this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023

110 points (95.1% liked)

News

23284 readers

3490 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

110

11-year-old boy to stand trial for mother's murder, motive suspected to be VR headset (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 1 year ago by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

An 11-year-old Wisconsin boy accused of murdering his mother has been ordered to stand trial.

The boy is charged with first-degree intentional homicide. The district attorney's office is seeking to try him as an adult. The court has ordered that the boy's name not be revealed because he may still be tried as a child.

In July, the court found the boy competent, according to court records.

Milwaukee Detective Timothy Keller testified in court on Tuesday about speaking with the boy about his mother's death.

The detective said he questioned the boy the next day and the then 10-year-old boy admitted shooting her but called it an accident, according to WISN.

"[The boy] stated that he took up a shooting stance and was pointing the gun at her as she was walking towards him and asking him to put it down. And that's when he indicated that he fired the gun with his intent to scare her by shooting the wall behind her," Keller testified.

"He had made a purchase on his mother's Amazon account for some virtual reality goggles the morning after this homicide occurred. And [family] were concerned because he had had an argument with her about whether he could have these prior to the homicide," Keller said.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] pixxelkick@lemmy.world 83 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Its interesting how if the boy shot and murdered someone else, the mother would be the one responsible for it, due to leaving the gun somewhere the boy could access it and shoot it.

But now that she specifically is the one who got shot, with her own gun, now the boy is the one responsible.

It doesnt seem logical that you can have both, who gets shot with the gun shouldnt shift responsibility. She left an extremely dangerous and lethal weapon laying around where the 11 year old boy could just get his hands on it. She is responsible for her own death through her own negligence.

It's actually insane that this literal child is being tried for an adult, a threshold he is barely half way towards hitting. This kid literally is still in elementary school and has only just started to be taught basics of multiplication. His brain isn't even remotely close to done developing, and he hasnt even really started puberty yet.

If he was, say, 16 or 17, sure I could see it. But fucking eleven? Insane, ludicrous, actually crazy. That is not an adult, and anyone trying to try the kid as an adult is a fucking lunatic.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She would be responsible for an unsecured firearm and child endangerment, but I don't think they're usually charged with the actual murder (unless it would be a felony murder rule).

But this kid certainly shouldn't be tried as an adult.

In any case, I'd like to back waaaaay up and ask how this kid got access to a loaded gun in the first place.

[–] JokklMaster@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's more often an involuntary manslaughter charge due to the gross negligence of allowing a child access to a gun. But sometimes it can be counted as murder even if it was unintentional if you were doing something so reckless and stupid you should have realized it would likely result in someone's death. There's an argument to be made that keeping a gun somewhere a child could access it would count.

[–] QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

But sometimes it can be counted as murder even if it was unintentional if you were doing something so reckless and stupid you should have realized it

Just depends on the state. So you have to look at the definitions. State A might have Murder and Manslaughter, State B might have Murder and Negligent Homicide and State C might have Murder-I and Murder-II or first and second degree.

I've seen a bunch where charges will come out of Texas for Assault and people freak out thinking it's being played down despite Texas Assault being the same as Battery in their state. Or Aggravated Assault being the same as Attempted Murder in their state.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Basics of multiplication in sixth grade? We were learning that in second grade ...

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

In both cases both would share the responsibility

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] gbzm@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago (16 children)

I don't understand the US thing about trying children as adults. The whole thing about children is that they're not adults, what's the point of having specific laws to protect children if you're just going to ignore them? What possible argument could there be that a 11 year old is an adult?

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

American political culture has a strong vein of demanding everyone be "tough on crime", in the entirely mistaken belief that crime comes from not being harsh enough in sentencing. We also know that eleven year olds aren't fully competent adults and we have carve outs in juvenile law that reflect that obvious truth. The intersection of these two facts means that charging decisions on cases like the above depend as much on what the actual right way to charge is as they do on how much what the kid did frightens the general public. What that tends to end in is laws that say you can only charge a minor as an adult in exceptional cases and then a push to make every minor charged with a violent crime the exception.

[–] gbzm@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Alright I can see how culturally you end up going in that direction.

Still, though, I can't fathom someone being smart enough to go through all that education to become a state prosecutor, then seeing a terrible story about a kid have access to a gun when they clearly shouldn't and killing their own mother through sheer childish stupidity and then coming to the conclusion that "you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die."

Who's that person? What happened in their life to make them think like that?

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die.

Wisconsin hasn't had the death penalty for over 150 years. Not even for Jefferey Dahmer.

[–] gbzm@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Oh good!

Alright then, I guess it's a bit less cruel with decades or life in prison.

Still an unfathomable decision to me but at least they're not angling for an infanticide

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It makes sense in obvious cases where a 16 or 17 year old commits an "adult" crime, but having it pushed to under 14 year olds is clearly misuse IMO

[–] gbzm@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It still doesn't tbh. The concept of an "adult crime" is baffling to me.

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A 17 year old rapist can be tried as an adult IMO

[–] gbzm@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why though ? They're not an adult, and rape is depressingly common in children.

Edit: maybe instead I should focus on the core absurdity of it all: isn't saying "a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult" the same as saying "the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists"?

Because in this second case you ensure that all children be given the same rights under the law and you get the same severity for 17 year olds for crimes you decide warrant it, rather than a shoddy "hmmm I think this crime is heinous enough to preemptively strip this person from their rights before we even decide on guilt and stuff and maybe the judge will agree".

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why though ? They’re not an adult

They basically are, we have Romeo and Juliet laws for recognizing that under 18 people are able to consent (with themselves, obviously) so the legal framework for recognizing that a minor can make adult decisions is there. We all understand that maturity is not a binary, and teens can be expected to act like an adult (such as driving), and that comes with adult responsibility.

Me, personally, I think if a minor commits a crime with mature motivations, they can be tried as an adult.

isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?

I suppose, although the latter would be codifying the principle

It's obviously a topic that requires nuance, but I do believe there are circumstances where it fits.

[–] gbzm@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing is the motion to be tried as an adult comes before the trial, so it comes before you ascertain anything about motivations, intent, psychological expertise...

I think this whole thing goes with the whole drinking, enlisting in the army, voting... You guys have a legal definition of childhood that's way fuzzier that I'm used to. In my head, a motivation isn't mature or not intrinsically, it's mature or not depending on who has it : if it's a child it's not, if it's an adult it should be so it's considered as such.

I guess having a hard limit on the eighteenth birthday is weird in its own right... Maybe it's because I'm old but in my head it should be fuzzy in the other direction: 18 year olds are definitely still kids in most aspects and should get a chance to be tried as children.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

As abbotsbury said, it needs nuance. I am not good at that but I want to discuss, so I'll write it below.

Mainly your point that 18+ year olds don't have mature thinking patterns in some cases if not many: I've read that 25 years of age is when our brains basically start solidifying (I'm forgetting the actual term) and is why alcohol is recommended against until that age, but even that's actually supposed to be fuzzy because aging isn't a clear cut thing and brains and bodies age entirely differently so maybe if some kind of regulations should be set it should be between 16-27 for trial as adults if the need is felt with the cut-off for such judgements being less lenient as their age gets closer to the limit ^((or more lenient, I've confused myself in how this should be worded)^)

Then again this is for a justice system which is not focused on reparations through punishing the preparator instead of corrective measures and trying to create a society where crimes are less likely (equitable society, or a healthier outlook for mental and physical health, etc)

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

The 10 year old got a hold of a loaded gun, presumably owned by his criminally neglectful parents, who were responsible for it's secured storage. Oh well, so sad, too bad, glad it happened to them, and not a school full of children.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds like she did not lock up her gun and did not teach her child gun safety at all. That's sad but unless they can show intent, it seems a little ridiculous to charge him.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

I guess never too young to be taugh gun safety but it just feels weird to prepare a 10-yo kid to handle a gun. Dunno if that would've saved her in this case. Should've had the gun in a more secure location.

That's sad but unless they can show intent, it seems a little ridiculous to charge him.

He did shoot her and by his own account understood what guns do. Of course they're going to charge him.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Even if they try him as an adult, what happens to him if he's convicted? How do they punish an 11-year-old?

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Life in prison.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But like would he get put in an adult prison?

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Probably in solitary for his own protection until he's 18

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gosh that's terrible.

[–] curiousaur@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, he shot his own mother dead. There's no winners here.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

No, I know, just.....that's just terrible any way you slice it.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is obvious fucked up, but what's the point of child sentencing at all if they can try an 11 year old as an adult? This is her obviously not an adult.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Unfathomably sad situation.

load more comments