Languish.org

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841

QuoteUS boy, 11, held for shooting dead eight-year-old neighbour

An 11-year-old boy in the US state of Tennessee has been held on suspicion of shooting dead an eight-year-old girl in a row over a puppy.

The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.

According to police, he shot neighbour McKayla Dyer on Saturday evening after she refused to let him see her puppy.

Her mother Latasha said that the two children went to the same school in White Pine, about 200 miles (315km) east of Nashville.

She said the family had had trouble with the boy when they first moved to the area.

"He was making fun of her, calling her names, just being mean to her. I had to go to the principal about him and he quit for a while and then all of a sudden yesterday he shot her," Ms Dyer told WATE-TV.

"She was a precious little girl. She was mommy's girl. No matter how bad of a mood you were in, she could always make you smile."

"I want her back in my arms," she said.

The Gun Violence Archive, a not-for-profit organisation that compiles data on gun violence in the US, says 559 children aged 11 or under have been killed or injured in the United States in gun violence so far this year.

The boy shot the girl from inside his home with his father's 12-gauge shotgun, Jefferson County Sheriff Bud McCoig said.

McKayla was taken to a nearby hospital where she later died.

Neighbour Chastity Arwood told WBIR News that she heard the shot ring out and saw McKayla lying on the grass.

"Trying to comfort her mama and her aunt and her grandma and her grandpa and her sister and her brother was the hardest thing I ever had to do," Ms Arwood said.

The boy, whose identity has not been released due to his status as a juvenile, is scheduled to appear in court again on 28 October.

The shooting took place only two days after a mass shooting at a small town college in Oregon in which nine people were killed.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fcpsprodpb%2F134DB%2Fproduction%2F_85876097_homicides_guns_624_v3.png&hash=8ada19ae5772a3d50eda23834050c528e28a4dd4)

:(

Here I would list some statistics covering gun deaths in the United States but unfortunately the NRA has decided information is anti-freedom.

This is why I will never own a gun. For every time one is used to protect against a criminal there are a dozen stories like this. Also I do not really want to kill a criminal. When the revolution starts to overthrow the autocratic government I will borrow one from a neighbor.

[Yi] These kinds of deaths shouldn't count in our discussion of gun control. [/Yi]

If she had a gun instead of a puppy she could have defended herself.
NRA sponsored gun classes for all Kindergarteners!

I read somewhere that the US has something like 2.8 times as many firearms per 100,000 people as France, but 49 times as many homicides. Assuming I remember those numbers correctly, why are Americans 17.5 times more murderous than the French? :(

What's the handgun differential?

Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2015, 10:35:41 AM
What's the handgun differential?

That's a good question: I suspect people are much less likely to use long guns to commit murder. In Canada, of course, there are plenty of long guns (my family own several), but handguns are rare and highly restricted.

Yeah, you can't conceal carry a rifle, despite all those scenes in gangster movies where the guy hides a tommygun under his trenchcoat.

Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2015, 09:36:02 AM
Here I would list some statistics covering gun deaths in the United States but unfortunately the NRA has decided information is anti-freedom.

This is why I will never own a gun. For every time one is used to protect against a criminal there are a dozen stories like this. Also I do not really want to kill a criminal. When the revolution starts to overthrow the autocratic government I will borrow one from a neighbor.

Okay, so I wouldn't go that far.  This involved a shotgun, not a handgun, and thus has lots of non-murderous uses

Instead what this story is about is FOR FUCK SAKES PEOPLE KEEP YOUR FIREARMS LOCKED UP!  How does an 11 year old get their hands on a shotgun and ammunition?  Has no one heard of a gun cabinet, or a trigger lock (or even better - both)?


There's also a side question of whether 11 year olds should be criminally charged or not (I tend to think so, but in Canada you can't be charged until you're 12), but that's a different matter.

Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2015, 10:44:00 AM
Yeah, you can't conceal carry a rifle, despite all those scenes in gangster movies where the guy hides a tommygun under his trenchcoat.

The "solution" is to saw off the stock and barrel - which is quite illegal here.

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 10:45:43 AM
There's also a side question of whether 11 year olds should be criminally charged or not (I tend to think so, but in Canada you can't be charged until you're 12), but that's a different matter.

:frusty:

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

Indeed.  I don't even see this necessarily as any evidence of the kid having a particularly evil streak.  The ability to conceive of and understand the consequences of an impulse action like firing a gun are not high in an 11 year old.

Of course, he'd be luckier if were a sociopath: if he's not, fucker will be wasted psychologically forever.

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 10:45:43 AM

Okay, so I wouldn't go that far.  This involved a shotgun, not a handgun, and thus has lots of non-murderous uses

Yes...and?

QuoteInstead what this story is about is FOR FUCK SAKES PEOPLE KEEP YOUR FIREARMS LOCKED UP!  How does an 11 year old get their hands on a shotgun and ammunition?  Has no one heard of a gun cabinet, or a trigger lock (or even better - both)?

Yes...I am ADD, very absentminded, with have a poor mind for details. And if I have the thing locked up how am I supposed to get to it in the case of self defense anyway? Why would I bring something into my house that could ruin or end the lives of my family without any appreciable advantage to offset it? Insanity? Stupidity?

Wait, what's the non-murderous use of a shotgun?  Meat is murder, btw.

Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2015, 10:54:58 AM

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 10:45:43 AM
There's also a side question of whether 11 year olds should be criminally charged or not (I tend to think so, but in Canada you can't be charged until you're 12), but that's a different matter.

:frusty:

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

Well no, by oldest is 5 and just started kindergarten.  His level of maturity is miles different from a 10 or 11 year old.

And I see from the original article the kid is being charged in youth court, which has far, far different punishments than adult court does.

Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2015, 10:59:14 AM

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 10:45:43 AM

Okay, so I wouldn't go that far.  This involved a shotgun, not a handgun, and thus has lots of non-murderous uses

Yes...and?

QuoteInstead what this story is about is FOR FUCK SAKES PEOPLE KEEP YOUR FIREARMS LOCKED UP!  How does an 11 year old get their hands on a shotgun and ammunition?  Has no one heard of a gun cabinet, or a trigger lock (or even better - both)?

Yes...I am ADD, very absentminded, with have a poor mind for details. And if I have the thing locked up how am I supposed to get to it in the case of self defense anyway? Why would I bring something into my house that could ruin or end the lives of my family without any appreciable advantage to offset it? Insanity? Stupidity?

Keeping a firearm for self-defence is stupid for some of the reasons you just mentioned.  In order to be effective you need it within very easy access, which is precisely what you don't want to do with a firearm.

If you're a hunter or sport-shooter however, there's no reason you can't keep your firearm locked up when not in use.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2015, 10:29:12 AM
I read somewhere that the US has something like 2.8 times as many firearms per 100,000 people as France, but 49 times as many homicides. Assuming I remember those numbers correctly, why are Americans 17.5 times more murderous than the French? :(

It's an exponential relationship, not linear.

??

It seems that it applies even to little girls :

Man are afraid women will laught at them. Women are afraid men will murder them.

Really? If I ever got a woman laughing I was halfway home.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2015, 10:29:12 AM
Assuming I remember those numbers correctly, why are Americans 17.5 times more murderous than the French? :(

Culture, for once.  Movies and television glorify people taking care of their problems, with the law more often than not against them.  the old Far West mentality where you shoot your neighbors to take their cattle and their sons shoot you back for killing their parents.  Europeans and Canadians are more likely to have a certain respect of the law than Americans.

Population.  The USA, that's a bloc of 300 000 000 people living in the same country with diverse conditions of living from one State to another.  France is a relatively monolithic bloc.  You would get a better portrait by analysing Europe as a whole, but then you need to factor in the various wars.  They tend to make the psychos come out and they're either killed or arrested at the end of hostilities.  Also, Europe is not a single country, it's multiple countries with multiple legislations and multiple culture, that again skewes the results.

Mental illness.  As discussed before.  Lack of accessibility to healthcare services.  People don't die due to lack of healthcare, but minor problems tend to go unnoticed, and like many other societies, there's a big taboo on this.  Many people would chat openly about their disease if it's a cancer.  Much less will chat about their episode of depression or schyzophrenia.  Combine this with other factors, it's a recipe for disasted.

Accessbility to guns.  It's not just having a gun. It's having multiple guns for multiple uses.  And no training because it's a God (almost) given right to own a gun.  As I said in the other thread, I don't mind having a handgun for personal protection under certain circumstances.  I don't mind people hunting with their rifles.  But giving access to just about any assault weapon to anyone desiring one is just wrong.  If everyone was mentally healthy and properly trained, yes, maybe.  But just about anyone with no qualification and screening, you got what you got.  Canada may be too strict on gun laws, especially Quebec, but I would not want the US system.

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 11:08:17 AM

Well no, by oldest is 5 and just started kindergarten.  His level of maturity is miles different from a 10 or 11 year old.

And I see from the original article the kid is being charged in youth court, which has far, far different punishments than adult court does.

If criminal charges are brought, they should be against the boy's parents, not the boy. He's just too young to understand what he was doing. The cognitive ability to understand cause and affect is so limited at that age when it comes to life and death.

Is 11 really too young?  I remember when I was 11.  I certainly knew that a death of a human being was a terrible thing, and that people who cause deaths without a damn good reason are very bad people.  Yes, there is still two decades worth of development left, but you're not retarded by that time.

Quote from: Valmy on October 06, 2015, 11:51:43 AM
Really? If I ever got a woman laughing I was halfway home.

Femme qui rit, femme au lit.  :smarty: :frog:

Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2015, 12:26:13 PM
Is 11 really too young?  I remember when I was 11.  I certainly knew that a death of a human being was a terrible thing, and that people who cause deaths without a damn good reason are very bad people.  Yes, there is still two decades worth of development left, but you're not retarded by that time.

But there's the whole factor of lack of self-control/understanding/reason/good vs bad - all taking place while in a state of anger. And if you grow up in an environment of abuse or regular volatile situations, that throws it even more out of whack.

There are just too many things that we're putting on kids to understand. "I knew good versus evil when I was 11" just isn't a good enough reason to charge a child with murder, in my opinion.

Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2015, 12:30:12 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2015, 12:26:13 PM
Is 11 really too young?  I remember when I was 11.  I certainly knew that a death of a human being was a terrible thing, and that people who cause deaths without a damn good reason are very bad people.  Yes, there is still two decades worth of development left, but you're not retarded by that time.

But there's the whole factor of lack of self-control/understanding/reason/good vs bad - all taking place while in a state of anger. And if you grow up in an environment of abuse or regular volatile situations, that throws it even more out of whack.

There are just too many things that we're putting on kids to understand. "I knew good versus evil when I was 11" just isn't a good enough reason to charge a child with murder, in my opinion.

If I didn't know that you were never an 11 year old boy, I would now know that you were never an 11 year old boy. 

Yes, some things you just don't understand completely at 11, like empathy, self-preservation, or that some uncertain dangers really can materialize even if they haven't yet.  But you're not a vegetable unable to process more than one concept at a time, nor are you unable to appreciate the consequences of a sure thing like pulling the trigger of a gun while aiming it at someone.

Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2015, 10:58:20 AM
The ability to conceive of and understand the consequences of an impulse action like firing a gun are not high in an 11 year old.

Most 11 year olds I have had the pleasure of coaching have had a very good understanding of cause and effect.

When you're 11 you know full well that you don't fucking shoot people. You've known it for years. I've been 11. The "all kids are retards" line of reasoning is false.

Quote from: The Brain on October 06, 2015, 12:49:03 PM
When you're 11 you know full well that you don't fucking shoot people. You've known it for years. I've been 11. The "all kids are retards" line of reasoning is false.

The Brain, as always, speaks the truth. :yes:

Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2015, 12:18:24 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 11:08:17 AM

Well no, by oldest is 5 and just started kindergarten.  His level of maturity is miles different from a 10 or 11 year old.

And I see from the original article the kid is being charged in youth court, which has far, far different punishments than adult court does.

If criminal charges are brought, they should be against the boy's parents, not the boy. He's just too young to understand what he was doing. The cognitive ability to understand cause and affect is so limited at that age when it comes to life and death.

I'm okay with charges against the parents.  I see people prosecuted for careless storage all the time.

And I disagree.  kids know that shooting someone can kill, and that killing is bad.  I'll admit they have reduced impulse control at that age, which is why I wouldn't want the kid locked up for life or anything, but I have no problem holding him responsible.

Fine, so let's pump him full of killin' drugs.

Our justice system is no better at dealing with children than it is at dealing with crazy people. In both cases we do the best we can, but haven't a real clue at how to balance rehabilitation, punishment and deterrence. I'm not saying I could do better mind ...  ;)

How horrible. Father that left unlocked shotgun should hang.

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--bXspqm_J--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1462204259031091495.png)

Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2015, 10:54:58 AM

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 10:45:43 AM
There's also a side question of whether 11 year olds should be criminally charged or not (I tend to think so, but in Canada you can't be charged until you're 12), but that's a different matter.

:frusty:

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2015, 09:40:30 AM
[Yi] These kinds of deaths shouldn't count in our discussion of gun control. [/Yi]

You're usually a relatively honest person.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 06, 2015, 01:27:24 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2015, 09:40:30 AM
[Yi] These kinds of deaths shouldn't count in our discussion of gun control. [/Yi]

You're usually a relatively honest person.

But not always a nice person.  :blush:  To be fair, I thought it was an accident at first, not a murder.

Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2015, 01:25:30 PM
I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

It's not so much a question of "not knowing what the effect would be", or "not knowing something was wrong".

I mean my 5 year old knows that hitting his brothers is wrong, and that it will hurt his brothers if he does it.  Yet still, while being a good kid, he has hit his brothers.  His immature brain still lacks a lot of ability to plan ahead and has poor impulse control.

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 01:32:05 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2015, 01:25:30 PM
I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

It's not so much a question of "not knowing what the effect would be", or "not knowing something was wrong".

I mean my 5 year old knows that hitting his brothers is wrong, and that it will hurt his brothers if he does it.  Yet still, while being a good kid, he has hit his brothers.  His immature brain still lacks a lot of ability to plan ahead and has poor impulse control.

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

He's not beating him to death, is he?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2015, 12:44:52 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on October 06, 2015, 10:58:20 AM
The ability to conceive of and understand the consequences of an impulse action like firing a gun are not high in an 11 year old.

Most 11 year olds I have had the pleasure of coaching have had a very good understanding of cause and effect.

I didn't quite get the concept till I was 28.

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 01:32:05 PM
Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

By grade 6 if a kid doesn't know that a gun kills or seriously injures then his parents haven't let him play enough video games.   :P

Quote from: viper37 on October 06, 2015, 12:04:05 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 06, 2015, 10:29:12 AM
Assuming I remember those numbers correctly, why are Americans 17.5 times more murderous than the French? :(

Culture, for once.  Movies and television glorify people taking care of their problems, with the law more often than not against them.  the old Far West mentality where you shoot your neighbors to take their cattle and their sons shoot you back for killing their parents.  Europeans and Canadians are more likely to have a certain respect of the law than Americans.

Population.  The USA, that's a bloc of 300 000 000 people living in the same country with diverse conditions of living from one State to another.  France is a relatively monolithic bloc.  You would get a better portrait by analysing Europe as a whole, but then you need to factor in the various wars.  They tend to make the psychos come out and they're either killed or arrested at the end of hostilities.  Also, Europe is not a single country, it's multiple countries with multiple legislations and multiple culture, that again skewes the results.

Mental illness.  As discussed before.  Lack of accessibility to healthcare services.  People don't die due to lack of healthcare, but minor problems tend to go unnoticed, and like many other societies, there's a big taboo on this.  Many people would chat openly about their disease if it's a cancer.  Much less will chat about their episode of depression or schyzophrenia.  Combine this with other factors, it's a recipe for disasted.

Accessbility to guns.  It's not just having a gun. It's having multiple guns for multiple uses.  And no training because it's a God (almost) given right to own a gun.  As I said in the other thread, I don't mind having a handgun for personal protection under certain circumstances.  I don't mind people hunting with their rifles.  But giving access to just about any assault weapon to anyone desiring one is just wrong.  If everyone was mentally healthy and properly trained, yes, maybe.  But just about anyone with no qualification and screening, you got what you got.  Canada may be too strict on gun laws, especially Quebec, but I would not want the US system.

Put simply: Americans have a higher appetite for risk.

Could be a dozen reasons why. It was risky to cross the ocean back in the day. Who knows.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 06, 2015, 02:04:31 PM
Put simply: Americans have a higher appetite for risk.

Could be a dozen reasons why. It was risky to cross the ocean back in the day. Who knows.

That is an interesting take on it.  My view is that Americans are more fearful and have a greater desire to protect themselves from perceived risks.  I think back to the story we lampooned a few years back about the American who felt naked and threatened when he didn't have his gun when travelling in Canada.  If Americans have a higher appetite for risk then gun ownership should go down not up (at least using the normal NRA reasoning).

I think a big part of it is also inability to conceive of a world without guns.  That infamous saying that "if you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns" makes perfectly sense to them, but only because they choose to be unaware of what happens in the real world.  And in the real world, at least in countries with functional governments, when guns are outlawed, the cost/benefit calculus of having a gun changes dramatically for outlaws as well.

I'd say one aspect of a riskier mindset in general is an acknowledgement that one may be faced with a situation in which he or she will need to use violence to achieve one's ends. Acquiring a weapon of any sort is a tacit acceptance of that principle in advance or even absence of an event of actual need.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 06, 2015, 02:22:07 PM
I'd say one aspect of a riskier mindset in general is an acknowledgement that one may be faced with a situation in which he or she will need to use violence to achieve one's ends. Acquiring a weapon of any sort is a tacit acceptance of that principle in advance or even absence of an event of actual need.

I think this is a cultural view rather than one mediated by risk.  In my view resorting to violence is the easy, less risky way out.  I think the word you are looking for is aggressive.  I would certainly agree with you that Americans tend to have a much more aggressive outlook in relation to a wide range of issues including business, legal disputes and politics.

Americans have forgotten the tactile pleasure of beating someone with a baton.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2015, 03:28:46 PM
Americans have forgotten the tactile pleasure of beating someone with a baton.

Apparently not, since the chart posted with the article indicates we have a significant lead on the rest of the developed world in non-gun homicides as well.  In fact, we appear to still beat everyone else in total homicides with all the gun homicides removed.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2015, 02:08:08 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 06, 2015, 02:04:31 PM
Put simply: Americans have a higher appetite for risk.

Could be a dozen reasons why. It was risky to cross the ocean back in the day. Who knows.

That is an interesting take on it.  My view is that Americans are more fearful and have a greater desire to protect themselves from perceived risks.  I think back to the story we lampooned a few years back about the American who felt naked and threatened when he didn't have his gun when travelling in Canada.  If Americans have a higher appetite for risk then gun ownership should go down not up (at least using the normal NRA reasoning).

Well, if Americans are more frightened about being murdered, they have reason to be - according to the chart in the OP!  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on October 06, 2015, 05:32:45 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2015, 02:08:08 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 06, 2015, 02:04:31 PM
Put simply: Americans have a higher appetite for risk.

Could be a dozen reasons why. It was risky to cross the ocean back in the day. Who knows.

That is an interesting take on it.  My view is that Americans are more fearful and have a greater desire to protect themselves from perceived risks.  I think back to the story we lampooned a few years back about the American who felt naked and threatened when he didn't have his gun when travelling in Canada.  If Americans have a higher appetite for risk then gun ownership should go down not up (at least using the normal NRA reasoning).

Well, if Americans are more frightened about being murdered, they have reason to be - according to the chart in the OP!  ;)

I didn't say their fear wasn't reasonable.  I am just disagreeing with the notion that they are greater risk takers.  They are certainly more violent and that may be the most significant cultural difference.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 06, 2015, 05:35:21 PM

I didn't say their fear wasn't reasonable.  I am just disagreeing with the notion that they are greater risk takers.  They are certainly more violent and that may be the most significant cultural difference.

Greater than who? I'd put Canadians higher on the risk scale too.

Let's just say the bell curve is flatter in North America. More outliers in both directions. Taking risks is far more culturally acceptable than, say, in Japan. I used to think it was mostly from a frontier history, but now I think it's more than just that. There's just not as many rules to follow. The unspoken kind.

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 01:32:05 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2015, 01:25:30 PM
I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

It's not so much a question of "not knowing what the effect would be", or "not knowing something was wrong".

I mean my 5 year old knows that hitting his brothers is wrong, and that it will hurt his brothers if he does it.  Yet still, while being a good kid, he has hit his brothers.  His immature brain still lacks a lot of ability to plan ahead and has poor impulse control.

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

I think a child like that is then clearly a danger to society.  I think at 11, the worst/most impulsive thing I did was sneak and read the sex columns in my mother's Cosmopolitan's at night.

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:41:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 01:32:05 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2015, 01:25:30 PM
I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

It's not so much a question of "not knowing what the effect would be", or "not knowing something was wrong".

I mean my 5 year old knows that hitting his brothers is wrong, and that it will hurt his brothers if he does it.  Yet still, while being a good kid, he has hit his brothers.  His immature brain still lacks a lot of ability to plan ahead and has poor impulse control.

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

I think a child like that is then clearly a danger to society.  I think at 11, the worst/most impulsive thing I did was sneak and read the sex columns in my mother's Cosmopolitan's at night.

You were oppressed, as a youngster I openly read Cosmo at home. [ child of the 60s :cool: ]

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 06, 2015, 05:25:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2015, 03:28:46 PM
Americans have forgotten the tactile pleasure of beating someone with a baton.

Apparently not, since the chart posted with the article indicates we have a significant lead on the rest of the developed world in non-gun homicides as well.  In fact, we appear to still beat everyone else in total homicides with all the gun homicides removed.

Is there no correlation between homicide rate and say...population? I saw this that suggested at least when looking at municipalities you need to think about the extent to which a crime rate is influence by population of each city. (http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf) And then here we are looking at comparison countries where at best only the UK can be said to have any sort of comparison on pop size.

Not to negate, of course, cultural factors that go into US rates.

Quote from: mongers on October 06, 2015, 06:43:56 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:41:38 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 06, 2015, 01:32:05 PM

Quote from: Josephus on October 06, 2015, 01:25:30 PM
I was a boy that age and yes, I knew at 11 that shooting a gun at someone kills that person. Maybe I was smarter than him?

It's not so much a question of "not knowing what the effect would be", or "not knowing something was wrong".

I mean my 5 year old knows that hitting his brothers is wrong, and that it will hurt his brothers if he does it.  Yet still, while being a good kid, he has hit his brothers.  His immature brain still lacks a lot of ability to plan ahead and has poor impulse control.

Those skills develop over time, but are still quite immature at ages 10-11.

I think a child like that is then clearly a danger to society.  I think at 11, the worst/most impulsive thing I did was sneak and read the sex columns in my mother's Cosmopolitan's at night.

You were oppressed, as a youngster I openly read Cosmo at home. [ child of the 60s :cool: ]

Well it was really self-oppression. I don't actually know if my parents would have cared or not.

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:41:38 PM
I think a child like that is then clearly a danger to society.  I think at 11, the worst/most impulsive thing I did was sneak and read the sex columns in my mother's Cosmopolitan's at night.

Yeah, seriously.  If Meri is right, then all of us absolutely need to have guns.  To protect ourselves from all those psycho 11 year old boys running around.

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:52:40 PM
Is there no correlation between homicide rate and say...population? I saw this that suggested at least when looking at municipalities you need to think about the extent to which a crime rate is influence by population of each city. (http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf) And then here we are looking at comparison countries where at best only the UK can be said to have any sort of comparison on pop size.

Not to negate, of course, cultural factors that go into US rates.

Well, it makes sense that the more people are jammed into a space, the more conflicts will arise between them. Isn't a lot of Europe more densely populated than the US though?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 06, 2015, 07:07:36 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:52:40 PM
Is there no correlation between homicide rate and say...population? I saw this that suggested at least when looking at municipalities you need to think about the extent to which a crime rate is influence by population of each city. (http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf) And then here we are looking at comparison countries where at best only the UK can be said to have any sort of comparison on pop size.

Not to negate, of course, cultural factors that go into US rates.

Well, it makes sense that the more people are jammed into a space, the more conflicts will arise between them. Isn't a lot of Europe more densely populated than the US though?

I don't think it is that simple. LA has something like half the population of New York, a third more in land area (so significantly lower density) and a higher murder rate.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 06, 2015, 05:25:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2015, 03:28:46 PM
Americans have forgotten the tactile pleasure of beating someone with a baton.

Apparently not, since the chart posted with the article indicates we have a significant lead on the rest of the developed world in non-gun homicides as well.  In fact, we appear to still beat everyone else in total homicides with all the gun homicides removed.

We need to take action and expand the definition of the 'developed world'.

I would have thumbed through Cosmo looking at the pictures of models, but my mom got Good Housekeeping instead.  :(

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:52:40 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 06, 2015, 05:25:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2015, 03:28:46 PM
Americans have forgotten the tactile pleasure of beating someone with a baton.

Apparently not, since the chart posted with the article indicates we have a significant lead on the rest of the developed world in non-gun homicides as well.  In fact, we appear to still beat everyone else in total homicides with all the gun homicides removed.

Is there no correlation between homicide rate and say...population? I saw this that suggested at least when looking at municipalities you need to think about the extent to which a crime rate is influence by population of each city. (http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf) And then here we are looking at comparison countries where at best only the UK can be said to have any sort of comparison on pop size.

Not to negate, of course, cultural factors that go into US rates.

Canada is actually very similar in that respect to the US - most of the population is urban. While Canada as a whole isn't densly populated, most of the population lives in a small area of it, a strip across the southern border - much of Canada is very sparsely populated.

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 07:40:02 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 06, 2015, 07:07:36 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:52:40 PM
Is there no correlation between homicide rate and say...population? I saw this that suggested at least when looking at municipalities you need to think about the extent to which a crime rate is influence by population of each city. (http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf) And then here we are looking at comparison countries where at best only the UK can be said to have any sort of comparison on pop size.

Not to negate, of course, cultural factors that go into US rates.

Well, it makes sense that the more people are jammed into a space, the more conflicts will arise between them. Isn't a lot of Europe more densely populated than the US though?

I don't think it is that simple. LA has something like half the population of New York, a third more in land area (so significantly lower density) and a higher murder rate.

I suspect there's an element of ghettoisation that plays a part, not just in terms of race but in terms of income and social background, whereas London and New York are more mixed.

Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2015, 06:56:29 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:41:38 PM
I think a child like that is then clearly a danger to society.  I think at 11, the worst/most impulsive thing I did was sneak and read the sex columns in my mother's Cosmopolitan's at night.

Yeah, seriously.  If Meri is right, then all of us absolutely need to have guns.  To protect ourselves from all those psycho 11 year old boys running around.

If all 11 year old boys had as poor an understanding of what guns do and of cause and effect, and as little impulse control as some in this thread suggest, then our species would go extinct, 'cause no one would ever survive long enough to produce offspring.

Quit kidding yourselves.  This guy knew exactly what he was doing.  Whether he has poor impulse control or is just that evil, I don't know.  But even if it was just poor impulse control, that doesn't mitigate or excuse his actions, nor does that make him less of a threat to society.  If you don't hold him criminally responsible, the lesson you're teaching him is that he can literally get away with murder.  Note that that doesn't mean you have to try him as an adult, which according to the article they aren't doing anyway.

Okay, then let him vote, join the army, buy booze and cigarettes.

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 12:01:29 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 06, 2015, 06:56:29 PM

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:41:38 PM
I think a child like that is then clearly a danger to society.  I think at 11, the worst/most impulsive thing I did was sneak and read the sex columns in my mother's Cosmopolitan's at night.

Yeah, seriously.  If Meri is right, then all of us absolutely need to have guns.  To protect ourselves from all those psycho 11 year old boys running around.

If all 11 year old boys had as poor an understanding of what guns do and of cause and effect, and as little impulse control as some in this thread suggest, then our species would go extinct, 'cause no one would ever survive long enough to produce offspring.

Quit kidding yourselves.  This guy knew exactly what he was doing.  Whether he has poor impulse control or is just that evil, I don't know.  But even if it was just poor impulse control, that doesn't mitigate or excuse his actions, nor does that make him less of a threat to society.  If you don't hold him criminally responsible, the lesson you're teaching him is that he can literally get away with murder.  Note that that doesn't mean you have to try him as an adult, which according to the article they aren't doing anyway.

Not every 11 year old has access to a loaded gun. Not every 11 year old is in the situation this kid is.

There is a reason that we have a lot of rules about children. At 11, they're usually not allowed home alone. They can't yet supervise other children, and they rarely have chores that are much different than someone aged 8 or 9. Sixth graders (which is what I assume this kid is) are rarely given much by way of leeway in their schools. They struggle to really grasp the bigger concepts that are at play here. He's barely into the time of understanding abstract thinking, and may not yet be able to do so.

At 11, there is a chance that they can be taught compassion and consequences, if he doesn't yet have them. He's not going to learn either in jail. There's hope that he will grow up and make himself a fully functioning contributing adult. This is not a hardened criminal. This is a boy who made a horrible mistake.

Sure, he may be a sociopath, but it's incredibly unlikely that he's anymore so than any other 11 year old, of whom a vast majority at that age show as such.

LINK (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-is-2020/201402/the-sociopathic-child-myths-parenting-tips-what-do)

QuoteRecent research suggests that sociopathic traits – for those who display them – are fairly constant over the course of the critical adolescent years. Salihovic and colleagues (2013), for example, followed 1,068 youths in the seventh to ninth grades over a period of four years. Psychopathic traits were measured with the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory, a self-report measure created to capture psychopathic traits in youths 12 years and older. As predicted, most of the adolescents in the study had low to moderate levels of psychopathic traits that continued to diminish with age. For a small group of youths, however, these characteristics remained high and stable over the course of the study period.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 01:17:46 PM
There is a reason that we have a lot of rules about children. At 11, they're usually not allowed home alone.

I hope you realize that's true only in US.  I was starting to go to and from school by myself starting at 7, and that was the rule rather than the exception.  And when I got home, I was alone or with a sister 3 years older than me for a number of hours.  My understanding is that it's not that different in Europe either.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 01:17:46 PM

There is a reason that we have a lot of rules about children. At 11, they're usually not allowed home alone. They can't yet supervise other children, and they rarely have chores that are much different than someone aged 8 or 9. Sixth graders (which is what I assume this kid is) are rarely given much by way of leeway in their schools. They struggle to really grasp the bigger concepts that are at play here. He's barely into the time of understanding abstract thinking, and may not yet be able to do so.

I never know whether to laugh or cry about the way most people view children nowdays.

QuoteAt 11, there is a chance that they can be taught compassion and consequences, if he doesn't yet have them. He's not going to learn either in jail. There's hope that he will grow up and make himself a fully functioning contributing adult. This is not a hardened criminal. This is a boy who made a horrible mistake.

OK, I'll admit I was ranting a bit in my previous post, and while I do honestly disagree with the attitude expressed in the first paragraph of yours I quoted (just to be clear, I do agree that what you posted is the prevailing attitude, it's just an attitude I don't agree with), I pretty much agree with this next paragraph.  However, I'm not clear how not holding him accountable will do anything to teach him about consequences.

EDIT:  'cause he posted this while I was typing:

Quote from: DGuller

I hope you realize that's true only in US.  I was starting to go to and from school by myself starting at 7, and that was the rule rather than the exception.  And when I got home, I was alone or with a sister 3 years older than me for a number of hours.  My understanding is that it's not that different in Europe either.

It's a fairly recent development here, too, for the most part.  Starting in 1st grade, I walked to school and back by myself, and I was sometimes left at home by myself for short times starting at that point as well, and yes, that was pretty much the norm and not the except (well, except that most kids I went to grade school with rode the bus. I didn't because the school buses didn't even stop in the neighborhoods as close to the school as mine.  But those kids who did ride the bus walked to the bus stop by themselves--the buses didn't stop in front of every kid's house like they do now.  On average, I'd guess that most kids walked about 1/2 to 3/4 a mile to a bus stop).

At 7 I was spending all day long outside with no adult supervision. The rule was to come home when the streetlights came on.

Meri, I think you are significantly underestimating the ability of that age group.

I coached little league with kids from kindergarten (tee ball with all the players on one team in the field and no outs - everyone bats) all the way up to 11 and 12 year olds who compete to go to the little league world series.  You may recall that my youngest son's team was just a game away from winning the Canadian National Championship when he was 11.

Its pretty easy to teach kids even in Kindergarten about the proper use of a bat so that they don't throw it or swing it at other kids.  By the time they get to ages 11 and 12 they certainly understand basic concepts like cause and effect and have understood that for some time.  It is nonsense to suggest they don't understand complex issues or make good judgments.  We were teaching them how to turn double plays, base running strategies, hitting and pitching strategies etc well before they got to age 11.  In school they were already starting to do algebra problems.  So much for the lack of abstract thought...

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:35:41 PM
I never know whether to laugh or cry about the way most people view children nowdays.

I think it's the culture of fear.  The media is much more interested in reporting about the kidnapping of one child by a stranger than about millions of children that went home alone safe and a little bit more independent.

Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2015, 01:40:05 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:35:41 PM
I never know whether to laugh or cry about the way most people view children nowdays.

I think it's the culture of fear.  The media is much more interested in reporting about the kidnapping of one child by a stranger than about millions of children that went home alone safe and a little bit more independent.

Oh, there's no doubt that a lot of the changes in attitude in the past 25-30 years have been driven by the media. 

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:48:50 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2015, 01:40:05 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:35:41 PM
I never know whether to laugh or cry about the way most people view children nowdays.

I think it's the culture of fear.  The media is much more interested in reporting about the kidnapping of one child by a stranger than about millions of children that went home alone safe and a little bit more independent.

Oh, there's no doubt that a lot of the changes in attitude in the past 25-30 years have been driven by the media.

I think it is being driven by a bunch of factors. A major one I think is a lower birth rate. When you have 4 kids, you simply can't schedule them the same way as you can if you have 1. People are on average having children later in life, and so have more cash - again, leading to more scheduling. With more scheduling comes less free time and more supervision. Then, people are more concerned about safety *generally* - not just about kids. Helmets, seat-belts, cigarettes - attitudes towards all of these have changed.

I am more terrified about having CPS called on my ass than the 0.00001% chance of anything happening to my kids. Leaving them in the car just a minute or two to get something from the store real fast, nothing my mom wouldn't do, always gives me that nervous feeling some busybody is going to report me to the authorities before I can get back to the car.

When I was a kid I walked to school and back and that was not a short walk (when I missed the bus). I don't know if I would have the balls to let my kids do that. I can see the cops coming to my house now. 'You left your 17 year old son unsupervised for 10 minutes? Society has ways of dealing with neglectful parents like you sir.'

Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2015, 02:00:09 PM
I am more terrified about having CPS called on my ass than the 0.00001% chance of anything happening to my kids. Leaving them in the car just a minute or two to get something from the store real fast, nothing my mom wouldn't do, always gives me that nervous feeling some busybody is going to report me to the authorities before I can get back to the car.

When I was a kid I walked to school and back and that was not a short walk (when I missed the bus). I don't know if I would have the balls to let my kids do that. I can see the cops coming to my house now. 'You left your 17 year old son unsupervised for 10 minutes? Society has ways of dealing with neglectful parents like you sir.'

:lol: Well, there is some of that. I can't say I ever thought of that possibility much.

Yeah, I walked to and from school and back for lunch by myself from kindergarten on.  I even played hookey for the first time in Kindergarten (the evils of giving a child freedom).  And I certainly knew what I was doing was wrong.  I just didn't fully appreciate how easy it would be to get caught.  :D  Good learning experience.

Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2015, 02:00:09 PM
I am more terrified about having CPS called on my ass than the 0.00001% chance of anything happening to my kids.

Mrs. Kravitz has ruined more lives than you realize.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthewoodlandstamarac.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2FNeighborMrsKravitz2.jpg&hash=185d150bbe0c688baca583e804542469d29a2737)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 07, 2015, 01:36:32 PM
At 7 I was spending all day long outside with no adult supervision. The rule was to come home when the streetlights came on.

:yes:

The most important rule.  Don't be late for supper.  That is what would really get one in trouble.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 01:17:46 PM
At 11, there is a chance that they can be taught compassion and consequences, if he doesn't yet have them. He's not going to learn either in jail. There's hope that he will grow up and make himself a fully functioning contributing adult. This is not a hardened criminal. This is a boy who made a horrible mistake.

The youth justice system has a lot more options than merely sending a kid to jail.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 02:08:04 PM
I even played hookey for the first time in Kindergarten (the evils of giving a child freedom).  And I certainly knew what I was doing was wrong.  I just didn't fully appreciate how easy it would be to get caught.  :D  Good learning experience.

I read that as "hockey".  :D

But yes, I too walked to school from a young age in the early '70s. Everyone did, pretty much. There has been a general social change away from that, which is unfortunate; but it isn't happening in isolation - one of the things we used to do as kids was ride our bikes everywhere after school (until dinner) without supervision - and without helmets. No-one wore a helmet, people would have thought that an unbelieveable affectation (and would certainly have got you called a "fag" - another thing that has changed).

Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2015, 01:53:32 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:48:50 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2015, 01:40:05 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:35:41 PM
I never know whether to laugh or cry about the way most people view children nowdays.

I think it's the culture of fear.  The media is much more interested in reporting about the kidnapping of one child by a stranger than about millions of children that went home alone safe and a little bit more independent.

Oh, there's no doubt that a lot of the changes in attitude in the past 25-30 years have been driven by the media.

I think it is being driven by a bunch of factors. A major one I think is a lower birth rate. When you have 4 kids, you simply can't schedule them the same way as you can if you have 1. People are on average having children later in life, and so have more cash - again, leading to more scheduling. With more scheduling comes less free time and more supervision. Then, people are more concerned about safety *generally* - not just about kids. Helmets, seat-belts, cigarettes - attitudes towards all of these have changed.

Our communities have changed, too.  It's not so much that they're more dangerous, but that there's simply not as much community as there used to be.  For one thing, there were a lot more stay-at-home mothers when I was a little kid.  So we might have been playing outside without any direct adult supervision--in my neighborhood, once you learned to walk, you pretty much had the run of the neighborhood--but what I didn't realize then was that someone was watching us from just about every house.  A house where there wasn't a stay-at-home mom there probably had a grandparent or neighborhood busybody that was watching us.  And they communicated with each other.  My mom and I lived with her parents;  when I had been out playing and came in for supper, they knew exactly where I'd been, even though my mom had been at work and my grandparents might not have actually seen me personally since lunchtime.

And the bigger families you mentioned helped with that, too.  The 12 year olds helped watch the 10 year olds; the 10 year olds helped watch the 8 year olds, etc.  And since it was a community, that applied across family lines, so even though I was an only child until I was 7, I had older kids watching me--and I was expected to help keep an eye on the younger kids.  This wasn't formal--I wasn't assigned to babysit a particular child or group of children, or told that an older kid was going to be babysitting me (I'm talking about when we were playing outside during the day here;  we did have babysitters at night if our parents were going out, but that wasn't a situation where at 6 I was being babysat by an 8 year old--the babysitters were usually in their late teen/early twenties);  it was just generally understood that we all looked out for each other.

We had more freedom, but we were sort of given more responsibility, too, which probably made us be more responsible.

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 02:21:03 PM
Our communities have changed, too.  It's not so much that they're more dangerous, but that there's simply not as much community as there used to be. 

Sort of. The neighbors are a lot less likely now to look out for the kids and lend a hand. But they're a lot more likely to snitch to the authorities about everything they see.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 07, 2015, 02:09:15 PM

Quote from: Valmy on October 07, 2015, 02:00:09 PM
I am more terrified about having CPS called on my ass than the 0.00001% chance of anything happening to my kids.

Mrs. Kravitz has ruined more lives than you realize.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthewoodlandstamarac.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2FNeighborMrsKravitz2.jpg&hash=185d150bbe0c688baca583e804542469d29a2737)

Dang, everybody's posting fast here.

See, though, when I was little, the Mrs. Kravitzes of the world didn't rat your parents out to CPS, they ratted you out to your parent.

And yeah, nobody had bicycle helmets.  I don't know if we would have called him a fag when I was little, but if some kid had worn a bicycle helmet, we would have probably beaten him up and taken his helmet and thrown it in the creek.

Ah the good old days.

Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 07, 2015, 02:24:16 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 02:21:03 PM
Our communities have changed, too.  It's not so much that they're more dangerous, but that there's simply not as much community as there used to be. 

Sort of. The neighbors are a lot less likely now to look out for the kids and lend a hand. But they're a lot more likely to snitch to the authorities about everything they see.

Thankfully that hasn't been my experience and we have always had old school neighbours who have also believed it is perfectly fine to have kids playing outside without supervision.  We even had a complaint from someone further down the road that there were too many kids playing on the street.  :D

I didn't wear a bicycle helmet, but I'm sure I would have been tolerant and respectful of those who did. Ok, make that blase or oblivious.

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 02:33:41 PM
Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalmemo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F07%2Fridin-with-biden-art-668x501.jpg&hash=fcb9f518f8d8a51ae7dd114c1ff6dc3fc8f13f33)

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 02:33:41 PM
Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Child Protective Services today, where did it all go wrong?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
I didn't wear a bicycle helmet, but I'm sure I would have been tolerant and respectful of those who did. Ok, make that blase or oblivious.

Are you slightly younger then the 2nd tier oldsters on the board?  That could explain the different attitude.

When I was a kid I didn't know what a helmet was.

DPS and Malthus? I'm pretty sure they have at least a decade on me.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
I didn't wear a bicycle helmet, but I'm sure I would have been tolerant and respectful of those who did. Ok, make that blase or oblivious.

Its funny, only the cool rich kids had helmets when we were kids.  They looked cool and we all wanted them.  But what parents with limited means would buy that kind of thing just so their kid could feel cool.  :D

Probably the best evidence for Malthus' point.

Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2015, 01:53:32 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:48:50 PM

Quote from: DGuller on October 07, 2015, 01:40:05 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 01:35:41 PM
I never know whether to laugh or cry about the way most people view children nowdays.

I think it's the culture of fear.  The media is much more interested in reporting about the kidnapping of one child by a stranger than about millions of children that went home alone safe and a little bit more independent.

Oh, there's no doubt that a lot of the changes in attitude in the past 25-30 years have been driven by the media.

I think it is being driven by a bunch of factors. A major one I think is a lower birth rate. When you have 4 kids, you simply can't schedule them the same way as you can if you have 1. People are on average having children later in life, and so have more cash - again, leading to more scheduling. With more scheduling comes less free time and more supervision. Then, people are more concerned about safety *generally* - not just about kids. Helmets, seat-belts, cigarettes - attitudes towards all of these have changed.

I think a major one is far fewer people are homemakers then they were in 1970.  Kids are in other people's hands more and parents are naturally more concerned about safety of their children when they can't see them.  Scheduling is also a means to prevent the kids from staying around in an unsupervised home.

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 02:33:41 PM
Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Maybe because we are.  :D

But yeah, I think there is a lot of nostalgia about the "good old days". Yes, kids had less supervision and more responsibility - but the downside of that is that they also had a lot more real hazards. The "stranger danger" thing is bullshit, but there were a lot of non-bullshit dangers we tolerated as a matter of course - the more rational concern with very young children walking to school isn't being snatched by a predator (the odds against that are astronomically low), but of the kid getting hit by a car; riding bicycles without helmets was fun and cool - and of course we all survived it - but the odds of head injuries were reasonably high. No-one thought twice about 'secondhand smoke' in those days, kids rode in the back of the car without seatbelts, etc.

Also, standards of civility have changed drastically - homophobic and racial slurs were universal when I was growing up among schoolkids, now among young kids I see (my kids friends) they are not used; we were a lot more violent as kids than my kid's crowd (fighting was common and more or less tolerated, as long as it was 'fair').

Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2015, 05:30:34 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 02:33:41 PM
Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Maybe because we are.  :D

But yeah, I think there is a lot of nostalgia about the "good old days". Yes, kids had less supervision and more responsibility - but the downside of that is that they also had a lot more real hazards. The "stranger danger" thing is bullshit, but there were a lot of non-bullshit dangers we tolerated as a matter of course - the more rational concern with very young children walking to school isn't being snatched by a predator (the odds against that are astronomically low), but of the kid getting hit by a car; riding bicycles without helmets was fun and cool - and of course we all survived it - but the odds of head injuries were reasonably high. No-one thought twice about 'secondhand smoke' in those days, kids rode in the back of the car without seatbelts, etc.

Also, standards of civility have changed drastically - homophobic and racial slurs were universal when I was growing up among schoolkids, now among young kids I see (my kids friends) they are not used; we were a lot more violent as kids than my kid's crowd (fighting was common and more or less tolerated, as long as it was 'fair').

Maybe it was all down to the lead in the petrol?  :cool: :unsure:

Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2015, 05:30:34 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 02:33:41 PM
Fuck.  You all sound like a bunch of nattering old men.

Maybe because we are.  :D

But yeah, I think there is a lot of nostalgia about the "good old days". Yes, kids had less supervision and more responsibility - but the downside of that is that they also had a lot more real hazards. The "stranger danger" thing is bullshit, but there were a lot of non-bullshit dangers we tolerated as a matter of course - the more rational concern with very young children walking to school isn't being snatched by a predator (the odds against that are astronomically low), but of the kid getting hit by a car; riding bicycles without helmets was fun and cool - and of course we all survived it - but the odds of head injuries were reasonably high. No-one thought twice about 'secondhand smoke' in those days, kids rode in the back of the car without seatbelts, etc.

Also, standards of civility have changed drastically - homophobic and racial slurs were universal when I was growing up among schoolkids, now among young kids I see (my kids friends) they are not used; we were a lot more violent as kids than my kid's crowd (fighting was common and more or less tolerated, as long as it was 'fair').

Certainly standards have greatly changed as there are far fewer homophobic slurs.  But I am not so sure about the racial slurs.  We are going through an election in which one of the main issues has quite surprisingly become an attack on a racial and religious minority.  So I am not so sure we have improved to the degree you suggest.  There is certainly a lot less violence amongst kids.  I think the main reason is their schedules are so full they don't have the free time to become so pissed off at another kid that they want to fight and even if they did they would never have the time alone to actually conduct the fight.

Fights take about thirty seconds.  You can fit them in.

The reason is we've become more violence-averse as a society, and kids who do engage in violence (and other kinds of bad behavior) are treated like legitimate criminals.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 01:38:29 PM
Meri, I think you are significantly underestimating the ability of that age group.

My comments came straight from Psychology Today. The level of understanding is what is the common belief of psychologists who study this.

I get that personal experience may tell you one thing. My own experiences are similar to some of yours but not entirely, and I did work in a Middle School, raise four children, and now teach Sunday School to Middle Schoolers, so my experiences aren't limited.

What we perceive is not necessary what it 100% accurate. No offense, guys, but the studies that I was looking at - by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Granted, these were American-centric studies, but this is an American kid that we're talking about. And I understand the bemoaning of how we've created an environment where kids are babied practically through college. But that is the reality for this child that we're discussing.

My oldest two boys understood right from wrong, and danger, and what it meant to take a life, but that doesn't mean that all of that would have come together just perfectly during a fit of rage at 11 years old. They're amazing, empathetic, compassionate young men now, but they were, without a doubt, in that 50% of sociopaths at aged 11.

And I think there needs to be something said about how American society babies children today (much to my personal dismay, too, FWIW). Because society has essentially taken away all of the opportunities for kids to learn compassion, strength of character, and personal responsibility, many children are much later in developing the skills that we learned at a much younger age. That is a factor here. THIS child in the society that we, as adults, have created, very well may not have the emotional, logical, nor rational ability to understand what he was doing in the heat of the moment. He may get it NOW, but that doesn't bring that little girl back.

Do we not punish him? Of course we do. But we do so in a way that will help him learn from that mistake, not in a way that will turn him into a worse human being later. It was a mistake. A deadly, horrible, breath-takingly awful mistake, but it was a mistake. And to treat it as if he did it with malice or forethought is only going to create a monster out of him.

If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 07:07:47 PM
by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 07:18:32 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 07:07:47 PM
by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

Well, since it says that half of them are sociopaths, I guess it's not saying that they don't know that they can kill someone with a gun, but rather that they're evil enough to put that knowledge to use.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

Has anyone suggested he should be punished like an adult?

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 07:18:32 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 07:07:47 PM
by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

I would guess that the bigger concern is understanding what killing means. Has this child ever had someone close to him die? Has he ever been in a situation to fully understand what death means? What we're talking about is the ability to grasp concepts beyond the concrete.

All of this, to me, is more a question not of what did he do, but rather, how did he react after it happened? Is he upset now? Does he understand what happened and what that means for those around him? Is he sorry?

If he doesn't care, if he's unsympathetic to what he did, then it's a very different story. He should be punished in such a way as to show him what he did was completely and utterly wrong. He needs to be taught compassion, empathy, and feelings of guilt. He, in affect, needs a conscious instilled him as his own is clearly lacking.

If, however, he gets it, if he's hurting because of the pain that he's caused and because he's the cause of that little girl's death, then it should be approached differently. He'll need therapy, compassion, and a great deal of support from his family. Yes, and punishment, but not as harshly as if he couldn't care less what he did.

In the end, a little girl is dead, a little boy's life is changed forever, and all of it could have been prevented if the boy's parents had been responsible gun owners. In my mind, the blame lies there.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 07:42:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

Has anyone suggested he should be punished like an adult?

Not that I've seen on this forum, at least. 

I think the impression that he is being tried as an adult comes from the way the article in the OP is worded: 

Quote
The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.

People see the "has been charged with first-degree murder" part and think it means he's being tried as an adult, missing the "as a juvenile" part.  I know that I did at first, and my initial reaction was like, "Whoa, I didn't think someone that young could be tried as an adult in any US jurisdiction" which lead to me re-reading that section more carefully.

I will say this, however. Some reports have come out that this little boy had been bullying the girl for months, and no one had done anything about it. The school was aware, and so were the boy's parents. It's absolutely conceivable that this kid knew what he was doing, and made a decision to end this girl's life. I'm willing to accept that this may be the case, and you all are right. He knew what he was doing and he did it with clear intent.

It's just incredibly hard to get there with the information we have, and knowing the boy's age.

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 07:30:53 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 07:18:32 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 07:07:47 PM
by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

Well, since it says that half of them are sociopaths, I guess it's not saying that they don't know that they can kill someone with a gun, but rather that they're evil enough to put that knowledge to use.

Yeah, that's kind of my take on it. It's not that they don't know it can happen. It's that they don't care.

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Not that I've seen on this forum, at least. 

I think the impression that he is being tried as an adult comes from the way the article in the OP is worded: 

Quote
The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.

People see the "has been charged with first-degree murder" part and think it means he's being tried as an adult, missing the "as a juvenile" part.  I know that I did at first, and my initial reaction was like, "Whoa, I didn't think someone that young could be tried as an adult in any US jurisdiction" which lead to me re-reading that section more carefully.

And what does it mean for a kid this age? Charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile at 15 should be different than at 11. Do they do that in juvenile court? Is that a mitigating factor? I don't know enough about the juvenile legal system to have any idea how it will play out in court.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 07:51:37 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 07:18:32 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 07:07:47 PM
by honest to goodness child psychologists who do that for a living - shows that the Age of Reason as we're discussing it is barely beginning by age 11. Prior to age 12, nearly 50% of all children are clinically sociopaths. (We don't call them that because they aren't old enough, yet.)

Sure but did it actually say that 11 year olds lack the mental ability to know that if they shoot someone they may kill them?

I would guess that the bigger concern is understanding what killing means. Has this child ever had someone close to him die? Has he ever been in a situation to fully understand what death means? What we're talking about is the ability to grasp concepts beyond the concrete.

All of this, to me, is more a question not of what did he do, but rather, how did he react after it happened? Is he upset now? Does he understand what happened and what that means for those around him? Is he sorry?

If he doesn't care, if he's unsympathetic to what he did, then it's a very different story. He should be punished in such a way as to show him what he did was completely and utterly wrong. He needs to be taught compassion, empathy, and feelings of guilt. He, in affect, needs a conscious instilled him as his own is clearly lacking.

If, however, he gets it, if he's hurting because of the pain that he's caused and because he's the cause of that little girl's death, then it should be approached differently. He'll need therapy, compassion, and a great deal of support from his family. Yes, and punishment, but not as harshly as if he couldn't care less what he did.

In the end, a little girl is dead, a little boy's life is changed forever, and all of it could have been prevented if the boy's parents had been responsible gun owners. In my mind, the blame lies there.

I think you are conflating two different concepts.  Did he know that shooting the girl could kill her.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he didn't understand that.  Your real point seems to be whether he appreciated that act in the same way an adult would.  I don't see anyone suggesting that is true.  That is why this kid is not being tried as an adult.

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 08:11:43 PM
I think you are conflating two different concepts.  Did he know that shooting the girl could kill her.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he didn't understand that.  Your real point seems to be whether he appreciated that act in the same way an adult would.  I don't see anyone suggesting that is true.  That is why this kid is not being tried as an adult.

If you don't understand what "kill" actually means - in real terms - then knowing that he'll kill her isn't the question. Don't you have to understand what the end result will mean in order to be held accountable?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 07:42:37 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 07:14:03 PM
If we honestly think that an 11 year old can reason at an adult level, then we should grant all the rights of an adult to 11 year olds.  Since nobody takes that seriously, we shouldn't consider 11 year have the rational capacity as adults for the purposes of punishment in crimes.

Has anyone suggested he should be punished like an adult?

That is the implication to the arguments that he knew what he was doing.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:03:09 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Not that I've seen on this forum, at least. 

I think the impression that he is being tried as an adult comes from the way the article in the OP is worded: 

Quote
The boy has been charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile.

People see the "has been charged with first-degree murder" part and think it means he's being tried as an adult, missing the "as a juvenile" part.  I know that I did at first, and my initial reaction was like, "Whoa, I didn't think someone that young could be tried as an adult in any US jurisdiction" which lead to me re-reading that section more carefully.

And what does it mean for a kid this age? Charged with first-degree murder as a juvenile at 15 should be different than at 11. Do they do that in juvenile court? Is that a mitigating factor? I don't know enough about the juvenile legal system to have any idea how it will play out in court.

I'm not sure, and the exact answer in this case would be specific to Tennessee.  In fact, to be 100% honest, maybe they are trying him as an adult, and the bit about "as a juvenile" is just poor reporting.  But I think it simply means that they are going to try him in juvenile court.

See, the thing is, under a certain age, there is a basic presumption that one cannot form criminal intent, and therefore cannot be tried for any criminal offense, and that presumption, traditionally, couldn't be challanged.  This concept is, or at least used to be, present in almost every jurisdiction in the US, and the age was usually 8.  So if the victim had been the 11 year old and the shooter the 7 year old, she couldn't have been charged with any crime at all.  On the other hand above a certain age (used to be 16 most places, but I think 15 is more commonly used now), the presumption is that the accused is capable of forming criminal intent, subject basically to the same exceptions for mental defects as would apply to adults.  In between those ages, there was a presumption that one couldn't form criminal intent, but that presumption could be challenged on a case-by-case basis.  Assuming that those presumptions are still basically in place in Tennessee law, the article probably means that the prosecutor intents to demonstrate that the 11 year is capable enough of forming criminal intent to be charged in juvenile court.

That's what I think is going on.  But just that basic knowledge I have of the juvenile justice system may be hopelessly outdated, anyway.

Quote from: Malthus on October 07, 2015, 08:12:02 AM

Quote from: garbon on October 06, 2015, 06:52:40 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on October 06, 2015, 05:25:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 06, 2015, 03:28:46 PM
Americans have forgotten the tactile pleasure of beating someone with a baton.

Apparently not, since the chart posted with the article indicates we have a significant lead on the rest of the developed world in non-gun homicides as well.  In fact, we appear to still beat everyone else in total homicides with all the gun homicides removed.

,

Is there no correlation between homicide rate and say...population? I saw this that suggested at least when looking at municipalities you need to think about the extent to which a crime rate is influence by population of each city. (http://theipti.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/covariance.pdf) And then here we are looking at comparison countries where at best only the UK can be said to have any sort of comparison on pop size.

Not to negate, of course, cultural factors that go into US rates.

Canada is actually very similar in that respect to the US - most of the population is urban. While Canada as a whole isn't densly populated, most of the population lives in a small area of it, a strip across the southern border - much of Canada is very sparsely populated.

I don't know about Canada, but the US census bureau clings to the ridiculous original definition of urban from the 1790 census. Any town bigger than 2500 people is urban.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
That is the implication to the arguments that he knew what he was doing.

Nope.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:18:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 08:11:43 PM
I think you are conflating two different concepts.  Did he know that shooting the girl could kill her.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he didn't understand that.  Your real point seems to be whether he appreciated that act in the same way an adult would.  I don't see anyone suggesting that is true.  That is why this kid is not being tried as an adult.

If you don't understand what "kill" actually means - in real terms - then knowing that he'll kill her isn't the question. Don't you have to understand what the end result will mean in order to be held accountable?

I may be on real shaky ground here, both morally and legally, but I don't think so.  To hold someone accountable they have to have the capacity to know their consequence of their actions, and the capacity to know that there actions were wrong.  I think it's enough that he knew that you could kill someone with a gun, not that he had to have a complete understanding of what all death entails.

I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:36:55 PM
I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

I thought their victim lived, so shouldn't that be attempted murder?

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 08:36:25 PM
I may be on real shaky ground here, both morally and legally, but I don't think so.  To hold someone accountable they have to have the capacity to know their consequence of their actions, and the capacity to know that there actions were wrong.  I think it's enough that he knew that you could kill someone with a gun, not that he had to have a complete understanding of what all death entails.

It's that "and the capacity to know that their actions were wrong" bit that I think is the sticking point. If you don't fully understand what "killing" means, it's kind of hard to understand completely that it's wrong.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on October 07, 2015, 08:38:52 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:36:55 PM
I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

I thought their victim lived, so shouldn't that be attempted murder?

It appears so. I thought the girl had died. Incredible that she survived 19 stab wounds.

Regardless, they're still trying to decide if the girls should be tried as adults or not.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:36:55 PM
I should point out that I believe that the two 13-year-old girls in the "Slender Man" killings were fully capable of understanding what they were doing, and should therefore be tried for first-degree murder as juveniles. "As juveniles" only because I have a sliver of hope that they can be taught to have a conscious still. I don't believe that would happen in an adult penitentiary.

To be honest, I'm somewhat dubious of the idea that if you don't have a conscience by about age 8 or so you can ever be taught to have one by any outside agency.  I certainly think that you can develop one even much later in life, but you have to do so through self-realization, rather than it being something that can be "taught".

But yeah, an adult penitentiary isn't someplace I'd expect an 11 year old to learn about much of anything, except maybe sodomy.

One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:39:15 PM

Quote from: dps on October 07, 2015, 08:36:25 PM
I may be on real shaky ground here, both morally and legally, but I don't think so.  To hold someone accountable they have to have the capacity to know their consequence of their actions, and the capacity to know that there actions were wrong.  I think it's enough that he knew that you could kill someone with a gun, not that he had to have a complete understanding of what all death entails.

It's that "and the capacity to know that their actions were wrong" bit that I think is the sticking point. If you don't fully understand what "killing" means, it's kind of hard to understand completely that it's wrong.

Well, as I said in my previous post, I don't think you have to completely understand something why something is wrong to know that it's wrong. 

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 08:45:04 PM
One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:50:32 PM
That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

Murder rates are down, so if it's different from the golden years, it's in a good way.  Let's not get over-dramatic over anecdotal evidence like a bunch of Yahoo! comment posters lamenting about life not being worth anything anymore when some gruesome story makes the news.

I suppose. There have, of course, always been people who didn't value life. Like I said, it's just such a bizarre thing to me.

If there are some men who just want to watch the world burn, it follows that there are kids who want to do so as well.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:50:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 08:45:04 PM
One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

I humbly suggest we "respect life" a lot more than at any period in human history.  We don't have the remotest grasp on the utility of life, and we still don't know how to organize society along the lines of basic decency, but at least we're a long, long way off from the atavism that, despite the occasional objection, more or less defined human existence until about 1945.

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:50:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 08:45:04 PM
One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

I don't think it's anything societal.  It just goes to the undeveloped youth brain.  Like I mentioned with this young girl she'd never gotten in trouble with the law before, and her chance of getting in trouble with the law again seemed minimal.  She did, however, murder a man in fairly cold blood.  She was remorseful, but a lot of that remorse was also tied up in how this murder affected herself.

Anyways - as hard as adult crime can be to understand, youth crime is absolutely unfathomable.

Quote from: Ideologue on October 07, 2015, 10:12:07 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:50:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 08:45:04 PM
One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

I humbly suggest we "respect life" a lot more than at any period in human history.  We don't have the remotest grasp on the utility of life, and we still don't know how to organize society along the lines of basic decency, but at least we're a long, long way off from the atavism that, despite the occasional objection, more or less defined human existence until about 1945.

While I agree with this statement, I do find it ironic it is being made by Mr. Total War via Strategic Bombing is the Only Way to Go.

24 hour news cycle makes everything seem worse

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 08:36:14 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
That is the implication to the arguments that he knew what he was doing.

Nope.

Yep.  A person must understand a crime to be punished for it.  Arguing that an 11 year old knows just as well as an adult year old that murder is wrong is arguing that the 11 year old had Mens Rea and thus should be punished in the same way as an adult.

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
Yep.  A person must understand a crime to be punished for it.  Arguing that an 11 year old knows just as well as an adult year old that murder is wrong is arguing that the 11 year old had Mens Rea and thus should be punished in the same way as an adult.

Again, who is making this claim?

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:18:57 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on October 07, 2015, 08:11:43 PM
I think you are conflating two different concepts.  Did he know that shooting the girl could kill her.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he didn't understand that.  Your real point seems to be whether he appreciated that act in the same way an adult would.  I don't see anyone suggesting that is true.  That is why this kid is not being tried as an adult.

If you don't understand what "kill" actually means - in real terms - then knowing that he'll kill her isn't the question. Don't you have to understand what the end result will mean in order to be held accountable?

An 11 year old doesn't know what kill means?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 11:44:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
Yep.  A person must understand a crime to be punished for it.  Arguing that an 11 year old knows just as well as an adult year old that murder is wrong is arguing that the 11 year old had Mens Rea and thus should be punished in the same way as an adult.

Again, who is making this claim?

It's a natural assumption from statements like "I knew it was wrong to kill at 11".  Presumably that knowledge stays with you at 18, you don't find out that killing got more wrong.  Hell, at that age you can legally join organizations that train you to kill people and tell you that it is much less wrong to kill people if you have permission first.

Ok, since you apparently don't think the 11 year old knew it was wrong at all, would you say he shouldn't be punished at all?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2015, 12:06:43 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 11:44:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
Yep.  A person must understand a crime to be punished for it.  Arguing that an 11 year old knows just as well as an adult year old that murder is wrong is arguing that the 11 year old had Mens Rea and thus should be punished in the same way as an adult.

Again, who is making this claim?

It's a natural assumption from statements like "I knew it was wrong to kill at 11".  Presumably that knowledge stays with you at 18, you don't find out that killing got more wrong.  Hell, at that age you can legally join organizations that train you to kill people and tell you that it is much less wrong to kill people if you have permission first.

Knowing that murder is wrong at age 11 doesn't mean that there isn't other knowledge you might acquire by age 18 that you don't have at 11.

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 10:40:28 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:50:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 08:45:04 PM
One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

I don't think it's anything societal.  It just goes to the undeveloped youth brain.  Like I mentioned with this young girl she'd never gotten in trouble with the law before, and her chance of getting in trouble with the law again seemed minimal.  She did, however, murder a man in fairly cold blood.  She was remorseful, but a lot of that remorse was also tied up in how this murder affected herself.

Anyways - as hard as adult crime can be to understand, youth crime is absolutely unfathomable.

Really? From your anecdote, sounds like just needs to hate someone again and then would be open to killing. :mellow:

Quote from: dps on October 08, 2015, 12:41:06 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2015, 12:06:43 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 11:44:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
Yep.  A person must understand a crime to be punished for it.  Arguing that an 11 year old knows just as well as an adult year old that murder is wrong is arguing that the 11 year old had Mens Rea and thus should be punished in the same way as an adult.

Again, who is making this claim?

It's a natural assumption from statements like "I knew it was wrong to kill at 11".  Presumably that knowledge stays with you at 18, you don't find out that killing got more wrong.  Hell, at that age you can legally join organizations that train you to kill people and tell you that it is much less wrong to kill people if you have permission first.

Knowing that murder is wrong at age 11 doesn't mean that there isn't other knowledge you might acquire by age 18 that you don't have at 11.

What additional knowledge is required for mens rea?

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2015, 02:30:23 AM

Quote from: dps on October 08, 2015, 12:41:06 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 08, 2015, 12:06:43 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 07, 2015, 11:44:39 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on October 07, 2015, 11:39:43 PM
Yep.  A person must understand a crime to be punished for it.  Arguing that an 11 year old knows just as well as an adult year old that murder is wrong is arguing that the 11 year old had Mens Rea and thus should be punished in the same way as an adult.

Again, who is making this claim?

It's a natural assumption from statements like "I knew it was wrong to kill at 11".  Presumably that knowledge stays with you at 18, you don't find out that killing got more wrong.  Hell, at that age you can legally join organizations that train you to kill people and tell you that it is much less wrong to kill people if you have permission first.

Knowing that murder is wrong at age 11 doesn't mean that there isn't other knowledge you might acquire by age 18 that you don't have at 11.

What additional knowledge is required for mens rea?

A basic understanding of the consequences of your actions. 

As I said before, there a legal presumption that children in that age group can't form intent, but the presumption can be challenged in individual cases.  The thing is, that presumption is a very useful legal fiction for the kind of petty misbehavior that kids normally engage in.  Two ten year olds get into a fist fight?  Normally almost nobody sees any utility or justice in prosecuting them for assault, so we say that they were too young to form criminal intent.  That doesn't mean that we think that they literally didn't know that getting punched hurts, or that they didn't know it was wrong to hit each other.  The doctrine kind of breaks down when a kid takes a shotgun and deliberately shoots someone.

Of course, there are situations where a child might reasonably be expected to actually not have any understanding of the consequences of what they are doing.  If the 11 year old in this case, instead of shooting the little girl, had happened to get ahold of the girl's mother's debit card, and started using it to buy himself stuff, I would find it credible to believe that he really had no understanding of how debit cards work, and that using it like that would harm the actual owner of the card.

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 10:40:28 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:50:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 08:45:04 PM
One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

I don't think it's anything societal.  It just goes to the undeveloped youth brain.  Like I mentioned with this young girl she'd never gotten in trouble with the law before, and her chance of getting in trouble with the law again seemed minimal.  She did, however, murder a man in fairly cold blood.  She was remorseful, but a lot of that remorse was also tied up in how this murder affected herself.

Anyways - as hard as adult crime can be to understand, youth crime is absolutely unfathomable.

I think I remember you talking about this a few years ago - how did it all end up?

Quote from: Berkut on October 08, 2015, 08:34:48 AM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 10:40:28 PM

Quote from: merithyn on October 07, 2015, 08:50:32 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 07, 2015, 08:45:04 PM
One of the most memorable cases I've ever been involved in was the 16 year old girl who murdered mom's boyfriend.  No prior record, no history of abuse by the BF... she just got frustrated with him and stabbed him to death.  Afterwards she was a perfect student, very little chance of recidivism (because the guy she hated was now dead).

Anyways... long story, one of those cases where there's no really satisfactory outcome on any end.  And it really opened my eyes on youth homicides.

That's just so.. bizarre.

Is it a societal thing that we don't really respect life anymore? I mean, I can't even imagine making someone lose their job (I'd feel like absolute crap if I caused something like that to happen), much less their life.

But then, is it any different now than it was in the Golden Years, and we're just hearing more about it now?

I don't think it's anything societal.  It just goes to the undeveloped youth brain.  Like I mentioned with this young girl she'd never gotten in trouble with the law before, and her chance of getting in trouble with the law again seemed minimal.  She did, however, murder a man in fairly cold blood.  She was remorseful, but a lot of that remorse was also tied up in how this murder affected herself.

Anyways - as hard as adult crime can be to understand, youth crime is absolutely unfathomable.

I think I remember you talking about this a few years ago - how did it all end up?

PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2015, 10:54:58 AM
:frusty:

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

I'd been led to believe that (depending on the state) children under 9 are not generally criminally charged, and children 9 to 12 are only charged given evidence of the cognizance of their actions.

By your logic, no teenagers should be charged because hormone imbalances impair their judgment.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 08, 2015, 10:40:12 AM

Quote from: merithyn on October 06, 2015, 10:54:58 AM
:frusty:

You have boys close to that age. You know how they think - or rather don't. How can you believe that this kid had any idea what he was doing??

I'd been led to believe that (depending on the state) children under 9 are not generally criminally charged, and children 9 to 12 are only charged given evidence of the cognizance of their actions.

By your logic, no teenagers should be charged because hormone imbalances impair their judgment.

:huh:

My logic brought you to that conclusion, did it? Perhaps you should reread what I wrote.

Quote from: dps on October 08, 2015, 03:22:43 AM
As I said before, there a legal presumption that children in that age group can't form intent, but the presumption can be challenged in individual cases.  The thing is, that presumption is a very useful legal fiction for the kind of petty misbehavior that kids normally engage in.  Two ten year olds get into a fist fight?  Normally almost nobody sees any utility or justice in prosecuting them for assault, so we say that they were too young to form criminal intent.  That doesn't mean that we think that they literally didn't know that getting punched hurts, or that they didn't know it was wrong to hit each other.  The doctrine kind of breaks down when a kid takes a shotgun and deliberately shoots someone.

It's not that there's a presumption that children can't form intent.  Rather, it's that we've decided we will not hold them responsible in the criminal courts for their actions.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 08, 2015, 10:40:12 AM

By your logic, no teenagers should be charged because hormone imbalances impair their judgment.

Plenty of adults have that problem too.  :P

Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2015, 09:54:23 AM
PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

BCC me? :goodboy:

EDIT:  I am still very interested in comparative criminal law (esp. the sentencing component) as an under-studied topic in the legal academy, and finally got around to reading a couple of the few books on the topic this summer.  Finland has a pretty interesting story; in the 50s and 60s, DWI convictions used to almost always result in to-serve jail sentences, but they progressively reduced them to suspended sentences and fines, just as the US and other countries were starting to make the opposite transition.

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 08, 2015, 08:30:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2015, 09:54:23 AM
PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

BCC me? :goodboy:

EDIT:  I am still very interested in comparative criminal law (esp. the sentencing component) as an under-studied topic in the legal academy, and finally got around to reading a couple of the few books on the topic this summer.  Finland has a pretty interesting story; in the 50s and 60s, DWI convictions used to almost always result in to-serve jail sentences, but they progressively reduced them to suspended sentences and fines, just as the US and other countries were starting to make the opposite transition.

Otherwise all Finns would be incarcerated?  ;)

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 06, 2015, 12:28:32 PM
Femme qui rit, femme au lit.  :smarty: :frog:

:lol: Funny cause it's true.

Earlier  I watch a report about Obamas visit to the scene of one of the more recent shooting outrages, they interviewed some of the protestors and one of them, voice quaking with emotion said:
"I need to defend myself with as much ammunition as I can get. And I don't want him to take it away from me."     :wacko:


edit:
Originally posted in wrong thread. By the way what happened to the gun control thread?

Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2015, 02:15:46 PM
Originally posted in wrong thread. By the way what happened to the gun control thread?

Lobbyists paid to have it removed. :(

Quote from: Caliga on October 10, 2015, 02:21:12 PM

Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2015, 02:15:46 PM
Originally posted in wrong thread. By the way what happened to the gun control thread?

Lobbyists paid to have it removed. :(

It was one of our accidental megathreads.  And this one appears to have the making of it's sequel.

I blame Tim (even though he didn't start either thread).  :P

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on October 08, 2015, 08:30:22 PM

Quote from: Barrister on October 08, 2015, 09:54:23 AM
PM me your email and I'll send you the sentencing decision.  A couple line summary doesn't do it justice.

BCC me? :goodboy:

Same rule applies: PM me your email and I'll be happy to do so.

I don't want any details, but I can email you to show that I care. :)

Meanwhile, in some school districts ...

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F08%2Fargyleisd.jpg&hash=f9c9819022bc6ff05eaf7d7c8cc227a5da6d6bce)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fktbs.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F23897876_BG1.jpg&hash=5df20abc5c9f9eb39e3f95339363651f659e4746)

I hope the kids get the day off a couple times a semester for staff and faculty fire arms training.

Of course maybe the staff are not armed. It would be like me posting that home security sign outside my house even though I do not actually have a home security system.

Quote from: Valmy on October 12, 2015, 08:27:52 AM
I hope the kids get the day off a couple times a semester for staff and faculty fire arms training.

:huh: But then the kids miss out on the training.

True. Wouldn't want to miss a teaching moment.

Another one from my brother in law:

(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e35/11311164_1083070321703872_927616679_n.jpg)

Make sure your daughter spends several years in prison!

I need to get a 22, if my daughter tried to shoot my 45, she may have a a permanent reminder on her forehead that a short barreled 45 kicks a bit more.

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 12, 2015, 09:45:31 AM
I need to get a 22, if my daughter tried to shoot my 45, she may have a a permanent reminder on her forehead that a short barreled 45 kicks a bit more.

Heh, friend of mine lives part-time in the country, wants to learn to shoot. Asks me 'my dad has this old ten-guage shotgun lying around ... should I start with that?'  :)

Friend stands about 5' tall, weighs in at under 100 pounds ... I suggested she start with a .22.

Quote from: Malthus on October 13, 2015, 09:55:08 AM

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 12, 2015, 09:45:31 AM
I need to get a 22, if my daughter tried to shoot my 45, she may have a a permanent reminder on her forehead that a short barreled 45 kicks a bit more.

Heh, friend of mine lives part-time in the country, wants to learn to shoot. Asks me 'my dad has this old ten-guage shotgun lying around ... should I start with that?'  :)

Friend stands about 5' tall, weighs in at under 100 pounds ... I suggested she start with a .22.

Some years ago I took my son and his friend to shoot, they were like 12 or 13. The friend was barely 100 pounds and insisted he could shoot the Mossberg 12 guage. Almost put him on his ass. He went back to the 22 rifle on the bench after that. :lol:

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 13, 2015, 10:03:19 AM
Some years ago I took my son and his friend to shoot, they were like 12 or 13. The friend was barely 100 pounds and insisted he could shoot the Mossberg 12 guage. Almost put him on his ass. He went back to the 22 rifle on the bench after that. :lol:

:D

I could foresee something of the same happening. She isn't exactly all that strong, she is in her mid-40s, and she is very small.

Also, the cost. If all you are doing is target shooting, you have to be pretty wealthy if you want to use large-guage shells. Those things are like two bucks each.

Empty shells are hot. Make sure they don't fall on your feet when you're shooting in flip-flops.

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 12, 2015, 09:45:31 AM
I need to get a 22, if my daughter tried to shoot my 45, she may have a a permanent reminder on her forehead that a short barreled 45 kicks a bit more.

If the kids are young, try the Henry kids .22. One round capacity.

Taught the twins how to shoot with those.

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 13, 2015, 10:03:19 AM

Quote from: Malthus on October 13, 2015, 09:55:08 AM

Quote from: lustindarkness on October 12, 2015, 09:45:31 AM
I need to get a 22, if my daughter tried to shoot my 45, she may have a a permanent reminder on her forehead that a short barreled 45 kicks a bit more.

Heh, friend of mine lives part-time in the country, wants to learn to shoot. Asks me 'my dad has this old ten-guage shotgun lying around ... should I start with that?'  :)

Friend stands about 5' tall, weighs in at under 100 pounds ... I suggested she start with a .22.

Some years ago I took my son and his friend to shoot, they were like 12 or 13. The friend was barely 100 pounds and insisted he could shoot the Mossberg 12 guage. Almost put him on his ass. He went back to the 22 rifle on the bench after that. :lol:

I fired a 16 guage at around that age.  I was used to a 410, and I didn't put it, like, properly in place, firm against my shoulder. Well, my father had a good laugh that day.

 :hmm: What a fitting hijack.

Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2015, 03:30:16 PM
:hmm: What a fitting hijack.

I thought so too.  :)