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

skyhighflyer · 29-01-2011 12:27am

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ah yeah, it's obvious that his father framed him and placed the gun residue on his shirt, and coerced his 7 year old daughter to tell police that she saw him with the gun, and the other child who saw him throw the bullet casing on the ground before getting on the bus to school. The father also made the other children lie about the kid threatening to kill the victim on various occasions before hand.

Yep.

I generally don't waste time on people who use lolcats as an argument.

It remains the case that we don't really know what happened here. The actual facts, and by this I don't mean internet conjecture, will (hopefully) come out at trial.

What is clear though is that people are saying that an 11 year old boy who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't been convicted of anything yet, should be jailed for the rest of his life. That's not ok.

MagicMarker · 29-01-2011 12:39am

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I generally don't waste time on people who use lolcats as an argument.

It remains the case that we don't really know what happened here. The actual facts, and by this I don't mean internet conjecture, will (hopefully) come out at trial.

What is clear though is that people are saying that an 11 year old boy who, unless I'm mistaken, hasn't been convicted of anything yet, should be jailed for the rest of his life. That's not ok.

Why is it not okay? Because he's 13 (yes, he's 13 and not 11) years old, or because he hasn't been convicted yet? It's a discussion forum, people are discussing. No need to be so sensitive about it.

Why aren't people allowed provide their opinions? They're assuming the kid is guilty based on the facts that we know. People do it all the time. Shall we just stop letting people provide an opinion until after a verdict has been reached from now on?

If you don't like what you're reading then you could always unsubscribe from the thread?

wonderfulname · 29-01-2011 12:48am

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is it not okay? Because he's 13 (yes, he's 13 and not 11) years old, or because he hasn't been convicted yet?

He was 11 at the time of the incident, what do you think he has been doing since then, playing cowboys and indians in the back garden with his step sisters?

11 is the right age to use in discussion here, as we are discussing the mental position of an 11 year old boy, having said that it doesn't matter all that much either way.

patwicklow · 29-01-2011 12:50am

Its very sad to think a 11yo can take some ones life the world is just getting more evil by the day dont think there has been cases like this years ago whats it going to be like in another 50-60 years time i hope im not about that time.

MagicMarker · 29-01-2011 12:55am

wonderfulname wrote: »

He was 11 at the time of the incident, what do you think he has been doing since then, playing cowboys and indians in the back garden with his step sisters?

11 is the right age to use in discussion here, as we are discussing the mental position of an 11 year old boy, having said that it doesn't matter all that much either way.

If you've attempted to make a point then I'm afraid I've missed it.

wonderfulname · 29-01-2011 1:00am

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you've attempted to make a point then I'm afraid I've missed it.

Pointing out that he is now 13 is ridiculous, what does it have to do with anything? He was 11 at the time and he has obviously been incarcerated since then, 11 is the age that should be referred to.

x in the city · 29-01-2011 1:04am

Dravokivich wrote: »

That'll teach him not to lie!

or the rest of ye....

americans are stupid, about 30-40% of them at least.. this guy is no different than the average stupid american who doesnt think nothing of blasting a gun at someone.

and sadly, there is no cure for stupidity...

MagicMarker · 29-01-2011 1:06am

wonderfulname wrote: »

Pointing out that he is now 13 is ridiculous, what does it have to do with anything? He was 11 at the time and he has obviously been incarcerated since then, 11 is the age that should be referred to.

He should be referred to as being 13, because he's 13. By all means highlight the fact that he was 11 when he committed the crime when necessary but referring to him as an 11 year old is disingenuous and misleading.

Dudess · 29-01-2011 1:18am

Ghandee wrote: »

Curious here.

Would you still feel that way if it was some of your family members he shot?

She'd possibly feel differently, but sentencing isn't, and shouldn't be, based on the emotive.

Stinicker wrote: »

They should execute him, that would set a precident, He is not a child as far as I'm concerned, kids these days are riding at from age twelve onwards and doing drugs etc. and have as much street savvy & knowledge as kids had when they reached 18, a quarter decade ago.

Eh, in spite of your hysterical claim which only applies to the minority of kids that age, they're still children - despite "as far as you're concerned"...

He made a conscious decision to shoot and kill and should thus be executed and this excuse he is young is no excuse. Execute the little scumbag and save society a person who knows he can kill and get away with it.

Awaits bleeding heart liberal rant

Something that's in disagreement with you and involves a bit of critical thinking (unlike your post) isn't necessarily "bleeding heart liberal".

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

There's a big difference generally between an 11 year old today and an 11 year old 30 or 40 years ago.

An 11-year-old is an 11-year-old, irrespective of what society they're a part of.

Blinkered thinking to assume he'll be the same person for life, which is one of the things this sentence (if it comes to pass) is saying. People are different at 14 to how they are at 11 ffs, nevermind when they reach adulthood. He should face consequences, and he is responsible, even if his background is tragic (an 11-year-old having access to a fire-arm, Jesus

). I also disagree with the likening him to an unaware small child - he is very young of course, and a kid, but at 11 you do understand the finality of death and what a gun can do. He may not have intended to kill though, just hurt, which of course is also appalling, but is it definite this was a calculated, carefully planned murder? It may have had some degree of premeditation on the basis of his anger, which, again, I'm not defending, but I don't think comments such as "If he's ccapable of this at that age, imagine"... etc, likening him to a psychopath/sociopath are necessarily relevant. It could have been a one-off, which may cause remorse for the rest of his life.

patwicklow wrote: »

the world is just getting more evil by the day

No it isn't - it has been much, much worse.

skyhighflyer · 29-01-2011 1:29am

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is it not okay? Because he's 13 (yes, he's 13 and not 11) years old, or because he hasn't been convicted yet? It's a discussion forum, people are discussing. No need to be so sensitive about it.

Why aren't people allowed provide their opinions? They're assuming the kid is guilty based on the facts that we know. People do it all the time. Shall we just stop letting people provide an opinion until after a verdict has been reached from now on?

If you don't like what you're reading then you could always unsubscribe from the thread?

It's not ok for both reasons: he's 13 and everyone deserves a second chance, especially at that age. His second chance should come at the end of a long sentence in an appropriate institution, but it should come nonetheless.

As to your second argument concerning the fact that he hasn't been convicted yet, I'd draw your attention to something you posted earlier:

You might want to read up on the story. It's pretty much a clear cut case.

I prefer to rely on trials, the rules of evidence and cross examination as a more reliable means of obtaining the truth, but if you want to believe just those parts of the case that have been leaked to the internet then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Finally, do you see the irony in suggesting that I unsubscribe from the thread because I don't agree with you, as you simultaneously defend your own right to discussion?

MagicMarker · 29-01-2011 1:40am

skyhighflyer wrote: »

It's not ok for both reasons: he's 13 and everyone deserves a second chance, especially at that age. His second chance should come at the end of a long sentence in an appropriate institution, but it should come nonetheless.

As to your second argument concerning the fact that he hasn't been convicted yet, I'd draw your attention to something you posted earlier:

Ah I get it, it's not okay because you don't agree. Well believe it or not, there are people who people think it is okay, so you telling them not to do it because you think otherwise is rather pointless don't you think?

skyhighflyer wrote: »

I prefer to rely on trials, the rules of evidence and cross examination as a more reliable means of obtaining the truth, but if you want to believe just those parts of the case that have been leaked to the internet then that's your prerogative I suppose.

Finally, do you see the irony in suggesting that I unsubscribe from the thread because I don't agree with you, as you simultaneously defend your own right to discussion?

It's not a case of wanting to believe ''just those parts'', it's all I know of right now and based on what I know so far I shall come to my own conclusion on what I think is right. If anything comes to light that changes that then I'll accept that. So far what I know is that there is overwhelming evidence that says he did it, you have access to the same information yet come on here saying the dad could have framed him. What part of the trials, rules of evidence and cross examination point to that theory Sherlock? Is the father not innocent until proven guilty or does that only apply to 13 year olds? :rolleyes:

Debthree · 29-01-2011 1:42am

What kind of father lets an 11 year old keep a gun in his bedroom? Especially when there was also 7 year old and a 4 year old in the house. That is so sick. The father should be locked up.

wonderfulname · 29-01-2011 1:45am

Debthree wrote: »

What kind of father lets an 11 year old keep a gun in his bedroom? Especially when there was also 7 year old and a 4 year old in the house. That is so sick. The father should be locked up.

Now that is protected by the American constitution!

Screw the kids, guns for all.

HavingCrack · 29-01-2011 1:49am

Out of interest here, since a majority of posters think he should be tried as an adult would you also agree he should have have all the same rights as an adult?

Hypothetically do you think 11 year olds in Pennsylvania should be allwoed drink, smoke, have sex, get married, get a job etc? All the things legal adults are allowed do. It is this double standard that pisses me off about the US legal system more than anything else. Either let everyone, adult or minor enjoy the same rights and punishments or else have separate ones. FFS, sorry son. you can't drink alcohol but you can sure as hell be tried for murder as an adult.

As regards the case, presuming that he is in fact guilty of the crime, life without parole seems a tad harsh in this case to be honest. Perhaps a 25 year sentence with the possibility of parole after 20 ?

AnneElizabeth · 29-01-2011 2:00am

Sad, but he definitely should be locked up, for a long time. He knew what he was doing. He knew his father loved her, knew she had two daughters, knew she was pregnant and would die if he shot her. But regardless, he killed her (and his half-brother/sister). Eleven year olds fully understand right and wrong. I was 11 in 6th class - that is definitely old enough to understand the concept of death and prison.

Any 11 year old could get a knife from the drawer and stab someone to death, so the fact that he had a gun makes no difference. He wanted to kill her.

I think he's a psychopath. I haven't read all the articles, but seeing as it's been two years I would assume some psychiatric tests have been done on him?

His father shouldn't have given him a kids' gun, however I know several 11 years olds (in Ireland) who have real pellet guns - not much difference imo. Blaming "society" and "stupid Americans" are pointless arguments.

df1985 · 29-01-2011 2:13am

if he does that at eleven what could he do when hes older.

He needs serious rehabilitation to realise exactly what hes done, otherwise he'll probably go nuts in prison.

Zillah · 29-01-2011 2:23am

An eleven year old that is capable of taking a gun and murdering a pregnant woman while she is asleep in bed is going to be an extraordinarily dangerous 30 year old.

He's a violent sociopath and very well could have been in the papers a couple of decades from now after having killed and eaten people and made a collection of their faces in the attic.

If there were extreme circumstances, like the woman was abusing him or he suffered trauma of some sort, he may just have snapped, but by the sounds of it he's just broken inside. The pathology that allows you to murder someone because they are an inconvenience doesn't change with age.

I'm not a fan of the concept of "without parole", I think he should be monitored/treated carefully and see whether this was a freak outburst or if he is genuinely just broken. I do not, however, have any faith in the US criminal system to pay him that sort of attention so perhaps no parole is the safest.

29-01-2011 2:36am

crayolastereo wrote: »

I don't think thats fair. He was 11. At eleven you don't understand life and death. This woman and her baby were replacing him in the eyes of his father. He deserves to be punished, he doesn't deserve to be locked away the rest of his life.

Screw that. If he is inclined to murder, then he would be as likely to do it as an adult then as a child. At least this way it prevents him from doing so. Life behind bars is well deserved.

Da Shins Kelly · 29-01-2011 2:47am

He deserves to be punished, but not locked away for the rest of his life. And surely something should be done about looking into why he might have done this. Child offenders need to be carefully assessed. There is something seriously amiss if a child is driven to murder someone, and the whole 'evil' argument doesn't suffice. That doesn't mean letting the kid out and sympathising with him or anything, but finding out why he would do such a thing could go a long way to helping with the understanding of child criminals. Children should not be tried in adult courts anyway. This is quite reminiscent of the Bulger case in England, during the 90s. Those two kids were nearly strung up. There is something wrong with society when kids are murdering people and the answer is not going to be found in just locking them away and hoping that they just go away. It's not that kids are becoming 'evil' or worse than they were, it's the societies that they're brought up in. Nobody is born a criminal, and no child commits a murder like that unless there are serious problems underlying. Everyone is a product of their environment. In this case, where was the father at and why did he allow his child access to a gun? What sort of household was this kid being brought up in? Parents have a lot to answer for in cases like this.

Mardy Bum · 29-01-2011 3:00am

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

He deserves to be punished, but not locked away for the rest of his life. And surely something should be done about looking into why he might have done this. Child offenders need to be carefully assessed. There is something seriously amiss if a child is driven to murder someone, and the whole 'evil' argument doesn't suffice. That doesn't mean letting the kid out and sympathising with him or anything, but finding out why he would do such a thing could go a long way to helping with the understanding of child criminals. Children should not be tried in adult courts anyway. This is quite reminiscent of the Bulger case in England, during the 90s. Those two kids were nearly strung up. There is something wrong with society when kids are murdering people and the answer is not going to be found in just locking them away and hoping that they just go away. It's not that kids are becoming 'evil' or worse than they were, it's the societies that they're brought up in. Nobody is born a criminal, and no child commits a murder like that unless there are serious problems underlying. Everyone is a product of their environment. In this case, where was the father at and why did he allow his child access to a gun? What sort of household was this kid being brought up in? Parents have a lot to answer for in cases like this.

One of the kids who murdered Jaime Bulger is now back in prison over downloading and distributing child pornography.
These people who commit such heinous crimes at a young age are a danger to society and will continue to be. It may be due to a horrible upbringing, which may leave parents culpable too, however these people are and will be a danger to society if at such a young age they can commit their crimes and I mean this in general not just the Bolger case.

jill_valentine · 29-01-2011 3:06am

So he's too young to be expected to appreciate the full implications of operating a motor car, enter into a business contract, getting a loan or get married, but he obviously can appreciate the full profundity of ending a human life?

As somebody else noted earlier, that seems like an utterly bizarre double standard.

Metallergy · 29-01-2011 3:23am

on one hand, it.. he.. seems really morbid, on the other, he could be sick of his old man playin musical missus.. or just not accepting of his non-mom.. emotionally strung lad with immediate access to a gun.. but personally i don't think either cos i know too little. maybe leaning toward the morbid

Cheap Thrills! · 29-01-2011 3:42am

Zillah wrote: »

The pathology that allows you to murder someone because they are an inconvenience doesn't change with age.

Exactly, we don't know for sure if that was the case here but if it is and he is a sociopath, he can't be rehabilitated.

I'm not saying he is. We don't have the full story but this common perception that children can't be evil, their brains actually hard-wired that way is not backed up by science.

Sociopathy can manifest after brain-injury and is definitely not helped by a bad/abusive upbringing. But it is possible for individuals to be 'born bad'

As I said, it may not be the case here. They can be very charming, manipulative and plausable and often apparently engage incredibly successfully with top psychiatrists, afterwards it is realised they utterly manipulated them.

They have no remorse. Their only fear is being caught. They might not always kill. It's estimated 1% of people are sociopaths. Not all kill but everybody knows a few. It seems it's perfectly possible for a kid to be born that way.

29-01-2011 3:51am

I'd be in favour of the death penalty only I think it's too easy... Life in prison with only his father to visit him sounds good to me.

Lirange · 29-01-2011 4:36am

jill_valentine wrote: »

So he's too young to be expected to appreciate the full implications of operating a motor car, enter into a business contract, getting a loan or get married, but he obviously can appreciate the full profundity of ending a human life?

Good point because we all know there's a magical threshold whereby an adolescent becomes capable of all of these responsibilities all at the same time. After all if they have the amazingly precocious ability to know that's it's wrong to kill a person then they must have the capacity to procure loans, understand politics, and drive a bus. Such seamless logic there.

miss no stars · 29-01-2011 4:37am

Lirange, I don't mean to single you out but you've just mentioned something that a lot of other people have mentioned and I just can't bring myself to swallow completely whole.

Lirange wrote: »

You'd be surprised. Believe or not I've been 11 years old before. You don't have to be capable of abstract thinking to differentiate between right and wrong when it comes to killing another person.

This is correct. On the surface. Allow me to demonstrate the problem with this:

11 year old thinks: It's wrong to kill someone because they die, everyone's sad and we never see them again.

What doesn't occur to the child is that there are further reaching consequences.
Ask an 11 year old you know (I'm assuming you and everyone else here for that matter actually do know an 11 year old quite well given that you all seem to feel qualified to comment on what they can and can't do mentally... oh and memories of what you were like at 11 don't count) what the consequences of being caught stealing about 3 euro worth of sweets from their local shop are. Don't give them any prompts. Unless they've been in the situation before, the usual CONCRETE AND IMMEDIATE CAUSE AND EFFECT type consequences will be rattled off. You won't find anything about the fact that they're quite unlikely to ever be hired by the shop. You'll get "I'll have to repay the money, they might call the gardai, i'll be in massive trouble at home, etc etc". If they're particularly mature, they might even recognise that their parents would be mortified and that everyone around will know about it. And you're even less likely for them to realise that their parents might be friends with the owner and that they'll be abolutely mortified.

why? Because they're CHILDREN. I mean, I don't give a flying **** whether 11 year olds are getting the leg over these days. That just means there are a lot of 11 year olds out there who are doing things they're too young to do. Just because they KNOW about some things doesn't mean they are old enough to properly contextualise them.

So when an 11 year old picks up that gun to get rid of someone they perceive to be a problem, they recognise that it's wrong. They sure do know that there'll be hell to pay. They know the person will die and they'll never see them again. They know people will be upset. Is that all an adult would know?
Surely an adult would be able to see that by killing this woman, her children have been deprived of a mother and all the experiences they should have had with her (experiences you can only know about if you've lived through them or are old enough to understand the significance of them). That her unborn child is deprived of a life? That his father is deprived of his partner, unborn child and his son will never see daylight, will never grow up and have all the experiences we hold so dear?? An adult would see that this woman has been deprived of many happy years of her life.
Unfortunately, the kid hadn't lived long enough by the time he did that to really comprehend any of that stuff. He's 11 ffs. If you're 40, imagine serving a 160 year sentence (imagine we could live to 320ish). It's inconceivabley long. That's four times his lifetime! Four life sentences! As in, the kid couldn't POSSIBLY have understood the consequences even from a selfish perspective. That's why children should be tried as children. He can't understand how adults interact healthily, which is why he couldn't have understood that by doing it, knowing he'd probably get caught, he'd spend 40 years in prison and potentially never become a normal adult and never have any hope of doing any of the things he'd like to do. If he did it, it's a case of a child thinking that lashing out was a viable solution to a problem he had, without being able to fully conceive of all the problems it would create for all the people it would affect. I know 11 year olds. I know 14 year olds. I know none in that age group that I would ever conceive of as understanding fully the implications of murder.

I'm not saying that if he's guilty he shouldn't pay. I'm saying that he should be tried as a child. That's what he is. He's not an adult. In ten years time, if he's not a psychopath, he'll fully understand the longer reaching consequences of what he's done. If he is a psycopath, he won't understand. Which is why the opportunity for parole needs to be there and it's just so unjust to try a kid as an adult.

jugger0 · 29-01-2011 4:43am

They should put him to sleep. Keeping somebody like that around is pointless.

jimmycrackcorm · 29-01-2011 4:45am

Gnobe wrote: »

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/youngest-american-life-without-parole/

I'm all for tougher sentences against murderers and other serious crimes, but this is a bit harsh isn't it??

Your bleeding heart spilling on my dress is ruining it and I'm a bloke.

Suspiria79 · 29-01-2011 5:00am

Give him the electric chair, along with anyone else who commits any form of murder. Maybe that would put a halt to killings.

ascanbe · 29-01-2011 5:08am

A tragic tale..
As usual, quite a few of the denizens of AH feel it fit to sate themselves on thoughts of vengeance.
Maybe i'm just drunk, or soft or corrupted by the 'tyranny' of 'political-correctness'.
Yeah, lock him away for life, don't try and understand anything, torture him, maybe.
What difference does it make? Who cares..whatever..etc..

Lirange · 29-01-2011 5:11am

miss no stars wrote: »

What doesn't occur to the child is that there are further reaching consequences.

That they understand these consequences is sufficient:

miss no stars wrote: »

11 year old thinks: It's wrong to kill someone because they die, everyone's sad and we never see them again.

What more is needed? That's enough understanding of the consequences for an adult. Sure there are further ones but even many adults that commit crimes don't have the capacity let alone the inclination to consider the "further reaching" impacts of their actions.

Here's the issue for me: It's not only about protecting the rights of the victims. It's also about protecting potential future victims. Incarceration isn't just about punishment or deterrence. It's also about keeping these people away from society so that others aren't hurt. There's an inherent risk there. It think the system should err on the side of protecting the public from harm. Some people weigh in so hard on the nurture side of the so-called nature vs. nurture debate that they're too willing to overlook the risks. He should be locked away for a long period. I don't care what sort of facility. Not because it's retribution but because I don't think our knowledge of human nature let alone human development is sufficient enough to take that gamble. Repatriation to society after "rehabilitation" efforts has a chequered history. You may trust the experts and those in positions of responsibility that must make those critical evaluations. I don't. It's a life and death matter and we're not just talking about his life.

jackie1974 · 29-01-2011 5:40am

http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/37089509.html

Story about a 4yr old psychopath, yep no chance of rehabilitation, if he shoots somebody when he's 4 god knows what he'll do when he's 30. Emm don't bring him up thinking it's ok to ****ing shoot when you're pissed off. No child should have access to a gun.

That 11yr old kid was messed up, had already made threats (that lots of kids make) and they left him have a GUN, the adults are responsible, idiots.

ascanbe · 29-01-2011 5:45am

Lirange wrote: »

That they understand these consequences is sufficient:

What more is needed? That's enough understanding of the consequences for an adult. Sure there are further ones but even many adults that commit crimes don't have the capacity let alone the inclination to consider the "further reaching" impacts of their actions.

Here's the issue for me: It's not only about protecting the rights of the victims. It's also about protecting potential future victims. Incarceration isn't just about punishment or deterrence. It's also about keeping these people away from society so that others aren't hurt. There's an inherent risk there. It think the system should err on the side of protecting the public from harm. Some people weigh in so hard on the nurture side of the so-called nature vs. nurture debate that they're too willing to overlook the risks. He should be locked away for a long period. I don't care what sort of facility. Not because it's retribution but because I don't think our knowledge of human nature let alone human development is sufficient enough to take that gamble. Repatriation to society after "rehabilitation" efforts has a chequered history. You may trust the experts and those in positions of responsibility that must make those critical evaluations. I don't. It's a life and death matter and we're not just talking about his life.

A good point, well made; and i'd agree with it, in relation to an adult.
The law, though, for an 11 year old, also says that he can't vote, he can't drink alcohol, he can't buy a pack of cigarettes.
Why? Because he isn't deemed old enough to understand the implications of his vote or the possible harm in consuming those substances.
Should the law then deviate from that path and act on the basis that a child who can't understand these things is equal to an adult when dealing with transgressions?

29-01-2011 5:47am

He could have done it with a knife just as easily so I'm not going to blame the access to a gun.. If he's a psycho, he's a psycho.

jackie1974 · 29-01-2011 6:02am

Deleted User wrote: »

He could have done it with a knife just as easily so I'm not going to blame the access to a gun.. If he's a psycho, he's a psycho.

But he didn't, he didn't do it with a knife, so how can you say he could easily have stabbed her. Knives are not percieved as weapons in american society, guns are. A knife is used in the kitchen, a gun isn't. He could have bludgened her with a baseball bat but he didn't, your point is moot. The fact is a child had access to a gun, the only reason for having that gun is to use it as a weapon.

Manic Moran · 29-01-2011 6:06am

jackie1974 wrote: »

The child shoud not have had access to a gun ffs, that's a child throwing a tantrum with a lethal weapon. If guns weren't such an acceptable part of american culture that wouldn't happen and none of us know the chain of events that led up to the murder.

It works both ways.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/Girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - When three teenage burglars pried open the door of a northwest Albuquerque home they had no idea they would be met by a brave little girl, police said Wednesday.

Alyssa Gutierrez, 11, took matters into her own hands Tuesday when police said when Miguel Marquez, Eduardo Zubiate and Jesus Quintana broke into her home.

Gutierrez armed herself with a loaded rifle.

Or a 12-year-old
http://pressregister.com/articles/2001/04/30/import/20010430-archive8.txt

A Clarksdale man was shot to death by a 12-year-old girl Saturday night as he allegedly attacked the girl's mother, police said.
<Snip>
Coahoma County Coroner Scotty Meredith said the girl, whose name is being withheld because she is a juvenile, witnessed the attack, grabbed a semiautomatic pistol and fired a single shot into Fox's chest.

"He was apparently choking her when the girl went and got the gun," Meredith said

I'm sure that those two are quite happy that the kids were able to access firearms.

NTM

jackie1974 · 29-01-2011 6:14am

Manic Moran wrote: »

It works both ways.

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/Girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars

Or a 12-year-old
http://pressregister.com/articles/2001/04/30/import/20010430-archive8.txt

I'm sure that those two are quite happy that the kids were able to access firearms.

NTM

Ok you got me there

Jesus Wept · 29-01-2011 6:17am

Bet few of you felt the same when you watched this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu6L6jgpwJE

Tried as an adult, life without parole.
He's eleven, right?

Get Morgan to play him in a movie about his life in 30 years. He can white up.

Manic Moran · 29-01-2011 6:21am

Knives are not percieved as weapons in american society, guns are

Erm.. Plenty of people are killed by knives in the US.

The Bureau of Justice is nice enough to give figures.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/OneYearofData.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=14212640&CFTOKEN=93598757

Though firearms are overall the greatest murder weapon, it varies. I only looked up 2005, but you can search for yourself.

For example, in quite gun-friendly Arizona, as you would expect, 76% of murders were by firearm, only 10% or so by knife. On the other hand, over in Hawaii, which isn't so gun-friendly (But not exactly restricted either), the figures are 10% by firearm and 45% by knife.

But there is no necessary correlation. Montana's so gun-friendly, it threatened to secceed from the union over the subject. The split is dead even on guns vs knives. North Dakota's just bizarre. Most murders were by weapons -other- than guns or knives!

However, the overall ratio is about 60% firearms, 20% knives, 20% everything else. Firearms are certainly the hot favourite, but it's not as if knives are particularly uncommon.

NTM

Lirange · 29-01-2011 6:27am

ascanbe wrote: »

A good point, well made; and i'd agree with it, in relation to an adult.
The law, though, for an 11 year old, also says that he can't vote, he can't drink alcohol, he can't buy a pack of cigarettes.
Why? Because he isn't deemed old enough to understand the implications of his vote or the possible harm in consuming those substances.
Should the law then deviate from that path and act on the basis that a child who can't understand these things is equal to an adult when dealing with transgressions?

I addressed that it in a previous post on the same page. You're assuming that the child doesn't know enough. We're going to disagree on this. Moreover it's haphazardly lumping all responsibilities into the same basket. As if to say he's old enough for this then he's old enough for that when the maturation level required isn't necessarily the same. They're sufficiently old enough to know the following at his age:

miss no stars wrote: »

11 year old thinks: It's wrong to kill someone because they die, everyone's sad and we never see them again.

Being old enough to understand the wrongs of killing people isn't the same as having the above mentioned responsibilities. Obviously though that's where the disagreement lies. I believe a kid at the age of 11 is old enough to be held accountable for premeditated murder. Others don't. If they find evidence that she abused him then I'll reassess my views. But this case is not new. His defence, the authorities, and child welfare organisations have been investigating the circumstances since the outset.

The-Rigger wrote: »

Bet few of you felt the same when you watched this:

I've seen the film. I still feel the same about this case. I must be one of the "few."

professore · 29-01-2011 6:28am

bluewolf wrote: »

I blame video games. And society.

Of course you do. Whilst I think life without parole is too harsh for an 11 year old, and not knowing the facts of the case there are some people who are just pure evil and should not be allowed to live in society.

jackie1974 · 29-01-2011 6:36am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Erm.. Plenty of people are killed by knives in the US.

The Bureau of Justice is nice enough to give figures.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Homicide/State/OneYearofData.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=14212640&CFTOKEN=93598757

Though firearms are overall the greatest murder weapon, it varies. I only looked up 2005, but you can search for yourself.

For example, in quite gun-friendly Arizona, as you would expect, 76% of murders were by firearm, only 10% or so by knife. On the other hand, over in Hawaii, which isn't so gun-friendly (But not exactly restricted either), the figures are 10% by firearm and 45% by knife.

But there is no necessary correlation. Montana's so gun-friendly, it threatened to secceed from the union over the subject. The split is dead even on guns vs knives. North Dakota's just bizarre. Most murders were by weapons -other- than guns or knives!

However, the overall ratio is about 60% firearms, 20% knives, 20% everything else. Firearms are certainly the hot favourite, but it's not as if knives are particularly uncommon.

NTM

Knives have been around for centuries but when guns became freely available to young people the amount of homicides went through the roof, between 1984 and 1994 gun homicides amongst young people in America increased by 418 percent because guns were accessible.

Lirange · 29-01-2011 6:36am

Perhaps we can get Dr. Samuel Loomis to take his case!

Manic Moran · 29-01-2011 7:33am

jackie1974 wrote: »

Knives have been around for centuries but when guns became freely available to young people the amount of homicides went through the roof, between 1984 and 1994 gun homicides amongst young people in America increased by 418 percent because guns were accessible.

Wait, are you suggesting that firearms only became widely accessible in the US in 1984?

What was this earthshaking piece of legislation in 1983 which suddenly enabled every youngster to have a firearm?

NTM

irelandrover · 29-01-2011 7:36am

jackie1974 wrote: »

Knives have been around for centuries but when guns became freely available to young people the amount of homicides went through the roof, between 1984 and 1994 gun homicides amongst young people in America increased by 418 percent because guns were accessible.

So when guns became freely available gun crime increased? That's hardly very surprising. The more interesting fact would be when guns became freely available did crime increase overall.

Noreen1 · 29-01-2011 8:46am

goose2005 wrote: »

Unless you're pro-abortion - or does the foetus become a human when someone else kills him/her?

Funny you should say that.
Just yesterday I was admiring what I assumed to be a newly born baby. It turned out the little lad was 3 months old, and was born at 26 weeks gestation. He certainly looked human to me......

Naikon · 29-01-2011 8:52am

Throwing him in the slammer for life is going to be pretty costly. Won't bring back the deceased either. He will be tried as a juevenile if the justice system has any sense.

sunflower27 · 29-01-2011 8:59am

I remember being 11/12. There is no way i didnt know that picking up a gun and shooting someone was anything other than murder.

Kids these days grow up fast. Hell, they are having babies themselves at 12.

There is no doubt that kid did know what he was doing. Kids have to deal with separation all the time now but how often do you hear of a kid taking it this far. What that little sh!t did was horrific.

It actually makes me feel sick.

Father Damo · 29-01-2011 9:37am

Ghandee wrote: »

The little shiite killed a pregnant woman, AND a nearly full term unborn baby ffs! No matter how you look at it, he murdered two people in cold blood!

Fcuk em!

I've absolutely zero sympathy for him, let him rot wherever it is he's headed for!

Two counts of murder? In the US abortion doctors go home every night having killed god knows how many foetus on their shift, yet he gets the harsher sentence for two murders instead of one?
Bollocks. While he commited a crime, is potentially jailing him for the next 70- 80 years really appropriate?

MagicMarker · 29-01-2011 10:54am

Suspiria79 wrote: »

Give him the electric chair, along with anyone else who commits any form of murder. Maybe that would put a halt to killings.

Sigh...

You know they tried that before? Didn't exactly work.

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

Comments