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.

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 .

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.

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

..'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...medy-jefferies

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:

...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...

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.

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

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.

whaaaat? that's still a baby.

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.

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!'

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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