Boy, 11, accused of killing father's pregnant girlfriend

[alanon]

Most of you are flat out missing the point. This is not a gun-safety issue, nor is this a right to bear arms issue.

Gun safety teaches you how to use a gun/rifle safely, teaching you to respect it and how to handle it properly, and avoid accidently shooting yourself, other people or other things. This kid may be the safest gun handler of all time. He did NOT ACCIDENTLY shoot anyone. This is NOT a failure to teach safety, it is a failure to teach morality.

It is also not a right to bear arms issue. As has been pointed out, the kid could of used a hammer to ash her head in, poisoned her, used gas and a match, or 100 different other ways to achieve his sick objective. This is not a "gun" issue, it is a moral one.

As far as arguing over trying him as an adult or child, it is all semantics. He should be tried as a murderer, plain and simple.

 

[Morcheeba]

I don't see why. I shoot each of you once, you aren't getting back up. Which is also why guns are a nice tactic. People know that if they do get shot, there is a decent chance they won't get back up.

Bullshit. I definitely call bullshit. Maybe you have yet to run into a man who loses his head will likely rip yours off. I can see the INTRUDER getting more thrown off at a red eyed nearly naked guy about to tackle him. Not-to-mention it's that much easier to miss with a handgun than a bat OR a shotgun.

I've had this discussion with Veterans that state they'd rather a shotgun in their house than a hand gun to defend against intruders. Apparently the game in strictly to save your ass, material possessions are fucking worthless, you can't take them with you to the grave.

I still say all this is possible without the use of a gun.

Where does the intruder have his stashed while he's rifling through your electronics??

I'm going to say it one last time. You know where I stand on this.

I live in a Country that doesn't have the same laws as you, blame it on our popluation vs the USA or whatever you want but we ALSO don't have nearly the number of accidental or premeditated shootings as the states.

 

[Thelona]

uuuugh, see below.



That right there suggests the fact cops carry weapons is useless as citizens can take care of their own shit and can't depend on them.



I was being facetious and that was in response to you stating you can only depend on well trained officers to find your dead body.



The only people I think REALLY NEED firearms at this point in our lolcivilized world is law enforcement.

Right to an Armed Militia... you have that, it's called Law Enforcement. If you can't depend on them what's the point in having them?

ummmmm where in that quote did i say cops shouldn't have guns.


you keep generalizing everything I'm saying

I say "a cops not gonna be there to stop a robber from breaking into my house" and you see "cops are completely useless and have no need to carry guns"

 

[Makelith]

Bullshit. I definitely call bullshit. Maybe you have yet to run into a man who loses his head will likely rip yours off. I can see the INTRUDER getting more thrown off at a red eyed nearly naked guy about to tackle him. Not-to-mention it's that much easier to miss with a handgun than a bat OR a shotgun.

Bullshit? Rofl. Okay, i shoot you, you suddenly can't charge at me anymore. You are also now robbed and dead. Like you said, a house is close quarters, i don't even have to aim, you are throwing the most crazy things out there to try and make yourself seem right, and its just silly.

I've had this discussion with Veterans that state they'd rather a shotgun in their house than a hand gun to defend against intruders. Apparently the game in strictly to save your ass, material possessions are fucking worthless, you can't take them with you to the grave.

I never said the game was strictly to save your ass. In fact i said its to save your ass AND your stuff. If the game was strictly to save my ass you're damn right i would rather have a shot gun then a hand gun, but that should have been pretty easily taken from my post. If you are gonna destroy your stuff and waste your ammo it'd be cheaper to just let the crook take all your stuff. Maybe even help him out so you can get back to sleep.

I still say all this is possible without the use of a gun.

Don't know why this is brought up either. Its completely possible without a gun. Just a lot more dangerous. I'd rather hold someone at gun point and let the police take them away then pull a knife on them and have a chance at being stabbed in a struggle.

 

[Morcheeba]

Bullshit? Rofl. Okay, i shoot you, you suddenly can't charge at me anymore. You are also now robbed and dead. Like you said, a house is close quarters, i don't even have to aim, you are throwing the most crazy things out there to try and make yourself seem right, and its just silly.

This is all I'm responding to.

Hollywood has depicted this pretty (and inaccurate) image that you stop dead in your tracks and drop from getting shot once.

If by "you suddenly can't charge at me anymore" because you used a shotgun... ok. A handgun, which you say you'd rather, I doubt it would happen quite like that.

If you infuriate a man and he decides to run at you, or sneaks up on you as your rummaging through his things, then you shoot him, unless you manage to hit him in the knee right off the bat, even the thigh, he'll still manage a couple extra strides before going somewhat limp in that leg or manage to get a couple swings from his bat/club/cast iron frying pan or what have you. So if you shoot someone in the belly that's coming at you they're likely to get to you and be further infuriated and seeing red with rage by that point. Hope your gun hand isn't now tangled in defending whatever may be coming at you. People are a lot more capable then you give them credit for. Then again, some people are just not confident enough to stand up for themselves and still should not be in control of a firearm as I think that too should take a person with confidence.

Getting shot once does not necessarily incapacitate a person.

As for not having to aim... well, I'm assuming you're being a smartass so alright I guess.

My examples are not wild as you do not know my boyfriend nor have any idea what he is capable of, not-to-mention 99% of the population world wide. I can think of a couple people that would be a larger concern to an intruder.

My saying I can picture that situation happening is not wild, crazy or silly. I CAN see that happening. That's why I'm perfectly comfortable and confident he, 9x's out of 10 would be more a concern to the intruder than the intruder us, OTHERWISE I wouldn't have said it.

Make, for you to say "you are throwing the most crazy things out there to try and make yourself seem right, and its just silly" is in itself wild and silly.

You can't prove right or wrong when it comes to opinion.

Much like a mother trying to save their childs life, different variables come into play when someone is threatened. I think about all possible angles.

 

[Thelona]

lmao your boyfriend must be one hard core mother fucker if he can take a bullet and still fight a robber.

Unfortunately, me, nor the average person is that hardcore so I'd rather not fight a man with a gun with my bare hands or a bat.

I think YOUR underestimating what it feels like to be shot. you get shot in the stomach you don't keep going. you drop and pray your not about to die from internal bleeding.

Not to mention the stomach is one of the most devastating and painful areas you could be shot in, the avrg person wouldn't even be able to stand up after being shot in the stomach, much less be able swing a bat, some of the main muscles you would use to pickup and swing that bat are your abs.

 

[Morcheeba]

lmao your boyfriend must be one hard core mother fucker if he can take a bullet and still fight a robber.

Unfortunately me nor the average person is that hardcore so I'd rather not fight a man with a gun with my bare hands or a bat.

I think YOUR underestimating what it feels like to be shot. you get shot in the stomach you don't keep going. you drop and pray your not about to die from internal bleeding.

Maybe we have more hardcore men in Canada then. Most of the men I know and I picture being quite capable of perhaps even disarming an armed man are Newfies. I would assume in the states there should be quite a few men from the south perhaps, grew up rough neck, scrapping and luggin wood that could do the same. Untrained, just rough, strong mens men.

I also can see my father being capable of this as well as a few other men in my family. I'm not painting them as being any more human then the next, they're "a mans man" and I know what they're like when set off.



~~~ This has gone completely off topic. I simply put my bf out there as an example due to knowing his physical capabilities and apparently it's not HUMANLY possible, or such a completely wild notion I've gone off my rocker ~~~

Pick my posts apart, have at it. I feel the way I feel about this.

Had there not been a gun in that kids house, had he not been shown how to use one, had he been forced to use another method that young mother might still be alive. That's my point. That's ALWAYS been my point. For those of you who were confused as to what my point was, there it is, black and white.

 

[Makelith]

Hollywood has depicted this pretty (and inaccurate) image that you stop dead in your tracks and drop from getting shot once.

If by "you suddenly can't charge at me anymore" because you used a shotgun... ok. A handgun, which you say you'd rather, I doubt it would happen quite like that.
Much like a mother trying to save their childs life, different variables come into play when someone is threatened. I think about all possible angles.

True, but that varies with the gun's stopping power. A handgun would happen like that. Most handguns won't stop you dead, but you certainly won't get more strides off and continue pushing. You think about all angles, but until you get more (any?) experience with guns your opinion is wrong.

Like Thelona said, if you get shot in the stomach you don't keep going. If you get shot in the chest you don't keep going. If you get shot in the leg you really don't keep going. You say that i'm underestimating an enraged man, and i think you're greatly overestimating the fear factor that comes from being held at gunpoint or the pain that would come from actually getting shot.

 

[Thelona]

True, but that varies with the gun's stopping power.

this to, I shoot you with a .45 and I don't care if your Arnold Schwarzenegger himself, your going down, no ifs ands or buts.

 

[Skaw]

Maybe we have more hardcore men in Canada then. Most of the men I know and I picture being quite capable of perhaps even disarming an armed man are Newfies. I would assume in the states there should be quite a few men from the south perhaps, grew up rough neck, scrapping and luggin wood that could do the same. Untrained, just rough, strong mens men.

I also can see my father being capable of this as well as a few other men in my family. I'm not painting them as being any more human then the next, they're "a mans man" and I know what they're like when set off.

I think Hollywood has depicted this pretty image in your head where guys rippling with muscles are unphased by bullet wounds. Someone struggling through a .22 or a 9mm wound is feasible, depending on where they're shot. Larger, more powerful ammo, not so much. Getting shot in the Torso with any size round is very likely going to disable you for a moment if you're not ready for that kind if pain. It's going to really hurt doing any kind of movement for the most part after the initial shock of just having been shot. Compared to getting shot in the leg, where it's just going to really hurt putting pressure on that leg. All it takes is seconds for someone to come over, and take whatever melee weapon you're using away from you while you're recovering from getting hit.

You have to figure that cops with vests get the wind knocked out of them, even from smaller rounds. Theres a lot of force behind that small piece of metal. Force your body isn't meant to absorb.

 

[Shyrra]

This thread has gotten pretty silly.

 

[alanon]

Maybe we have more hardcore men in Canada then. Most of the men I know and I picture being quite capable of perhaps even disarming an armed man are Newfies. I would assume in the states there should be quite a few men from the south perhaps, grew up rough neck, scrapping and luggin wood that could do the same. Untrained, just rough, strong mens men.

I also can see my father being capable of this as well as a few other men in my family. I'm not painting them as being any more human then the next, they're "a mans man" and I know what they're like when set off.



~~~ This has gone completely off topic. I simply put my bf out there as an example due to knowing his physical capabilities and apparently it's not HUMANLY possible, or such a completely wild notion I've gone off my rocker ~~~

Pick my posts apart, have at it. I feel the way I feel about this.

Had there not been a gun in that kids house, had he not been shown how to use one, had he been forced to use another method that young mother might still be alive. That's my point. That's ALWAYS been my point. For those of you who were confused as to what my point was, there it is, black and white.

I don't know about more hardcore men in Canada, but you apparently have found better drugs in Canada....

I don't care how bad-ass you *think* your boyfriend is, if he has a couple .45 rounds put into him, it is really unlikely that he is going after anyone. I *think* I can win the lottery, it doesn't mean I will.

Your warped sense of reality really discredits the point you were trying to make and so kindly hilighted for us. I am sorry, but the gun did not kill the woman, the kid did. The kid obviously wanted her dead and would have found a way to kill her had a gun not been at his disposal.

 

[bigbroon]

Really? Has your kid ever done something they really* weren't supposed to? Doesn't seem like it if you can't relate to how a child would act in this case. If that's so, congrats on raising such a fine child, but realize, that's an extremely, extremely rare case. Yeah, anyone who puts forth the effort can raise a kid to not be a pile of garbage, but kids fuck up. It just happens.



It's also not evidence that he just saw white, came to, and noticed his dad's girlfriend was dead and said "Huh, wouldjya look at that," picked up the casing, put his gun away, and went about his business. But it's better evidence in favor of him thinking this thing through from the start than the opposite.



So then why get up in arms when you just snowball it? OH GEEZ WHY CALL ME AN ASSHOLE WHEN I TRY TO SMUGLY INSULT YOU AFTER YOU MAKE GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT PEOPLE GEEEEEZ. Kinda dumb way to act, to be honest.

*Emphasis here. I don't mean just spilling juice on the carpet. I mean something that scares them when they think about what kind of punishment awaits them. Not killing your dads girlfriend and possibly future sibling level. Something more in line with breaking something they weren't supposed to be messing with in the first place.

There's a difference between relating and knowing. It doesn't seem like it if I can't relate to how a child would act in this case?.. Well...how many 11 year-olds do you know who have murdered someone? Have you? If you have, you can relate. If you haven't you can't relate to a child's actions after killing their step-mother, aged 11. If you know someone who has, they could possibly relate to this child in terms of what was done afterwards. We can assume, guess, speculate, but that is all.

You are right that there may be no evidence that he didn't think it through. With that in mind, you can't just say "this kid shot his mom and planned it all because there's no evidence to suggest he didn't think it through." However, I didn't say it wasn't pre-meditated. I said it's ludicrous to suggest that it's 100% in no doubt that it was pre-meditated, based on the child's age and the fact he moved the weapon afterwards. If he wrote a note saying "i'mma kill my mom, she's the biggest bitch I've ever met, and I've had enough. Tomorrow at 3:00pm EST, she's done", you would have reason to state it was pre-meditated.

I didn't try to smugly insult you. I asked you if you knew what pre-meditated meant. From reading your posts, I wasn't understanding how you could come to such conclusions based on your own beliefs of childhood behaviour in the event they kill their father's girlfriend.

Summary: I feel I have answers/responded to your 3 points with what is my opinion. If you don't like it, reply with why you think I've talked shit. But let's not be having any more of this name-calling please. Now to read what I missed over-night... shoulda probably done that before replying to this :wacko:

EDIT:

Seems like I was wrong, the thread contains pretty much the same dross as I heard yesterday. This whole "if the kid didn't have a gun, he would have shot her with something else" pish. This statement is based on what exactly? Everyone's superior knowledge of Mr. Brown Junior's mental state, and the fact that he was set on killing that bitch no matter what way possible? The way I see it, it's just as possible that he was in his bedroom, saw his gun, and (with some kind of argument with said woman still going in circles in his head) ran through and shot her while she slept.

Here's a different way to put it:

Say this boy goes to court and says he had been arguing with his father's girlfriend. He says that both parties were fuming, and he stormed into his room. A few minutes later, he sees the gun in his room, still infuriated, picks it up, goes through to her room and shoots her.

Disclaimer: I do not believe this to be what happened. I am merely fabricating this story to better illustrate my point.

This is the boy's story. (That is not a pre-meditated killing, and I will not argue with anyone about whether or not it is, lol.) Where is the evidence to prove that he is lying, from what we know? What, from what we have read, tells us that is not true? In my opinion, nothing. No doubt I'll have 20 people now tell me they disagree, but I'm dying to see this evidence, which the court will also see, which makes this a clear case of a pre-meditated cold-blooded murder. To say it was a pre-meditated killing is letting personal opinion/feelings/beliefs get in the way of your judgment, as far as I'm concerned, as I'm yet to see anything proving this to be the case.

 

[Makelith]

Except Skaw didn't relate anything to murder. Just a kid doing something they *really* weren't supposed to be doing, and knew it. Throwing away the casing and putting his gun away is trying to clean up the scene, because he did something wrong. If he knew what he was doing is wrong, its not a crime of passion, and becomes premeditated murder. It doesn't help that he did it while he knew she was sleeping AND his father was gone.

 

[bigbroon]

Except Skaw didn't relate anything to murder. Just a kid doing something they *really* weren't supposed to be doing, and knew it. Throwing away the casing and putting his gun away is trying to clean up the scene, because he did something wrong. If he knew what he was doing is wrong, its not a crime of passion, and becomes premeditated murder. It doesn't help that he did it while he knew she was sleeping AND his father was gone.

Except there's a slight difference between misbehaving/being disobediant and killing your fucking step-mother. Oh wait, I missed the asterisks. *really* weren't supposed to be doing. I'm struggling to see the comparison between a kid doing something they *really* aren't supposed to do and a kid murdering their step-mother. Maybe if you gave me and example of something a kid *really* shouldn't do as opposed to something they just plain old *shouldn't do*, I might have more luck.

"Throwing away the casing..." I responded to this bit earlier already, cleaning up afterwards shows the following:

1) He didn't really want to get caught
2) He didn't have much/any remorse for what he did

Cleaning up afterwards doesn't show shit about whether or not it was pre-meditated, as the "pre" bit of meditated means "before". ie If it was a pre-meditated murder, he thought about what he was going to do *before* doing it. Cleaning up does not show that you thought through your get-out plan, it shows that you didn't want caught. Big difference.

 

[Makelith]

As said before there is no comparison going on to murder. It was related how a child acts when he does something he knows he shouldn't have done.

I laid out explanations that i feel show he planned out the attack, i guess that's not good enough for you. Hopefully the jury sees more of this than we do and justice is served accordingly. At this point we are arguing over semantics.

 

[Elemmire]

That's a pathetic and sad statement to hear. I'm glad you're not in charge of the criminal justice system in this country. Certainly, dehumanizing convicts so we can do whatever we want -- target practice, for example -- is perfectly okay because we've never wrongfully convicted anyone.

They dehumanized themselves the moment they did what they did. A real human, as far as I'm concerned, won't do such wrong to another human so those that do are less than animals, at least animals are doing on pure instinct, they don't know any better, but most who do such wrong do know it's wrong and do it anyways. The only time I can think is maybe war when both sides at least have a chance.. but even then I still think it's wrong, but I find it more sickening when it's murder and rape than a death in war.

You're just being naive to think they are good when they can do such wrong. And, at a pure numbers look at it, it's better to just get rid of em anyways. This world doesn't even support 6.5 billion of us sufficiently, might as well lower the numbers a bit by getting rid of the scum.

 

[Halifirien]

They dehumanized themselves the moment they did what they did. A real human, as far as I'm concerned, won't do such wrong to another human so those that do are less than animals...

You're just being naive to think they are good when they can do such wrong. And, at a pure numbers look at it, it's better to just get rid of em anyways...

I'm not being naive. I just don't believe a person's right to dignity or that constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment end the second they're accused of a crime, much less convicted. Again, this is why I'm glad you're not in charge of the justice system, since justice would quickly evaporate with your attitude.

There are plenty of people on death row (and pushing up daisies in a field somewhere) who were innocent of their crimes. Are you really wanting to make the point that they "dehumanized" themselves and got what they deserved, Elemmire? I hope not.

 

[bigbroon]

As said before there is no comparison going on to murder. It was related how a child acts when he does something he knows he shouldn't have done.

I laid out explanations that i feel show he planned out the attack, i guess that's not good enough for you. Hopefully the jury sees more of this than we do and justice is served accordingly. At this point we are arguing over semantics.

Your explanations don't have to be good enough for me, but they are. We disagree, and that's ok. We do, however, agree that hopefully the jury does indeed see the correct evidence and make the right decision based on what is known. Arguing semantics is pointless, even if it does fill a 5 minute gap between fixing dinner for my kids h34r:. I just hope justice is done.

PS: I think the dad did it

 

[Spalko]

Bigbroon, are you saying that this 11 years old kid didn't know that shooting someone with a shot gun is wrong?

then the father either didnt taught him that shooting at someone is wrong, or the kid is mess up