• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Father says son who took gun to school 'made a bad mistake'

Intentions with the gun are irrelevant. He brought a gun to school. That is not normal behavior. He belongs in a psych ward til the age of 18.

Do youthink this kid understood the remifications of his action, bringing the gun to school, or do you think, like most 9 year old, the gun was more of a toy to him than a weapon.

Why, in your opinion should he beheld only until he is 18? What is special about that number?
 
Why do you think this child should get a harsher sentence than an adult?

I am not an expert but 9 years for a gun going off accidentally sounds like a lot for an adult. He didn't even have it in his hands at the time.

Can one of the law enforcement officers here tell us how much time an adult would get for a similar charge?

yes really - stupidity is not the same as insanity.
 
You claim she shouldn't be held responsible for his actions. Which is insane since had she not left an illegal loaded 45 where a child could get to it this would never have happened.

You seriously can't connect the dots there?

Wow, just wow.

I can connect dots just fine. She did not harm another individual. Her negligence maybe had led to a situation in which another caused harm; but she cannot be held legally responsible for that since she didn't do it. Less there is extenuating evidence to show that she knew the kid had it on him when he went to school, or purposefully gave him the gun for this purpose, etc. There are ways in which she could be held legally responsible. But if this is just a kid grabbing a gun without her knowledge, then while she can certainly be held financially responsible, she cannot (or rather should not) be found legally responsible since she had no hand in the actual act.

This is all about proper limitations of government force. It’s the dots the rest of y’all refuse to connect.
 
I can connect dots just fine. She did not harm another individual. Her negligence maybe had led to a situation in which another caused harm; but she cannot be held legally responsible for that since she didn't do it. Less there is extenuating evidence to show that she knew the kid had it on him when he went to school, or purposefully gave him the gun for this purpose, etc. There are ways in which she could be held legally responsible. But if this is just a kid grabbing a gun without her knowledge, then while she can certainly be held financially responsible, she cannot (or rather should not) be found legally responsible since she had no hand in the actual act.

This is all about proper limitations of government force. It’s the dots the rest of y’all refuse to connect.

Well - then you're just not realizing that if you just create a situation in which someone is harmed then you can be held at fault.
 
Yes - obviously the mother doesn't have a single braincell left in her head after all that meth she's done.

I'd be surprised if it was a legal firearm at all.

The so called mother could not have been in possession of a firearm legally as convicted felons are barred from possession.

BTW, this is an isolated incident. What is missing from this discussion is the number of children alive because of a legal firearm. I remember a few incidences where a young person defended themselves with a firearm, and thousands more occur where a parent defended their children.
 
Well - then you're just not realizing that if you just create a situation in which someone is harmed then you can be held at fault.

Indeed, you can be. Which is why I've repeatedly said she should be held financially responsible; that's being held at fault. But criminally? Not unless you can demonstrate some form of gross misconduct which is not necessarily demonstrated through some kid getting a gun. You gots the proof?
 
Indeed, you can be. Which is why I've repeatedly said she should be held financially responsible; that's being held at fault. But criminally? Not unless you can demonstrate some form of gross misconduct which is not necessarily demonstrated through some kid getting a gun. You gots the proof?

illegally owning a firearm when you're not suppose to - I believe that's ground for gross misconduct indeed.

If she legally owned the firearm, instilled values of 'it's not a toy' and such: I wouldn't hold this view. . . this is purely based on her as a person, a mother, and how she's incapable.
 
Since much of this thread is speculation, let me throw out another speculative position.

First, what we do know from the article is:

He didn't show the gun or tell anyone about it. That rules out show and tell.
He didn't brag about having the gun. That rules out bragging rights.
He did not shoot, or threaten to shoot, anyone. That rules out any revenge or desire to hurt anyone at the school.

In fact, apparently no one knew that the gun was in his back pack until it went off. (Why it went off unassisted in a back pack is another matter for conjecture)

Therefore, it is just possible that the kid was expecting trouble on the way home or at home. With the track record of the mother and father, it seems to me like this is entirely possible.

No parent with a history of drug and other abuses, or with a history of violence, failure to pay child support, and various other violations, to a degree that removes the child into alternative custody, should have visitation rights without supervision, if at all.
 
View attachment 67122928

View attachment 67122927

Local News | Father says son who took gun to school 'made a bad mistake' | Seattle Times Newspaper

I'm the first one here to suggest that there be tighter controls on firearms. This whole thing is sickening. And obviously the Mother will get sued at the very least in a civil suit. But I am at a total loss to understand how prosecuting this 9 year old boy, AND keeping him from his custodial parent is a good idea in the wake of this tragic accident.

Putting a 9 year old boy in jail accomplishes what here?

Of course, YOU would be. Any excuse at all to infringe is a good excuse. Let's violate the 2nd Amendment to fix a problem with the mother.
 
Last edited:
Of course, YOU would be. Any excuse at all to infringe is a good excuse. Let's violate the 2nd Amendment to fix a problem with the mother.
It's like changing engine oil to fix transmission slip.
 
You guys realize that with rights, comes responsibilities, right?
 
You guys realize that with rights, comes responsibilities, right?
Absolutely, the child's mom was an unfit parent, criminal, and in possession of a firearm. Her probation officer shouldn't even be a fertile egg right now and she should be held completely responsible for this.
 
Back
Top Bottom