8 years old Killed 2 people o.O

Vandoura

The Original PLD
Adventurer
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
2,736
Age
40
Location
Windurst Water
Website
www.breakofdawn.freeforums.org
Nation Banner
Windy
Main Job
Scholar-Female
Secondary Job
Dragoon-Female
Third Job
Paladin-Female
Server
Quetzalcoatl
Linkshell
LunarSky
FFXIV
Vandoura
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/08/child.charged.ap/index.html

Town stunned as 8-year-old charged in two killings

-LI Arizona boy accused of shooting father, boarder in father's house
-Suspect has no record of discipline at school or trouble at home
-Police improperly questioned boy, defense attorney says
-"If they actually prosecute the guy, it's a legal minefield," attorney says


FLAGSTAFF, Arizona (AP) -- It's a crime that police officers in a small eastern Arizona community can hardly fathom yet have to deal with: an 8-year-old charged in the fatal shootings of his father and another man.
"Who would think an 8-year-old kid could kill two adults?" St. Johns Police Chief Roy Melnick said Friday.
The crime that unfolded Wednesday evening sent shock waves through St. Johns, a community of about 4,000 people northeast of Phoenix. The boy had no disciplinary record at school, and there was no indication he had any problems at home, prosecutors said.
"It was such a tragedy," said the boy's defense attorney, Benjamin Brewer. "You have two people dead; you have an 8-year-old in jail. It tugs at the heart strings. It's a shocker, no doubt about it."
On Friday, a judge determined there was probable cause to show that the boy fatally shot his father, Vincent Romero, 29, and Timothy Romans, 39, of San Carlos with a .22-caliber rifle. The boy faces two counts of premeditated murder.
Melnick said officers arrived at Romero's home within minutes of the shooting Wednesday. They found one victim just outside the front door and the other dead in an upstairs room.
Romans had been renting a room at the Romero house, prosecutors said. The two men were employees with a construction company that had a contract to do work at the Salt River Project power plant near St. Johns, which is about 170 miles northeast of Phoenix.
The boy went to a neighbor's house and said he "believed that his father was dead," said Apache County attorney Brad Carlyon. Police later obtained a confession from the boy, Melnick said.
Brewer said police overreached in questioning the boy without representation from a parent or attorney and did not advise him of his rights.
"They became very accusing early on in the interview," Brewer said. "Two officers with guns at their side, it's very scary for anybody, for sure an 8-year-old kid."
A judge has ordered a psychological evaluation of the child, who was being held at the Apache County juvenile detention center.
Prosecutors aren't sure where the case is headed, Carlyon said.
"There's a ton of factors to be considered and weighed, including the juvenile's age," he said. "The counterbalance against that, the acts that he apparently committed."
Carlyon said the boy had no record of complaints with Arizona Child Protective Services.
"He had no record of any kind, not even a disciplinary record at school," he said. "He has never been in trouble before."
City Manager Greg Martin said the community was "saddened" and "shocked."
"Not something that happens very often and hopefully never happens again," he said. "It's been on their minds ever since it happened."
FBI statistics show instances of children younger than 11 committing homicides are very rare. According to recent FBI supplementary homicide reports, there were at least three such cases each year in 2003, 2004 and 2005; there were at least 15 in 2002. More recent statistics weren't available, nor were details of the cases.
Earlier this year in Arizona, prosecutors in Cochise County filed first-degree murder charges against a 12-year-old boy accused of shooting his mother to death.
Under Arizona law, a juvenile under 8 years old is treated as a dependent child. Charges can be filed against anyone 8 or older, which Melnick argued are warranted in this case. He said the child didn't act on the "spur of the moment," though he didn't elaborate on what the motive might have been.
Defense attorney Mike Piccarreta, who is not involved in the case, said each case has to be considered on its own merits, but it would be hard for him to comprehend that an 8-year-old has the mental capacity to understand the act of murder and its implications.
"If they actually prosecute the guy, it's a legal minefield," he said. "And, two, society has to make a decision as to whether they want to start using the criminal justice system to deal with 8-year-olds. That doesn't mean you don't have a troubled kid."
Wednesday's homicides were the first in at least four years in the community where most people know one another, Melnick said, noting that before that, no one had been killed there since 20 years ago.
Romero had full custody of the child. The boy's biological mother was visiting St. Johns over the weekend from Mississippi, and returned to Arizona after the shootings, Carlyon said.
Brewer, the defense attorney, said the child "seems to be in good spirits."
"He's scared," he said. "He's trying to be tough, but he's scared."

I wonder who to blame... Dad with his Rifle or the kid....
 
Last edited:
my 2 cents...

In the case of the boy, he should go through the system, its happened many times before were a young kid got ahold of a gun and fired it, but this boy killed someone and then killed someone AGAIN, he needs therapy and time in JD, also they need to see if anyone might have put him up to it. I wouldn't be terribly shocked if mom had discussed the location of this gun and how to use it.

In the case of the Father's responsibility, there should be no possible way for an 8-yr old to be able to gain access to a firearm regardless if the boy was informed on how to get it in the first place. It just shouldnt be possible, even if safe storage and a lockbox aren't a possibility they make key only padlocks that block the trigger and hammer. There should have been no way for this boy to get his hands on it. The only fathomable reason for the gun to be out would be to prepare for hunting assuming it was a rifle, but even then it would be unloaded right?
 
my 2 cents...

In the case of the boy, he should go through the system, its happened many times before were a young kid got ahold of a gun and fired it, but this boy killed someone and then killed someone AGAIN, he needs therapy and time in JD, also they need to see if anyone might have put him up to it. I wouldn't be terribly shocked if mom had discussed the location of this gun and how to use it.

In the case of the Father's responsibility, there should be no possible way for an 8-yr old to be able to gain access to a firearm regardless if the boy was informed on how to get it in the first place. It just shouldnt be possible, even if safe storage and a lockbox aren't a possibility they make key only padlocks that block the trigger and hammer. There should have been no way for this boy to get his hands on it. The only fathomable reason for the gun to be out would be to prepare for hunting assuming it was a rifle, but even then it would be unloaded right?
You can't say that without knowing what happened BEFORE he shot them.

If the news stated a 60-year old woman shot a man to death, you might think "WTF, send the bitch to jail". But if you then found out the cause of it - that the man tried to rape her - then you might think "He deserved it.".

This article raises some question, the first being "Where was the mother during this incident?". The second being, why was the father and his colleague 170 miles away from their construction site in the first place?

I highly doubt an 8-year old would pick up a rifle and shoot 2 people without a cause. I'm not saying his cause was just, but I don't think an 8-year old would really understand what he did would cause so much problems in the first place.

And you're right. I don't know how gun laws work in the states, but in Sweden, it requires you to store the unloaded gun and the ammunition in separate locations. If it works the same way in the USA, there should have been no way for the boy to get access to a loaded rifle anyway.
 
Last edited:
Gun control.
 
Gun control.

Common sense.

You should never put any gun where a child can reach it. That's what gun lockers and cases are for people. You lock them up and keep the key on you.

But as Uzor said, we don't really know the whole situation. Still, the gun should have been put in some place the kid couldn't reach or unlock.
 
I think it's insane that people are even legally aloud to keep guns. In the UK, guns are outlawed (other than hunting rifles, I suppose) and anyone found in possession of a gun will land themselves in deep shit.

Maybe if the same law was applied to the USA, gun crime might be a lot rarer and there wouldn't be as much scenarios such as this one.
 
I think it's insane that people are even legally aloud to keep guns. In the UK, guns are outlawed (other than hunting rifles, I suppose) and anyone found in possession of a gun will land themselves in deep shit.

Maybe if the same law was applied to the USA, gun crime might be a lot rarer and there wouldn't be as much scenarios such as this one.

You're never going to keep guns off the streets because criminals that use them will always find a way to obtain them. The whole idea of being able to possess firearms is to protect your life and property with them if the situation calls for it that is.

You can't just walk around with a gun on you, legally anyway. There are licenses to obtain and laws that reinforce them. Where I live, you have to have a Concealed Carry permit and in order to get that you have to take a course for it and I think pay a fee as well. (I haven't gotten mine yet) Even then if you are to carry the gun on you it can't be visible or it must be in a secure holster or case.

Also Curjos, it has to do with our U.S. Constitution. It's in our second amendment that we have the right to bare arms. But that's pretty basic knowledge.
 
I bet the 8 year old who killed his dad and friend didn't take a course in handling a gun though.
 
and if he did he's fuckin awesome amirite?
 
You're never going to keep guns off the streets because criminals that use them will always find a way to obtain them. The whole idea of being able to possess firearms is to protect your life and property with them if the situation calls for it that is.

You can't just walk around with a gun on you, legally anyway. There are licenses to obtain and laws that reinforce them. Where I live, you have to have a Concealed Carry permit and in order to get that you have to take a course for it and I think pay a fee as well. (I haven't gotten mine yet) Even then if you are to carry the gun on you it can't be visible or it must be in a secure holster or case.

Also Curjos, it has to do with our U.S. Constitution. It's in our second amendment that we have the right to bare arms. But that's pretty basic knowledge.
Of course criminals would still cary them. But how is that different from now?

Seriously though, if a criminal run up to you in an alley with a gun pointing at you, do you pull your gun and shoot him? The logic that it is used to protect yourself isn't logical imo.

Look at the amount of people that get shot in the states, and then compare it to other countries, like Sweden, England, France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Denmark, etc... You'll see it is a lot less, even though criminals still run around with guns.

Just because criminals carry illegal guns doesn't mean everyone should to protect themselves. imo more innocent people will get killed if everyone's allowed to have a gun, as you can see in this case.

If a robber robs your house, odds are said robber will also have a gun either way. And just because he robbs your house, doesn't make him deserving of death. I highly doubt a robber would get a death sentence, even if he assaulted you and causing you personal injury (in which case, you are allowed to defend yourself with a gun, and kill him, correct?).

Besides, IF you do shoot and kill him when he runs towards you with, say, a knife (why he don't have a gun is beyond me, since apparently, from the way you phrased yourself earlier, all criminals have guns), and you kill him, it will most likely put you in shock, and possibly make you depressed, just for killing someone.

You can say its for self-defense all you want, but if you carry a gun, you probably just hope you'll have to point it, causing the criminal to run away and do you no harm. But what if you have to fire it? what if he have a gun too?

Really, imo it will just do more harm then good, especially since more innocent people will get killed.

When a criminal carry a gun, like you, they don't actually expect to use it, unless they're one of the more heavy criminals, like a murderer. And even then, most murderers don't go on a killing spree and kill everyone they see on the street (in which case you STILL wouldn't be safe, gun or not), they, more often then not, have a motive for killing someone. Such as killing the guy their girlfriend cheated with. And in that case you're likely still not safe.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Uzor. It seems that more people are killed by guns than protected by them -- pretty ironic if you ask me.

Of course there will always be criminals who get hold of guns, whether they are outlawed or not, but if they are illegal then the amount of criminals who did carry a gun would likely drop drastically. Gun crime would be a lot less common and accidental cases such as the one this thread about would happen much less often.

I also looked some gun crime statistics from the UK and the US. I found some pretty interesting stuff. The website I looked at was here.

One example of what I found:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

USA (2001): Homicide - 3.98 | Suicide - 5.92 | Other (inc. accidental) - 0.36
England and Wales (2002): Homicide - 0.15 | Suicide - 0.2 | Other - 0.03
Japan (2002): Homicide - 0.02 | Suicide - 0.04 | Other - 0

Its pretty self-explanatory. Although I'm not sure exactly, I'm guessing guns are outlawed in Japan too.
 
I agree with Uzor. It seems that more people are killed by guns than protected by them -- pretty ironic if you ask me.

Of course there will always be criminals who get hold of guns, whether they are outlawed or not, but if they are illegal then the amount of criminals who did carry a gun would likely drop drastically. Gun crime would be a lot less common and accidental cases such as the one this thread about would happen much less often.

I also looked some gun crime statistics from the UK and the US. I found some pretty interesting stuff. The website I looked at was here.

One example of what I found:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

USA (2001): Homicide - 3.98 | Suicide - 5.92 | Other (inc. accidental) - 0.36
England and Wales (2002): Homicide - 0.15 | Suicide - 0.2 | Other - 0.03
Japan (2002): Homicide - 0.02 | Suicide - 0.04 | Other - 0

Its pretty self-explanatory. Although I'm not sure exactly, I'm guessing guns are outlawed in Japan too.

To Be Honest I'd probably feel much safer in the US than I do here right now.

The UK may have TECHNICALLY less gun crime on the surface, those numbers could have been altered to the fucking Labour Party over here. Wasn't it recently reported that they have covered up some serious shit concerning the crime rate?

Also, slightly off topic but what about the knife crime rate over here in the UK as well, that fucking scares me half to death more than being shot believe it or not. Especially seeing as one of the latest victims was 19 years old, LIKE ME!

Either way though I'd still probably want to live in Japan than the UK or US due to Japan having the lowest crime rate in the entire world, gun regulations are more than likely done better than the UK, and I freaking love the culture there so much, but my mind hasn't been made up yet, I'd probably live in the US anyway because:

a) I was born there;
b) There are hundred more opportunities for games designers there;
c) The US genuinely looks to be much friendly than the UK right now.

That is my honest opinion.

As for the eight year old, it all depends on what happened so I'm staying neutral.
 
To Be Honest I'd probably feel much safer in the US than I do here right now.

The UK may have TECHNICALLY less gun crime on the surface, those numbers could have been altered to the fucking Labour Party over here. Wasn't it recently reported that they have covered up some serious shit concerning the crime rate?

There is only a certain extent that statistics can be covered up. When was the last time you heard about a gun crime/accident in the UK? If there was one, you would hear about it, mainly because they are so rare.

Anyways, just some stuff I found on wikipedia (probably not totally reliable, but it gives the general idea). You can take a look here.

But based on this, in 2007 the murder rate (per 100,000 people) is:
UK: 2.03
US: 5.7
 
The UK may have TECHNICALLY less gun crime on the surface, those numbers could have been altered to the fucking Labour Party over here. Wasn't it recently reported that they have covered up some serious shit concerning the crime rate?

That would be the Police authorities. Also listening to what the Sun/Mirror/Star/Mail/Times/Telegraph say isn't a good idea, they like to scare the population into buying their papers. It generally works as well.
 
That would be the Police authorities. Also listening to what the Sun/Mirror/Star/Mail/Times/Telegraph say isn't a good idea, they like to scare the population into buying their papers. It generally works as well.

Thankfully I don't read the shit from them.

Anyway, even with those figures I probably would feel safer in the US. I don't think enough is done in this country personally.
 
Thankfully I don't read the shit from them.

Anyway, even with those figures I probably would feel safer in the US. I don't think enough is done in this country personally.

At least guns are outlawed in the UK.
 
Ok.. i will take the exact opposite view. Atleast if something bad happens here i will be able to defend myself. Yes there are some crimes of opportunity but i have... 11 guns atm and i think that everyone of them is important for different reasons. I have one under my bed incase someone does break into my house because i do believe that i have the right to protect myself and my property and if it comes to it kill someone who does break into my house.

I am actually working on a concealed carry permit here in Arizona so that I can take my gun with me places other than hunting.

Guns may allow bad people to do bad things but they dont make them do them.

Also do you trust your government to protect you in time of crisis? Or better yet who is going to protect you if your government is the problem and they are the only ones with guns.
 
At least guns are outlawed in the UK.

Maybe so but it doesn't stop them from bringing guns in and getting people killed on the streets. Like I said, not enough is done to stop guns from coming into the country.

Also, as I said earlier, Japan has probably got the lowest crime rate in the world and its mainly due to even stricter gun laws and I am considering living there if I can become fluent in the language.
 
Of course criminals would still cary them. But how is that different from now?
Well ofcourse criminals are still going to carry them, it isn't any different than now. I was just making a general statement there.

Uzor said:
Seriously though, if a criminal run up to you in an alley with a gun pointing at you, do you pull your gun and shoot him? The logic that it is used to protect yourself isn't logical imo.
In this instance you'd find yourself needing a good lawyer and hoping there were witnesses to the event. But honestly, in that situation no I wouldn't pull my gun on him if I had one. Having a gun in your face is an incredibly nerve racking situation, just imagining any second your life could be gone. I would do whatever the gunwielder asked until I either saw an opening to take advantage of the situation and disarm him or he walked away. I'm not about to get myself killed by pulling a gun on someone who already has one pointed at me. That's just reckless and stupid.

Uzor said:
Just because criminals carry illegal guns doesn't mean everyone should to protect themselves. imo more innocent people will get killed if everyone's allowed to have a gun, as you can see in this case.
I don't see that in this case. What I do see is very irresponsible father that should have kept his gun locked up. Still, I don't know the situation too well. If it were something sick like the father and his buddy were abusing the boy, then I could very well understand the kid wanting to kill them. However, the circumstances are still not known to us. So It's hard to judge anything. People have the right to own guns, that doesn't mean they have the right to carry them or use them recklessly. There's and old saying; "The weapon doesn't make the man, the man makes the weapon." And then there's the other saying; "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Both are absolutely true, the former is for any weapon but both logics really apply to any weapon not just guns.

Uzor said:
If a robber robs your house, odds are said robber will also have a gun either way. And just because he robbs your house, doesn't make him deserving of death. I highly doubt a robber would get a death sentence, even if he assaulted you and causing you personal injury (in which case, you are allowed to defend yourself with a gun, and kill him, correct?).
Lucky for me, if some dumbass tried to rob me or kill me in my own home it's perfectly legal for me to put a bullet (or two or three) in his ass, or use any other means to defend myself. Now, once he steps outside my house, that's a whole other story.

Uzor said:
Besides, IF you do shoot and kill him when he runs towards you with, say, a knife (why he don't have a gun is beyond me, since apparently, from the way you phrased yourself earlier, all criminals have guns), and you kill him, it will most likely put you in shock, and possibly make you depressed, just for killing someone.

Well there's no doubt in my mind that I would need time to deal with the situation. I've never killed or shot anyone before so I have no idea how I would deal with it. Every person deals with trauma different and I am no different. I have no idea how I would react as that would be something I've never experienced and I believe even if it was something I had experienced I still would not neccisarily act the same.

Also, I wasn't saying all criminals have guns, I was just referring to the ones that do use guns to commit their crimes.

Uzor said:
You can say its for self-defense all you want, but if you carry a gun, you probably just hope you'll have to point it, causing the criminal to run away and do you no harm. But what if you have to fire it? what if he have a gun too?
This is also true, for all weapons really. Most people never hope to have to use a weapon on someone. It's also very true that just pointing a gun at someone can quite easily change their mind, views, plans, ect. at least for the moment. If you accomplish that, then that's even better than having to fire the gun. In fact it's the best possible outcome of any situation that would actually force someone to draw a gun.

Uzor said:
Really, imo it will just do more harm then good, especially since more innocent people will get killed.
Well, that is your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. Doesn't make you correct though. There are several others that would agree with you I'm sure. Innocent people are usually only killed by accident (this could mean a number of things: recklessness, stupidity, no common sense, or freak accidents even. I'm sure there's other excuses) or malice (meaning intentional). If otherwise, then I don't believe they were innocent.
 
Back
Top