11 Year Old Charged With Killing Pregnant Woman

People kill due to lack of moral values not due to accessibility of weapons.
Click to expand...

Yep this pretty much is what I believe too. Back in the days when my grandfather was a young man guns were easily accessible and the amount of gun laws were no where near what they are today.

Yet he never told me stories of school shootings , mall shootings (well , there were no malls!) or "children" shooting pregnant woman. Aside from the 1930s ganster era - gun crimes did not seem to occur with the frquency of today's society.
 
:) Firstly, the argument seems to revolve around how easily used or efficient the following examples of mine may be to cause death by criminal intent. I would like to point out that I did not imply or say that any of these methods was as expedient as a firearm or was a viable alternative to a firearm for legal purposes

I'll address each in turn

Propane Tanks While propane tanks have been used as bombs, many of them have built in safeties that prevent gas from flowing out unless a hose is connected. It is practically impossible to use a propane tank as a concealed weapon and it is not practical unless used as a bomb type device. How many accicedents occur with propane tanks versus guns?
Click to expand...

Safeties can be defeated, and propane gas is expelled easily by mundane objects such as gas grilles used in cook-outs. No great logical leap to use the equipment available at any Home Depot for use in an Infernal Device based on a propane tank. My statements did not imply that propane tanks were good concealed weapons, only that they could be used to kill greater numbers of people than Cho did with his weapons. For instance: the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not concealable, but none the less deadly for it's lack of concealment about your person ;)

Nail guns dot not have anywhere near the range nor the killing power regular handguns do. They are not easily concealed and they are designed for another purpose. Practically anything can be used as a deadly weapon if you choose to do so, but most handguns are designed to shoot people... hence the term combat handguns (Glocks, Sigs, H&Ks, etc...).
Click to expand...

Part of what you said is precisely my point, thank you: "Practically anything can be used as a deadly weapon if you choose to do so". Intent is everything. However, in your argument, you present levels of lethality which is not valid to my thinking. If a weapon is deadly, it is deadly period. Can a nailgun kill? Yes. Also, my statements were, once again, not to present weapons that can take the place of a handgun :)

Circular Saws can hardly be considered a practical weapon. Most of them require power cords to operate. Practically ALL of them have guards surrounding the blades. I do have a battery powered one, but i have to be in contact distance to use it against someone.
Click to expand...

None the less a deadly weapon if pressed into service. One was used in a fairly well publicized assualt just about a week ago, in which the assailant allegedly stated "I'm going to cut your head off". I can defeat guard on a circular saw, and have done so to start cuts, many times, and it requires a finger. Nothing in your argument rules out it's potential use as a deadly weapon. It is true it must come into contact to be effective. So does an automobile :)

Automobiles Licenses are required to drive automobiles. The privelege can be taken away if you have too many traffic violations. Cars have license plates making it easy to identify who the wrong doer is. Cars are registered to owners, much like guns should be (I don't really believe this so don't flame me). Cars are necessary for transportation (unless you live in a city with good public transportation) where as guns are not necessary. Firearms are often used in the commission of crimes where as automobiles are not.
Click to expand...

Not a single valid argument here:
Automobiles Licenses are required to drive automobiles. This does not prevent a lawbreaker from using one

The privelege can be taken away if you have too many traffic violations. This does not prevent a lawbreaker from using one

Cars have license plates making it easy to identify who the wrong doer is. This does not prevent it from being used as a deadly weapon

Cars are registered to owners, much like guns should be (I don't really believe this so don't flame me). No flame. It simply is not true that the registration prevents an assault with an automobile

Cars are necessary for transportation (unless you live in a city with good public transportation) where as guns are not necessary. This is a rationalization for the possession of cars ("it is needed, while a gun is not") and should not excuse cars for being involved in so many deaths. Responsibility and considered actions behind the wheel- or behind the gun- are the dividing line between a death or injury and a non-event, not the importance of transportation, and it also does not prevent a car from being used as a deadly weapon. As well, ownership of an automobile is not mentioned in the US Constitution, while you know the other side of that coin . So "guns are not needed" the same way my right to free speech can be argued by some to "not be needed". I would reject the argument provided based on that reason alone

Firearms are often used in the commission of crimes where as automobiles are not You mean 'violent crimes' here. Simply crossing a state line in a car can make a State violation a Federal one, and the crime need not be of the type in which physical harm is caused. Also, many cars are actually used to escape the scene of violent crime, and I am sure you have heard of the "drive by shooting". But I reject the argument more easily on the grounds of the topic I had brought up was not "let's prevent crime". It was "US Highways are deadlier than firearms in the USA". Your argument evades that point :)


I was pretty good at Debate in College ;)
 
"You also claim that armed students or professors could have stopped the attack. Are you suggesting that we need to walk around carrying a gun 24 hours a day? Having a gun doesn't guarantee survival."

Ultimately, who is responsible for your safety?

You. No one else.

No, having a gun doesn't guarantee survival any more than having hospital coverage insurance will guarantee you competent care.

But it is, however, a step in the positive direction.

Every year there are thousands of instances where lawfully armed civilians defend themselves or others with a gun.

When I was with American Rifleman magazine I edited a column called "The Armed Citizen" that encapsulated accounts of such incidents from newspapers across the country.

Ultimately, I'm not exactly sure what your entire point of "reasoning" is here.

You're falling painfully close to the old gun banner's saw of "IF IT ONLY SAVES ONE LIFE IT'S WORTH IT!"

It can be equally shown that stripping the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens can end up resulting in the deaths of those citizens at the hands of criminals, deaths that may well have been prevented had they had access to a gun.

Gun banners love to present their arguments wreathed in mental pictures of a world without guns becoming an instant utopian society, where crime and murder and robbery, etc., are things of the past because we've done away with those evil-inducing guns. It was all their fault anyways."
 
"If Cho had used an assault rifle in Virginia Tech instead of two handguns, the death toll would have been astronomically higher."

Your proof of that statement is... what?

That's called a supposition. There's no basis in fact for making that claim, only your supposition of what might have happened.

Also, Cho would not have had an "assault rifle." He would have had a semi-automatic rifle. True assault rifles are military hardware capable of firing fully automatic or in bursts. To date, only one legally owned automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.
 
Also, Cho would not have had an "assault rifle." He would have had a semi-automatic rifle. True assault rifles are military hardware capable of firing fully automatic or in bursts.
Click to expand...

Only thing is, every GI learns in Basic not to fire on bursts/auto unless he has a damn good reason.

Interestingly enough, I remember on AWBSunset when we were talking about weapons we owned, we had a serviceman who had been in Iraq who said he owned a Bushmaster AR. He said he would have loved to take it into combat if he could, because his issued M16 was in poor shape, and because he said the burst didn't matter much to him.
 
If this kid really killed this woman and her child and it was not an accident,he needs to never be free in society again.

I have no need to read or here why,if it was no accident.

Personally,if the kid did it on purpose,he should forfeit his life.
 
I have no idea who this 11 year old kid is, though I will put him in with the rest of the 10 to 18 year old punk kids of today with a total lack of respect for authority and parents and even themselves for that matter.

Who here can raise a hand like I can and think of your child hood and remember that if you crossed a line with your parents odd's are the belt or a good cuff to the head was dished out...not to mention maybe even a little soap to the mouth depending on who was dishing out the punishment. Even if it was not you I am willing to bet anyone over 30 had a friend that got that kind of punishment.

And the funny thing is I can only remember about 4 instances it happened until I walked the line.

I am giving the benefit of the doubt that one or both were decent parents though what sort of tools as a parent do they have?

Hrmm...none.

Lets see you could ground the child..hardly effective considering most kids all have every peice of technology in their bedrooms and lets be honest in the practicality of removing it all. Yell at a kid and he goes to school and family services are at your house that afternoon.

So the little recourse you have is praying that they are well rounded enough by genetics to listen to reason ..and when they are not..you wind up with an 11 year old acting out in however he wants to and basically doing whatever he wants to.

The problem is kids are way to empowered these days and yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

That is where you need regulations because it is molding the mentality of today's youth.
 
yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.
Click to expand...

That's just as dumb as blaming weapons. I have been an internet surfer and a fan of many "violent video games" for as long as I can remember, yet I've never killed anybody or done anything else wrong.

Not to mention that you sound like a curmudgeon going on about "kids these days" as if we're all out killing pregnant women. Get off your soapbox.
 
Lets go in reverse ...
Not to mention that you sound like a curmudgeon going on about "kids these days" as if <b>we're </b>all out killing pregnant women. Get off your soapbox.
Click to expand...

I assume by your statement and the use of "we're" you fall into the category I mentioned. I also am going to assume you do not have any kids of your own to speak from experience on if you do fall into the category you put yourself into.

What I said about today's youth is no different then saying it was the guns fault the tragedy happened. Though there have been a lot more studies on guns, then the impact of the internet freedoms to minors to ALL and ANY information out there as well as the effects of desensitization a realistic violent video game has on a minor.

I applaud your efforts for being an internet surfer and not killing anyone...I also applaud your being a fan of violent video games and not killing anyone ...you must be of the higher genetic makeup I stated.

Though you do seem a little touchy on the subject.

I was not on a soapbox, I was only stating the obvious that anyone with a child in that age range and or deals with kids in that age range can attest to.



here a little reading so I don't seem to soapbox ...seems to be a growing trend ...




ELYRIA, Ohio (Jan. 13) - Although a teenager's obsession with a violent video game may have warped his sense of reality, the boy is guilty of murdering his mother and wounding his father after they took "Halo 3" away from him, a judge ruled Monday.
"I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever," Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said.
Nonetheless, Burge rejected the defense attorneys' argument that Petric, 17, was not guilty by reason of insanity.
The defense didn't contest that Petric shot his parents in October 2007 after they took the game away from him, but insisted that the teen's youth and addiction made him less responsible.
Petric may have been addicted, but the evidence also showed he planned the crime for weeks, said Burge, who found the teenager guilty of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and other charges.
Tried as an adult, Petric faces a maximum possible penalty of life in prison without parole. The judge didn't set a sentencing date.
The teen's mother, Susan Petric, 43, died of a gunshot wound to the head. Her husband, Mark Petric, a minister at New Life Assembly of God in Wellington, also was shot in the head but survived.
After the verdict was announced, Petric turned to look at his father seated behind him in the courtroom. Mark Petric, who previously said he has forgiven his son, gave an encouraging nod.
Mark Petric and other relatives left the court without comment.
Prosecutors said Petric planned to kill his parents because he was angry that his father would not allow him to play the video game, in which players shoot alien monsters that have taken over the Earth.
On the night of the shooting, Petric used his father's key to open a lockbox and remove a 9 mm handgun and the game.
Mark Petric testified that his son came into the room and asked: "Would you guys close your eyes? I have a surprise for you." He testified that he expected a pleasant surprise. Then his head went numb from the gunshot.
Deputy prosecuting attorney Anthony Cillo argued during the trial that the teenager had planned to make it appear to be a murder-suicide by putting the gun in his father's hand.
Defense Attorney James Kersey said that when the teenager fled the grisly scene, he only took one item with him: the "Halo 3" game.
Bungie LLC, once part of Microsoft, developed the Xbox 360-exclusive Halo 3, and Microsoft owns the game's intellectual property. Microsoft declined to comment beyond a statement: "We are aware of the situation and it is a tragic case."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.


I think there are truly to many variables to point blame in one direction or another...but I do believe technology has grown faster then the impacts can be evaluated for the long term effects.

I mean hell we are just now acknowledging on a serious basis the wide range of the effects of war and post traumatic stress disorder. So I am not out of my realm to point the finger at something understudied.
 
Last edited:
From the Pittsburgchannel

"Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said that Houk was shot in the back of the head as she lay in bed Friday morning.

Police said the weapon was a .20-gauge "youth model" shotgun, which investigators found in the boy's bedroom."

No statement on a possible motive.

And yes, that's a .20-gauge.
 
This not about video games and not about how someone was raised.

A innocent woman and unborn child have apparently been murdered here.

The murderer,if that is the case,must pay for the crime with his life.

Either by being sent away for the rest of it or forfieting it.

This nonsense of putting ourselves in the mind of a killer to 'understand' why he did the horrible crime he did has to stop.

People murder people because they DECIDE to do that.

No gun ever got off a counter or out of a gun case and on it's own,floated down the street and killed anyone.

A human being decided that they did not care what happened after the fact,they were going to kill another human being.

For that decision,they need to pay the most severe price they can be convicted of.

I have other opinions to what the penalty should be if it was my wife and child this bizarre human being destroyed but I am not the one burying my wife and unborn child so I will not post those opinions.
 
Last edited:
the story so far.

WAMPUM, Pa. – Fifth-grader Jordan Brown boarded the bus and headed to school like he does most other mornings in this rural western Pennsylvania community.

But Friday was no typical morning. Before he left his rented farmhouse, authorities say, the 11-year-old fatally shot his father's pregnant fiancee in the back of the head as she lay in bed. He then put his youth model 20-gauge shotgun back in his room and went out to catch his bus, police say.

Brown was charged Saturday as an adult in the death of 26-year-old Kenzie Marie Houk, who was eight months pregnant, Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said. Houk's fetus died within minutes due to a lack of oxygen, Lawrence County Coroner Russell Noga said.

The death and charges against Brown caught family and friends by surprise and left Wampum, about 45 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, to ponder what would possess a boy to allegedly shoot someone.

Houk's family and friends, who gathered at her parents' house Saturday night, told The Associated Press that there had been past problems with the boy.

"He actually told my son that he wanted to do that to her," Houk's brother-in-law, Jason Kraner said. "There was an issue with jealousy."

Pennsylvania State Police found Houk's body after her 4-year-old daughter told tree cutters on the property she thought her mother was dead, Bongivengo said.

The boy told police there was a black truck on the property that morning — possibly the man who feeds the cows — sending investigators to follow a false lead for about five hours, Bongivengo said. Inconsistencies in Brown's description of the truck led police to re-interview Houk's 7-year-old daughter, who implicated the boy in the killing, Bongivengo said. State troopers came to get the boy at school.

"She didn't actually eyewitness the shooting. She saw him with what she believed to be a shotgun and heard a loud bang," Bongivengo said. The gun was found in a "location we believe to be in the defendant's bedroom."

Brown has been arraigned and was being held in the Lawrence County Jail, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for Thursday.

"An 11-year-old kid — what would give him the motive to shoot someone?" Houk's father Jack said. "Maybe he was just jealous of my daughter and the baby and thought he would be overpowered."

Defense attorney Dennis Elisco said he plans to ask Monday for the boy to be released on bail and for the case to moved to juvenile court. Elisco and police said they had no clear motive for the shooting.

Elisco said he is waiting to see physical evidence that ties his young client to the killing.

"I don't think he knows what's going on," he said. "I walked out of there thinking he was innocent. I believe Jordan did not do this."

The boy's father, Christopher Brown, is "a mess" and had no prior indication his son had a problem with Houk, Elisco said.

"He's in a state of actual shock and disbelief," he said.

The shotgun used is designed for children and has a shorter arm and such weapons do not have to be registered, Bongivengo said. Jack Houk, 57, said the boy and his father used to practice shooting behind their farmhouse, and the two enjoyed going hunting together
 
Doesn't seem to be accidental...

was shot in the back of the head as she lay in bed Friday morning
Click to expand...

based solely on the information I have so far (which may change, but I doubt it), I would say this is a deliberate act.

As far as the law should be concerned, that's all that matters. It won't be, they will take the age, and mental state of the shooter into account, but in the end, the poor woman and her unborn child will still be dead.

I may be getting cold and callous in my old age, but I simply don't care about why the kid did it. At all. I don't even care if he knew it was wrong. He did it (assuming the courts so rule), and therefore should be removed from society, permanently.

I don't care if he eventually grows into someone who understands and regrets what he did. He did it, and has proven himself to be a danger to humanity. Period.

Give me the curmudgeon badge, I will wear it proudly. I feel the same way about insanity defenses. I don't care if the 11year old or the 40 year old didn't know or understand what they did was wrong, they did it, and so are a danger to the rest of us. They should be removed from society, and personally I feel they should be removed for good.

There is only one way to be absolutely certain they will never be able to do it again. And we, as a society, don't do enough of it.
 
Mike Irwin said:
"If Cho had used an assault rifle in Virginia Tech instead of two handguns, the death toll would have been astronomically higher."

Your proof of that statement is... what?

That's called a supposition. There's no basis in fact for making that claim, only your supposition of what might have happened.

Also, Cho would not have had an "assault rifle." He would have had a semi-automatic rifle. True assault rifles are military hardware capable of firing fully automatic or in bursts. To date, only one legally owned automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

I just want to reiterate that I am just using arguements I have heard from anti-gun people. I am NOT one of them. I think I should have started another thread... One to deal talking to anti-gun people and another covering the 11 year old shooting the pregnant woman. I will probably have to do that so we don't blur this thread.

I do find it difficult to believe that you would argue that a "assault-style rifle" (semi-automatic) would not be more lethal than a hand gun. First of all, the rounds are much nigher powered. If you take the energy of a .223 vs. the 9mm and .22 LR, the .223 has more than twice the power. The 7.62 x 39 typically fired from an AK-47 is also much more powerful than a 9mm or a .22 lr. There are high capacity magazines readily available for both military style weapons, which reduces the need for reloads. More frequent reloads means more opportunities to attack the shooter.

I'm going to start a new thread for ways to "reason" with an anti-gun person and let this thread focus on the 11 year old shooting the pregnant woman.
 
Where's the outrage and the lobby for banning the automobile?

In the year 2000, almost 4800 pedestrians were killed by automobiles

There were nearly 42000 deaths on US highways that year

In 2007, there were less than 1000 fatal shootings in the USA

The facts are clear:

Firearms are much safer than the US highway system. Ban Automobiles Now.
Click to expand...

This arguments are always pretty stupid. Cars are much safer than guns if you look at the amount of time of operation of each and presence in households...if you consider the number of deaths as an indication of safety. People many hundreds and often thousands of hours per year in their automobiles, driving on highways and surface streets. Few shooters ever operate their guns as much.
 
The facts are clear:

Firearms are much safer than the US highway system. Ban Automobiles Now.
Click to expand...

This arguments are always pretty stupid. Cars are much safer than guns if you look at the amount of time of operation of each and presence in households...
Click to expand...

Umm... Is this meant be an argument in DEFENSE of guns? :confused:
 
I don't know whether it's cars or guns that are most dangerous. But there is a fair comparison to be made between them: both have risks attached, but on balance we are better off with them than without.

So, to go back to the OP: It is my considered opinion that the best way to respond to anti-gun people when they seize upon these tragic incidents as proof that guns should be banned is to be REASONABLE. Cite statistics and present coherent arguments, but above all, do NOT be a pigheaded fool who wants to pretend that the exact same incident would have occurred if there had been no gun in the room, or that deaths only occur when Evil People have Evil intentions to do Evil, or when Good People act Righteously against Evil People who Deserve it, or When Very Stupid People who are not Us are criminally negligent. It is a simple fact that having guns around means that certain things ARE going to happen that might not have happened otherwise. But it ALSO means that some very bad things may be prevented. On balance, it's better to have them. Just like with cars. Trying to insist that guns contribute nothing to the situation is NOT going to win you any arguments. And besides, it's hypocritical: If you want to say that guns themselves do not make situations more dangerous, then you can't very well argue that guns themselves can make a situation safer.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm I dont know.Who's to blame,the 11 year old boy,the parents,society. I mean obviously we can't blame the gun.So we blame the boy for committing such a heiness crime,the parents for not locking the gun up,and society for permitting such fantasy violence to be seen and portrayed on tv and in video games.That should pretty much some it up.

Really everyone involved is to blame.As far as trying an 11 yr.boy as an adult,thats where I have trouble.Did he know what he was doing I would think so.It said in the article he and his father practiced regularly and went hunting,so he knew the gun was capable of killing.On the other hand was he put up to it,and does an 11 year old child understand fully what happens when you murder someone,as in legally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top