A 9-year-old Arizona boy charged with fatally shooting his father and another man pleaded guilty Thursday to one count of negligent homicide under terms of a plea agreement that does not specify jail time but places him on "intensive probation."
The boy, who was 8 when the deaths took place in November, entered the plea in an Apache County (Arizona) Superior Court hearing. In exchange for the plea, two counts of murder were dropped.
When we discussed this case before, one of the main points everyone agreed upon was that the police and prosecutors didn't do right by the boy. We also thoroughly covered the question of what age a person must be in order to be held responsible for their actions, but on that we came up with quite varying ideas.
Here's a video which aired on local TV a while back. It certainly illustrates the twists and turns this case has taken.
What we haven't mentioned in reference to this shooting, I suppose because there were so many other fascinating elements, is the availability of the gun he used and how that might have played a part. The old argument about the gun just being another tool and if someone really wants to kill, they can find a way to do it, for me is total nonsense. Perhaps "total" is too strong. It's nonsense though, and for the simple reason that most murders are not like that at all. Even in cases were there is some degree of premeditation, the extreme efficacy of a gun as a killing "tool" often makes the difference. The old argument that the killer will always find a way to kill only works in those rare cases, percentage-wise, in which the killer is clearly determined to do the deed. In most cases, there are swirling emotions, mixed feelings, second thoughts. In some cases, it's a completely spur-of-the-moment act. In all of these the availability of the gun is critical.
When this 8-year-old boy decided to put an end to the spankings, or to lash out at his dad for some other reason, if there had been no gun around, if he had not been raised in a gun-saturated environment, everyone would be alive today, perhaps receiving the psychological help they need.
Instead we've got this mess. There's your gun culture.
On the other hand, maybe he didn't even do it, as S suggests.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I think you're the only one who disagrees with S's (heh that looks funny!) theory. Kid's being railroaded by corrupt cops, and a media who want to make a circus of the story and trial.
ReplyDeleteOddly enough you abandon your distaste for corrupt police in this case when you can spread further misinformation about guns.
How predictable.
Mike, you're better than this. Why do you stoop?
The boy pled guilty in a court of law, so yes, I am getting off the crooked prosecutors and back on to my theory about the availability. What are you saying that, assuming he did the shooting, the access to the gun had nothing to do with it? Would he have used a knife?
ReplyDeleteAdmit that this is a perfect example of what I keep talking about, assuming he did it.
"assuming he did it."
ReplyDeleteYou have an 8-year-old, don't you? Does he tell far-fetched stories?
I know I sure did, and I've heard some whoppers in my time.
That's a HUGE assumption, Mike, so no, it's a pretty weak example, given that it's a VERY weak case in the first place.
(Aside: Weer'd, yes, S's does look funny! I wasn't really thinking about that when I started lazily referring to my best friend as P back in college.)
ReplyDeleteHere's my twist on the gun availability argument here: if this boy's father hadn't kept guns in the house, it wouldn't have been so easy for the police and prosecutors to rush to the conclusion that the boy was the shooter. If the weapon would have had to be introduced from outside the home, they would have assumed an adult was involved.
*Pro-gun folks, don't bash me. I'm just riffing on Mike's common theme. My only real angle of interest in this case is the possible grave miscarriage of justice that occurred in convincing a 9 year-old boy to plead guilty to a homicide.
No need to bash you at all, S. We could talk a lot about such stuff.
ReplyDeleteStill I think we're on the same page as far as Occam's Razor. Take an 8 year old who has undergone a LOT more stress than most adults can handle, deny him access to guardians, or legal counsel, and interrogate him for excessive amounts of time. Add in a media frenzy over a VERY rare and unique story (That right there is the exception that proves Mike is barking up the wrong tree. How many children live in houses with guns? How many crimes of this sort do we see? Did THIS crime even occor??), plus police who have strong motivation to cover up any wrong-doings.
We have to wade through a LOT of bullshit before we can even get to Mike's "Availability of Guns" non-issue.
I have DOZENS of questions, and there is NO place I could ever turn to and trust the answer. Was the boy really abused? Was the gun used the actual murder weapon? How was the gun stored? Did the family or the house have any connections to criminal activity? Was there any part of the Boy's white car story that panned out?
Answer to these questions and more are compleatly out of reach of people like you and I, so I find taking time to discuss "Availability of guns" with all of the above going on nothing short of Mike pushing a backwards agenda, while ignoring what is potentially a VERY serious miscarrage of justice.
....which is an issue he often blogs about...but he is now near silent on.
I'm loosing faith in Mike VERY quickly.
Certainly, the gun should not have been available and need not have been available. People can keep their guns well hidden away from children--except in a household like one friend of mine ran --where her boys knew no boundaries, got into everyone's rooms and closets and belongings and destroyed continually. She couldn't even hide Christmas presents from them because she had NO control over them --even door locks were broken when she tried that.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever stopped to see how ridiculous some of the things you write are?
When this 8-year-old boy decided to put an end to the spankings, or to lash out at his dad for some other reason, if there had been no gun around, if he had not been raised in a gun-saturated environment, everyone would be alive today, perhaps receiving the psychological help they need.
Instead we've got this mess. There's your gun culture.
Do honestly think that violence didn't take place before the invention of firearms? That youths don't commit crimes without firearms. Heck, the old rhyme of Lizzie Borden puts to rest that thought.
But is America really suffering from excessive violence from youths caused by firearms?
1 Colombia: 84.4
#2 El Salvador: 50.2
#3 Puerto Rico: 41.8
#4 Brazil: 32.5
#5 Albania: 28.2
#6 Venezuela: 25
#7 Russia: 18
#8 Ecuador: 15.9
#9 Mexico: 15.3
#10 Panama: 14.4
#11 Philippines: 12.2
#12 Kazakhstan: 11.5
#13 Trinidad and Tobago: 11.4
#14 United States: 11
#15 Paraguay: 10.4
From Nationmaster -Murders committed by youths per capita (most recent) by country
Now, what do most of those countries have in common? Gun Control?
Stop focusing on the firearm, focus on the crime. I still question whether or not the boy did it. I think the police failed to provide the most basic protections for this kids rights.
"Now, what do most of those countries have in common? Gun Control?"
ReplyDeleteI think those countries have a lot more than gun control in common. I think there are many factors that go into explaining violence in a society. How about racial factors and economic ones, to name just two. To say it all rests upon the fact that where there are gun laws there is higher violence sounds incredible to me. How about you?
Absolutely I agree Mike
ReplyDeleteI think those countries have a lot more than gun control in common. I think there are many factors that go into explaining violence in a society. How about racial factors and economic ones, to name just two. To say it all rests upon the fact that where there are gun laws there is higher violence sounds incredible to me. How about you?
If that is the case, then why continue to only focus on gun control is America?
For sure, the guns are not the problem; violent inclinations and hatred are. and parenting is a key--family breakdown --misery with poverty --Not poverty alone--but family breakdown primarily --family dysfunction --which leads to both poverty and violence. Poverty and violence do not go together --except when they are offspring of dysfunctional family life which is the result of sin tendency from which Christ frees us.
ReplyDeleteTrue religion: the best antidote to violence. And the only true religion is through Christ --relationship with Him and obedience to Him by faith in scripture.
Bob said, "If that is the case, then why continue to only focus on gun control is America?
ReplyDeleteWhy not focus on gun control? What's wrong with that? It's one of the major issues that can have an impact on violence and murders, it's not the only one, I agree, but it's one of them. So, what's wrong with focusing on it?
Maybe this is one way you avoid or obfuscate the issue. You so often point out that car accidents kill more than the misuse of guns. I say so what? Then Weer'd immediately comes in and says, ah look he doesn't care about all that suffering from car accidents, he only cares about guns. What's the point?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI've said it before and I'll say it again and again.
First, as much as firearms get the news, the problem really isn't widespread.
A very small percentage of the total firearms in America are ever involved in crime.
So when greater restrictions on firearms are implemented, they disproportionally impact the law abiding gun owners.
It doesn't make sense to implement a law aimed at 0.2% of the population -- knowing the law won't be obeyed by those people to begin with.
Second, focusing on gun control ignores the root causes of the problem. It's like a doctor treating someone for a rash when they have AIDS. It might look like something is being done, but it doesn't help.
Doesn't it make more sense to address the real root causes, to discuss them instead of the tool someone used in the crime.
Why not discuss the fact that most firearm related crime occurs in the urban areas, that the is a strong racial correlation to firearm crime, that there is an economic correlation?
If we never address those issues, it doesn't matter if we get rid of all the firearms, the criminals will start using knives, rocks, sticks, or just greater numbers.
You've removed the defensive tools that might have checked the growth of crime and left the people in the same situation that created the crime problem to begin with.
I wonder if people advocate gun control so they don't have to address those issues. So they can hearken back to the racist roots of gun control (see Jim Crow Laws) instead of confronting the greater and more troubling issues. Not sure if I would call it fear or cowardice, but I think it is close.
People have been conditioned to confuse racial with racist to the shame and suffering of America.
In the end Mike when you say
It's one of the major issues that can have an impact on violence and murders
I disagree, just because you focus on HOW the murder or violence was committed you've done NOTHING to address WHY.
Until we resolve the WHY, we will continue to have violence and murder. Is that what you want?
I don't.
"First, as much as firearms get the news, the problem really isn't widespread."
ReplyDeleteShame on you, Bob. Shame on you for talking about percentages when each one of the murders means the death of a real human being. And shame on you for switching sides and all of a sudden discounting the victims like this in order to preserve your precious 2nd Amendment rights. That's after having blasted me repeatedly for not caring enough about the victims, a wrong accusation, but one which you repeated enough.
Now, what, you're flipping back to the old "there are 100 million guns and only 20,000 murders" nonsense?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI'm not flipping sides, I'm not going back.
You want to say the problem is wide spread and I counter that it isn't wide spread.
Shame on you for talking about percentages when each one of the murders means the death of a real human being.
Shame on you for ignoring non-firearm related crime...crime that happens 9--NINE times more often then firearm related crime. So a rape isn't a problem unless there is a firearm involved? You don't believe that neither do I.
I posted the numbers to show you that this problem isn't like drunk driving. Drunk driving is a much wider problem but you don't want to compare firearms to that.
I posted numbers, giving every advantage to the anti side that shows a very small percentage of gun owners are involved in firearm related crime. How about drunk driving?
Over 1.46 million drivers were arrested in 2006 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of 1 for every 139 licensed
drivers in the United States.
Now which is a "wide spread" problem...firearm crime or drunk driving?
I care about every victim, I just don't see how disarming everyone is going to change that.
England disarmed everyone, right and what happened to the rate of violence in that country? IT WENT UP.
Show me where disarming people - "reducing the availability" has made the average person safer...anywhere in the world?