12 year old faces murder charges : Othor Games

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:19 am

...

That's like saying, "Well the mass murderer isn't to blame, the gun-manufacturer is!"

Which reminds me of this great episode of Law & Order, where Jack McCoy went after a gun manufacturer for making a semi-automatic weapon that Jack argued was intended by the manufacturer to be very easily and illegally converted to fully automatic... and the jury convicted for all the murder counts, but the judge threw it out because of lack of evidence. I was totally on Jack's side. That judge was an ass from the start.

Anywho, you're wrong. Gun manufacturers aren't responsible for their customers in the same way parents are for their children. The kid IS responsible and should rot in prison. The father's responsible too.

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:03 am

The prosecutor had a choice, try him as an advlt, or, don't charge him at all. Which do you think was the more prudent choice? If he is guilty, shall we let him get away with murder, because he is 12? What will that teach him? And what kind of advlt do you think that would produce.

I got my first gun when I was 8. A .22 caliber rifle. Not a 'youth' gun, and advlt gun. I never killed anyone with it. It wasn't locked up, it was MY responsibility. It was NEVER loaded unless I was out at the range.

The fact is, in America, guns are legal, and parents decide when a child is given one/allowed to use one. You disagree? Well, that is YOUR choice to make for YOUR children. Don't presume to put your values on the whole world.

Thank You.

:goodjob:

It's your choice until it starts having an effect on someone else's life.

Read HeyYou's response. Your response makes no sense.

Giving a gun to a 12 years old and leaving full access to it isn't "can't control everything". It's creating a situation where you can control even less.

Didn't say he told her to kill her fianc?. Said he shouldn't leave access to a weapon to a child. How is that hard to understand ? Do I leave matches near a young child, then go "well, I sure didn't told him to set himself on fire" ?

Again, read HeyYou's response.

» Fri May 27, 2011 3:28 am

Which reminds me of this great episode of Law & Order, where Jack McCoy went after a gun manufacturer for making a semi-automatic weapon that Jack argued was intended by the manufacturer to be very easily and illegally converted to fully automatic... and the jury convicted for all the murder counts, but the judge threw it out because of lack of evidence. I was totally on Jack's side. That judge was an ass from the start.

Anywho, you're wrong. Gun manufacturers aren't responsible for their customers in the same way parents are for their children. The kid IS responsible and should rot in prison. The father's responsible too.

Not to mention, if they try and hold gun manufacturers responsible for what folks do with their products, the same should apply to every other manufacturer. Kill someone driving drunk? Sue Chevy for producing the car that allowed him to do so.

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:12 pm

:facepalm:
:flame:

I swear to god I don't care about the politics this is the most unfathomably ridiculously STUPID thing I've ever heard. Who in their right mind gives a 12 year old child a GUN as a gift and allows him to use it regularly?

WHY DO THEY EVEN MAKE "YOUTH SIZED" GUNS?! :banghead:

hey :slap: i had a single shot 12 gauge when i was 12. not a 20 a 12. given a gun doesnt increase the chances of you going phycho and killing someone he probably just would have stabbed him. this is a extreme pet peeve for me because your sterotyping guns with physcos. oh and yes guns are dangerous but people teach there kids to hunt at a young age and holding gun to big for you is extremely dangerous. guns dont kill people people do.

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:23 am

Guns are tools with one purpose. Killing. Even a knife had a thousand uses, only one of which is killing...but guns are very clearly intended for one thing. You cannot equate them to "youth sized forks and knives" in any way, shape, or form.

I don't think minors are capable of the responsibility needed to have a gun. Infact I think such a thing is so clear that I am astonished that firearms are not constrained by age laws in the same way that alcohol, tobacco, and driving motor vehicles is. It's far more accurate to say it's like a "youth sized car" or a "youth sized beer bottle" or "youth sized cigarettes".

1.Guns are not only for killing. heard of clay pigeons? targets? i think youve been playing too much CoD. yes you can equate them to "youth sized forks and knives."
2.Youths would use beer/cars/cigarretes irresponsably and end up killing themselves. so that anology doesnt fit.
EDIT: if he is guilty, he shouldnt get a punishment. hes only 11. he should get help like a psycologist or a counselor.

» Fri May 27, 2011 8:46 am

Not to mention, if they try and hold gun manufacturers responsible for what folks do with their products, the same should apply to every other manufacturer. Kill someone driving drunk? Sue Chevy for producing the car that allowed him to do so.

Well, that's different. It would be the same if you were arguing that, somehow, Chevy made the car in such a way that they intended for it to be driven drunk.

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:35 am

Well, that's different. It would be the same if you were arguing that, somehow, Chevy made the car in such a way that they intended for it to be driven drunk.

Cup holders.

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:43 am

hey :slap: i had a single shot 12 gauge when i was 12. not a 20 a 12. given a gun doesnt increase the chances of you going phycho and killing someone he probably just would have stabbed him. this is a extreme pet peeve for me because your sterotyping guns with physcos. oh and yes guns are dangerous but people teach there kids to hunt at a young age and holding gun to big for you is extremely dangerous. guns dont kill people people do.

+1

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:42 am

Well, that's different. It would be the same if you were arguing that, somehow, Chevy made the car in such a way that they intended for it to be driven drunk.

That's definitely not the point.

» Thu May 26, 2011 11:59 pm

Read HeyYou's response. Your response makes no sense.

My response makes perfect sense, your honour.

Everyone's entitled to give their kid a gun there, sure. Give them it right out of the womb for all I care, but when that choice starts effecting other people's lives, like in the case of ending them here, it's a choice you need taken out of your hands. I mean a very specific you here, not everyone in general.

» Fri May 27, 2011 1:11 am

Cup holders.

I'm not sure how serious that is, but I lawled

» Fri May 27, 2011 1:00 pm

The prosecutor had a choice, try him as an advlt, or, don't charge him at all. Which do you think was the more prudent choice? If he is guilty, shall we let him get away with murder, because he is 12? What will that teach him? And what kind of advlt do you think that would produce.

I got my first gun when I was 8. A .22 caliber rifle. Not a 'youth' gun, and advlt gun. I never killed anyone with it. It wasn't locked up, it was MY responsibility. It was NEVER loaded unless I was out at the range.

The fact is, in America, guns are legal, and parents decide when a child is given one/allowed to use one. You disagree? Well, that is YOUR choice to make for YOUR children. Don't presume to put your values on the whole world.

Thank You.

Okaaaaay. Then let's see it like this : I let my niece take care of the fire in the chimney because I know she'll be careful. I don't allow it for my nephew, because he's a lovely kid, but completely messy and careless.

Wanna give full access to a gun to your kid ? All right. It is, indeed, your own decision. But it's also your own responsability. He messes up with it ? Then you made a HUGE miscalculation in trusting him, and then, as a legal guardian, you're legally responsible.

Still not saying he shouldn't have been charged, still not saying that if he did it, he shouldn't face the consequences. Just saying, he is not an advlt to face alone the consequences.

» Thu May 26, 2011 9:18 pm

The kid IS responsible and should rot in prison. The father's responsible too.

Would you want your child to rot in prison? Could you see yourself rotting in prison?
Yeah, deontological ethics and Kant's categorical imperative are fun.

EDIT: It's 11.25 pm and I can't type for pennies.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:29 am

Look, stop blaming the gun or the fact that the kid's father allowed him to have one. Agree with it or not, many kids have guns that they use for hunting or shooting targets with their parents.

If the kid really wanted to kill that woman, if the gun wasn't available, it would've been a knife, a crowbar, etc..anything, if he really wanted to kill her.

» Fri May 27, 2011 5:48 am

Would you want your child to rot in prison? Could you see yourself rotting in prison?
Yeah, deontological ethics and Kan't categorical imperitave are fun.

If my kid killed someone? Yes, he should be put in jail.

» Fri May 27, 2011 11:40 am

I got my first gun when I was 8. A .22 caliber rifle. Not a 'youth' gun, and advlt gun. I never killed anyone with it. It wasn't locked up, it was MY responsibility. It was NEVER loaded unless I was out at the range.

The fact is, in America, guns are legal, and parents decide when a child is given one/allowed to use one. You disagree? Well, that is YOUR choice to make for YOUR children. Don't presume to put your values on the whole world.

Thank You.

If people think it is normal to give an 8-year old a gun, to not lock it up, to not keep the bullets out of the kids way when not hunting, and then to say it is the child's responsibility, then that is a [censored] up situation, with messed up values.

Sure, we must respect that you may have your own values, but respecting the values themselves is a whole different ballpark.

I'll leave it at that.

» Fri May 27, 2011 10:52 am

Would you want your child to rot in prison? Could you see yourself rotting in prison?
...

In these circumstances? Objectively, I should. I doubt I would in reality, because I don't think I could be objective about myself or my child. But I should be willing to do what I believe to be right and just.

» Fri May 27, 2011 12:02 am

:facepalm:

Kids today.

» Fri May 27, 2011 6:36 am

Look, stop blaming the gun or the fact that the kid's father allowed him to have one. Agree with it or not, many kids have guns that they use for hunting or shooting targets with their parents.

If the kid really wanted to kill that woman, if the gun wasn't available, it would've been a knife, a crowbar, etc..anything, if he really wanted to kill her.

Ehhhh... If kids want to do stuff, they'll do it anyway... So in my school, I suppose I can let kids lean dangerously out of the windows, punch eath other, run madly in the stairs, I should not confiscate blades since they would find other ones anyway, because, in the end, kids are just mini-advlts that know exactly what they're doing and advlts should absolutely not watch them and create circumstances where they're less at risk to hurt themselves and each other out of ignorance and stupidity. After all, some kids are calm unattended, means they all can, so there's no need for surveillance.

You made my job so much easier. I'm starting tomorrow to relax.

» Fri May 27, 2011 4:18 am

There is some niggling going on a couple of pages back. I will have a look and maybe reopen when I have dealt with it.

Having looked through it is staying closed. Apart from some flaming that went on, and a certain amount of arguing obsessively to try to prove a point, the law will take it's course on this young lad, and should not be in our hands to say he is guilty - hypothetically or not.

This is close enough to post limit to leave it closed, anyone of you want to argue with the decision, send a PM, I have my warning scrolls filled out and waiting for you.