11 Year Old Charged With Killing Pregnant Woman

[chemgirlie]

I know this sounds awful, but I really hope that there is something wrong with him (as in a clinically recognized mental illness). I think that would be a lot easier for the family to deal with than realizing that the kid did it out of hatred with full mental capabilities.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Umm... Is this meant be an argument in DEFENSE of guns?

Nope.

When folks strive to make a comparison that doesn't make any sense and do so in defense of guns, it make gun folks look like idiots. The "facts" as presented were done so in an inequitable manner. The "facts" are not clear as claimed. Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

As pro gun folks with the Constitution on our side, we should not have to skew or bias the presentation of data to try to make our arguments appear stronger. Yes, the opposition does it and we think very little of them for doing so, eh? Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

 

[Kleinzeit]

In the case of guns, I think a legitimate case can be made to support the other side [that we are better off without them]. Especially given the way that too many pro-gunners argue.

Interesting. Well, yes - I might agree. So long as no one had guns.

What kind of pro-gun argument bothers you?

 

[Kleinzeit]

Administrator at the Internet Movie Firearms Database (IMFDB).

PS - Love your website.

 

[Kleinzeit]

Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

Yes, but I thought we were meant to see it that way. I thought the post was being satirical. I.e., Banning cars is ridiculous, and for the same reason, banning guns is ridiculous. A similar parallel could be made with many dangerous things in our society.

Personally, when pro-gunners try to argue in defense of guns by refusing to concede that the lawful keeping and bearing of arms could ever actually have a down side, then that's when we look like idiots. Because that really is idiotic. It's just as idiotic as anti-gunners refusing to concede that the lawful keeping and bearing of arms could ever actually have an up side. As you say,

Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

The presence of guns - like the presence of cars, chainsaws, pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, heaters, irons, stoves, candles, incense burners, etc. etc. etc. - does contribute to tragic situations. But we don't ban all that other stuff, because on balance, we think it's worth the risk.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

Yep, I've been playing violent video games since I was probably 6 or 7. Oddly, I not only have no inclination to act out those games but the very idea of taking a human life makes me ill.

What gives? All that violence and I'm not a cold blooded killer? I wonder why? Ohhhhh.... yep, moral values, now I remember. I was taught that hurting people is bad and then when I tried it out, liking kicking my sister, I got my a$$ beat and I found out what it meant. Today, no more a$$ beatings and lots of violent kids. Odd isn't it?

Who would have ever thought? Oh wait...

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

 

[MatBananas717]

Nope.

When folks strive to make a comparison that doesn't make any sense and do so in defense of guns, it make gun folks look like idiots. The "facts" as presented were done so in an inequitable manner. The "facts" are not clear as claimed. Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

As pro gun folks with the Constitution on our side, we should not have to skew or bias the presentation of data to try to make our arguments appear stronger. Yes, the opposition does it and we think very little of them for doing so, eh? Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

Thank you! It is really nice to see another pro-gunner (and yes, I consider myself a pro-gunner) who thinks the way I do.

I have never understood how so many pro-gunners can repeat silly arguments with extremely flawed logic and then accuse the antis of being the same way.

 

[MatBananas717]

Interesting. Well, yes - I might agree. So long as no one had guns.

I don't think nobody should be allowed to own guns. I want to keep my own guns, obviously.

But I do understand why many people are proponents of gun control in some form or another, and why they don't see the intrinsic value of either guns or the 2nd Amendment. There is a case worthy of debate on their side. They aren't simply freedom-hating "socialists" or "communists", nor are they people whose reactions are based on "emotion". I am willing to take their arguments at face value and acknowledge some of their grievances do have merit, while still not agreeing with them.

It's something that, much to my disappointment, the broader pro-gun community has not shown itself to be capable of doing.

What kind of pro-gun argument bothers you?

The automobiles argument is one of them. I've also been an opponent for many years now of the argument that "assault weapons are no different than hunting rifles". (and again, please note that I was also against the AWB, since I own a Poly Tech AK)

PS - Love your website.

Thank you, sir.

 

[Kleinzeit]

I do understand why many people are proponents of gun control in some form or another. ... There is a case worthy of debate on their side. They aren't simply freedom-hating "socialists" or "communists", nor are they people whose reactions are based on "emotion".

Yes; so true. It's important that we be able to understand this. (Though sometimes some of them are reacting emotionally...) And I entirely agree that we should make sure our pro-gun arguments are genuinely sound and reasonable. The anti-gun lobby already tends to see us as idiots.

But I think that the automobile comparison does have some utility. It helps to counter the view of guns as something set off completely from the rest of material reality (a view which is often held by anti-gun people).

Like guns, automobiles are necessary. They are more than necessary; they can even be things of beauty. We wouldn't want to have to manage without them. Neither would we want to be denied our choice of car; they have an attraction and a function that goes far beyond someone else's idea of what we "need." They are a symbol of our liberty and, more than that, they are an actual means of expressing and maintaining our liberty. Not everyone should be allowed to drive one, but we have to be very careful about denying that right. Accidents sometimes happen with automobiles. Sometimes people use them carelessly. Sometimes people allow them to become mechanically unsafe. Sometimes their use results in the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders. Sometimes they are used by people to take their own lives. But automobiles do not "cause" these tragedies, and it would be absurd to attack them, and absurd to suggest that the ordinary people who drive them are evil, or deluded, or paranoid, or reckless.

The difference between a gun and an automobile is that, in some people's minds, the former has become a symbol for everything that is twisted and dark in our society, and they think that by banning the symbol, they can abolish the reality they have taken it to symbolize.

Comparisons between guns and other things will always have their limits. But up to a point, they help to overcome the ridiculous burdening of guns (and their owners) with all this heavy weight of symbolism. It situates guns and their owners within a bigger social picture.

 

[BillCA]

I have to disagree with a couple of posts here...

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.

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.

Isn't this like saying we should toss out self-defense as a justification for homicide? Or defense of another person? Re-read your statements in light of it being an act of self-defense (which we know it was not, but humor me).

Based on what we know from public media sources, it would appear that the kid had emotional problems with his father and the woman over the arrival of a step-sister. And at 11 years old, some kids think this means a parent will no longer love them anymore.

But stepping away from the particulars of this case, there are situations where such a homicide might be defensible.

There have been cases where an abused child or spouse finally strikes back, sometimes with fatal consequences. Years of abuse mount until something triggers the victim to lash out.

We saw it here in the bay area not long ago. A 10 year old boy living in an upscale neighborhood and a lavish house whacked his step-mom five times with a fireplace poker and she nearly died. Why? Because she destroyed his first-place school art project -- a relaistic & detailed pencil drawing of a space station -- by throwing it into the fireplace and calling it "worthless, stupid trash". Mind you when police investigated they called the house "luxuriously lavish" -- except for the boy's room which was labeled monastic. The parent's room boasted a canopy bed, deep pile carpeting, 3 phones, a large TV, stereo system and even a small fridge. The bathroom had a jacuzzi spa tub, heated toilet seat and towel rack, dressing table, marble counters and gold-toned faucets. But the boy's room held a single pine bed, with white sheets and a thin blanket, a pine dresser, a small used second-hand lamp table sitting on a bare wood floor. He had six sets of clothing (nothing more or less), two pair of shoes and a pullover sweatshirt. No books, no rugs, not even curtains. They also noticed there were no toys, no pictures or posters on the walls, no comic books, no baseball cards, no sports equipment, nothing. Nothing said a young boy lived in that house.

Some parents don't deserve children. Some that have them deserve what they get.

 

[Kleinzeit]

Great post, BillCA.

 

[keys85]

Let's not forget why guns are so often used. More so than a circular saw or large screw driver, a firearm is very impersonal when inflicting death. Simply put, it's like pointing a finger at somebody and pushing a button. They also get the objective completed quite easily. Granted, you can murder someone with your barehands, effectively as well. But I believe there are a lot of emotionally charged people out there willing to commit murder but can not make such a connection. For this reason, guns are to blame, and not the choice of human decision.

 

[44Magnum]

i Will Play Devil's Advocate Here...

Devil's Advocate Here...

Devil's Advocate Advocate.

Hi... Devil's Advocate Here Again...

Ah, I Love Devil's Advocate.

Hi Chris... Devil's Advocate Here...

Be Gone, Satan!!

 

[Kleinzeit]

Be Gone, Satan!!

No! We aren't done with you yet.

guns are to blame, and not the choice of human decision

Maybe not "to blame" but they are certainly a powerful facilitator.

There is also the fact that a great deal of mystique has accrued to guns and this can make them very attractive to people who are emotionally weak. Even if screwdrivers were just as effective as weapons, they would not have this attraction.

The problem, again, is that American society has trouble seeing guns as objects. I bet there isn't so much mystique around guns in Switzerland. Maybe it comes from American society being so Christian; there is an unresolved, unconscious tension between guns and the commandment not to kill.

Dr. Freud signing out.

 

[wingman]

I was raised by a mother who woke each morning gave me breakfast seen me off to school and when I returned each day she was there to greet me. That is the way we raised our children,if you can't or are too lazy to so then simply please don't have kids.


Look we are living in a broken society, failed marriages,single mothers, drugs, poor public schools and extremely angry children, don't misunderstand I am not making excuses there is never an excuse for this type of shooting but children today have 50 times the pressures I had growing up in the 40's-50's. We simply are failing as a society in morals, standards, greedy, knowing right from wrong.

This is not a gun problem but the extremes of our society.

 

[Bud Helms]

Okay, long overdue to be moved to L&CR forum.

Some of us occasionally get caught up in long work hours and when we get back to TFL we play catch up. My apologies for not keeping house on this one.

Off to Law & Civil Rights ...

 

[USASA]

"I was raised by a mother who woke each morning gave me breakfast seen me off to school and when I returned each day she was there to greet me. That is the way we raised our children,if you can't or are too lazy to so then simply please don't have kids.


Look we are living in a broken society, failed marriages,single mothers, drugs, poor public schools and extremely angry children, don't misunderstand I am not making excuses there is never an excuse for this type of shooting but children today have 50 times the pressures I had growing up in the 40's-50's. We simply are failing as a society in morals, standards, greedy, knowing right from wrong.

This is not a gun problem but the extremes of our society."

Yep......

 

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
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.

Isn't this like saying we should toss out self-defense as a justification for homicide? Or defense of another person? Re-read your statements in light of it being an act of self-defense (which we know it was not, but humor me).

I suppose I should have been clearer. My statment referred to shootings other than defense of self or others. I feel that an age based defense (too young to know it was wrong) like an insanity defense (couldn't understand it was wrong) should have no bearing on guilt, or punishment. To me, it matters not why, or if the shooter "understood" the consequences. If they were capable of taking a gun, loading it, pointing at someone and pulling the trigger, simply because they wished to, they are a danger to society at large. If they did it once, they could do it again. They may grow/ be cured and become someone who truly regrets what they did. That is their cross to bear. It does not and cannot change what happened to the person they shot.

Again, I don't consider self defense shooting in this category. One shoots in defense because one has to. One commits assault or murder (for what ever percieved reason) because one wants to.

shooting a pregnant woman in the back of the head while she is in bed seems to me to be about as far removed from valid self defense as one can get.

 

[Kleinzeit]

One shoots in defense because one has to. One commits assault or murder (for what ever percieved reason) because one wants to.

That's true 98% of the time. But life just isn't that black-and-white. Sometimes, people who are later charged with "assault" see themselves as acting in self-defense at the time. The example given earlier of the child who was essentially being abused by his parents is a case in point. There are women who have shot their husbands after suffering years of the most terrible abuse.

This is an uncomfortable area because those of us who keep guns for defensive purposes want to know that, should something happen, we will be free from such charges. We might choose to believe then that there's a nice clear line between the people with white hats and the people with black hats, so that we can insist that we are definitely a white hat guy. But there isn't some kind of absolute clear line. There just isn't. Sure, you can find nice, clear examples where the person was definitely justified in defending themselves, and nice, clear examples of people who are definitely being criminally violent. And it will seem to you then that the world divides up neatly between them -- but only because you refused to look at all the other examples that didn't fit.

I'm not saying this to be soft or to make excuses for anyone. But you don't have to use too much imagination to realise that someone you know and care about could get caught up in an unfortunate situation where that line is being blurred, and you wouldn't want them subject to some kind of heartless, "lock 'em up and throw away the key" attitude, would you?

If they did it once, they could do it again.

It sounds like you think everyone who ever did something wrong has some kind of inner core of evil. Do you really mean to say that you feel like you could repeat every bad thing you've ever done? And that you ought to be punished forever for all those things?

They may grow/ be cured and become someone who truly regrets what they did. That is their cross to bear.

And a reformed person should suffer forever?

You gotta lay down that cross for a moment.

 

[44 AMP]

Let me try and be clear

(because sometimes I don't do such a great job of it)

In this situation, a pregnant woman was shot in the head while laying in bed. The person who pulled the trigger either knew it was wrong, or they didn't. Either way, the woman is dead. Either way, the killer has demonstrated that they are too dangerous to be allowed freedom.

Even if "proven" they are "not responsible" for their actions, they should not be allowed freedom, for that reason alone. Jail, mental institution, or execution, I care not, that is for society to decide, via our legal system. What matters is that they never be given the opportunity to repeat their crime.

Not knowing/understanding what you are doing is an explanation. It is not an excuse.