USA boy, 11, held for shooting dead eight-year-old neighbour

[Crimson Dynamo]

yep good ol USA at it again


http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/B376/production/_85924954_85924952.jpg


An 11-year-old boy in the US state of Tennessee has been held on suspicion of shooting dead an eight-year-old girl in a row over a puppy.


The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.
According to police, he shot neighbour McKayla Dyer on Saturday evening after she refused to let him see her puppy.

In another fatal child shooting case, authorities said on Monday that an 11-year-old boy fatally shot his brother while target shooting in Ohio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34450841

[Dollface]

Jesus, how do these kids even get hold of guns?!

[arista]

Yes very sad they live on a trailer park
it was on SkyNewsHD
early this morning.

That girl did not trust that boy with her puppy
But the 11 year old went straight
into his dads room grabbed the Shotgun
and fired close to her.

Life In America

[Kazanne]

Jesus, how do these kids even get hold of guns?!

Dopey parents leaving them accessible.

[kirklancaster]

Seriously - I would charge the idiotic fecking parents with 'Facilating Murder', 'Accessory To Murder' or some other offence.

[Dollface]

Dopey parents leaving them accessible.

People that stupid don't deserve kids. If they feel they need to have a gun in their home, why not lock it up somewhere safe? :rant:

[arista]

People that stupid don't deserve kids. If they feel they need to have a gun in their home, why not lock it up somewhere safe? :rant:


You Fly out there and say that to them
I do not think so

They are the lower class

[Crimson Dynamo]

Do you know the hoops we have to go through in the UK to own a shotgun?

There one is lying around a bloody caravan with kids playing outside? :umm2:

what kind of 3rd world country?

[Niamh.]

That's horrifying. How many more of these incidents need to happen before the US sort their gun laws out? Course it'll never happen because of the money involved. Sad world we live in

[Cal.]

</3

[DemolitionRed]

Nearly 1,500 children younger than 18 years of age die from shootings every year.

More American homes have guns than dogs.

1 in 3 families with children have at least one gun in the house. There are more than 22 million children living in homes with guns.

Most of the victims of unintentional shootings are boys. They are usually shot by a friend or relative, especially a brother.

Half of all unintentional shooting deaths among children occur at home, and almost half occur in the home of a friend or relative.

http://www.nationwidechildrens.org/cirp-gun-safety

[DemolitionRed]

That's horrifying. How many more of these incidents need to happen before the US sort their gun laws out? Course it'll never happen because of the money involved. Sad world we live in

Gun laws are changing in America at the moment and this is probably one of the reasons we are starting to see stories like this one.

[kirklancaster]

People that stupid don't deserve kids. If they feel they need to have a gun in their home, why not lock it up somewhere safe? :rant:

:clap1::clap1::clap1: EXACTLY.

[kirklancaster]

Do you know the hoops we have to go through in the UK to own a shotgun?

There one is lying around a bloody caravan with kids playing outside? :umm2:

what kind of 3rd world country?

Jerry Springer type Trailer Trash - Probably LT.

[arista]

That's horrifying. How many more of these incidents need to happen before the US sort their gun laws out? Course it'll never happen because of the money involved. Sad world we live in



No in America
everyone has a Right to Bare Arms
you like me ,have been there

[AnnieK]

When I worked in the States, I was horrified at first when I got in a car and there was a gun on the dash board (where I was it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle but legal if in view) but after a while even I got a little desensitised to the amount of people who have and carry guns. It is their way of life and allowed in law.

However, I could never imagine having a loaded gun anywhere near children. Too many wasted lives.

Such a sad story, RIP to the little girl.

[arista]

When I worked in the States, I was horrified at first when I got in a car and there was a gun on the dash board (where I was it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon in a vehicle but legal if in view) but after a while even I got a little desensitised to the amount of people who have and carry guns. It is their way of life and allowed in law.

However, I could never imagine having a loaded gun anywhere near children. Too many wasted lives.

Such a sad story, RIP to the little girl.


That shotgun was not near Children
its just that 11 year old boy new his dad
kept his Shotgun ready to defend them.
And he was so Angry a that Girl next door
refusing him to see and touch her puppy.

The Dad should have had it in a Solid Locked Box,
thats the only thing taken away from this tragedy

[arista]

Do you know the hoops we have to go through in the UK to own a shotgun?

There one is lying around a bloody caravan with kids playing outside? :umm2:

what kind of 3rd world country?


Yes its Sloppy

[Ammi]

..I read that he may be charged as an adult for first degree murder...I don't get the 'self defence' bit in owning a gun for intruders either because if a child can access it, then so could an intruder and use it to harm those living there...

[kirklancaster]

..I read that he may be charged as an adult for first degree murder...I don't get the 'self defence' bit in owning a gun for intruders either because if a child can access it, then so could an intruder and use it to harm those living there...

What a really brilliant point Ammi - Yes, if the gun was so easily accessible for a child, then intruders COULD have accessed it also, and 'intent' is the only difference in a gun being 'defensive' or 'offensive'.

[Ashley.]

How many more innocent people will die before the gun laws are changed? It's getting ridiculous. That boy should go down for life and so should his parents just for being twats :idc:

[Niamh.]

How many more innocent people will die before the gun laws are changed? It's getting ridiculous. That boy should go down for life and so should his parents just for being twats :idc:

At 11 years old though? Does a an 11 year old really have a proper understanding of the consequences of their actions? I'm not sure. My own son is 11 so i guess straight away I can put myself in the shoes of his parents (well not the fact that they had a gun lying around just being his parents I mean)

To me the parents are more at fault than the child

[Mystic Mock]

At 11 years old though? Does a an 11 year old really have a proper understanding of the consequences of their actions? I'm not sure. My own son is 11 so i guess straight away I can put myself in the shoes of his parents (well not the fact that they had a gun lying around just being his parents I mean)

To me the parents are more at fault than the child

At 11 years of age I never wanted to shoot off a gun at an 8 year old in a fit of rage, in fact it's never entered my head to want to do that.

I agree with you that the parents should get into a lot of trouble though.

[Niamh.]

At 11 years of age I never wanted to shoot off a gun at an 8 year old in a fit of rage, in fact it's never entered my head to want to do that.

I agree with you that the parents should get into a lot of trouble though.

Yes but you probably wouldn't have had access to a gun to even think about it anyway Mock. 11 is still a child and kids see people shooting other people on TV and it doesn't seem very real I'd imagine. It seems so easy and I don't know if at that age alot of 11 year olds would really be thinking if I do this I'm actually killing this girl and her life is over, if you know what I mean? Like I mean alot of 11 year olds would have hit another kid for not getting their way or because the other kid annoyed them, it could have been a similar thing in his mind

[arista]

At 11 years old though? Does a an 11 year old really have a proper understanding of the consequences of their actions? I'm not sure. My own son is 11 so i guess straight away I can put myself in the shoes of his parents (well not the fact that they had a gun lying around just being his parents I mean)

To me the parents are more at fault than the child




Yes Valid Point
he was so angry he could not see her new puppy
next door.

I would think up until he fired the shotgun
he would be in a tantrum type rage.

Then after it comes back to real life

[Niamh.]

Yes Valid Point
he was so angry he could not see her new puppy
next door.

I would think up until he fired the shotgun
he would be in a tantrum type rage.

Then after it comes back to real life

Yep which is pretty normal behaviour for kids of that age but the vast majority wouldn't have easy access to guns

[Ammi]

..I also don't understand First Degree Murder either, which is what some are asking for him to be tried for...I understand that him going into the house and getting the gun, knowing what he would do with it is 'premeditation and intent'...but his mind-set is still that of a child, not an adult..so how can he fully understand consequences/.. fully understand 'death'....

[Niamh.]

..I also don't understand First Degree Murder either, which is what some are asking for him to be tried for...I understand that him going into the house and getting the gun, knowing what he would do with it is 'premeditation and intent'...but his mind-set is still that of a child, not an adult..so how can he fully understand consequences/.. fully understand 'death'....

Yeah, I mean how can you have age ratings for movies 16's and 18's because we don't believe children under those ages should be exposed to certain things on screen because they're too young, their minds aren't ready for that kind of thing yet say that at 11 years old they can be tried as an adult for first degree murder? It makes no sense to me.

I suppose I keep thinking back to the Jamie Bulger case because those two boys were even younger but I think their situation was different in that they actually kidnapped a toddler for no apparent reason other than they wanted to hurt him. It was a different situation because those boys were clearly mentally disturbed to do the things they did to that poor baby. Where as this just seems like an 11 year old, like Arista said, having a tantrum because he didn't get his way and unfortunately had access to something he shouldn't have had access to. I don't think he "thought it through" or would really have a proper understanding of the finality of what he did either

[Tom4784]

It's ridiculous to try an 11 year old as an adult. Where is the logic behind it? It's a vengeful act rather than a just one.

The parents should be done for negligence, allowing a child to get easy access to a gun is shocking. If they can't limit the guns in America then they should at least create a few laws detailing how they should be kept so that they don't fall into a child's hands so easily.

[Niamh.]

Gun laws are changing in America at the moment and this is probably one of the reasons we are starting to see stories like this one.

Are they? What changes have they made?



I saw this on FB just now

https://scontent-ams2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12105883_10153558813880661_5578739287943556315_n.j pg?oh=7c61b647b90759c835b4339d2b88caf0&oe=568BCCBC

[Ammi]

Yeah, I mean how can you have age ratings for movies 16's and 18's because we don't believe children under those ages should be exposed to certain things on screen because they're too young, their minds aren't ready for that kind of thing yet say that at 11 years old they can be tried as an adult for first degree murder? It makes no sense to me.

I suppose I keep thinking back to the Jamie Bulger case because those two boys were even younger but I think their situation was different in that they actually kidnapped a toddler for no apparent reason other than they wanted to hurt him. It was a different situation because those boys were clearly mentally disturbed to do the things they did to that poor baby. Where as this just seems like an 11 year old, like Arista said, having a tantrum because he didn't get his way and unfortunately had access to something he shouldn't have had access to. I don't think he "thought it through" or would really have a proper understanding of the finality of what he did either

..with this, presumably he had known for however long that the gun was there and loaded/accessible but not used it before in any other situation but then did this time because he was angry...so surely that would be more a 'crime of passion' anyway and second degree murder, even if he was tried as an adult...(I would think..)..if this is proceeded with, him being tried as an adult..?...there will have to be first a lengthy process of assessing his full understanding of everything he was doing and I just don't see how that's possible because someone his age/with his life experiences couldn't possibly understand empathy etc...and what her death has meant to her family...

[kirklancaster]

The child is a child, but he is a LIVING child unlike his victim. No, he should not be tried as an adult or for 'Ist Degree' murder, but he should be charged with 'Causing Death by Malicious Wounding' or some such, but it is his parents who should be punished. A gun should be kept in a locked gun cabinet - even in the US of A - and it is gross negligence for it not to have been kept so. When it comes down to it, a sweet young child has been killed and a family left distraught.

Without wishing any Witch Hunt, someone HAS to be held accountable.

[Ammi]

..he's a victim as well though and he'll continue to be a victim, his life will never be the same no matter what now and he's lost his childhood...even if his parents were fully held accountable then if either of them or both of them got prison sentences..he would be without his parents, maybe go into care even..whatever happens in terms of law action, his 'punishment' I think will be life long for him...

[arista]

..he's a victim as well though and he'll continue to be a victim, his life will never be the same no matter what now and he's lost his childhood...even if his parents were fully held accountable then if either of them or both of them got prison sentences..he would be without his parents, maybe go into care even..whatever happens in terms of law action, his 'punishment' I think will be life long for him...



You do not know anything about this boy
he may a nasty bully.

He Rolled The Dice
and lost.

[Ammi]

You do not know anything about this boy
he may a nasty bully.

He Rolled The Dice
and lost.

..what I know about him is that he's a child Arista...and there were no rolling of dices, just extraordinarily irresponsible parents whose loaded gun was accessible to their son...

[kirklancaster]

..he's a victim as well though and he'll continue to be a victim, his life will never be the same no matter what now and he's lost his childhood...even if his parents were fully held accountable then if either of them or both of them got prison sentences..he would be without his parents, maybe go into care even..whatever happens in terms of law action, his 'punishment' I think will be life long for him...

Yes, it is a really, really difficult one. I agree that this SHOULD haunt him for the rest of his life and that this constitutes punishment in itself, and I do not now advocate imprisonment for either parent, but - obviously - a young child is dead and no one can act as if it all never happened just because addressing the tragic situation piles more heartache on heartbreak.

The parents HAVE to bear the brunt of this tragedy, because it all could have been avoided with a modicum of care.

Incidentally, I do really believe that the boy has serious mental and psychological issues which need addressing. Yes, the average kid can have a dicky fit, but they still do not kill the other child who has 'upset' them. I know that most children have not got ready access to guns, but following this to its logical conclusion, children wound up by an argument would be reaching for bricks, hammers, tree branches or other 'at hand' items to use as weapons, and beating the other child to death, if the child in question's behaviour was 'normal'.

I believe, that tests may yet prove that he has psychopathic tendencies.

We'll see.

[arista]

..what I know about him is that he's a child Arista...and there were no rolling of dices, just extraordinarily irresponsible parents whose loaded gun was accessible to their son...



That Dad needs it Loaded and ready
iits rough there.

His only error is not having a Solid
Box with the Shotgun Locked.
But they may cost more than the Gun


Sign Of The Times

[kirklancaster]

It's ridiculous to try an 11 year old as an adult. Where is the logic behind it? It's a vengeful act rather than a just one.

The parents should be done for negligence, allowing a child to get easy access to a gun is shocking. If they can't limit the guns in America then they should at least create a few laws detailing how they should be kept so that they don't fall into a child's hands so easily.

We are going to have to STOP agreeing :laugh:, but I do absolutely agree with you.

[Ammi]

That Dad needs it Loaded and ready
iits rough there.

His only error is not having a Solid
Box with the Shotgun Locked.
But they may cost more than the Gun


Sign Of The Times

..then if you have children of your own or any children in your home at any time that could have access... you don't have the gun without the locked box/cabinet...you buy the box first and then you buy the gun...I would say that 'only error' was quite a huge and series one and took away a child's life and has changed another child's life forever...that's not an 'only error' at all...


..and the 'ready' bit is dumb because it's also just as ready for an intruder to use on him as well...

[kirklancaster]

:laugh: QUIT NOW Arista - you're losing. :laugh::laugh:

[arista]

..then if you have children of your own or any children in your home at any time that could have access... you don't have the gun without the locked box/cabinet...you buy the box first and then you buy the gun...I would say that 'only error' was quite a huge and series one and took away a child's life and has changed another child's life forever...that's not an 'only error' at all...


..and the 'ready' bit is dumb because it's also just as ready for an intruder to use on him as well...


Wrong that Loaded ShotGun
is more important to the punks that want to do him harm
it keeps them away.

So its a Fact on USA TV News
his error was not buying the Solid Lock Box

But these are not rich folks
its to be expected

[Scarlett.]

Notthegunsfault™

[arista]

:laugh: QUIT NOW Arista - you're losing. :laugh::laugh:




do not be silly

[arista]

Notthegunsfault™


For Sure

[kirklancaster]

Notthegunsfault™

:laugh::laugh::laugh: LOL You nutter Chewy.

[kirklancaster]

do not be silly

:laugh: OK Arista. You're a braver man than me. I think I just saw Ammi toting a loaded gun and heading your way. :hehe:

[user104658]

Yep which is pretty normal behaviour for kids of that age but the vast majority wouldn't have easy access to guns

I don't know that it's necessarily that simple though, I think it would be a gross representation of normal psychology to suggest that this was just "normal kid stuff" but he happened to have access to a gun. I mean, any kid anywhere in the world has "access to" planks of wood / bricks / rocks which they could bash each other over the head with, sharp pieces of wood or metal that they could stab each other with, and cause serious injury or death in a rage during all sorts of "normal kid disputes" but they... well... they generally don't.

I'm not for a minute saying that it's right that these kids in America have access to firearms, of course it's not, and these lethal weapons being at hand certainly ups the incidence of really horrible outcomes like this. But the motivation behind it is extremely violent and not at all even close to being a normal "child tantrum". Not at 5 years old... and definitely not at 11.

That said, I agree with the point that children and adolescents don't have a full concept of mortality and for that reason it seems questionable for him to be tried as an adult / as it being a premiditated killing. There's a reason that non-adults aren't generally tried as adults... and I don't really understand the logic of making exceptions to that just because the crime was a particularly bad one. If anything, the worse the crime, the MORE likely it becomes that the child didn't understand the consequences of their actions.

[Niamh.]

I don't know that it's necessarily that simple though, I think it would be a gross representation of normal psychology to suggest that this was just "normal kid stuff" but he happened to have access to a gun. I mean, any kid anywhere in the world has "access to" planks of wood / bricks / rocks which they could bash each other over the head with, sharp pieces of wood or metal that they could stab each other with, and cause serious injury or death in a rage during all sorts of "normal kid disputes" but they... well... they generally don't.

I'm not for a minute saying that it's right that these kids in America have access to firearms, of course it's not, and these lethal weapons being at hand certainly ups the incidence of really horrible outcomes like this. But the motivation behind it is extremely violent and not at all even close to being a normal "child tantrum". Not at 5 years old... and definitely not at 11.

That said, I agree with the point that children and adolescents don't have a full concept of mortality and for that reason it seems questionable for him to be tried as an adult / as it being a premiditated killing. There's a reason that non-adults aren't generally tried as adults... and I don't really understand the logic of making exceptions to that just because the crime was a particularly bad one. If anything, the worse the crime, the MORE likely it becomes that the child didn't understand the consequences of their actions.

The difference in the way I see it when it comes to guns, is that they're just too easy to use and kill with, without even breaking a sweat or actually doing much violent things yourself if you know what I mean? Like picking up a gun and pulling the trigger is the same action that many kids that age do everyday with their toys guns. Picking up a brick and bashing someones head in is quite a different story.

[Crimson Dynamo]

The minute you acquire a gun the possibility of you killing someone or being killed skyrockets

[Niamh.]

The minute you acquire a gun the possibility of you killing someone or being killed skyrockets

Absolutely

[user104658]

The difference in the way I see it when it comes to guns, is that they're just too easy to use and kill with, without even breaking a sweat or actually doing much violent things yourself if you know what I mean? Like picking up a gun and pulling the trigger is the same action that many kids that age do everyday with their toys guns. Picking up a brick and bashing someones head in is quite a different story.
I suppose, there are arguments that there's a "disconnect" with the violence committed with guns. You just pull a little trigger, you're not using physical force which I would imagine there are some instincts built into most people that stop that sort of violence. It's the same sort of disconnect that allows politicians to kill thousands with the push of a button or flick of a pen authorising the use of force when they could never pick up a weapon and do the same themselves.

Still, though, aged 11 I find it very unlikely that something like this could arise from normal "kid frustration", unless he has some sort of disorder or learning difficulty. A psychologically "normal" 11 year old would not pick up a shotgun and fire it at a little girl. Still, that's even more reason he shouldn't be being tried as a mentally sound adult who engaged in a simple act of premeditated violence.

I get conflicted with things like this though. The above is the detached, pure psychology answer. Then I try to put it into the context of what my opinion would be if one of the young boys around here was to kill my daughter and... Well... To be blunt, the proper course of legal action would be irrelevant because he'd be dead before the police arrived,and it would be me being arrested. :shrug:

[Niamh.]

I suppose, there are arguments that there's a "disconnect" with the violence committed with guns. You just pull a little trigger, you're not using physical force which I would imagine there are some instincts built into most people that stop that sort of violence. It's the same sort of disconnect that allows politicians to kill thousands with the push of a button or flick of a pen authorising the use of force when they could never pick up a weapon and do the same themselves.

Still, though, aged 11 I find it very unlikely that something like this could arise from normal "kid frustration", unless he has some sort of disorder or learning difficulty. A psychologically "normal" 11 year old would not pick up a shotgun and fire it at a little girl. Still, that's even more reason he shouldn't be being tried as a mentally sound adult who engaged in a simple act of premeditated violence.

I get conflicted with things like this though. The above is the detached, pure psychology answer. Then I try to put it into the context of what my opinion would be if one of the young boys around here was to kill my daughter and... Well... To be blunt, the proper course of legal action would be irrelevant because he'd be dead before the police arrived,and it would be me being arrested. :shrug:

mmm I guess if you wanted to get emotionally invested in the case you could put yourself in the shoes of both kids parents. Maybe it is easier for me to do that with the boy this time because I happen to have an eleven year old son at the moment? I have to say though my own son is a bit obsessed with guns but he's also an extremely empathetic child. I couldn't imagine him actually doing something like that either.

[Kazanne]

I'm not getting into this one too deeply,but I do think that kids of that age know pointing a gun at someone and shooting will kill them, they are not stupid .

[DemolitionRed]

What I'd be interested to know is, why was there a fully armed shotgun laying around? I hope the parents are going to be charged with reckless behaviour. There were 6 kids in that house :(

No matter what, the fallout will lead to lifelong emotional scars for everyone involved.

[JoshBB]

No in America
everyone has a Right to Bare Arms
you like me ,have been there

Owning a weapon (designed to kill) is not a 'right'.

[Niamh.]

Owning a weapon (designed to kill) is not a 'right'.

Well, it is in the USA, it's in their constitution. Should it be their right? That's an entirely different question

[Ammi]

Wrong that Loaded ShotGun
is more important to the punks that want to do him harm
it keeps them away.

So its a Fact on USA TV News
his error was not buying the Solid Lock Box

But these are not rich folks
its to be expected

..'rich folk'/'poor folk' has nothing to do with anything in caring for children and their safety within a home Arista...there should have been a locked box first, even if they had to wait to get the weapon...that wasn't an error, it was mindless and it's cost a child their life plus will have a lifelong effect on another child...

..the gun wasn't used on a 'punk' as you say, it was used to take the life of a child by another child and as LT says, if you own a gun ..you're not 'protecting', you're increasing the chance of either being shot or shooting someone else...

[Niamh.]

..'rich folk'/'poor folk' has nothing to do with anything in caring for children and their safety within a home Arista...there should have been a locked box first, even if they had to wait to get the weapon...that wasn't an error, it was mindless and it's cost a child their life plus will have a lifelong effect on another child...

..the gun wasn't used on a 'punk' as you say, it was used to take the life of a child by another child and as LT says, if you own a gun ..you're not 'protecting', you're increasing the chance of either being shot or shooting someone else...

yeah just read this on another forum and it's so true, this part especially :

You have guns because you like guns! That's why you go to gun conventions; that's why you read gun magazines! None of you give a **** about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

[Samuel.]

The parents should be the only ones punished.

The child should be given substantial psychological help, both in what led to his actions and the trauma his actions will have caused.

Children are idiots, and this was a series of unfortunate events that was allowed to happen because of the parents' negligence.

[Niamh.]

The parents should be the only ones punished.

The child should be given substantial psychological help, both in what led to his actions and the trauma his actions will have caused.

Children are idiots, and this was a series of unfortunate events that was allowed to happen because of the parents' negligence.

:clap1:

[Ammi]

yeah just read this on another forum and it's so true, this part especially :

You have guns because you like guns! That's why you go to gun conventions; that's why you read gun magazines! None of you give a **** about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies

...I saw that vid as well and although he's a comedian, he does really say it perfectly as well I think...as he says, it's not called a defence weapon but an assault weapon...I mean really in most cases of self defence, what would be the chances of you having a loaded gun in your hand at the time...

[Ashley.]

At 11 years old though? Does a an 11 year old really have a proper understanding of the consequences of their actions? I'm not sure. My own son is 11 so i guess straight away I can put myself in the shoes of his parents (well not the fact that they had a gun lying around just being his parents I mean)

To me the parents are more at fault than the child

You hit the age of responsibility at 10 years old. When I was 11 I was fully aware of weapons and crime, I even learned about crime in my first year of secondary school (when I was 11).

So to answer your question, yes, I think 11 year olds know exactly what they're doing.

[Ammi]

The parents should be the only ones punished.

The child should be given substantial psychological help, both in what led to his actions and the trauma his actions will have caused.

Children are idiots, and this was a series of unfortunate events that was allowed to happen because of the parents' negligence.

..I totally agree Samuel..(I wish I had your knack of saying something so perfectly and directly with so few words..)..

[Ashley.]

What if the child kills again in later life? That would be another innocent person dead because they didn't lock him up when they had the chance.

He won't learn from his actions if he gets off scot-free.

[Niamh.]

You hit the age of responsibility at 10 years old. When I was 11 I was fully aware of weapons and crime, I even learned about crime in my first year of secondary school (when I was 11).

So to answer your question, yes, I think 11 year olds know exactly what they're doing.

whaaaat? that's still a baby.

[Niamh.]

What if the child kills again in later life? That would be another innocent person dead because they didn't lock him up when they had the chance.

He won't learn from his actions if he gets off scot-free.

I'm actually quite shocked that a person who has studied law and is a solicitor is saying that an eleven year old kid should be charged with first degree murder as an adult :/

[Livia]

I'm actually quite shocked that a person who has studied law and is a solicitor is saying that an eleven year old kid should be charged with first degree murder as an adult :/

Indeed.....


The age of criminal responsibility is not the same as the age of majority. Kids between 10-17 are tried in different courts with different outcomes to that of an adult. Suggesting an 11 year old should be tried as an adult is ludicrous in the extreme. The parents are clearly at fault in this one.

[Tom4784]

What if the child kills again in later life? That would be another innocent person dead because they didn't lock him up when they had the chance.

He won't learn from his actions if he gets off scot-free.

What ifs don't make for compelling arguments especially when it comes to law, you should know that.

'Oh, he MIGHT kill or he MAY be a danger, we don't know that and we don't even now a single thing about his mental state but let's try the child as an adult and for first degree murder just 'cus!'

[DemolitionRed]

The parents should be the only ones punished.

The child should be given substantial psychological help, both in what led to his actions and the trauma his actions will have caused.

Children are idiots, and this was a series of unfortunate events that was allowed to happen because of the parents' negligence.

This is what would happen here in the Uk. America can be so backward when it comes to things like this.

[Ashley.]

I'm actually quite shocked that a person who has studied law and is a solicitor is saying that an eleven year old kid should be charged with first degree murder as an adult :/

You're putting words in my mouth. I said he shouldn't get off SCOT FREE, not that he should be treated as an adult and locked up until the end of days. It's a bit hypocritical you saying that I should know better because of my job, when you're doing the exact same thing as a mod.

[DemolitionRed]

I just read an American legal article that said, up until 2005 child killers could be sentenced to death. Between 1975 and 2005 four child killers were executed once they hit adult age.

[DemolitionRed]

You're putting words in my mouth. I said he shouldn't get off SCOT FREE, not that he should be treated as an adult and locked up until the end of days. It's a bit hypocritical you saying that I should know better because of my job, when you're doing the exact same thing as a mod.

Who said he should get off scot free. I didn't see anyone suggest that.

[Ashley.]

What ifs don't make for compelling arguments especially when it comes to law, you should know that.

'Oh, he MIGHT kill or he MAY be a danger, we don't know that and we don't even now a single thing about his mental state but let's try the child as an adult and for first degree murder just 'cus!'

Ugh I hate it when people define me by my job. Guess what? We're not in a court room. I don't need to be professional here because I'm not at work. Also you're the same as Niamh, putting words into my mouth.

[Ashley.]

Who said he should get off scot free. I didn't see anyone suggest that.

I wasn't replying to anyone so that's invalid.

[Ashley.]

Also, Niamh and Dezzy, I assume you've heard of prosecution.

[Livia]

Ugh I hate it when people define me by my job. Guess what? We're not in a court room. I don't need to be professional here because I'm not at work. Also you're the same as Niamh, putting words into my mouth.

Now that we've established your first claim - that you were a "defence attorney" - doesn't exist in English law, you now claim to be a solicitor, don't you? If that's the case you would not be doing your job in a court room. If you did you would be a barrister. You really do need to sort out your facts, Ashley.

[Ashley.]

Now that we've established your first claim - that you were a "defence attorney" - doesn't exist in English law, you now claim to be a solicitor, don't you? If that's the case you would not be doing your job in a court room. If you did you would be a barrister. You really do need to sort out your facts, Ashley.

Here you go again, trying to make me look bad by bringing up my personal life. I've already told you I'm not discussing it with you so stop digging.

[Livia]

Here you go again, trying to make me look bad by bringing up my personal life. I've already told you I'm not discussing it with you so stop digging.

I'm not surprised you don't want to talk about your career with me, of all people. Although you've been okay talking about it up until I called you on it.

Also, do you have any comment on this post you made in June?:


I know. I study Law but I'm not a Lawyer. :joker:

[Ashley.]

I'm not surprised you don't want to talk about your career with me, of all people. Although you've been okay talking about it up until I called you on it.

Also, do you have any comment on this post you made in June?:

That was before I was ready to discuss my private life. I was scared of exactly this - people defining me by my job.

[AnnieK]

I'm sure the boy will be thoroughly checked by medical experts and his state of mind etc will be decided by experts who will then deduce his understanding of what he has done. We are in no way aware of the full facts of this case. It is an extremely sad story, not least for the family of the girl who died.

[AnnieK]

That was before I was ready to discuss my private life. I was scared of exactly this - people defining me by my job.

I've not been around much....what is your job?

[Livia]

That was before I was ready to discuss my private life. I was scared of exactly this - people defining me by my job.

If that was the case you could have just kept quiet about it instead of telling everyone a variety of untruths which have made you look exactly what you are: not any kind of lawyer.

I've been here for five years, no one's ever defined me by my profession. But then, I know what I'm talking about.

[Ashley.]

If that was the case you could have just kept quiet about it instead of telling everyone a variety of untruths which have made you look exactly what you are: not any kind of lawyer.

I've been here for five years, no one's ever defined me by my profession. But then, I know what I'm talking about.

All you've done since you found out I was in the Law business is poke and prod, trying to push me down a bottomless pit, calling me a liar and attempting to make me look bad. What exactly is your problem? I'm still new to all of this. Instead of looking down at me and thinking of me as an amateur, then why don't you give me some tips and actually try to be a little more supportive instead of attacking me whenever you have the chance? I've worked so hard to get where I am and I'm not ready to be talked to like I'm a piece of **** by someone higher up the chain. I don't like being made to feel small and frankly, I'm finding your behaviour highly unjust.

[Ashley.]

Now I suggest you put me on your ignore list, and get on with your life.

[Livia]

All you've done since you found out I was in the Law business is poke and prod, trying to push me down a bottomless pit, calling me a liar and attempting to make me look bad. What exactly is your problem? I'm still new to all of this. Instead of looking down at me and thinking of me as an amateur, then why don't you give me some tips and actually try to be a little more supportive instead of attacking me whenever you have the chance?

I've worked so hard to get where I am and I'm not ready to be talked to like I'm a piece of **** by someone higher up the chain. I don't like being made to feel small and frankly, I'm finding your behaviour highly unjust.


I have never attacked you Ashley, I've asked you pertinent questions about your claimed profession but you've not answered anything. You've never even asked me what my specialism is, that's highly unusual for another lawyer and how do you expect me to give you tips unless you know in which area of the law I work. In fact, you've never talked to me about it at all. You're apparently defending someone in court in December, regardless of the fact that it's not a solicitor's job to defend someone in court. And then there's the "defence attorney" thing, you never explained that. It's nonsense.

Frankly, I find your behaviour bordering on fantasy.

[Livia]

Now I suggest you put me on your ignore list, and get on with your life.

That's not your call, thanks.

[DemolitionRed]

In the USA I thought a practising lawyer was an attorney and is permitted to perform either the functions of a solicitor or a barrister?

[Ashley.]

I have never attacked you Ashley, I've asked you pertinent questions about your claimed profession but you've not answered anything. You've never even asked me what my specialism is, that's highly unusual for another lawyer and how do you expect me to give you tips unless you know in which area of the law I work. In fact, you've never talked to me about it at all. You're apparently defending someone in court in December, regardless of the fact that it's not a solicitor's job to defend someone in court. And then there's the "defence attorney" thing, you never explained that. It's nonsense.

Frankly, I find your behaviour bordering on fantasy.

Did I not already ask you to stop pestering me?

[Ashley.]

In the USA I thought a practising lawyer was an attorney and is permitted to perform either the functions of a solicitor or a barrister?

Yeah, different in the UK though

[Livia]

In the USA I thought a practising lawyer was an attorney and is permitted to perform either the functions of a solicitor or a barrister?

Ashley claimed to be a defence attorney but is British and has never been to the USA.

[Livia]

Did I not already ask you to stop pestering me?

I will question you when you get it wrong, Ashley.

[DemolitionRed]

Ah Ok, I thought you had taken the bar in some state in America Ashley but that may of just been me presuming you had.

[Ashley.]

Ah Ok, I thought you had taken the bar in some state in America Ashley but that may of just been me presuming you had.

No there's different terms for different countries but they all essentially mean the same thing. It's confusing, even I haven't got to grips with it all yet.

[Livia]

It's not confusing at all.

[Ashley.]

It's not confusing at all.

Well, lucky you :clap1:

[Livia]

Well, lucky you :clap1:

Oh yeah, thanks. The more I studied the luckier I got.

[Niamh.]

You're putting words in my mouth. I said he shouldn't get off SCOT FREE, not that he should be treated as an adult and locked up until the end of days. It's a bit hypocritical you saying that I should know better because of my job, when you're doing the exact same thing as a mod.

You actually said in your very first post that he should be locked up for life lol I'm doing what exactly as a mod?

[Ashley.]

I was exaggerating :shrug: & you are twisting my words / forcing a reaction out of me.

[Niamh.]

I was exaggerating :shrug: & you are twisting my words / forcing a reaction out of me.

I'm not twisting your words at all, that's exactly what you said :umm2: I was just trying to have a discussion with you about it :/

[Ashley.]

I'm not twisting your words at all, that's exactly what you said :umm2: I was just trying to have a discussion with you about it :/

I've never mentioned first degree murder though? :/

[Niamh.]

I've never mentioned first degree murder though? :/

Well if the sentence was locked up for life then it would have to be first degree murder, wouldn't it?

[user104658]

Oh yeah, thanks. The more I studied the luckier I got.

Like Billy Zane in Titanic, Livia makes her own luck.

The lawyer / dubious lawyer catfight in this thread is awesome by the way.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m45auxO9fr1qiwqjeo6_250.gif

[Livia]

Like Billy Zane in Titanic, Livia makes her own luck.

The lawyer / dubious lawyer catfight in this thread is awesome by the way.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m45auxO9fr1qiwqjeo6_250.gif

More catfish than cat fight.

[user104658]

More catfish than cat fight.

:hehe: quite.

It's a bit adorable though. Let the children play, Livia :nono:

(Funnily enough, I originally wrote that last post on my phone and it autocorrected "catfight" to "catfish". Is this what Kirk calls synchronicity?)

(Funnily enough #2... the Titanic / Zane reference in the last post... I've just realised that just after he says that quote about "I make my own luck", his bodyguard guy says "so do I", referencing the fact that he carries a gun. Which ties into this thread! D: Synchronicigasm.)

[Livia]

You're scaring me now, TS.

[user104658]

You're scaring me now, TS.

And guns are scary too. That's it, get Kirk in here, I'm converting to this synchronicity **** as of now.

[Alf]

Them Yanks still think it's 'The Wild West'

One day they'll evolve into civilised Human Beings, but I don't know what day that will be.

[Livia]

Them Yanks still think it's 'The Wild West'

One day they'll evolve into civilised Human Beings, but I don't know what day that will be.

The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms was added during the time of the Wild West, when it was okay to own slaves... and they're still defending it! Madness...

Hey wannashag, nice to see you!

[lostalex]

I would never let someone bring a gun into my house.

[lostalex]

The Second Amendment, the right to bear arms was added during the time of the Wild West, when it was okay to own slaves... and they're still defending it! Madness...

Hey wannashag, nice to see you!

its not really about that Livia, the second amendment was added because there was no strong government after the british, and we had open borders. so we needed militias to be able to defend themselves against the british in the north, the spanish(mexicans) in the south, and against Indian tribes, there was no way for the US army to be covering all of those bases back then. We needed militias to protect this country because we had ever expanding borders and really, back then it was up to the American people to protect their own towns. there was no way for the US military to get anywhere quickly and protect our borders back then. it would take a month before any kind of federal help could respond if there was any kind of invasion from the british canadians or the spanish mexicans so we needed to rely on the american people themselves to protect our borders and land. It's much like the swiss now, they have guns in every house, because they need ordinary citizens to protect the country incase any one tries to invade.

[Tom4784]

I've always thought the second amendment was pointless in this day and age as, from what I remember, a lot of why it exists is so that the average american can arm themselves against tyrannical governments but what good is that these days when things like drone strikes exist?

A gun isn't going to save you from that.

[Ashley.]

More catfish than cat fight.

Stop baiting and getting personal. If you were anybody else you'd have got a warning.

[Livia]

Completely agree with Dezzy.

Maybe if they had stricter controls on the type of firearm people could keep, and also on the way they're kept. I have a gun, with a licence of course. I keep it in a locked metal cabinet, unloaded and at any time the police can rock up and ask to see it. So as much as I'd like to stick it through the letterbox at people, I am unable...

[kirklancaster]

:hehe: quite.

It's a bit adorable though. Let the children play, Livia :nono:

(Funnily enough, I originally wrote that last post on my phone and it autocorrected "catfight" to "catfish". Is this what Kirk calls synchronicity?)

(Funnily enough #2... the Titanic / Zane reference in the last post... I've just realised that just after he says that quote about "I make my own luck", his bodyguard guy says "so do I", referencing the fact that he carries a gun. Which ties into this thread! D: Synchronicigasm.)

:laugh2: Ahem... Petard and Hoisted? :laugh:

[lostalex]

I've always thought the second amendment was pointless in this day and age as, from what I remember, a lot of why it exists is so that the average american can arm themselves against tyrannical governments but what good is that these days when things like drone strikes exist?

A gun isn't going to save you from that.

i think these days it's more about the people in small towns who really don't feel like they get much support from the government anyways. they live in small country towns and they feel like they've been protecting themselves and taking care of themselves this long, why should the government now tell them that they are protected.

and honestly i don't blame them, the fact is America really is built by all these small towns that don't ask for help from the government, and they don't have these problems of violence that big american cities have, so when you tell them that the government is taking away their guns, they don't understand it, because they've been protecting themselves and running their own towns for so long, what right does the government have to come in and all of a sudden take their guns away when they aren't the ones having problems...

it's mostly big cities with big gun violence problems and some isolated incidents in suburbs... so to take their guns away feels like the government is restricting them even though they've been protecting themselves for hundreds of years...

I can see it from both sides.

that being said, i don't like guns, i've never owned a gun, i'd never buy a gun, i don't want to buy a gun, so i have no problem with the government taking guns away. i just don't believe that there's any way to take all the guns out of America, Pandora's box is already open.

[Livia]

Stop baiting and getting personal. If you were anybody else you'd have got a warning.

I get no slack cut for me round here. Everything I asked you was a genuine question.

[Ashley.]

I get no slack cut for me round here. Everything I asked you was a genuine question.

Okay.

[kirklancaster]

Completely agree with Dezzy.

Maybe if they had stricter controls on the type of firearm people could keep, and also on the way they're kept. I have a gun, with a licence of course. I keep it in a locked metal cabinet, unloaded and at any time the police can rock up and ask to see it. So as much as I'd like to stick it through the letterbox at people, I am unable...

I think it was your good self who used that excellent maxim: 'Once a bell's been rung, you can't unring it'?

Well the trouble with the USA and its 'Gun Laws' is that too many bells have been rung for too long a period, and repealing (pun intended :laugh:) the 2nd Amendment would be nigh on impossible. Even if they tried to amend the amendment it would be hard to achieve - they'd have to work like the clappers (pun intended :laugh:)

[lostalex]

if you really look at the gun violence numbers in the country, it's not about the young white males that go on shooting spree's... the vast majority is something else entirely...but for some reason the gun control people like to focus on the cases of the young white male mass murderers...

the fact is the narrative of the young white male shooter getting guns, it's pretty rare and doesn't contribute much to the larger numbers of gun violence in this country...

If people really want to get guns off the streets they need to start focussing on the other statistics...

[Tom4784]

i think these days it's more about the people in small towns who really don't feel like they get much support from the government anyways. they live in small country towns and they feel like they've been protecting themselves and taking care of themselves this long, why should the government now tell them that they are protected.

and honestly i don't blame them, the fact is America really is built by all these small towns that don't ask for help from the government, and they don't have these problems of violence that big american cities have, so when you tell them that the government is taking away their guns, they don't understand it, because they've been protecting themselves and running their own towns for so long, what right does the government have to come in and all of a sudden take their guns away when they aren't the ones having problems...

it's mostly big cities with big gun violence problems and some isolated incidents in suburbs... so to take their guns away feels like the government is restricting them even though they've been protecting themselves for hundreds of years...

I can see it from both sides.

that being said, i don't like guns, i've never owned a gun, i'd never buy a gun, i don't want to buy a gun, so i have no problem with the government taking guns away. i just don't believe that there's any way to take all the guns out of America, Pandora's box is already open.

I think a big problem is that too many Americans believe that gun control = taking all the guns away when it's more about making sure that they don't fall into the wrong hands. Most gun owners are responsible and wouldn't be affected by any changes to the laws because the laws would be targeted at people who shouldn't own a gun in the first place.

[lostalex]

I think a big problem is that too many Americans believe that gun control = taking all the guns away when it's more about making sure that they don't fall into the wrong hands. Most gun owners are responsible and wouldn't be affected by any changes to the laws because the laws would be targeted at people who shouldn't own a gun in the first place.

yea, but the gun violence problem is much bigger than that Dezzy, and when you look at the real statistics, it's about people using illegal guns in big cities or suburbs. it's not about the average joe with guns in their house, it's about gang violence, domestic violence, and suicides.

[DemolitionRed]

its not really about that Livia, the second amendment was added because there was no strong government after the british, and we had open borders. so we needed militias to be able to defend themselves against the british in the north, the spanish(mexicans) in the south, and against Indian tribes, there was no way for the US army to be covering all of those bases back then. We needed militias to protect this country because we had ever expanding borders and really, back then it was up to the American people to protect their own towns. there was no way for the US military to get anywhere quickly and protect our borders back then. it would take a month before any kind of federal help could respond if there was any kind of invasion from the british canadians or the spanish mexicans so we needed to rely on the american people themselves to protect our borders and land. It's much like the swiss now, they have guns in every house, because they need ordinary citizens to protect the country incase any one tries to invade.

I agree with what you have said but the second amendmant was written in 1791 and Thomas Jefferson was very specific with the way it was worded. It went, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There are still militia's within the USA but the majority of those who no longer carry a musket but a whole arsenal of weapon are not part of a militia and they are certainly not well regulated.

Yes, the Swiss army is a militia in the truest sense of the word. Whilst every Swiss militia man/woman has an army weapon at home he is not allowed ammunition and he has to prove that his weapon is kept safely under lock and key and that only he has access to it. He's is not permitted to carry his weapon unless he's called into military service. What the Swiss militia are permitted to do with their weapon is clean and maintain it - only.

[Kizzy]

Thanks for that DR very informative I didn't know that about the Swiss. The gun laws in America do need tightening no question, gun obsessives hiding behind that out moded law is silly. It does nothing now but place people in danger, it's basically still state supported murder.
You can have guns here as long as they are licenced and/or are used for hunting as part of a club I think, so it's not like nobody would be able to have one. Knowing who owns what gun and it authorized to use it seems sensible.
Yes there will be criminals it won't stop them having illegal guns obv, same here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417199/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_v13.pdf

[Livia]

You can have a shotgun in this country so long as it's not an automatic, with a licence obviously. You don't need to belong to a club, every farmer I know has a shotgun. You cannot have a handgun even if you belong to a club, even if you're representing this country in the Olympics, you have to train abroad. It's very strict. It's a ridiculous system. Sportsmen should be allowed to follow their chosen sport, with regulation of course, and criminal gun crime needs to be leaned on much more heavily with longer statutory sentences for even possessing one.