[Niamh.]

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'....

[Niamh.]

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...

[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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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

He Rolled The Dice
and lost.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by 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...

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.

[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.

[Niamh.]

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.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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.