Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

11-year-old American is youngest person in world to face life without parole

Options
12345679»

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    gflood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 212 ✭✭gflood


    Its a sad situation ... both families have set up campaign websites each promoting their own version of the story and looking for support.


  • Options
    #243
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    Whoever kept the gun in the house and made it accessible to an eleven-year old should, in my opinion, be prosecuted. The child is not innocent but he is not responsible.


  • Options
    #244
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    albeit wrote: »
    Whoever kept the gun in the house and made it accessible to an eleven-year old should, in my opinion, be prosecuted. The child is not innocent but he is not responsible.

    For pre-mediated murder he is not responsible? Unless the kid has severe learning disabilities he is responsible.


  • Options
    #245
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    For pre-mediated murder he is not responsible? Unless the kid has severe learning disabilities he is responsible.

    He is not responsible, whether he has a severe disability, or not. The person who provided him with, or made the gun available to him, is.


  • Options
    #246
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    albeit wrote: »
    He is not responsible, whether he has a severe disability, or not. The person who provided him with, or made available to him the gun, is.

    Sweet jesus that is the sort of attitude that has allowed little scumbags to prosper in this country. What if he had done it with a knife?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    What if he had done it with a knife?

    Then the woman an her unborn baby would have had a much greater chance of surviving, and/or the woman might have been able to fight off the attack. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #248
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    albeit wrote: »
    Then the woman an her unborn baby would have had a much greater chance of surviving, and/or the woman might have been able to fight off the attack. :rolleyes:

    My point went straight over your head anyway I see.

    What I mean is the kid done it with the gun because it was the easiest weapon at hand and he knew how to use it and was fully aware of the damage it could do, but if he had attacked the woman with a knife you would not have the same bleeding heart response.
    These situations are used to take a stab at American gun laws ( I do not agree with by the way) instead of looking at the case, 'Oh it was the guns fault why did he have it etc'. There is plenty of guns in American households and kids who are versed in using them but it is not too often that they go and start shouting their defenseless guardians with them on purpose.


  • Options
    #249
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    Mardy Bum: We both know that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. There is laws in America that are there to protect children from having access to guns, as they are a danger to both them and to having them hurt someone else. Of course they can hurt themselves or someone else with a knife, but they can not kill anyone or themselves as easily as with a gun. You say there shouldn't be any laws protecting children from having access to guns?


  • Options
    #250
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    albeit wrote: »
    Mardy Bum: We both know that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. There is laws in America that are there to protect children from having access to guns, as they are a danger to both them and to having them hurt someone else. There are no laws that are in place for keeping kitchen knives out of reach of children, as it is much more unlikely they can hurt someone or themselves seriously or mortally with them. Of course they can hurt themselves or someone else with them, but not as easily as with a gun. You say there shouldn't be any laws protecting children from having access to guns?

    I am taking you up on your statement that the kid is in no way responsible for his actions. Of course there should be gun laws re kids and access however that is not my point.

    Your argument hinges all on the kids access to a gun. Your belief is that if the kid has access he can do what he likes because he is 11 and so has no moral compass or am I wrong? There is a long way from gaining possession of a gun and then shooting someone defenselessly. An 11 year old despite what you think does know the difference between right and wrong.

    The kid got the gun and shot the woman knowing full well what a gun can do. So how is the child not responsible somewhat for its actions?


  • Options
    #251
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    The kid got the gun and shot the woman knowing full well what a gun can do. So how is the child not responsible somewhat for its actions?

    Because someone else made the mistake of not protecting the child from having access to a gun.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    albeit wrote: »
    Because someone else made the mistake of not protecting the child from having access to a gun.

    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Your argument hinges all on the kids access to a gun. Your belief is that if the kid has access he can do what he likes because he is 11 and so has no moral compass or am I wrong? There is a long way from gaining possession of a gun and then shooting someone defenselessly. An 11 year old despite what you think does know the difference between right and wrong.

    Read the bit in bold. So what do you make of the kid? Is he the type of teenager you want walking round in gun ridden America?


  • Options
    #253
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    albeit wrote: »
    Because someone else made the mistake of not protecting the child from having access to a gun.

    This is a non argument. No one on this thread has said children should have access to guns or that parents should allow them to. The point is that this particular child (providing he is in fact guilty, he has not been convicted of anything yet) knew how to shoot, had killed animals previously, had told several people of his intention to shoot the woman and waited until she was asleep before shooting her.

    Nobody forced this child to plan the murder, no one forced him to pick up a weapon, no one forced him to pull the trigger.

    Yes, it's shocking that he had access to a weapon but that doesn't remove the fact that he choose to use it. There's people in the world I dislike but if I choose to pick up a knife or indeed a gun and stab or shoot someone I am the one who has choosen to do so.


  • Options
    #254
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    albeit wrote: »
    He is not responsible, whether he has a severe disability, or not. The person who provided him with, or made the gun available to him, is.
    albeit wrote: »
    Whoever kept the gun in the house and made it accessible to an eleven-year old should, in my opinion, be prosecuted. The child is not innocent but he is not responsible.
    albeit wrote: »
    Because someone else made the mistake of not protecting the child from having access to a gun.



    Is this a pisstake?

    The one who committed the crime is responsible. This "joe duffy" style tripe is laughable. The kid killed the woman. He's responsible for the crime. Not somebody else. For the very same reason we have pieces of shít roaming the street stabbing people and somehow we come to the conclusion that it's the parents fault and they should go to jail. WTF?


  • Options
    #255
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Deserves it, anyone that can shoot and kill a pregnant woman will never be normal. No amount of rehabilitation nonsense will cure a little **** like him
    How in the name of Jesus do you know?
    wolfpawnat wrote: »
    That could have been your sister!
    Doesn't matter whose relation she was, people who are not in such a position of bias are the ones deciding on the sentencing.
    Helix wrote: »
    lets never lock anyone up ever again then eh?
    Where did they say that?
    people like you have the world in the state it is
    Ah now, no they haven't. :)
    Helix wrote: »
    youre a bleeding heart overly pc blame everyone else but the person at fault, everyones a good person at heart we just have to understand them, give everyone a million chances liberal
    Hahahahahahahahaha! :D
    Helix wrote: »
    or make a post that is completely nonsensical

    like that
    Nothing nonsensical about it whatsoever - it only shows up how tired and worn and WRONG your post about "bleeding heart" whatever is.

    I agree the conditions that bring about such problems should be tackled - there is dreadful inequality still. However, at the same time, even if a more equitable society came about, there would still be some nasty c*nts messing it up for everyone else, albeit a minority - and they deserve to face consequences for their actions. But, absolutely, things would improve if people's lots were improved - baffling how some people think that's not a valid point and is just "PC" whatever... :confused:
    jill_valentine wrote: »
    The reason I brought up contract law and the legal driving age was to highlight the fact that we generally accept that people below the age of roughly eighteen have extremely variable capacities for good judgement. I wouldn't trust an eleven year old to drive because I wouldn't trust their decision making ability. Kids of that age can be impulsive, short sighted and prone to temper. Now, again, we don't know all about this kids circumstances and I don't know about you, but when I was eleven or so I knocked out my cousin's two front teeth for grabbing my hair scrunchie in the playground. I can't really imagine doing that now, and I don't think that's just because scrunchies have gone out of style.

    When an adult with severe developmental problems is put on trial, it's generally understood that he or she should be charged in terms of diminished responsibility, since he or she has "the mind of a child." Just seems strange to me that an actual child gets no such consideration; stranger still that the judge is free to pursue harsher sentences and conditions out of something suspiciously like spite.
    I fully agree, Jill - the calls for him to be tried as an adult/locked up for life are just... nuts. Nobody has any idea how he will turn out - he might be a very different person at 15 (probably will be) not to mind 50. People here have appointed themselves psychiatrists based on "stuff they think". Shocking stupidity on this thread. I'm just saying though that the claim an 11-year-old doesn't understand death and what a gun can do is inaccurate - it's something applicable to a child under six, sure, but not an 11-year-old.
    albeit wrote: »
    He is not responsible, whether he has a severe disability, or not. The person who provided him with, or made the gun available to him, is.
    He is responsible - I'm a "do-gooder", <insert whatever other term dreamed up by idiots here> etc generally, but one thing I don't think is of any benefit to anyone is abdication of personal responsibility. He shouldn't have had access to guns of course, but having access to guns alone didn't cause him to do what he did. There was decision-making on his part also. What you're saying almost implies that access to guns ensures the kid will shoot someone, which is not the case.


  • Options
    #256
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    albeit wrote: »
    Mardy Bum: We both know that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. There is laws in America that are there to protect children from having access to guns, as they are a danger to both them and to having them hurt someone else. Of course they can hurt themselves or someone else with a knife, but they can not kill anyone or themselves as easily as with a gun. You say there shouldn't be any laws protecting children from having access to guns?

    You'll find the murder was committed with a children's model shotgun, the weapon does not even require registering or licensing, I don't see that as protecting children from having guns. In fact I'm surprised this fact hasn't been used by adults in crime to prevent the tracing of weapons.
    Either way if your family hunts its easy to get hold of one at any age, rather than being kept away from guns you'll find kids being thought how to correctly handle one, so as not to injure themselves if they happen upon the family arsenal. Even in Ireland this is the case, I was never told to run away when I saw a gun, I was told how to check if the thing was loaded, and never to assume it wasn't. That approach makes a hell of a lot more sense, its more likely for a child to shoot themselves in the foot than for them to wander off an shoot someone else in cold blood.
    The same is true with knives, at that age a lot of kids help out enough in the kitchen to be using knives sharp enough to kill, you don't teach them to be afraid, you teach them to hold it correctly, keep their hands behind the blade, and not to run with the thing. In both instances the potential weapon is taught to serve a different purpose, in neither instance would the notion enter your mind that a child would use the objects through violence. In reality the gun/knife argument is moot, both are seen as tools, just because we see guns primarily as a combat weapon doesn't mean this family did.


  • Options
    #257
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Dudess wrote: »
    How in the name of Jesus do you know?

    Obviously I don't know for certain, but I doubt it. Either way, I'd rather see someone capable of that locked up for life than sitting him through a few classes telling him its societies fault and not his, and hoping that he doesn't kill someone else he doesn't like when he gets out. Some people don't deserve to be part of society, doing something like that should forfeit that right.


  • Options
    #258
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    If you are not taught right from wrong by the time you are 11, then it is your parents and society's fault. If you do not know right from wrong by the time you are 16, then you have a greater responsibility to have figured out right from wrong yourself. Therefore, an eleven-year old do not have the same responsibilty as someone 16 or over.
    In fact, an eleven-year old that has been taught to shoot and posseses a gun designed for children(?) should be considered a victim in these circumstances.


  • Options
    #259
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    albeit wrote: »
    If you are not taught right from wrong by the time you are 11, then it is your parents and society's fault. If you do not know right from wrong by the time you are 16, then you have a greater responsibility to have figured out right from wrong yourself. Therefore, an eleven-year old do not have the same responsibilty as someone 16 or over.
    In fact, an eleven-year old that has been taught to shoot and posseses a gun designed for children(?) should be considered a victim in these circumstances.

    Won't somebody please think of the children....


  • Options
    #260
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Obviously I don't know for certain, but I doubt it. Either way, I'd rather see someone capable of that locked up for life than sitting him through a few classes telling him its societies fault and not his
    I don't know where the notion that that's what rehabilitation involves is coming from...
    albeit wrote: »
    If you are not taught right from wrong by the time you are 11, then it is your parents and society's fault.
    Well maybe he WAS taught right from wrong, but still went ahead and did what he did anyway.


  • Options
    #261
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    Dudess wrote: »
    Well maybe he WAS taught right from wrong, but still went ahead and did what he did anyway.

    Well maybe he wasn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    But if he was, then he is responsible.


  • Options
    #263
    desertcircus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,648 ✭✭✭desertcircus


    A person can't be tried as an adult unless they have an adult understanding of right and wrong. In Ireland, for example, people under the age of twelve are not tried as adults.

    The specifics of what he was convicted of doing aren't relevant to the question of whether he had a full understanding of his actions - not in the slightest. It's wrong to let understandable horror at the crime to colour an assessment of whether the person understood what they were doing. Either an eleven-year-old is fully aware of the rights and wrongs of their actions, and a playground fight should be tried as assault, or they're not, and assuming they are simply piles misery upon misery.

    To the people who think he was fairly tried: if you were facing a criminal trial, would you be willing to be tried by a jury of eleven-year-olds? Of course not, but why not? Because they're not old enough to understand the full ramifications of what's going on.


  • Options
    #264
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,246 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    albeit wrote: »
    In fact, an eleven-year old that has been taught to shoot and posseses a gun designed for children(?) should be considered a victim in these circumstances.

    It is national policy in switzerland that ten year olds be encouraged to learn to shoot firearms designed for adults, let alone children. (And assault rifles at that, not bolt actions). They seem to have few problems. The problem is not the firearm or that children know how to use them. The problem is education and supervision. I am quite sure that my daughter will have her own rifle by the age of 11, but I am less sure that she will have unsupervised access to it and ammunition. That is a judgement call I shall make at the time.

    NTM


  • Options
    #265
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Obviously I don't know for certain, but I doubt it. Either way, I'd rather see someone capable of that locked up for life than sitting him through a few classes telling him its societies fault and not his, and hoping that he doesn't kill someone else he doesn't like when he gets out. Some people don't deserve to be part of society, doing something like that should forfeit that right.

    I don't know where you're getting that infomation from, but 'rehabilitation' doesn't mean 'having a few classes saying its socities fault'. Now, in this particular situation, the boy may be a sociopath who may kill again or he may not. Neither of us are psyciatrists who have examined him and are able to make a call on it. If he is a sociopath, yes he should never be released again. However if he is not, it may be possible to release him. Now, should he be released in 5 years? Clearly not. Possibly he may be fit to be released in the future or he may may not be but I'd say he should serve at least 20 years before parole is considered, going on the facts that we know.

    Personally speaking, in my non medical opinion, I suspect he probably isn't a sociopath due to the fact that generally speaking, they're far more cunning when committing crimes and go to much greater lengths to avoid detection then this boy was.
    albeit wrote: »
    If you are not taught right from wrong by the time you are 11, then it is your parents and society's fault. If you do not know right from wrong by the time you are 16, then you have a greater responsibility to have figured out right from wrong yourself. Therefore, an eleven-year old do not have the same responsibilty as someone 16 or over.
    In fact, an eleven-year old that has been taught to shoot and posseses a gun designed for children(?) should be considered a victim in these circumstances.

    You're just avoiding the main problem with this theory. As I said previously, no one on this thread is condoning his father teaching him to shoot and giving him access to firearms. However, as far as we know, no one made him personally decided to plan a murder, pick up a weapon and wait until the woman was sleeping before shooting her.

    No one made him do this. He decided to do so. Abdication of personal responsibility is the worst thing present in modern society.


  • Options
    #266
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    albeit wrote: »
    In fact, an eleven-year old that has been taught to shoot and posseses a gun designed for children(?) should be considered a victim in these circumstances.
    I could shoot a gun at that age, my shoulder would have been grateful for a gun designed to be operated by someone my size. A lot of my cousins shoot, many own their own guns. In some instances the gun would have been their responsibility at that age, for others it would have been handed over to them for the duration of whatever event they were shooting at and locked away immediately after, it depends on the maturity of the kid. Here, the child seems to have done a lot of hunting with his father and would have been assumed capable of minding it himself. As I have said before, when you teach a child how to gut a fish or chop up beef you don't expect the skill to translate to stabbing someone, nor do you expect after teaching your child how to swing a hurl so as to hit a ball a great distance that they will use this knowledge to exert the greatest force possible on someone's head. His gun would have been viewed partially as sports equipment, partially as a tool, a dangerous one yes, but it would not be expected he would use it to kill someone.

    The question is what pushed him to this? A gun does not make a killer, a killer makes a gun a weapon. As has already been discussed a childs moral understanding is diminished, but this certainly does not mean it is non existent, I would imagine as the trial progresses we will hear of information that allows for a judgement to be made, as of yet, he may be a sociopath, he may have had a horrific upbringing, he may have been in a prolonged state in which his morals were blocked, he may be innocent, there are countless explanations, we don't know. What we do know is that a gun is an inanimate object, so it can't be the guns fault.


  • Options
    #267
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    Interestingly, according to some news reports, the boy's lawyer seems pretty confident that there's no physical evidence tying him to the murder. It certainly would be interesting if it turns out he isn't guilty.


  • Options
    #268
    albeit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭albeit


    Yes, there is something wrong with this story. In the picture the boy looks very scared and not at all like a psychopath.


Advertisement