There is so much wrong with this story... 11 year old kills step-Mom
 

*
Pa. boy, 11, accused of killing dad's girlfriend

I don't know where to begin...

The easy place to start would be, what is a child doing with an unlocked shotgun & ammunition in his room?

But, blaming the gun isn't right. I'm sure he would of used the hatchet in the barn or the knife in the kitchen if he didn't have access to the gun.

Should he really be tried as an adult? While he probably should stay in prison for more than 10 years for what he did, I think there were a lot of factors that could push a kid to do this. From the story, I can count five things that could cause him to hate her. There might not have been any physical child abuse, but it doesn't seem like they cared about his psychological development.

Then again, some kids are just evil.

What do you think could have been done to prevent this from happening in the first place?

(*He is innocent until there is physical evidence that he did it, but let's assume for the purpose of this thread that the evidence is there)

First things first... hate is not an excuse to kill someone..

secondly.. kids this age aren't at the mental stage in most cases to really understand the consequences for actions. They don't see in the long term. They live in a world full of reset buttons and head shots.. so while the gun is nowhere near being the problem..I cannot see him being tried as an adult. Even worse, the police are relying on a 7 year old's statement.. that's just shitty police work.

I had unlocked weapons and open access to ammo when I was 9... the gun has nothing to do with this.

The kid needs to be tried as an adult. It was pre-meditated, and he showed no emotion after the incident. In my opinion the current evidence points to severe psychological problems, including psychosis. If he's not tried as an adult, permanent mental institution.

of course the gun has something to do with it.

This murder probably wouldnt have happened if it wasnt for the easy access to the gun.

The fact you didnt kill anyone doesnt mean anything Seaver, most people would not - but there are a portion of people, a combination of issues and circumstance and lack of morality, where having easy access to a gun makes ALL the difference and tips the balance.

Pulling the trigger is a lot different to clubbing someone to death with a hatchet.

Of course a determined murderer can kill with a knife or poison or something else, but the easy access to guns create both far more spur of the moment murders, and also create a morbid fascination in some unsettled minds that feeds their aggression.

__

Every time these kind of killings occur it makes a lot of buzz, but teenagers are getting shot in urban area's every day... America can have as much gun related murder as it is prepared to tolerate to be honest. People dont make the conscious connection because it is uncomfortable and unpleasant... but the rights to own firearms that so many (mostly peaceful and honest) people seem to hold dear equate to an extra number of deaths each year because of the availability of guns.

So if he used an axe the axe would have something to do with it? She was sleeping... he could have used a corkscrew to kill her without much effort.

It's not the gun?

What?

How can it not be the gun?

That the child had access to a firearm is clearly a contributing factor to the child using a gun to kill his dad's girlfriend. If there had been no easy access to a point and click instant death machine the child would not have been able to do what he did.

Would this have happened if there was no gun? No.

Does this mean that all guns are bad? No.

Does this mean that all children should have access to guns very strictly controlled? Yes.

If it was the gun that caused all this, why didn't they arrest the gun?

It is completely and wholly illogical to assign blame for this tragedy on an inanimate object. There is no process that I know of that imbues a firearm with evil malice bent on seducing weak minded people or young children to take lives.

---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 PM ----------

and you read this from your magic 8 ball?

I see no plausible reason to try him as an adult.. he's 11. Tell me how many 11 year olds really know the weight of their actions.

Please explain how, in the absence of a gun, a child can shoot someone?

-----------------------------

To take it further...

Political arguments aside, I don't see how anyone can deny that in countries with easy access to firearms there are more murders and more suicides.

It is not even true to say that if there was not a gun the murder would certainly have happened because the kid could have used a knife or a brick.

In every case I have ever read about, making guns harder to access leads to a fall in the total number of deaths : by accident, by murder and by suicide.

you think that kids have never heard of knives or bricks? baseball bats? screwdrivers? you discredit your own argument by even intimating that this kid, or any kid, would NEVER kill another unless they had a gun.

If 11-year-olds can be tried as adults for their actions, why do we have laws that prevent them from living their lives as adults when they aren't murdering people?
Is the capacity to murder indicative of advanced maturity in an 11-year-old?

People jump off bridges and out of windows, take overdoses, even kill themselves by stepping into the path of a train or into traffic.
While almost half of all suicides is by firearm(by far more men than women use this method), the second most used method is suffocation. So perhaps we should outlaw plastic bags....
And while I can see that it would be a lot harder to go on a knifing spree than a shooting one(although people have done just that), the idea that it is the gun that did the act is like saying my frying pan made dinner.
In any case involing a violent death,we need to stop blaming the tool used and put it where it belongs-the person that used the tool.

On the surface, it looks as if this kid has some major mental health issues--if he did do it (innocent until proven guilty, remember?). I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens as they move towards trial and he gets evaluated. I don't think he should be tried as an adult. He does not belong in the general prison population at 11 years old, especially if it turns out that he does have mental health problems. gucci is absolutely right--kids that age cannot comprehend the long-term consequences of their choices. I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but the consequences ought to take into consideration his age and mental health issues.

If the gun had nothing to do with this, then guns are pretty much useless and don't serve any purpose.

If the kid truly wanted the woman dead at any cost, he would have used anything to do it. He chose the gun.

Why is that?

* * * * *

I'm with guccilvr:

He shouldn't be tried as an adult.

He isn't an adult.

The only gun related argument is that it was easier for him to (allegedly) kill her. There is no need to get your hands dirty, and there was no chance that she could have survived. Using a brick, baseball bat, or knife would have been harder for an 11 year old to use.

But to get back to the original question, what should have these adults done differently to prevent him from wanting to kill her in the first place?

I'm not sure I would be so quick to lock him up and throw away the key for the rest of his life. I would guess that there are plenty of kids who might want to do this if put into this family situation, so part of it is just bad luck. But there is a long list of other things it could be as well.

Blaming the gun is like blaming the oven for burning a pizza when the cook goes on a 40min smoke break.

The mother was asleep. As I stated before, he could have used a screwdriver and successfully killed her with little effort.

I always get a kick out of these stories, not the actual story itself, it's tragic and not funny at all, what I get a kick out of is all the gun people right away start saying the gun had nothing to do with it, the gun had nothing to do with it. I'll never understand American gun culture, but sure do get a laugh out of people trying to take the blame away from guns. I enjoy shooting as much as the next guy, but come on, a gun at 11? While some at 9 can handle it, kids mature at different speeds.
seriously it doesn't have to be registered? Well fuck me that's just retarded.

This is such a fatuous argument to claim that a gun is simply a meaningless tool and it has nothing to do with the murder rate in the US.

A gun is a tool made to kill people or animals, full stop. The majority of people may be able to own guns responsibly, but some will not be able to.

In my opinion anyone who believes that these sort of tragedies would still happen in a state with no gun ownership, and the boy would have stabbed his step mother again, is simply deluding themselves to prevent them from having to face up to the reality of what THEIR right to own guns actually means.

I will say it again and more clearly. I am certain that the people on this site are honest and decent and peaceful - but the right to bare arms which you hold so dear costs lives, every single week, in the United States. People die who would not die otherwise because guns are so easy to own and carry in America.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread, if guns are no more easy or convenient to use as a murder weapon, why are they the preferred choice...

Yes, it's possible to kill someone by stuff marbles up their nostrils until it reaches the brain. But it's not easy, it's not convenient and something that can be done cleanly from a distance with that few newtons of force on the trigger. It makes a big difference having the nerve to repeatedly bludgeon someone with a bat while they're screaming rather than to simply pull the trigger.

I think it is disingenuous to claim that gun ownership is irrelevant to violent crimes.
But the key is that guns really have an impact in impulse crimes. In a moment of rage or frustration someone shoots instead of punching, etc.
So in this particular case, if the action was indeed premeditated, it doesn't look like gun availability was a determining factor.

In any case, I think mixedmedia pointed to a relevant case here, which is related to age limits. We've become a society that cedes to its puritanical urges in everything related to youth except punishment. Kids are not old enough to decide to have sex, alcohol, drugs, and in some places even to go out after a certain period, but when it comes to punishing them, they become adults (as this case and the sexting cases indicate).

Please don't all atack the Brits in this thread for nt understanding the US fetishisation of guns.

It is true, if you are determined to kill, you will find a way.

It is also true that access to guns increases the rate of killings.

Period.

Seriously, it's not opinion, it's not politics, it's fact. Where it is easy to get guns, more people kill themselves and others.

Many times people say things like "ban plastic bags then", but the fact is, if guns were harder to get hold of, total deaths would fall.

It is a specious argument to state that if there was not a gun the kid would still be able to kill her. He would, but evidence shows that all over the world when it takes more than just pointing and pulling a trigger, people kill less often.

Guns make death simple. When it is simple to do something, people do it who would otherwise not have done it.

The internet makes communication easier - we could all have pen palls, we could all write mimeographed fanzines and send them to each other in the post, but most of us didn't until email and blogging made it easy. Guns make death easy, and when people an reach for a gun as easilly as they can reach for an insult, they don't call names, they shoot each other.

I'm sorry to lose track of the OP.

The kid should not be tried as an adult, but whoever allowed him to have access to a gun should be tried for creating the situation.

I think the pro/anti gun arguments bog down the real issue that causes the debate to resurface again and again: with all of our comforts and advantages, why are so many people desensitized and willing to kill each other in our society?

If this question were to find an answer then the gun question would be moot.

Guns...


Bad parenting...


Chemicals in our food...



That damned rap music them kids be listening to today...





Oprah...

This really isn't a course of action that needs to be looked at either. The only way this could even be considered is if the person who owned the gun gave it to him and knew he was going to kill someone..then it would be an easy link for aiding and abetting..

So really, where ever he got the gun, it was up to the kid to pull the trigger (if he in fact did) not up to the person who owned the gun to make sure the kid couldn't get it.

Now, before blast that whole theory to bits.. I will agree that a person should take reasonable steps to ensure that their weapons are locked and guarded against children.. but I do not agree that a person who owns the said weapon should face criminal charges when that person did not have anything to do with the crime.

That would be like saying a parent should be held criminally liable for a manslaughter charge when their teenager goes out and gets stupid in a car and kills someone. That is pure bollocks.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through this.

To me, it doesn't matter what weapon was used, what strikes me as more alarming is the idea that children view violence (and even murder) as a viable solution to conflict.

You laugh, but I don't think these are far off the mark...rather, I think every one of these are indicative in different ways of the same environmental phenomena.

Personality disorders. Just like assholes, every American's got one.

I think the truth is that's its human nature

If you believe in evolution, probably the reason that man is the apex predator is his unparelled levels of aggression and violence, which has no equal in the animal kingdom. Society socialises us to set aside these primal impulses, but when the veneer is stripped away, what bubbles under the surface comes to the light.

It's so weird that the observation that perhaps this kid shouldn't have had ready access to firearms is met with, "Oh!? So you BLAME the gun!? Suddenly it's the GUN'S FAULT???"

Jesus. People. Name one other device that any old 11 year old can use to literally turn someone else off with the push of a button. YES the kid's clearly got serious problems, YES there are thousands of kids who are perfectly safe (that is to say, well trained) with guns. But THIS kid probably shouldn't have had a gun, and this murder might not even have taken place if he'd had to actually touch his victim. Can you really disagree about that?

I'm not pro- or anti-gun. I think that gives me the room to look at the issue rationally. In THIS CASE, that kid shouldn't have had that gun. In THAT household, I'm very much pro gun control.

Oooooh... god, the short hairs on the back of my neck just twinged. :love:

No, it's called responsibility... something a lot of Americans like to push off onto inanimate objects because they can't handle the concept that responsibility is a behavior. How can we explain this? I grew up around free access to guns and look at my body count: 0.

It doesn't matter if it's a gun, bro. A failure in parental responsibility is the same for all inanimate objects... whether it is over an unlocked gun cabinet, your Xanax and Vicodin stash in the bathroom, car keys lying on the end table, Internet usage while you're not around, the liquor cabinet when you go out of town, your failure to check Johnny's room for dime bags, etc.

I've never seen anyone have to have a talk about responsible screwdriver ownership...

No one is arguing that many responsible people own guns and dont commit crimes.

No one is arguing that murders are not committed by other means.

But as stated by myself and others, the widespread availability of guns in America causes some deaths. Some people are killed who would not be killed if guns were not widely available, evey year, every month, every week.

I say again that if you try and deny this you are simply protecting yourself from an uncomfortable truth. You, and the country, must judge if the freedom to own guns and the benefits to those who use them responsibly, is worth the lives it costs.

You might use the same arguments for speed limits. Without speed limits, many of us would still drive safely and responsibly. But do you really suppose that if there was no speed limit applied, there would not be more deaths on the roads?

This is becoming some sort of US=gun nuts vs. Britain=peaceniks when Britain has also had its share of gun violence and the most publicized were shooting sprees with multiple deaths so don't blame the US for this.

The fact is that those with a mind to do so will commit whatever crime that warped mind decides and having gun laws doesn't change that.

This is about an 11 year old kid who voiced his desire to kill an eight months pregnant woman and did so and no one noticed his mental state. Now they want him tried as an adult....
Even if he is tried as an adult, they probably wouldn't put him in an adult prison, if convicted, until he is of age to be so. In New Jersey(neighbor to PA where this took place) is a full youth's prison, the Yardville Correctional Facility. He'd probably end up there.

yes, there are shootings in the UK. Far, far fewer - because it is a lot harder to get hold of guns.

so I'm guessing this blanket statement means all of your parents are just better at keeping guns from children eh?

This simply falls under the category of people not paying attention. It's the same as the Virginia Tech story.. the Columbine story.. it's been replayed over and over.. and people still wonder what the fuck is wrong.. I'll tell you what's wrong.. parents (and I'm a parent so I have full right to say this) should pay more attention to what their kids are doing and saying instead of how fat their bank account is. I see all these parents who do nothing with their kids when they get home..they pop on the television and let the kids coma out and then wonder why they didn't see the signs earlier...

So what could have been done to prevent this.. who knows..maybe nothing; but I'm guessing just a little bit of positive interaction with the child would have at least served to deter this incident from happening. If not, at least they wouldn't be so surprised that something happened.

Question:
Can you really tell if one has the faculties necessary to distinguish right or wrong at the age of 10? Has anybody ever looked into this? Scratch that, let's say at the age of 16. Is one considered "socially fit" to make decisions at such an age?

Being charged as an adult is just not right. And no, I'm not making excuses for even minor misbehaviors. I know this is serious, someon lost a life.

That said, It's definitely the gun. I live alone and I have baby proofed my house. I make sure cleaning bleaches and detergent are far away from my neice whenever she comes visiting. Electrical sockets are all covered up and she doesnt have a chance of poisoning me or herself. I dont own a gun. So the detergeant or the bleach could be the gun in this case. It's not wheather it's right or wrong to own a gun .... it's how they took care of it that is in question here.

It's interesting that here, where it is illegal to own a gun (with few exceptions), there is almost no gun violence.

OMG!!! THANK YOU!!! I really wanted to asert my beleif (I have no idea is true)...... Where I come from either there is no gun violence as well!!!! People who actually own guns are hunted down like animals and locked up for a substantial amount of time!!!

**sighs**

another thread

/threadjack

Can someone explain to me why a 'kids gun' doesn't have to be registered, and an 'adults gun' has to be registered? They're both gun, both capable of firing a projectile that can end a persons life, is it because it's smaller and cuter than the adults gun?

it's Pennsylvania, weapons do not have to be registered, at all.

The law in Pennsylvania is that a child at 10 can be charged with criminal homicide and tried as an adult. The tests will show if the boy's gun was used in the shooting. There will be fingerprints on the gun. The report that he told someone else that he was going to do this shows premeditation and awareness of the consequences of his actions. This kid will probably be tried as an adult and should be. The law is the law. Somone has to pay, and you can't charge the parent with murder. If a 10 year old kid murdered one of my relatives I would want him/her sent away for life. I would not look away and say "oh, but he's just a little boy." A case like this shows that there should be new laws regarding children and access to guns. That will never happen.