb::thumb:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

naturelover said:


> No, none of the above. Those things are evil and they are real but they are not what is being discussed. It was violent games, movies (and tv shows) that was mentioned and that are considered normal by society as a whole as an acceptable means of entertainment.
> 
> How many of us here can say they have not watched some of the video and internet games, the movies, the TV shows that depict violence and killing? Who has not seen the old cowboys and indians or cops and robbers movies, the war movies, the science fiction and monster movies and horror shows, the mystery murder movies, the current shows on tv such as CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, Bones, etc. etc. that are so graphic, that instruct detail by detail how to murder or maim somebody? Anybody who can deny having ever watched and enjoyed some of that kind of entertainment would be lying to themself.
> 
> ...


Seems to me that regardless of whether the boy watched violent movies or played violent games, it still shouldn't have led him to murder someone. Many kids play these games or watch these movies and grow up being perfectly well balanced.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

naturelover said:


> This is just one example of the kind of garbage that kids and adults are watching for entertainment. It's so insane it's funny and it just gets crazier and crazier as it moves along. It's got everything violent depicted in it that a person could ask for but it is still desensitizing for children. Murder, mayhem, explosions, mechanical monsters. This is considered acceptable entertainment. Yada yada yada. :stars:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysbbPStfWw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> ...


Yet millions of kids watch these types of movies or play these types of games and never harm a soul.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Sonshine said:


> Yet millions of kids watch these types of movies or play these types of games and never harm a soul.


 :goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

"I read somewhere once that there is no such thing as a juvenile deliquent..... its impossible to be delinquent when someone is not responsible. Perhaps the parents should be put on trial in these cases and serve the time.... since they are the ones supposedly responsible for the kiddies behavior. If mom and dad were put in stocks on the courthouse lawn when jr messes up, I can assure you that mom and dad would take a different approach to jrs upbringing."

Unfortunately many of these young deliquents did not grow up with a father figure at home. Mom is like to be state supported with other kids to care for. Perhaps being raised by a grandparent.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I never understood trying a minor as an adult.


I agree. I wish we had some sort of a federal law/rule that wouldn't allow anyone under the age of ...... to be tried as an adult no matter what the crime. Maybe 15-16-17? The brain development in youngsters just isn't the same as adult development. They don't have the ability to understand FOREVER like in forever dead. Put them in a juvenile facility until they are 18 then boot camp type program until they are 21. But they aren't adults. And humanity shouldn't see an 11 as a disposable commodity even if he did this. He's eleven. He doesn't have the brain development and impulse control that a 20yr old has.


And this kid shouldn't have had access to a gun at all without an adult with him guarding him all the time he had it in his hands. That should be a felony on dad's part.

I do believe that he will eventually end up being tried in juvenile court, as it should be. Hopefully there is not judge that is heartless enough to allow a prosecutor try to make a name for himself at the expense of an eleven year old child. Children are not disposable.


----------



## jadedhkr (Oct 25, 2004)

This idea that an 11yo doesn't understand the concept of forever is crap. My 11yo understands it just fine, my 5yo understands what death is and that once something is gone it isn't coming back. (We've had a plethora of suicidal snakes this spring.)

I do think they lack understanding of consequences though. I've seen my own kids do stupid things, not thinking about the punishment later, only the here and now. They regret it later after they have been punished, but while in the act, they are only thinking of that moment.


It's easy to understand that he hated that person, wanted her gone and devised a way to do it. He didn't think he would get caught, kids never do.

I hope he is found innocent and that someone else did this. But if he did, I wouldn't want him free to walk among us in a few years. By then he will only have learned how to be a better criminal.


----------



## teacherlisa (Dec 10, 2005)

Sanza said:


> Read my post slowly beowoulf before you attack me! I said *"society as a whole" *
> Now why do you want to get personal and attack me because I'm from a different country?
> Very uncalled for and very disrespectful! It's amazing the hatred and anger you ameracans show.



Just wanted to note that you did the exact same thing you accused the other poster of doing. I honestly am not sure what attacking others has to do with this issue, especially when based only on someones place of birth. If you are proud to be Canadian... or want to note your country of origin as a point of reference for your opinion, thats awesome... but to generalize or attack? not so much.

For the record...this American belives that kids should never be tried as adults and that our juv court system needs a complete overhaul.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ken Scharabok said:


> "I read somewhere once that there is no such thing as a juvenile deliquent..... its impossible to be delinquent when someone is not responsible. Perhaps the parents should be put on trial in these cases and serve the time.... since they are the ones supposedly responsible for the kiddies behavior. If mom and dad were put in stocks on the courthouse lawn when jr messes up, I can assure you that mom and dad would take a different approach to jrs upbringing."
> 
> Unfortunately many of these young deliquents did not grow up with a father figure at home. Mom is like to be state supported with other kids to care for. Perhaps being raised by a grandparent.


I would think that if mom knew she would be punished for the kids misbehavior, she would be more inclined to make sure they had that father figure around closeby,,,,, if for no other reason than to share in the rewards when she finds herself in a rather uncomfortable position on the court yard. What we have instead is generation after generation of irresponsible brats raising yet another crop of irresponsible brats.


----------



## teacherlisa (Dec 10, 2005)

LOL- if only I could have gotten my kids father to own up to helping me finish raising our boys its just not quite that simple... I can only control myself.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

teacherlisa said:


> LOL- if only I could have gotten my kids father to own up to helping me finish raising our boys its just not quite that simple... I can only control myself.


Perhaps if we (our society in general) demanded fathers as well as mothers to own up to their responsibilities your kids father may have been more inclined to stick around. It would also help in some cases to have mom present a bit more of a welcome mat to these fathers than many do.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

I think people are getting hung up on what 'tried as an adult' means. He doesn't get a different or harsher standard of justice, he gets different sentencing. 

If he is innocent, given a fair trial and found not guilty, it doesn't matter whether he is tried as an adult or a juvenile, does it? 

However, if he is found guilty it most certainly matters how he is tried. Would you rather a cold blooded killer get set free at age 18 and his record expunged? Or would you rather he be kept in prison?

That's the only real difference here. It seems to me the cautious thing to do would be to abolish this notion of a juvenile court and simply try every peron on the facts of their case and give out the same sentencing no matter the age. Age could be a mitigating factor if it is proven to be so and a lighter sentence could be given.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FeralFemale said:


> It seems to me the cautious thing to do would be to abolish this notion of a juvenile court and simply try every peron on the facts of their case and give out the same sentencing no matter the age. Age could be a mitigating factor if it is proven to be so and a lighter sentence could be given.


Prezactly!!


----------



## teacherlisa (Dec 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps if we (our society in general) demanded fathers as well as mothers to own up to their responsibilities your kids father may have been more inclined to stick around. It would also help in some cases to have mom present a bit more of a welcome mat to these fathers than many do.


I will agree with you 100% on that issue. If a mom "abandons" her kids... or even allows a father to have more than 50% custody the whole world is up in arms over the situation, but if a father finds a new family... its just not really as big of a deal...

And I have seen time and time again where mom's use their kids as weapons...doing a lot of damage to the kids. 

It takes two parents to make a child, because it takes two to raise a child. I am an awesome mom... but I am not a dad.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

mekasmom said:


> And this kid shouldn't have had access to a gun at all without an adult with him guarding him all the time he had it in his hands. That should be a felony on dad's part.


Would dad still be a felon if the killer used dad's unlocked sledgehammer or ax to commit the murder ?


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I read somewhere once that there is no such thing as a juvenile delinquent..... its impossible to be delinquent when someone is not responsible. Perhaps the parents should be put on trial in these cases and serve the time.... since they are the ones supposedly responsible for the kiddies behavior. If mom and dad were put in stocks on the courthouse lawn when jr messes up, I can assure you that mom and dad would take a different approach to jrs upbringing.


This was originally written by Heinlein in Starship Troopers. I don't know if it was in the movie, too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This was originally written by Heinlein


One can learn a lot of valuable lessons reading Heinlein


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Win07_351 said:


> Would dad still be a felon if the killer used dad's unlocked sledgehammer or ax to commit the murder ?


No. Having a sledge hammer or ax stored in a place where children might have access to them is actually different than having a gun where a child might have access to it. Sledgehammers and axes are used for working. Guns are made to shoot. Children should not have free access to guns.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> No. Having a sledge hammer or ax stored in a place where children might have access to them is actually different than having a gun where a child might have access to it. Sledgehammers and axes are used for working. Guns are made to shoot. Children should not have free access to guns.


Why not?


----------



## Tracy Rimmer (May 9, 2002)

mekasmom said:


> No. Having a sledge hammer or ax stored in a place where children might have access to them is actually different than having a gun where a child might have access to it. Sledgehammers and axes are used for working. Guns are made to shoot. Children should not have free access to guns.


A gun is a tool, used for a job, just like a sledgehammer or an ax. They're equally deadly if used for a purpose other than that intended.

The problem isn't with access to the tool, the problem is with the mentality of the person wielding the tool. If a person wants to kill, they don't need a gun to do it, if they have no respect for human life, there are a range of tools available in order to snuff it out, and so long as the tools are being blamed, the person doing the killing will never be held fully responsible for their choices and actions.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

When I was in Croatia in 2001 I ask for, and got, an interview with the village Chief of Police. He said his major headache was cars stolen as they could so quickly get across into another country.

I asked about homicides in general and was told he could only speak to Eastern Croatia (which still has the Austrian/Hungarian Empire influence). Western Croatia was the summer resort area across the Adriatic from Italy.

Asked about gun control and he said the only people allowed to own rifles were hunter who had a certified (not easy to get) hunting rights. Murders were predominately women after domestic disputes, who used rolling pin, frying pans and meat cleavers. Maybe once a month.

Their police force did not routinely carry weapons. Only on special occasion.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> A gun is a tool, used for a job, just like a sledgehammer or an ax. They're equally deadly if used for a purpose other than that intended.
> 
> The problem isn't with access to the tool, the problem is with the mentality of the person wielding the tool. If a person wants to kill, they don't need a gun to do it, if they have no respect for human life, there are a range of tools available in order to snuff it out, and so long as the tools are being blamed, the person doing the killing will never be held fully responsible for their choices and actions.


Thank you, and very well said.

Sadly it will not make much difference to those who have bought into years of the liberal anti gun rhetoric (like mekasmom).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Ken Scharabok said:


> When I was in Croatia in 2001 I ask for, and got, an interview with the village Chief of Police. He said his major headache was cars stolen as they could so quickly get across into another country.
> 
> I asked about homicides in general and was told he could only speak to Eastern Croatia (which still has the Austrian/Hungarian Empire influence). Western Croatia was the summer resort area across the Adriatic from Italy.
> 
> ...


That sounds great. Much better than the murder rate in VT where they have next to no gun control laws. The blood is flowing in the streets.

Sorry but I had to do it. The problem is not the tool but the people and their attitudes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tracy Rimmer said:


> A gun is a tool, used for a job, just like a sledgehammer or an ax. They're equally deadly if used for a purpose other than that intended.
> 
> The problem isn't with access to the tool, the problem is with the mentality of the person wielding the tool. If a person wants to kill, they don't need a gun to do it, if they have no respect for human life, there are a range of tools available in order to snuff it out, and so long as the tools are being blamed, the person doing the killing will never be held fully responsible for their choices and actions.


I agree. Not too long ago we had a boy here in the area that killed his dad with a baseball bat..... funny thing was, the guns were right there in the living room, the kid had to go get the bat out of his bedroom. Since the kid was fifteen, he was tried as a juvenile, found guilty but was released into the custody of his grandparents. :shrug:


----------

