TASSY P2P FORUMS

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25 ... 01,00.html

Assuming they have cleared the Father in having anything to do with it. The Father gave it to him, left it with him, it is the father who should be charged. Im sorry, but what kinda moron leaves a shotgun in the care of an 11 year old....

What Istik said.

Agreed. I was also surprised that an eleven year old boy was able to fire a shotgun because I would have thought that this would require more strength than a child could have but then I read that it was a "youth model". Perhaps if there was no such thing then this young mother would still be alive. Sadly the Father will have to live with the consequences for the rest of his life and that might well be punishment enough but what about the gun makers?

Its a strange one this, as I believe that some 11 year olds know excatly what they are doing. In scotland the criminal responsibility has been raised to 12 years of age

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... n-scotland.

Although their is under 12's out their that are savvy to this and will take advantage.
On the otherhand, if an 11 year old commits a serious crime and is put into jail this does increase the chance of re-offending. And a young kid could be an unrully nutcase but grow out of it, who knows.
Like I say a lot of young kids know excatly what is right and wrong and choose to do wrong, wether it be their upbringing or environment, or not, could be they just want to do wrong.

Usually I would blame their parental upbringing but sometimes the parents are not really responsible, some people are just bad. And a parent can do everything possible under the sun to help their kids be non crims etc but, kids turn bad regardless in some circumstances.

Im not sure what the answer is, or who to blame. As I suppose if the gun company didnt make youth guns and it wasnt deemed socially acceptable to give kids these guns then it might never have happened. But at the end of the day we will never know if this kid would have killed his stepmom with a knife if he didnt have a gun.
The boy is a danger to society now and needs to be dealt with - how I have no idea.

Flatulance wrote:Its a strange one this, as I believe that some 11 year olds know excatly what they are doing. In scotland the criminal responsibility has been raised to 12 years of age

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... n-scotland.

Although their is under 12's out their that are savvy to this and will take advantage.
On the otherhand, if an 11 year old commits a serious crime and is put into jail this does increase the chance of re-offending. And a young kid could be an unrully nutcase but grow out of it, who knows.
Like I say a lot of young kids know excatly what is right and wrong and choose to do wrong, wether it be their upbringing or environment, or not, could be they just want to do wrong.

Usually I would blame their parental upbringing but sometimes the parents are not really responsible, some people are just bad. And a parent can do everything possible under the sun to help their kids be non crims etc but, kids turn bad regardless in some circumstances.

Im not sure what the answer is, or who to blame. As I suppose if the gun company didnt make youth guns and it wasnt deemed socially acceptable to give kids these guns then it might never have happened. But at the end of the day we will never know if this kid would have killed his stepmom with a knife if he didnt have a gun.
The boy is a danger to society now and needs to be dealt with - how I have no idea.

I see it from this perspective. He is 11, a child under his parents care. A shotgun should be locked securely and only used when there is supervision. Even if he was going to clean it, he should be supervised by an adult and ammo should be no where near. Kids do stupid things, which is why they have parents there to take charge. Which is why we dont leave matches, lighters, sharp knives, super glue, live hand grenades and such all laying around the house.

If an adult didnt supervise the child, then it's their responsibility. If the father wasnt home, it was the Step Mother's responsibility.

Im not saying that the child should get away with it, but most the blame falls with the parents IMO. They bought it, they chose where to store it and how it was to be handled by their 11 year old son. They are the responsible adults with children in their care.

Now if the kid went out and bought his own gun and purposely killed someone, it would be soley the child's responsibility and all you can blame in that is possibly bad parenting.

I agree 100% with what your saying, you did actually put your point across very well, prob better than I could.

I still think that society dictates what is acceptable and who may be to blame. Although you are correct the gun should have been locked up and the kid should have had no access.

However in their environment wether it right or wrong, it might be the norm to allow the kid to have the gun unsupervised, and this is where what is socially acceptable in their environment dictates as to what could, may, has and might never happen. (i'm talking generally here not specific to this case)

The father or responsible parent at the time is to blame for not having the gun locked up, but kids can be devious, at the end of the day regardless of the gun locked up, or if he had a gun etc the kid killed someone. It doesnt sound like an accident but like an act of aggresion, could of happened regardless. But that is a lot of coulds and if and buts etc.

The father is an idiot for giving the kid a gun in the first place, something I would never do, but again this might be normal in their society.

But I just dont know lol. I do agree with you istik as what you say sounds normal and sensible.

Flatulance wrote:I agree 100% with what your saying, you did actually put your point across very well, prob better than I could.

I still think that society dictates what is acceptable and who may be to blame. Although you are correct the gun should have been locked up and the kid should have had no access.

However in their environment wether it right or wrong, it might be the norm to allow the kid to have the gun unsupervised, and this is where what is socially acceptable in their environment dictates as to what could, may, has and might never happen. (i'm talking generally here not specific to this case)

The father or responsible parent at the time is to blame for not having the gun locked up, but kids can be devious, at the end of the day regardless of the gun locked up, or if he had a gun etc the kid killed someone. It doesnt sound like an accident but like an act of aggresion, could of happened regardless. But that is a lot of coulds and if and buts etc.

The father is an idiot for giving the kid a gun in the first place, something I would never do, but again this might be normal in their society.

But I just dont know lol. I do agree with you istik as what you say sounds normal and sensible.

If the parents did have the gun locked away securely and the child still managed to get at it, then I'd be more inclined to go easier on the parents, as I certainly know how kids can be. At least they did their best to do the right thing.

Just because it's socially acceptable to shag sheep in New Zealand, doesnt make it right

I again agree with you, shagging sheep is not right regardless. lol.

Although the point Im trying to make is what is acceptable to you or however, may not be acceptable to someone else, even though my point is kinda stupid lol

Parents and child's responsbility. No one's else. The child should not be tried as an adult. While he does know right from wrong he lacks the capacity to full understand the ramifications of his act.

What dictates that a certain age knows the ramifications of his act, society through law does.

Flatulance wrote:What dictates that a certain age knows the ramifications of his act, society through law does.

Actually there was some research done on this some time ago, where they believe the human mind doesnt mature until around 24 years, and until then we are not capable of fully understanding consequence. Which seems to fit with most the people I know under that age

However, if they actually proved and accepted that research as fact, imagine the ramifications that research would have on laws.

Istik wrote:

Flatulance wrote:What dictates that a certain age knows the ramifications of his act, society through law does.

Actually there was some research done on this some time ago, where they believe the human mind doesnt mature until around 24 years, and until then we are not capable of fully understanding consequence. Which seems to fit with most the people I know under that age

However, if they actually proved and accepted that research as fact, imagine the ramifications that research would have on laws.

If that was proved as fact and accepted into law as fact, i would be scared, very scared.

teach him about guns

shoot him

Toucan wrote:teach him about guns

shoot him

LOL. Straight to the point. Shoot him see how he likes it, I like your style touc. Prob better than sending him to jail, hes only gonna learn to be scum to lots of other people.