• 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!

PA 11-Year-Old Shoots His Dad’s Pregnant Girlfriend

Why is 11 years old too young? Did he not know what he was doing? I say bull****.

1. He knew what a fire arm was.

2. He knew what to use it for.

There is clear intent. Let him be tried as an adult. It's Pennsylvania not Texas. The most he'll get is 15 to 25.
 
bhkad said:
PA 11-Year-Old Shoots His Dad’s Pregnant Girlfriend

Breitbart.tv PA 11-Year-Old Shoots His Dad’s Pregnant Girlfriend



We don't know that this cherub is a videogame player but with the alarming numbers of random acts of gun violence by younger teens and pre-teens in the past several years we must ask ourselves, "what has gotten into America's young people's heads?"



Not to mention the occasional homicide.
Click to expand...

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to blame this on VIDEO GAMES!? While we're blaming this boy's psychosis on inanimate objects why don't we start with the gun? It's the gun's fault! Let's ban guns!

I cannot believe you fail to see the utter irony of your position, not to mention the hypocrisy. You are a proponent of the second amendment who encounters illogical arguments which attribute gun violence to guns all the time, yet you turn right around and do the exact same thing to video games.

This is why mainstream conservatism is losing its credibility. They lack ideological consistency and appear as nothing more than opportunists who piggy-back movements in order to derive personal benefits from them. VIDEO GAMES!?

Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a popsicle stick...
 
Hatuey said:
Why is 11 years old too young? Did he not know what he was doing? I say bull****.

1. He knew what a fire arm was.

2. He knew what to use it for.

There is clear intent. Let him be tried as an adult. It's Pennsylvania not Texas. The most he'll get is 15 to 25.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that at all. First of all, he's 11 years old and while he may know what a firearm is and what it is used for, I doubt he has the maturity or capacity for understanding ideas like the permanence of death. Hell, most people don't come to understand the finer points of human mortality until their first big health scare.

I don't think an 11 year old has the ability to participate in his defense or to fully understand his actions. If he were 13 or 14, different story but here you have a kid.
 
jallman said:
I don't think an 11 year old has the ability to participate in his defense or to fully understand his actions. If he were 13 or 14, different story but here you have a kid.
Click to expand...
That's why -that- is the relevant standard.
 
jallman said:
I don't agree with that at all. First of all, he's 11 years old and while he may know what a firearm is and what it is used for, I doubt he has the maturity or capacity for understanding ideas like the permanence of death. Hell, most people don't come to understand the finer points of human mortality until their first big health scare.
Click to expand...

I disagree strongly. Thousands of people who claim not to the understand the consequences of their actions(such as the permanence of death) are tried as competent adults every year. They can plead insanity(don't know the legal terminology) but that doesn't always fly in court. It seems to me like this kid has everything needed to be tried as an adult. Clear intent knowledge of what he was doing. It's not like he started crying. This kid just put his gun away decided to go on about his day like nothing had happened. From what we know of this it seems to me like he knew exactly what he was doing.

I don't think an 11 year old has the ability to participate in his defense or to fully understand his actions. If he were 13 or 14, different story but here you have a kid.
Click to expand...

At what point do kids know that it's not okay to put a gun to the back of somebody's head and pull the trigger?
 
Orius said:
I didn't want to turn this into a potential anti-gun thread by bringing that up, but yeah, it's pretty glaring, isn't it? If the kid could access the gun, then the dad was just out of touch to begin with. Sorry, had to say it.
Click to expand...

Says you and the rest of the anti-gun gestapo.

Guns don't kill people --- PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Stop blaming guns for the way people use them.

Furthermore, if the child had the proper training and safety skills to use the weapon there isn't any reason why he shouldn't have it.

You need to consider the area where this event occurred. This is a rural part of the country. It's real common for young people to own a firearm.

This horrific crime is not sufficient cause for anti-gun liberals to try and amend the Brady bill.

So please cease your attack on the 2nd ammendment.
 
Video games can really effect you. When I was about 7, I used to run around eating mushrooms and jumping on turtles and then kicking their shells.
 
The interesting thing to me is that he went to school after he shot her. You'd think a kid that was gonna shoot someone would then skip school too. Weird. He shot her and then left his little sister and went to class. It's also interesting that they were gonna charge him as an adult. An 11 year old is NOT an adult.

I wonder if he was on medication. Many of these young boys are medicated and many of the medications are proven to cause violent aggressive behavior.

Sad.
 
Hatuey said:
Why is 11 years old too young? Did he not know what he was doing? I say bull****.

1. He knew what a fire arm was.

2. He knew what to use it for.

There is clear intent. Let him be tried as an adult. It's Pennsylvania not Texas. The most he'll get is 15 to 25.
Click to expand...

Yet more liberal blood lust.

The boy is 11 years old. Trying him as an adult is unacceptable. He needs to stay in jail until he is 21 and then he needs a chance to rebuild his life.

Moreover, you are not qualified to judge what is and is not "clear intent". You haven't talked to the boy, you don't know his mental condition, his living conditions, or his state of mind. You cannot make such an assessment without these items.

Anything the child said to police without council present is inadmissable anyway. The police are going to have to get another slap upside the head if they talked the boy into confessing.

Moreover, he's underage so the police erred when questioning him without a parent present. This too will be of use when his lawyer gets his "confession" tossed out.

Finally, you shouldn't be so quick to toss a child to the wolves. He's 11 years old and he DOES NOT belong in an adult prison. That you think he does is just insane.
 
Vader said:
Furthermore, if the child had the proper training and safety skills to use the weapon there isn't any reason why he shouldn't have it.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this. Children should not be allowed access to a gun without supervision, even if the gun is theirs.
 
talloulou said:
The interesting thing to me is that he went to school after he shot her. You'd think a kid that was gonna shoot someone would then skip school too. Weird. He shot her and then left his little sister and went to class. It's also interesting that they were gonna charge him as an adult. An 11 year old is NOT an adult.

I wonder if he was on medication. Many of these young boys are medicated and many of the medications are proven to cause violent aggressive behavior.

Sad.
Click to expand...

Sad indeed but I do not believe he needs to be tried as an adult. He isn't an adult. He isn't even a teenager.

Pennsylvania needs to curb its blood lust and work on helping the child heal and reform. Putting him in a cell with hardened criminals who will rape him and teach him to be a criminal isn't going to help the situation.
 
talloulou said:
I completely disagree with this. Children should not be allowed access to a gun without supervision, even if the gun is theirs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most kids that age go to the range with their parents.

It's a commonality in rural America.

I was merely trying to deal with the anti-gun gestapo in that statement.
 
jallman said:
I don't agree with that at all. First of all, he's 11 years old and while he may know what a firearm is and what it is used for, I doubt he has the maturity or capacity for understanding ideas like the permanence of death. Hell, most people don't come to understand the finer points of human mortality until their first big health scare.

I don't think an 11 year old has the ability to participate in his defense or to fully understand his actions. If he were 13 or 14, different story but here you have a kid.
Click to expand...

I think an 11 year old understands death. However I don't think an 11 year old has the proper development to keep their emotions in check yet. Rage is hard for adults to control. Rage in a child is very dangerous. Not so much because they don't understand their actions but because they don't yet know how to get their emotions under control.
 
Hatuey said:
I disagree strongly. Thousands of people who claim not to the understand the consequences of their actions(such as the permanence of death) are tried as competent adults every year.
Click to expand...

That does nothing to diminish the fact that an 11 year old is not an adult.

They can plead insanity(don't know the legal terminology) but that doesn't always fly in court.
Click to expand...

As well it shouldn't in many cases.

It seems to me like this kid has everything needed to be tried as an adult.
Click to expand...

Except being an adult.

Clear intent knowledge of what he was doing. It's not like he started crying. This kid just put his gun away decided to go on about his day like nothing had happened. From what we know of this it seems to me like he knew exactly what he was doing.
Click to expand...

Really? Because it seems to me to be a case of clear emotional disturbance of some kind. Being a child compounds that issue and mitigates the circumstances of the crime at least enough to keep him in the juvenile system.


At what point do kids know that it's not okay to put a gun to the back of somebody's head and pull the trigger?
Click to expand...

Knowing right from wrong is not enough to put a child in the adult court system.
 
Vader said:
Says you and the rest of the anti-gun gestapo.

Guns don't kill people --- PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Stop blaming guns for the way people use them.

Furthermore, if the child had the proper training and safety skills to use the weapon there isn't any reason why he shouldn't have it.

You need to consider the area where this event occurred. This is a rural part of the country. It's real common for young people to own a firearm.

This horrific crime is not sufficient cause for anti-gun liberals to try and amend the Brady bill.

So please cease your attack on the 2nd ammendment.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is blaming guns here, but rather the kid's access to guns. Obviously the parents were idiots for giving this kid access to a firearm. I had a gun when I was 12, but it was locked away in a gun cabinet where I had no access to it. This kid obviously had access to it.
 
Goobieman said:
That would depebd on how you define 'access'.
My 11-yr old, should he be of a mind to do so, could cut my safe open.
Click to expand...

Why would your 11 year old be unsupervised long enough to accomplish that?
 
Vader said:
Yet more liberal blood lust.
Click to expand...

Your emotions are acknowledge and ignored.

The boy is 11 years old.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is amazing.

Trying him as an adult is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Your opinion.

He needs to stay in jail until he is 21 and then he needs a chance to rebuild his life.
Click to expand...

Because of.....what? Your opinion? Let him be tried as an adult as state laws demand.

Moreover, you are not qualified to judge what is and is not "clear intent". You haven't talked to the boy, you don't know his mental condition, his living conditions, or his state of mind. You cannot make such an assessment without these items.
Click to expand...

No but involved in the in the case are :

Pa. boy, 11, charged with killing pregnant woman - USATODAY.com

"There was an issue with jealousy. He told my son stuff," said Houk's brother-in-law, Jason Kraner, 34. "He actually told my son that he wanted to do that to her."
Click to expand...

Anything the child said to police without council present is inadmissable anyway. The police are going to have to get another slap upside the head if they talked the boy into confessing.
Click to expand...

Talked the boy into confessing? Dude....he did it. End of story.

Moreover, he's underage so the police erred when questioning him without a parent present. This too will be of use when his lawyer gets his "confession" tossed out.

Finally, you shouldn't be so quick to toss a child to the wolves. He's 11 years old and he DOES NOT belong in an adult prison. That you think he does is just insane.
Click to expand...

I didn't say he belongs in adult prison. I say he should be tried as an adult. You don't get sent to a max security prison for being tried as an adult. How about. Instead of coming up with partisan based straw men you actually read what I said? There have been many of 'kids' tried as adults who don't see an adult jail until they turn 21. Your straw man is just that. As far as tossing this kid to the wolves. He tossed himself when he decided to kill his step mom.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Why would your 11 year old be unsupervised long enough to accomplish that?
Click to expand...
It would take 10 minutes.
If you cannot leave your 11-yr old unsupervised for 10 minutes, there's something wrong with you or him or both of you.
 
talloulou said:
I completely disagree with this. Children should not be allowed access to a gun without supervision, even if the gun is theirs.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

I don't even know how someone can say that he shouldn't be charged as an adult but it's okay for him to have unfettered, unsupervised access to a gun.

Kids aren't little adults. They require supervision.
 
talloulou said:
I completely disagree with this. Children should not be allowed access to a gun without supervision, even if the gun is theirs.
Click to expand...

I agree. Children are not held to the same standard of exercising rights as adults. I believe children should be required by law to be supervised while handling a firearm nor should not be able to access firearms with impunity.
 
Goobieman said:
It would take 10 minutes.
If you cannot leave your 11-yr old unsupervised for 10 minutes, there's something wrong with you or him or both of you.
Click to expand...

You need a better gun safe.

or

You need to lock up your cutting torch. :mrgreen:
 
As far as the boy is concerned, I refuse to believe that anyone is incapable of fully comprehending and appreciating the consequences of their actions by sole virtue of their age. I think determinations to this effect must be made on a case-to-case basis; a one-size fits all approach is not logical.

The emotional and mental cognizance of any given person is not a direct consequence of their age; other factors must be taken into consideration.

Having said that, I would assume that this boy was fully aware of the moral consequences of his actions. Almost all eleven year-olds are fully capable of making determinations between right and wrong. If they understand that throwing rocks through a car window or stealing candy from a gas station is wrong then it seems nonsensical to suggest their ability to discern right from wrong is inversely proportional to the magnitude of their crime.

I knew full well even at the age of five that shooting a person in the back of the head would kill them and that it was wrong to hurt others. Mitigating factors notwithstanding, I'm certain this boy did as well.
 
Oh yay, another rant by Bhkad about violent video games. /yawn...

Videogames are NOT the blame. Where in that article does it say anything about the kid playing video games? I am SICK ****ING SICK, of stupid people blaming video games, movies, literature, everything except themselves for these actions. You know what video games are? A scapegoat. I could go murder some kid on my campus, and than if i want to, could go to court and say, well... I did play world of warcraft... and I somehow thought that playing that game meant it was OK to go buy a sword and chop his head off... Yeah right.

Bhkad, I have played many, many video games, violent, sports, educational.. you name it, i've played it. I have never done a criminal act, have no criminal record, have been in two fights in my life (i'm 22). I help people out when I see they are in need, and am majoring in criminal justice to protect people from violence/other crimes. Why am I not a murdering nutjob? Could it be because.. Wait for it... I was mature enough to understand the difference between fantasy and reality at a young age? Oh wait.. OR could it be.. my parents taught me hurting people was wrong? Treat others how you would like to be treated? etc etc etc. According to that psych. that link you gave means I should at least have racked up 100+ body count by age 22... I gotta get to work on that /sarcasm off.

Now, if you are arguing that young children should NOT be playing M rated games (18+) Than I can agree with you, and once again blame that on bad parenting. All you are doing by blaming games is giving criminal scumbags an excuse for their violent actions when they go to court. Oh.. well I played this game.. and that's why I did it. I don't mean to be rude man, but you can't just use **** as a scapegoat. This isn't nazi germany.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom