Other State A 13-Year-Old Will Be Tried As An Adult For Shooting And Killing His Brother While Playing Cops And Robbers

[clearconscience]

They should all be charged.

In times past, 13 was old enough to set out and start supporting your family. Big life decisions were mere years away.

Hell, my own first job was at 12 (yay family construction biz). My point is: 13 is plenty old enough to be responsible for murder, especially when the kid acknowledges that he knew the gun was loaded. Do we trust this cops and robbers story? Or was this just simple murder? It wouldn't be the first time a jealous sibling killed their rival.

Oh, and it's crap like this that is going to bring on the safe storage laws. So FFS people, do the right thing *before* being compelled by law to do so.

I agree I just wish they would keep it consistent all around.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I disagree about the father needing to be imprisoned for the actions of his child. That type of red flag talk is what spurs the creation of tyrannical law. Next we'd be popping off about stolen arms and the criminals using them applying to charges against the owner they were stolen from.

The dude lost a child, his living son lost a brother.. WTF would a prison sentence do to the man that a dead child doesn't?!

 

[sobo]

...Next we'd be popping off about stolen arms and the criminals using them applying to charges against the owner they were stolen from.

Well, thanks to I-1639 passing, we already have that in this state...

The dude lost a child, his living son lost a brother.. WTF would a prison sentence do to the man that a dead child doesn't?!

Mebbe keep him from leaving loaded firearms lyin' around in the cushions of the couch again so the rest of his kids don't kill each other...???

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Well, thanks to I-1639 passing, we already have that in this state...


Mebbe keep him from leaving loaded firearms lyin' around in the cushions of the couch again so the rest of his kids don't kill each other...???

In response and with respect.. using tax money to imprison a man that had already lost a son already accomplishes what? Beyond that, the article sure reads as if it pushes a narrative of demanding firearms are 100% locked up (mags too) and ammo separated.. basically neutralizing any defensive effectiveness of said firearm. Knives are left out in the open and glorified just as much in movies, games and television as firearms.. many deaths also occur with knives involving children and their misuse.. but articles like this are never written when items other than firearms are used in tragic deaths. So I truly feel the narrative here.

For very young kids, I agree firearms should be kept locked away since the very young get into everything and cannot retain informative lessons. This was a teenager though.. at best the failure was on the father for not teaching his kids proper firearm safety or telling them his firearms were kept in a certain place at all. But even then, some kids just don't listen and have poor temperament so its not always a foolproof method of prevention.

But charging the father? Thats lunacy. He didnt keep it on the kitchen table or under his kids pillow.. Its loose at best to forcefully tack on an after-the-fact criminal negligence charges. Its more for antis and their feels than anything else. This is the kind of nonsense DA goes for in lieu of pursuing real crimes.

Going after him accomplishes literally nothing. Even for virtue signaling purposes, it accomplishes nothing other than further punishing a grieving father and further tearing apart a family that will never be the same.

 

[GunSmoke]

In response and with respect.. using tax money to imprison a man that had already lost a son already accomplishes what? Beyond that, the article sure reads as if it pushes a narrative of demanding firearms are 100% locked up (mags too) and ammo separated.. basically neutralizing any defensive effectiveness of said firearm. Knives are left out in the open and glorified just as much in movies, games and television as firearms.. many deaths also occur with knives involving children and their misuse.. but articles like this are never written when items other than firearms are used in tragic deaths. So I truly feel the narrative here.

For very young kids, I agree firearms should be kept locked away since the very young get into everything and cannot retain informative lessons. This was a teenager though.. at best the failure was on the father for not teaching his kids proper firearm safety or telling them his firearms were kept in a certain place at all. But even then, some kids just don't listen and have poor temperament so its not always a foolproof method of prevention.

But charging the father? Thats lunacy. He didnt keep it on the kitchen table or under his kids pillow.. Its loose at best to forcefully tack on an after-the-fact criminal negligence charges. Its more for antis and their feels than anything else. This is the kind of nonsense DA goes for in lieu of pursuing real crimes.

Going after him accomplishes literally nothing. Even for virtue signaling purposes, it accomplishes nothing other than further punishing a grieving father and further tearing apart a family that will never be the same.

I'm not in favor of red flag laws or holding gun owners responsible for something if their firearm is stolen and used in a crime. I do though believe in holding parents accountable(at least somewhat) for the actions of their minor children. Your child's behavior is pretty much a reflection of your parenting except in some special circumstances. This father failed on many levels... if your children dknt know firearms safety then you'd be a fool in my opinion to leave a loaded gun in the couch which, also in my opinion might as well have been on the kitchen table. I wont support mandatory lock up laws but if you allow something like this to happen on your watch, it's on you

 

[Kruel J]

The kid is 13. Plenty old enough to know right from wrong. Plenty old enough to know that a gun can kill. I agree that the father holds some accountability since he didn't even try to secure the firearms in any way.

But the 13 year old? Throw the book at him, put him in general population.

 

[titsonritz]

It's obviously Trump's fault.

 

[Kruel J]

It's obviously Trump's fault.

There's always that.

 

[sobo]

@ZA_Survivalist And also with respect towards you, I see some valid points in your argument/position, and I agree with you that the father failed abysmally in his duty to provide proper firearms safety instruction to his kids. But I have to go with @GunSmoke on this one. In my view, the father bears significant responsibility not only for failing to educate his kids on safe firearms handing, but also in failing to keep his firearms away from prohibited persons (his kids). He might as well as just handed his 13 yoa son the loaded firearm, which is essentially what he did by leaving it loaded and between the couch cushions.

Does the boy bear some responsibility? Of course he does, and the lion's share of it. He was, after all, the gunman. Unless this kid is mentally-challenged, then he is a de facto cold-blooded murderer, as evidenced by the manner in which he essentially executed his brother, if we are to believe the reporting. He goes to juvenile detention until he turns 18 yoa, and then moves to an adult facility thereafter. His life is effectively over. The father's life is effectively ruined because he now carries his younger son's death on his conscience, and everyone is worse off.

Should the father go to prison for his part? Note that nowhere in my replies to this thread have I indicated that the father should go to prison, only that he is highly responsible for what happened. It may have seemed like I implied that he should go to prison in the second part of my response in Post #43, but that was not my intention. I don't know what should be done with him, but he needs to pay some price (beyond losing his son) so that he doesn't continue his irresponsible behavior of leaving loaded firearms around the house and within reach of prohibited persons. I don't know that that price might be...

 

[Kruel J]

Chemical castration seems like a reasonable punishment.

 

[JohnnyMac]

Chemical castration seems like a reasonable punishment.

I have no idea what that entails, but the thought of it just made my willie jump up inside me enough that I'm gonna have to stick my thumb up my bubblegum and yell "Snake!" just to take a pee.....

 

[Hueco]

Chemical castration seems like a reasonable punishment.

Why chemical?

 

[Boboclown]

It isn't normal to lock bedrooms doors and such when you have kids?

That explains hos the kids find their mother's lightsabers these days.

 

[DunRanull]

Mental Retardation
Definition
Mental retardation is a developmental disability that first appears in children under the age of 18. It is defined as an intellectual functioning level (as measured by standard tests for intelligence quotient) that is well below average and significant limitations in daily living skills (adaptive functioning).

*The term certainly IS used today*... what is frowned upon is the slick use of the term "retard" in a pejorative sense.

Definition of mental retardation

: mild to severe impairment in intellectual ability equivalent to an IQ of 70 to 75 or below that is accompanied by significant limitations in social, practical, and conceptual skills (as in interpersonal communication, reasoning, or self-care) necessary for independent daily functioning and that has an onset before age 18 : INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY
NOTE: The term intellectual disability is now preferred over mental retardation especially in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. Mental retardation is still widely used in speech and writing, though it may sometimes be considered offensive.

Mental retardation: The condition of having an IQ measured as below 70 to 75 and significant delays or lacks in at least two areas of adaptive skills. Mental retardation is present from childhood. Between 2 and 3 percent of the general population meet the criteria for mental retardation.


Home » PEHSU » What is mental retardation?

What is mental retardation?
The American Association on Mental Retardation gives the following definition: [2]

Mental retardation (MR) refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It starts before age 18 and is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas:

• communication
• self-care
• home living
• social skills
• community use
• self-direction
• health and safety
• functional academics
• leisure
• work

Mental Retardation Law and Legal Definition

Mental retardation is a genetic disorder mainfested in significantly below average overall intellectual functioning and deficits in adaptive behavior. Mental retardation is a particular state of functioning that begins in childhood and is characterized by decreased intelligence and adaptive skills. Mental retardation is the most common developmental disorder.

*And the reference sources, legal, psychiatric, and academic, roll on and on... A little research calls "bull" on the term not being used. What IS frowned upon is using the term "retarded" in a pejorative manner, as an insult.. It does surprise me tho, that as many as 2-3% of the population (according to the above quoted references) suffer from mental retardation (as a medical diagnosis, not as a purile insult).*

 

[DangerDog]

How about teach your kids about firearms and the that they're not toys and teach them the value of life. And if your kids are just plain dumb and or mentally retarded...keep the dang wang bang firearms away from them. The parent should be charged...but who knows. I don't know the family's issues or history or all the details of the incident, so I don't like jumpin to conclusions and judging and what not.