At least they're charging the boy in juvenile court. Too bad he doesn't have the same lawyers as this lady.The teenage boy, who is accused of shooting his father Jimmy Asher in the back of the head with a .17-caliber bolt-action rifle, earlier told detectives the Sunday night shooting was an accident, police say.
But prosecutors say that doesn't match evidence that they are gathering.
Since hindsight is 20/20, it's easy to say the boy shouldn't have been allowed access to the gun, but how does that work as a general rule? Are 13-year-olds, generally speaking, not mature enough or responsible enough to handle guns safely? Should safe storage at home be required by law?
Even some of the staunchest gun-rights supporters like Robert Farago say unless you have a gun on your person in the home, it should be locked up. His motives are first to be able to fight off those
home invaders who might burst through the door at any moment, an idea which I love to make fun of, and only secondarily to keep guns out of the wrong hands. But the truth is, I prefer his way to what many others do.
What's your opinion? Do you have any sympathy for the young shooter? Wasn't the deck stacked against him, abusive dad, gun availability, society which teaches that gun violence is the answer?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
....they can try his as an adult ....they can try him as an adult, if the evidence supports it.....
ReplyDeleteThe Sheriff's Office says it believes there is sufficient evidence to support a charge of first-degree murder in the case. But so far the prosecutor has charged the boy with second-degree murder.
Or are you against the rule of law?
The rule of law operates on a premise of intent, and an understanding of the consequences of one's actions. Children cannot by virtue of their age possess sufficient understanding to form the full intent, or to understand the right and wrong and consequences to commit murder.
ReplyDeleteOf did you not understand that is the premise why children cannot enter into legally binding contracts, or drive vehicles, or vote, or make any number of other decisions.
They also lack the capacity to fully participate in their own defense, as required by another legal principle.
So I guess you could say we are in favor of the rule of law, but not an abuse of the power of the law by police in this instance.
The rule-of-law guys are happy when it supports their position, get tough on crime, and all the rest of it. But, how many of them are so clean and law-abiding that they can talk? Not many, I'd say.
ReplyDeletethe kid deserves to be tried as the prosecutor sees fit on what they can win on.
ReplyDeleteon the topic of is it the kids fault, Yes it is he pulled the trigger he needs to face some sort of consequences for his actions. Is it the dad's fault also yes He and his wife should have taught the child the seriousness of using fire arms and explained all the consequences of misusing or using lethal force.
The rule-of-law guys are happy when it supports their position, get tough on crime, and all the rest of it. But, how many of them are so clean and law-abiding that they can talk? Not many, I'd say.
ReplyDeleteNo I am happy when the law is applied correctly, and if I were to break the law I would expect to get in trouble, yet when the "clean and law-abiding" are prosecuted for having a single piece of brass in their car.....
So you are OK with a law that get you a felony for possessing a spent piece of brass....
That makes sense to you......
Because it is the law in MA....
Chapter 269: Section 10 (h) of the General Law of Massachusetts:
Quote
(h) Whoever owns, possesses or transfers possession of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or ammunition without complying with the requirements relating to firearm identification cards as provided in section 129C of chapter 140 shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than $500. A second violation of this paragraph shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or both. A person committing a violation of this subsection may be arrested without a warrant by any officer authorized to make arrests.
"Ammunition'', cartridges or cartridge cases, primers (igniter), bullets or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The term "ammunition'' shall also mean tear gas cartridges, chemical mace or any device or instrument which contains or emits a liquid, gas, powder or any other substance designed to incapacitate.
That is the way you want the law nationally?
Really?
Are you that afraid of guns?
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI don't know about you, but I've passed multiple background checks, not just for a carry license, but also for working in high schools and in a residential treatment facility. It's easy to toss out a snide remark about how we gun owners are a bunch of secret law breakers, but providing evidence takes work.
And in MA you need a FID to purchase a carton of pellets for a BB gun......
ReplyDeleteThomas, I don't applaud a law that criminalizes a spent cartridge, no. But, does that mean you decide which ones are worthy of obedience?
ReplyDeleteDo we decide which laws are worthy of obedience? I take it that you've heard of Heller v. District of Columbia? Perhaps McDonald v. City of Chicago rings a bell? How long until Citizen v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts gets filed? When the laws are onerous or just plain silly, as they are in Massachusetts, New York, New Jeresy, and California, they can be overturned.
ReplyDeleteGunzloonz never met a law allowing them to do what THEY want that is bad.
ReplyDeleteThe Massachusetts firearms laws are a pain in the ass. Still, the number of murders in MA, 208* is dwarfed by Missouri's 420--although MA has approximately a half million more residents.
As is often the case with gunzloonz, Thomas cites a "spent piece of brass" to prove how draconian some states' firearms laws SEEM. It appears to me that what he is saying is that everybody makes mistakes so let's not focus on the guy who has one spent piece of brass in his car. So why would you have one spent piece of brass in your car? Were you out "jacking deer", shooting at road signs or doing "drive-bys"? I mean, why would you have spent brass in your car? Don't you "police up" your brass when you're target shooting or hunting? If you're losing track of your spent brass how de we know that you're diligent about live rounds or in securing your weapons? Hint--we don't know, we only have your word for that. Not sufficient.
The Massachusetts firearms laws are a pain in the ass. Still, the number of murders in MA, 208* is dwarfed by Missouri's 420--although MA has approximately a half million more residents.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.disastercenter.com/crime
Total violent crime 2.41% higher
MA 466 per 100,000
MO 455 per 100,000
Murders Total
MA 3.06 per 100,000
MO 7.01 per 100,000
Forcible Rape 11.45% higher
MA 26.65 per 100,000
MO 23.91 per 100,000
Aggravated Assault 3.1% higher
MA 331.78 per 100,000
MO 321.72 per 100,000
Total violent crime change 2009-2010
MO 29513-27252 = -1988 (-6.7%)
MA 30503-30553 = +50 (no change)
Thomas, Are you switching sides in the argument?
ReplyDelete