[Ashsleigh]

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

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

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]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by arista

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'....

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by 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'....

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

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[Ashsleigh]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Ashley.

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.