Dec 1 -

[Details]

The AP is reporting what the proescution says about CPS calls - which may or may not be the whole story. They are not reporting that they were able to search the CPS system - which they'd better not be able to. What the prosecutor meant by that - who knows. It is not unheard of - heck, it's considered good practice, for the prosecutor to put out information to push plea bargains, whether false or true - we've had many cases where the prosecution did indeed leak a bit of false information or misleading information to pressure the accused.

And, yeah, an 8 year old boy jumping over a corpse on the stairs, I'll still say is incredibly improbable. Jumping over a body, sideways, on flat ground - sure. Jumping lengthwise, downstairs, over his father - nope, I don't buy it. An adult would have trouble with that move, finding a place in the middle to step that wouldn't get blood on them. Not an easy move for an adult, not one I'd be too sure about - and I've got looong legs.

If he did it - no, he doesn't have the mental capacity to murder - there's good reason we don't have jail facilities for 8 year olds - they don't have the mental capacity to understand what they're doing when they commit pretty well any crime. They don't have the mental capacity to drink, drive, sign contracts, or even decide which parent to live with in a divorce - we don't believe they have any relevant decision making abilities at all. And they don't - they can be swayed easily, make decisions based on the moment, without understanding consequences.

But I don't think he did it. And it says a ton that the prosecutor is talking plea bargain when he doesn't have a bit of evidence that he can hand over to the defense - no fingerprints, no gunshot residue, no blood, nothing to even say the boy's rifle was used - not even a confession that matches the evidence is available. The defense is smart not to dismiss the idea out of hand - but IMO, the prosecution is looking at the plea to make this embarassing case go away - they can call it solved, the kid can go home, and that'll be the end of it. I hope the defense doesn't accept. We need to know who the true murderer is. If it's the kid, send him off for therapy. If it's not - start looking at who it is. A plea is always worth considering, a great many innocent people have taken them, rather than risk a judge or jury making a mistake.

Myself - I find it highly suspicious that just a little tiny bit before the apparent target of the crime proposed to his girlfriend (if reports are right - and if they are right, the upcoming proposal was something others knew about - did his wife know too?) - he was the target of a vicious overkill murder. And, whaddya know, his wife is the only witness to have anything to say about who the suspect is.

Tim would not be running towards gunfire after being shot (and people feel a papercut - you really think he missed being shot and bleeding?), away from his own gun, right into the kids gunfire - even if we assume this inhuman theoretical killer has sufficient ice in his veins to not get in the least flustered as the person he just shot runs towards him, and managed to reload and fire without error before Tim could get to him. Yeah - I don't buy it at all. You run away from gunfire. Such as if someone hops out of a white car and shoots you, and you run from them, unable to get back to your truck.

[justaguy]

when an adult kills..the usual reaction is to look for a motive.

when a kid kills...it is immediate hue and cry "he must be a psychopath" "cold blooded killer" ect.

(generalizing)We have a specific reaction to a child doing this...it makes us angry and feel unsafe. Children are supposed to be under our control..respect us. so rather than try and understand it from the child's point of view, we just label him. its safer. if we can put him in a "cage" ..make him a deviant...then we don't have to worry about the other children around us. waddya think? am i full of bull (and spaghetti,at this moment)

[BobbisAngel]

So all they really had was circumstantial evidence and the confession? They had no forensics at that time that pointed to him, right?

imoo


No one knows what they had then or what they have now. We don't know if some of the test results are back or not. Everyone is just guessing. I wouldn't think that some of the test results should take to long though.

[BobbisAngel]

Uhm...an 8 year old reloading in a major hurry to keep from being stopped by either of the two adults he was supposedly murdering??? And you think he's going to be the epitome of grace and coordination???


For all we know the first shot could have encapacitated the dad and then he was shot a few more times. Tim was shot and kept moving towards the house but we don't know where he was hit first. Possibly he was hurt enough so that he couldn't move very fast and then he was shot a few more times. I don't think the boy had to worry about the dad or Tim going after him. The shots to their arms could have come after the shots to the back and chest or the head for the dad.
It seems that Tim was shot in the head near the screen door but he was shot in the back or the chest before that.

I would wonder if the boy hadn't been hunting with his dad enough to have good coordination when loading a gun several times in a row. He probably had a lot of practice out with his dad. This is a boy who knew all about guns and how to load them and probably even clean them. He was raised by a hunter unlike some of our kids who wouldn't know one end of a gun from the other and may never shoot one.

[BobbisAngel]

Could be is the operative term here. You have no idea if there is any evidence at all, yet you have convicted this child.

The same could be said about you. You have no idea what the evidence says or if it is back yet...yet you are positive that this boy is innocent. Each person is entitled to their own opinion without being chewed up by someone who disagrees with that opinion. That is what these forums are for....so that we can share theories and opinions.

[BobbisAngel]

Hmmmm I know many very bright 8 yr olds. My own could comprehend death and understand it permanence younger, but he experienced the loss of a loved one. I think it just depends on a child's experience as well as what he's taught. i've worked with children that have had parents incarcerated, surely those children and probably their friends understand jail and what a crime is. My own was a victim of a crime and understood the basics.

I agree with you. I think if children go to Sunday School and Church they have an understanding of going to heaven and living with Jesus when you die. If they have had a relative or someone they knew go to jail or prison they would have more of an understanding of that.

My grandaughter lost her mother to murder at the age of 4 1/2. She knew at that age that her mom was dead and couldn't come back. She may not have understand death and dying like we do but she knew. She knew that her dad murdered her mom and that he ran away. She knew that when he got caught he would go to prison. If she asked questions I answered her but for the most part she understood everything.

When this boy was talking about the policeman's cell phone...might have been the DA's cell phone...he mentioned that his dad had one like it and stated that his dad wouldn't be coming back.

[BobbisAngel]

I don't believe I insinuated nervousness anywhere in my post...I suggest a major hurry to thwart any attempt to interfere with the murderous rampage that was supposedly underway.

You certainly have dissected his psyche with very limited information though... I wish I was as smart as you appear to be... or is that psychic??


Could you please try and resist being such a snot to anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view. This forum is for all of us regardless if we agree or disagree. Everyone has a right to talk about motive, opinion, and theories here. If you don't stop it you will soon be on many people's ignore list and then it won't do you any good to even share your opinion because no one will be listening.

[BobbisAngel]

Probably replayed it many times in his mind. Why would he have to practice? He knows very well how to handle and shoot this gun. It wasn't foreign to him.

imo


The boy and his dad hunted prarie dogs which are a lot smaller target then a human being. I'll bet the boy got pretty good at hitting then.

[BobbisAngel]

Thanks...is this the sentence you are relying upon?



That isn't real clear to me...whether there was no complaint filed againt the child or if there was no record involving the child (as a victim).........


I think it means that CPS had never had a reason to be involved with this family before. Had never gotten any complaints about anyone in the family before. Probably didn't know they existed.

[PensiveOne]

Because caseworkers are always notified and brought in once the juvenile is in the system to councel and meet with them. We heard none of this until they came on board and the District Attorney has the authority to get that information when it pertains to a murder case.

I think the Associated Press is still one of the most honest reporters and they validate their stories. They said that no complaint was ever made with CPR on this boy. Also if it were beforehand CPS would not stand by and not notify the parents that he was making a threat against them.

So imo everything points to the caseworkers meeting with this boy afterward and this is what he told them. I don't think it is all he told them but a snippet of it.
imoo

No, IIRC it had to be before, because the defense had asked that nobody be allowed to talk to the boy, except the psychiatrists, and the judge agreed to that. They did assign him a counselor, but the counselor is forbidden to tell anything he says.

[JD1974]

Also, it seems unlikely that Tim would have been shot more times than the father if the crime was meant for the father. Usually, you can tell the intended target by the number of wounds. IMO


Didn't the little boy even say "Why would I shoot Tim?" when asked about him?

[Emyo]

No, IIRC it had to be before, because the defense had asked that nobody be allowed to talk to the boy, except the psychiatrists, and the judge agreed to that. They did assign him a counselor, but the counselor is forbidden to tell anything he says.


In the court documents the court asks CPS to evaluate the situation on Nov 7th. On the 12th that court mentions CPS again.

moo

[PensiveOne]

No, IIRC it had to be before, because the defense had asked that nobody be allowed to talk to the boy, except the psychiatrists, and the judge agreed to that. They did assign him a counselor, but the counselor is forbidden to tell anything he says.

I stand corrected. It was in the original detention hearing, however, CPS did request an evaluation and the judge overruled Mr. Brewers objection. So it could have been after the killings. Sorry:(

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATUS%20HEARING%20ME_NOV%2010%20HEARING.pdf

[PensiveOne]

In the court documents the court asks CPS to evaluate the situation on Nov 7th. On the 12th that court mentions CPS again.

moo

Yep, I was wrong. On the 12th they definately asked to do an evaluation and the judge agreed.

[JD1974]

Even crazier, in our situation, was that she gave birth to the BF's son while in jail. That baby was put in foster care and the state terminated her rights for not being a fit parent but did not tell us about those proceedings, until after the fact. But for the surviving child that was abused, those rights were not terminated. :confused:
We honestly don't have the resources to do it ourselves. She is getting free legal counsel through the a college that helps parolees (she is trying to get visitation & get her meager child support payments to us dropped). Go figure!

I don't like the fact the the step mom in this case was doling out spankings but perhaps it was the lesser of two evils. :shrug:


Legally in most cases when the full custody parent dies or becomes incapacitated the other bio parent recieves custody. Now in Snowbird (I think thats who it was) when she made the comment the bio father wouldn't fight for custody that says a lot of things legally speaking, first off if the non custodial party doesn't have contact with the child the step parent would have more rights. This little boys mom did have contact. Like I said think about if the custodial parent divorces the step parent, does the step parent have to pay support? No. You cannot choose your childs parent just by marrying someone else because you do not like who the childs parent is. Most cases where a bio parent would have to fight a step parent are because there are other issues involved from the beginning.

[LindaNJ1216]

Yes, you said 'traits', but lots of people have traits that could fit in with different personality disorders.


I'll stick with Dr. Hare thank you.

[JD1974]

That is not exactly what the DA said.

Here is the actual motion.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs/Cases/JV2008065/STATES%20REPLY%20IN%20SUPPORT%20OF%20ITS%20MOTION% 20TO%20DISMISS.pdf

Imo if he is found incompetent because of his age then the DA will dismiss the charges in juvenile court and try him at a later date when his age will not be a factor.

imoo



That is BS he commited the crime as a child...no way should they be able to wait until he can be tried as an adult! Adults who are charged with a crime years and years later still have to be sentenced under guidelines from the time they committed the crime. Also I have seen adults who murdered someone as a child being paraded through the juvenile court system because at the time of the crime they were juveniles. Why don't we just abolish the juvenile system in it's entirety if all a prosecutor has to do is wait until the child is an adult to charge them...

[PensiveOne]

Didn't the little boy even say "Why would I shoot Tim?" when asked about him?

You know JD, out of the whole interrogation it is his reaction when he is confronted and accused of being the shooter that sticks with me. Because he sounded so sincere. Time will tell. Right now I am not convinced one way or the other, but I lean towards somebody else being the shooter. JMO.

[JD1974]

It isn't odd. They are rookies.
They wanted him to confess, they weren't looking at or for anything else.

That house was sickening.



I commented on the house in the other thread, that place was disgusting. There were 3 adults in that house and NO ONE could pick up after themselves. Yeah they worked but they don't work 24/7 and even if you are a working parent you have to keep your childs home clean!

[Kara]

The same could be said about you. You have no idea what the evidence says or if it is back yet...yet you are positive that this boy is innocent. Each person is entitled to their own opinion without being chewed up by someone who disagrees with that opinion. That is what these forums are for....so that we can share theories and opinions.
I've never said that I am positive this child is innocent. Others have most certainly determined his guilt. I just don't know...and I doubt the confession.

[Kara]

Could you please try and resist being such a snot to anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view. This forum is for all of us regardless if we agree or disagree. Everyone has a right to talk about motive, opinion, and theories here. If you don't stop it you will soon be on many people's ignore list and then it won't do you any good to even share your opinion because no one will be listening.Thanks so much for coming in at the end of the day to correct us on our posts. (although I notice you are only correcting those of us who aren't certain this boy is a cold blooded psychopathic killer)

:seeya:

[Justice_Dawg]

Does it make me old if I got it? :tongue:

I don't think the neighbors hearing the gunshots was from a 911 call. IIRC that infor came from the female cop questioning people when she canvassed the neighborhood after getting the call.

I added that here so that I would be on topic btw.Just older than me. :biggrin:

[GentleBreeze]

That is BS he committed the crime as a child...no way should they be able to wait until he can be tried as an adult! Adults who are charged with a crime years and years later still have to be sentenced under guidelines from the time they committed the crime. Also I have seen adults who murdered someone as a child being paraded through the juvenile court system because at the time of the crime they were juveniles. Why don't we just abolish the juvenile system in it's entirety if all a prosecutor has to do is wait until the child is an adult to charge them...

No where in my post you replied to, did I mention "adult". If he is age incompetent now and unable to assist in his defense, the DA has 8 months to then have him reassessed to see if he is age competent then. He will be closer to 10 years old. In less than a month he will turn 9.

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

For all we know the first shot could have incapacitated the dad and then he was shot a few more times. Tim was shot and kept moving towards the house but we don't know where he was hit first. Possibly he was hurt enough so that he couldn't move very fast and then he was shot a few more times. I don't think the boy had to worry about the dad or Tim going after him. The shots to their arms could have come after the shots to the back and chest or the head for the dad.
It seems that Tim was shot in the head near the screen door but he was shot in the back or the chest before that.

I would wonder if the boy hadn't been hunting with his dad enough to have good coordination when loading a gun several times in a row. He probably had a lot of practice out with his dad. This is a boy who knew all about guns and how to load them and probably even clean them. He was raised by a hunter unlike some of our kids who wouldn't know one end of a gun from the other and may never shoot one.

Good Morning Bobbi!

I do agree with you. I think we have a tendency to try to draw the time line out of the actual shootings so it will fit some made for tv movie script. I think both of these murders only took a couple of minutes to complete. The shooter had no threat from the victims. VR was shot in the back and his body was found laying face down. TRs surely was no threat to the shooter. He was outside trying to come to the home to aide the boy and he had no weapon. So both of these men posed no threat to the shooter whatsoever. The only threat that was happening was against to them.

None of us even has the schematic of where each victim was standing each time they were hit or where the shooter was as they fired each shot. We do not know how close to the home TRs was shot in the chest, we do not know if he may have tried to get up on his knee and was fired upon again, we don't know if he staggered forward and fell onto the porch area. Until and if such things are released we will not know but two things, TRs died on the front porch right at the screen door and VR died face down on the stairs by a hallway.

I also respectfully don't agree with Details theory that people realize instantly that they have been shot. President Reagan wasn't even aware he had been shot and the bullet was lodged 3 inches into his lung. I have read countless stories of people who were in battle or in high stressful situations that did not even realize that they had taken on hits and were able to focus on the impending danger that was before them. With a 22. bullet being able to travel up to a mile it comes out at such high velocity from the barrel. It enters the body so quickly and leaves a small but deadly hole. It will rip through flesh, muscles, tissues and even bone but it does it lightning fast. The damage increases when the rifle is fired from a short distance away instead of yards as it is intended purpose.

No one knows their weapon any better than the one that uses it. They know the movements and a reload of a single shot bolt action youth model only takes seconds. It is a very simple mechanism and is easy to do. Remember, this type of weapon is intended for small game. One has to be fast on reload because their target is small and many times quicker and it is much harder to hit a small target than it is to hit a human being which is way larger.

imo

[bkwits]

You know JD, out of the whole interrogation it is his reaction when he is confronted and accused of being the shooter that sticks with me. Because he sounded so sincere. Time will tell. Right now I am not convinced one way or the other, but I lean towards somebody else being the shooter. JMO.

I'm on the same page as you Pensive. IMO, the interview/interrogation points as much to his innocence as his guilt.

I initially got involved in the case, thinking LE knew for sure that the child did it, because they were going to try an 8 year-old as an adult.

At this point, I wonder if the child even knows whether he killed them. IMO

[bkwits]

Some have pointed out that the child knew his weapon and had hunted and possibly shot prairie dogs or other game.

Since the 8 y.o. probably had only been shooting for weeks, how expert could he be?

[GentleBreeze]

Some have pointed out that the child knew his weapon and had hunted and possibly shot prairie dogs or other game.

Since the 8 y.o. probably had only been shooting for weeks, how expert could he be?

Who said he had only been hunting for weeks. I thought he was given this gun when he turned 8, he is almost 9. He even had a air rifle which is even harder for a child his age to use because it has to be pumped. He admitted that he shot that gun behind his father's back even though he knew he was to leave all guns alone.

It doesn't take much practice with the .22, it is a very simple mechanism. 1,2,3. It has an aim sight. Just aim and fire.

imo

[bkwits]

Who said he had only been hunting for weeks. I thought he was given this gun when he turned 8, he is almost 9. He even had a air rifle which is even harder for a child his age to use because it has to be pumped. He admitted that he shot that gun behind his father's back even though he knew he was to leave all guns alone.

It doesn't take much practice with the .22, it is a very simple mechanism. 1,2,3. It has an aim sight. Just aim and fire.

imo

Do you have a link to the date he was given the gun. The stepmom supposedly did not want him to have the gun. Their priest said he was too young. But the dad went ahead and gave it to him.

[PensiveOne]

I'm on the same page as you Pensive. IMO, the interview/interrogation points as much to his innocence as his guilt.

I initially got involved in the case, thinking LE knew for sure that the child did it, because they were going to try an 8 year-old as an adult.

At this point, I wonder if the child even knows whether he killed them. IMO

ITA, they have really screwed with his head now. We may never know for sure:(

[GentleBreeze]

Do you have a link to the date he was given the gun. The step mom supposedly did not want him to have the gun. Their priest said he was too young. But the dad went ahead and gave it to him.

No, that is why I said "I thought."

Do you have a link where the Priest told him not to give the hunting gun to his son? I know he said that Vincent had come to him because he wanted his son to learn how to hunt since they are from an avid hunting family. I would imagine that is the same age that Vincent also started hunting with a .22 rifle.

From the boy's own account he already had a BB gun or pellet/air gun that shoots BBs.

imoo

[bkwits]

No, that is why I said "I thought."

Do you have a link where the Priest told him not to give the hunting gun to his son? I know he said that Vincent had come to him because he wanted his son to learn how to hunt since they are from an avid hunting family. I would imagine that is the same age that Vincent also started hunting with a .22 rifle.

From the boy's own account he already had a BB gun or pellet/air gun that shoots BBs.

imoo

Sorry about misreading your post. As far as I know the priest hasn't said specifically that he told VR that the child was too young, but the Priest did say in a TV interview that the child was too young.

I understood that VR and Tiffany were only married a couple of months (or less) when he was shot, So technically she would only have been the stepmom since September.

I have not formed a definite opinion whether the child killed the two men or not. I still say if VR was determined to teach his child to hunt and shoot at such an early age, he should not have made the guns and ammunition available when no one was around to supervise him. It seems that was a chaotic household. IMO

[GentleBreeze]

Sorry about misreading your post. As far as I know the priest hasn't said specifically that he told VR that the child was too young, but the Priest did say in a TV interview that the child was too young.

I understood that VR and Tiffany were only married a couple of months (or less) when he was shot, So technically she would only have been the stepmom since September.

I have not formed a definite opinion whether the child killed the two men or not. I still say if VR was determined to teach his child to hunt and shoot at such an early age, he should not have made the guns and ammunition available when no one was around to supervise him. It seems that was a chaotic household. IMO

Thats right and at the time she may not have been aware that he already had a BB gun.

But she was a consistent female figure in his life for over two years. He sure hadn't had that before.

We don't even know how he gained access to the gun or ammunition. Children are very smart. May have known where they were kept even if the parents thought they had them hidden or may have even known where they kept the keys.

No, what should have happened imo, is what happens in millions of families where there are hunting weapons in the home, the children are taught to respect their parents' strict rules of never touching the weapons. This is why this case is very rare. Millions of young kids do not murder their parents even though they have hunted from an early age and knows guns are in the home.

Vincent's downfall was he trusted his son when he promised him he would never touch the weapons without him being there.

imoo

[steffaroob4]

Thats right and at the time she may not have been aware that he already had a BB gun.

But she was a consistent female figure in his life for over two years. He sure hadn't had that before.

We don't even know how he gained access to the gun or ammunition. Children are very smart. May have known where they were kept even if the parents thought they had them hidden or may have even known where they kept the keys.

No, what should have happened imo, is what happens in millions of families where there are hunting weapons in the home, the children are taught to respect their parents' strict rules of never touching the weapons. This is why this case is very rare. Millions of young kids do not murder their parents even though they have hunted from an early age and knows guns are in the home.

Vincent's downfall was he trusted his son when he promised him he would never touch the weapons without him being there.

imoo

I have to disagree on trusting an 8 year old. I didn't leave rope around my kids at that age, for all the accidental hanging deaths I have read about, nor did I leave my car keys laying around. I have issues with anyone not locking guns, my kids are teens and they can't get their hands on their own guns. A child of 8 has no way of understanding things an adult does, it isn't even a close debate on that. I never even left my kids alone out of my vision at 8 years old, I find it hard to imagine a reason for me ever doing it. If in today's court of law, a parent can be held accountable for an accidental shooting their child was involved in, because they didn't lock up their guns, there is more here than meets the eye. As we learn more and by chance that there may have been some abuse, the fact that the guns were not locked makes the whole situation worse.

If by chance I would have ever had to leave my 8 year old alone in a house for a few minutes a day after school, I would definately have made sure those guns were locked. If you can afford the guns, you can afford a gun safe.


from docs: guns were under the bed in master bedroom

[bkwits]

Thats right and at the time she may not have been aware that he already had a BB gun.

But she was a consistent female figure in his life for over two years. He sure hadn't had that before.

We don't even know how he gained access to the gun or ammunition. Children are very smart. May have known where they were kept even if the parents thought they had them hidden or may have even known where they kept the keys.

No, what should have happened imo, is what happens in millions of families where there are hunting weapons in the home, the children are taught to respect their parents' strict rules of never touching the weapons. This is why this case is very rare. Millions of young kids do not murder their parents even though they have hunted from an early age and knows guns are in the home.

Vincent's downfall was he trusted his son when he promised him he would never touch the weapons without him being there.

imoo

I don't know as much about their private family life as you seem to know. But I do feel that you can't trust an eight year old not to do what he is tempted to do, especially when he has so much unsupervised time. I am not sorry that my son learned to shoot at 11, but I am sorry that I bought him a BB gun.

Maybe, the child didn't shoot the rifle at all. Maybe it was someone else. In that case, perhaps VR was right in "trusting" him.

However

[secrets]

Thats right and at the time she may not have been aware that he already had a BB gun.

But she was a consistent female figure in his life for over two years. He sure hadn't had that before.

We don't even know how he gained access to the gun or ammunition. Children are very smart. May have known where they were kept even if the parents thought they had them hidden or may have even known where they kept the keys.

No, what should have happened imo, is what happens in millions of families where there are hunting weapons in the home, the children are taught to respect their parents' strict rules of never touching the weapons. This is why this case is very rare. Millions of young kids do not murder their parents even though they have hunted from an early age and knows guns are in the home.

Vincent's downfall was he trusted his son when he promised him he would never touch the weapons without him being there.

imoo

It was said that the guns were not always put in their place by VR, but they would be left downstairs laing around, and the step mom would be mad at VR and than the child was made to take them upstairs.

[secrets]

I have to disagree on trusting an 8 year old. I didn't leave rope around my kids at that age, for all the accidental hanging deaths I have read about, nor did I leave my car keys laying around. I have issues with anyone not locking guns, my kids are teens and they can't get their hands on their own guns. A child of 8 has no way of understanding things an adult does, it isn't even a close debate on that. I never even left my kids alone out of my vision at 8 years old, I find it hard to imagine a reason for me ever doing it. If in today's court of law, a parent can be held accountable for an accidental shooting their child was involved in, because they didn't lock up their guns, there is more here than meets the eye. As we learn more and by chance that there may have been some abuse, the fact that the guns were not locked makes the whole situation worse.

If by chance I would have ever had to leave my 8 year old alone in a house for a few minutes a day after school, I would definately have made sure those guns were locked. If you can afford the guns, you can afford a gun safe.


from docs: guns were under the bed in master bedroom

Why would anybody keep their gun under the bed? Were they afraid of somebody?
I don't see another reason to keep the guns under the bed?

[GentleBreeze]

I have to disagree on trusting an 8 year old. I didn't leave rope around my kids at that age, for all the accidental hanging deaths I have read about, nor did I leave my car keys laying around. I have issues with anyone not locking guns, my kids are teens and they can't get their hands on their own guns. A child of 8 has no way of understanding things an adult does, it isn't even a close debate on that. I never even left my kids alone out of my vision at 8 years old, I find it hard to imagine a reason for me ever doing it. If in today's court of law, a parent can be held accountable for an accidental shooting their child was involved in, because they didn't lock up their guns, there is more here than meets the eye. As we learn more and by chance that there may have been some abuse, the fact that the guns were not locked makes the whole situation worse.

If by chance I would have ever had to leave my 8 year old alone in a house for a few minutes a day after school, I would definitely have made sure those guns were locked. If you can afford the guns, you can afford a gun safe.


from docs: guns were under the bed in master bedroom

If that were the case than millions of these children who knows that firearms are kept in the home would be murdering their parents. They do not, so therefore; this child is very different than other children who do live in homes, knowing guns are in the home and are not to be touched. So yes, the overwhelming vast majority of young children do understand completely.

More children find handguns and accidentally shoot themselves or someone else. Many of those weapons even belonged to police officers.

But in a nutshell 8 year old children do not pick up a hunting weapon and use it for another intended purpose and end their parents life.

My father never secured his weapons. He said if he secured them then if an intruder came in on us at night intending to harm or kill us he would have no access quick enough to protect us. I knew never to touch a gun of any kind and millions of kids know the very same thing and abide by that.

Never in a million years could this father have guessed that his own son was plotting and planning to murder him and his friend. Parents don't go around thinking that their own child is going to murder them. There was no safety issue for this child. THIS child did not suffer from any injury from any weapon in that home.

If the parent is to be blamed are we suggesting that all kitchen knives be put away at the end of the day or all bludgeoning weapons that could be used, put up? Are we supposed to start locking our bedroom doors at night so we won't be blamed if our child tries to murder us?


imoo

[steffaroob4]

Why would anybody keep their gun under the bed? Were they afraid of somebody?
I don't see another reason to keep the guns under the bed?

I don't know, even as a child, guns were always kept locked around me, never under a bed. I don't recall what was said about were the ammunition was kept, if mentioned at all.

I forgot to mention, I didn't even leave my kids in a pool alone at 8 years old, where is the safety at in this house???

[GentleBreeze]

Why would anybody keep their gun under the bed? Were they afraid of somebody?
I don't see another reason to keep the guns under the bed?

My husband has a large gun cabinet and it is full.

He stores the rest of his long guns in cases underneath the bed in one of our guest bedrooms. They are out of sight. No one knows they are there but us.

imoo

[steffaroob4]

If that were the case than millions of these children who knows that firearms are kept in the home would be murdering their parents. They do not, so therefore; this child is very different than other children who do live in homes, knowing guns are in the home and are not to be touched. So yes, the overwhelming vast majority of young children do understand completely.

More children find handguns and accidentally shoot themselves or someone else. Many of those weapons even belonged to police officers.

But in a nutshell 8 year old children do not pick up a hunting weapon and use it for another intended purpose and end their parents life.

My father never secured his weapons. He said if he secured them then if an intruder came in on us at night intending to harm or kill us he would have no access quick enough to protect us. I knew never to touch a gun of any kind and millions of kids know the very same thing and abide by that.

Never in a million years could this father have guessed that his own son was plotting and planning to murder him and his friend. Parents don't go around thinking that their own child is going to murder them. There was no safety issue for this child. THIS child did not suffer from any injury from any weapon in that home.

If the parent is to be blamed are we suggesting that all kitchen knives be put away at the end of the day or all bludgeoning weapons that could be used, put up? Are we supposed to start locking our bedroom doors at night so we won't be blamed if our child tries to murder us?


imoo

Did you ever see the videos done that show young children placed in a room with a handgun and told NOT to touch it? The parents that were positive they had taught their kids not to ever touch guns were shocked when their child picked up the gun. As soon as the adult left the room, it only took a few minutes before the gun was picked up.

I am not placing total blame on anyone, I am just not ready to think that this would have happened, if it did at all, if those guns were locked up. I can't see this happening with a 8 year old with a hammer or a knife, not the death of 2 adults, at least.

[secrets]

My husband has a large gun cabinet and it is full.

He stores the rest of his long guns in cases underneath the bed in one of our guest bedrooms. They are out of sight. No one knows they are there but us.

imoo

And now, all of us.:D

[bkwits]

It was said that the guns were not always put in their place by VR, but they would be left downstairs laing around, and the step mom would be mad at VR and than the child was made to take them upstairs.

Do you think that if the child had shot and killed Tim, and only Tim, that VR would be charged with a crime. I'm sure there would be civil damages. IMO

[bkwits]

If that were the case than millions of these children who knows that firearms are kept in the home would be murdering their parents. They do not, so therefore; this child is very different than other children who do live in homes, knowing guns are in the home and are not to be touched. So yes, the overwhelming vast majority of young children do understand completely.

More children find handguns and accidentally shoot themselves or someone else. Many of those weapons even belonged to police officers.

But in a nutshell 8 year old children do not pick up a hunting weapon and use it for another intended purpose and end their parents life.

My father never secured his weapons. He said if he secured them then if an intruder came in on us at night intending to harm or kill us he would have no access quick enough to protect us. I knew never to touch a gun of any kind and millions of kids know the very same thing and abide by that.

Never in a million years could this father have guessed that his own son was plotting and planning to murder him and his friend. Parents don't go around thinking that their own child is going to murder them. There was no safety issue for this child. THIS child did not suffer from any injury from any weapon in that home.

If the parent is to be blamed are we suggesting that all kitchen knives be put away at the end of the day or all bludgeoning weapons that could be used, put up? Are we supposed to start locking our bedroom doors at night so we won't be blamed if our child tries to murder us?


imoo

Reading the highlighted paragraph, I would infer that it is not possible or likely that this child killed his parent.

About knives -Knives were not used in the case we are discussing. I would not be in favor of teaching a very young child to kill with a hunting knife, then making that knife accessible to him. IMO

[bkwits]

And now, all of us.:D


:lol: No secrets on this board.

[bkwits]

here are some things I think we all can agree on:

1. This child is innocent until proven guilty. Surmise away, but don't lose sight of the fact that we won't know all the evidence until the trial, if it comes to that.

2. unsupervised guns and unsupervised kids don't mix. Whether or not this kid did what he stands accused of, I hope everyone here, there and everywhere takes a moment to examine whether their guns are safe from their children, and whether their children are safe from their guns.

3. It's a tragedy anyway you look at this. If the kid did it, if the kid didn't do it, there is no going back from where they are now. Prayers are in order for everyone involved.

I usually stay clear of these threads because its too easy to get banned, but in the time I have been dropping in and out to read, I don't see nearly the acrimony I have seen on other high profile threads. I am not quite as scared of you all as I thought I would be! Well done!

:beer: Tea

[GentleBreeze]

And now, all of us.:D

Shhh.:D :cool:

[GentleBreeze]

Did you ever see the videos done that show young children placed in a room with a handgun and told NOT to touch it? The parents that were positive they had taught their kids not to ever touch guns were shocked when their child picked up the gun. As soon as the adult left the room, it only took a few minutes before the gun was picked up.

I am not placing total blame on anyone, I am just not ready to think that this would have happened, if it did at all, if those guns were locked up. I can't see this happening with a 8 year old with a hammer or a knife, not the death of 2 adults, at least.

Well anyone who could be so stupid to leave a handgun in plain sight just laying there and leave the room with young children in it shouldn't have firearms in the first place. I don't believe in having firearms laying around in plain sight in the home or even in a vehicle that is why I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If that were the case adults can be just as foolish as some children and could possibly pick the gun up and it go off accidentally, if loaded.

So a gun laying out in plain sight without its case or just laying there loaded on a table somewhere is idiotic imo.

[steffaroob4]

Well anyone who could be so stupid to leave a handgun in plain sight just laying there and leave the room with young children in it shouldn't have firearms in the first place. I don't believe in having firearms laying around in plain sight in the home or even in a vehicle that is why I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. If that is were the case adults can be just as foolish as some children and could possibly pick the gun up and it go off accidentally, if loaded.

So a gun laying out in plain sight without its case or just laying there loaded on a table somewhere is idiotic imo.

ITA, I think the point of the experiment was to show people that thought they have taught their children NOT to touch guns, that you can't trust a young child to listen to your teachings.

[GentleBreeze]

ITA, I think the point of the experiment was to show people that thought they have taught their children NOT to touch guns, that you can't trust a young child to listen to your teachings.

Heck when you dangle something forbidden in front of an adult too they also do foolish things.

imoo

[PensiveOne]

here are some things I think we all can agree on:

1. This child is innocent until proven guilty. Surmise away, but don't lose sight of the fact that we won't know all the evidence until the trial, if it comes to that.

2. unsupervised guns and unsupervised kids don't mix. Whether or not this kid did what he stands accused of, I hope everyone here, there and everywhere takes a moment to examine whether their guns are safe from their children, and whether their children are safe from their guns.

3. It's a tragedy anyway you look at this. If the kid did it, if the kid didn't do it, there is no going back from where they are now. Prayers are in order for everyone involved.

I usually stay clear of these threads because its too easy to get banned, but in the time I have been dropping in and out to read, I don't see nearly the acrimony I have seen on other high profile threads. I am not quite as scared of you all as I thought I would be! Well done!

Well said:beer:

[bkwits]

Heck when you dangle something forbidden in front of an adult too they also do foolish things.

imoo

Exactly. And even more so with a child who doesn't yet understand consequences and lacks the self-restraint that most grownups have.

[Details]

ITA, I think the point of the experiment was to show people that thought they have taught their children NOT to touch guns, that you can't trust a young child to listen to your teachings.You can't trust them even if it's mere minutes. Because young children don't have the judgement of adults, they don't have the awareness of consequences of adults. They simply aren't adults.

You do that to an adult, and the adult will either not touch it, if they've absorbed the lesson, understand why it's a bad idea, and agree, or won't touch it for quite a long time, because they don't want to pay the consequences of breaking the rules and likely being caught.

[GentleBreeze]

I found this link interesting and revealing.

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0301.htm

"If you go through and do news searches on those cases, you'll find that only about 1 percent or fewer of the stories on those specific cases will mention that a gun was used to stop the attack," he said. "That particular part of the story seems to be systematically left out of the coverage."

Lott pointed to a January 2003 attack at Virginia's Appalachian Law School in which Peter Odighizuwa, a disgruntled student, allegedly shot and killed the school's dean, a professor and a fellow student on campus before being subdued by two armed students.

Upon hearing gunfire, students Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges ran to their vehicles, retrieved their handguns, returned and pointed them at Odighizuwa. They then ordered the attacker to drop his gun, which he did, and students then tackled the disarmed gunman and, after a short scuffle, restrained him until police arrived several minutes later.

Lott also argues that reporting on children accidentally killed with firearms is also misleading.

"The impression that we would get... is that surely we're talking about young kids who die from accidental gunshots in the home, and that we're talking about something that is essentially at epidemic type rates," Lott said. "[But] in 1999, the last year for which data was available when I did the book, there were 31 accidental gun deaths in the United States involving kids under age 10.

"If you break down these 31 cases, there were actually six cases in the United States in that year where a child under 10 either accidentally shot themselves to death or another child," he added.

Again, Waldman acknowledged the apparent bias but attributed it to the desire to grab an audience's attention, not a bias against guns.

Of the remaining shooting victims 17 to 24 years of age, 70 percent were actively involved in criminal activity at the time of their deaths.

Statistics Lott gathered from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the causes of accidental deaths in children less than 10 years of age in 1999 (the latest year for which data were available when the book was being written) support his contention:

Motor vehicle crashes -- 1260
Accidental residential fires -- 484
Pedestrians killed by vehicles -- 370
Drowning in bathtubs -- 93
Bicycle accidents -- 81
Accidental discharge of a firearm -- 31
Accidental discharge of a firearm by a child under 10 years of age -- 6

[bkwits]

You can't trust them even if it's mere minutes. Because young children don't have the judgement of adults, they don't have the awareness of consequences of adults. They simply aren't adults.

You do that to an adult, and the adult will either not touch it, if they've absorbed the lesson, understand why it's a bad idea, and agree, or won't touch it for quite a long time, because they don't want to pay the consequences of breaking the rules and likely being caught.


Almost every youngster who has played with a gun and had an accident or deliberately shot someone (as in school shootings and other cases) has been taught not to touch the guns or to use guns only in hunting or target shooting. They didn't obey and these are usuallyt older children.

In my case, my 11 yo son begged for a BB gun. I wouldn't get one for him, buecause it has no place in a city. He spent the summer with my uncle and aunt on their farm, He learned to shoot from my uncle, a retired Naval officer. I bought him the BB gun that summer. When he returned home for school, I carefully took the BB gun apart and hid the pieces in different locations. I hid the BBs very carefully also. It wasn't too long before the neighborhood "meanie" came and told me that my son and his friends had shot the windows out of his garage. I was fortunate that it cost me less than $100 (though that was a lot at that time) and no one was hurt.

[JD1974]

No where in my post you replied to, did I mention "adult". If he is age incompetent now and unable to assist in his defense, the DA has 8 months to then have him reassessed to see if he is age competent then. He will be closer to 10 years old. In less than a month he will turn 9.

imoo




Oh ok Gentlebreeze now that I can understand, he would be at least competent tyo help with his defense at that time. I misunderstood your post : )

[JD1974]

I don't think it was me. I had myself a little rant and rage about the fact that that the judiciary, etc. doesn't deal with termination of parental rights then and there when someone is convicted of murder of one of her children and child abuse of the one left alive: this was in response to a poster who is having to fight with (now parolled) bio mom coming after her "rights". The courts terminated her rights to the baby she had in prison but didn't take the necessary step to protect the living child she abused. It was a little OT but goes to the lack of protection of abused children.
I think this child lived a filthy home with nasty, fighting adults who used spanking as a punishment for every infraction. But I don't, at this point, think he could have pulled off these murders. Whether he did or not - I'm concerned he has no one in his family competent or sane enough to take care of him.


Sorry Snowbird, I was going by memory and with me that is NOT a good thing! I agree about the house, you can tell a lot about a person by what their house looks like and I am not talking about people who just don't have the money and don't have very nice things. I have seen some of the poorest people who have hardly anything yet take so much pride in what they do have that their house is spotless. My house is never spotless, I have 5 children living here along with a husband, there have been days where I have woken up to my house being what in my mind is trashed but it is never anything compared to that mess! I would be mortified if someone stopped in and my house had things that would take 5 minutes to clean up lying all over the place. I don't understand how people can be that lazy.

[LindaNJ1216]

Hi, Bobbis, IMHO It does not take a rocket scientist to look at the evidence we have out there right now and figure out the boy is innocent. It's plain as day, and here's the bottom line ; HIS STORY DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME SCENE. Yep, it's that simple! Each person is entitled to their own opinion, yes, I agree, but it would make things alot easier on all of us if you could point me to the statements that boy made in the taped confession and where exactly that matches up to the crime scene photos or the testimony of the police or hey, ANYTHING you can find that matches. Be my guest. K? :seeya:

Which story ? He changed it again and again. To me, he sounded like a liar, not a scared innocent child that just discoved his dad dead. He was cold and his affect was all wrong.

[JD1974]

The state of Arizona allows children as young as eight years old to be tried as adults.

The states of Kansas and Vermont can try juveniles as young as 10 years-old as adults. In Arizona, charges can be filed against anyone eight years of age or older. (http://www.plastic.com/comments.html;sid=08/11/24/05083011;cid=7)


That is crazy. If I left my 8 year old home alone and something happened to her I would go to jail. It is funny that when a child commits a crime they can be an adult but there is no other occasion where they can be expected to act like an adult. A child cannot consent to have sex, which is an adult act, involving their own body but by god if they commit a crime which would involve the same thought process they are all of a sudden adults.You have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, 21 to buy alcohol because kids cannot be trusted to make those decisions on their own. What a BS double standard.

I am by no means saying children should be able to consent to have sex, I am just using that as an example.

[TopsyCrete]

That is crazy. If I left my 8 year old home alone and something happened to her I would go to jail. It is funny that when a child commits a crime they can be an adult but there is no other occasion where they can be expected to act like an adult. A child cannot consent to have sex, which is an adult act, involving their own body but by god if they commit a crime which would involve the same thought process they are all of a sudden adults.You have to be 18 to buy cigarettes, 21 to buy alcohol because kids cannot be trusted to make those decisions on their own. What a BS double standard.

I am by no means saying children should be able to consent to have sex, I am just using that as an example.

I have been reading along on this case, and to me this post makes the most sense. If a child skips school the parents are held accountable. That happened to a friend of mine.

[Kara]

I have been reading along on this case, and to me this post makes the most sense. If a child skips school the parents are held accountable. That happened to a friend of mine.You're right, it is a very good point. If the child had shot a friend (accidentally or purposely) the dad would have been held accountable for leaving the firearm accessible.

[Kara]

http://anglais-lp.ac-rouen.fr/activites/activites_fichiers/VIOLENCE/Up_in_arms/gunviolence_stats.htm

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than it is to be used against an intruder.

[GentleBreeze]

http://anglais-lp.ac-rouen.fr/activites/activites_fichiers/VIOLENCE/Up_in_arms/gunviolence_stats.htm

That is a loaded question. Most people that have firearms for protection in their homes never have to use it against an intruder and if they do have to pull their weapon 90% of the time they never have to fire it to thwart the act.

It has happened to me twice in my lifetime. I pointed the weapon twice........the first group fled. The second one was held at bay with the gun pointed at them until police arrived.

imoo

[Kara]

That is a loaded question. Most people that have firearms for protection in their homes never have to use it against an intruder and if they do have to pull their weapon 90% of the time they never have to fire it to thwart the act.

It has happened to me twice in my lifetime. I pointed the weapon twice........the first group fled. The second one was held at bay with the gun pointed at them until police arrived.

imoo

What can possibly be loaded about a statistic? A gun kept in the home for protection is 22 times more likely to be used against the gunowner or a loved one.


The irony of a .22 rifle and the odds being 22 times is not lost on me...

[GentleBreeze]

I e-mailed this exact thing to the prosecutor last week. I want to know why the step mother is not being charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor or with reckless homicide. If the child had killed a neighbor child accidentally with the gun, wouldn't that be the case? Would anyone be blaming the child or would they blame the parent.

In my opinion, they gave an angry child unsupervised access to a gun and need to be held accountable. While Vincent is not able to do so, the other adult in the household should be help accountable for the actions of this minor and not let off the hook as a victim.

IMO
:flamemad:


They don't have a Child Liability Act in Arizona. Parents aren't responsible for criminal acts done by their children.

Mr. Romans was very aware that there were guns in that home. He had hunted with the Romeros. He knew this boy had a rifle he used.

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

What can possibly be loaded about a statistic? A gun kept in the home for protection is 22 times more likely to be used against the gunowner or a loved one.


The irony of a .22 rifle and the odds being 22 times is not lost on me...

Because a weapon can be retrieved when an intruder tries to infiltrate the home but never fired. That situation could happen many more times that the rate of homicides done by someone that already owned a firearm. I just read an article today that said approximately 2 million crimes a year are stopped by someone who had a weapon and 90% of the time the weapon did not have to be fired. That is way more than the homicide rate overall including all ways to kill.

If all people just fired first if they had an intruder instead of trying to scare them away or stop them........the intruder rate of death would be much higher.

It shows people that do have the gun for protection 90% never has to fire it. With us having over 10,500 homicides yearly of course there will be most of them done with guns but stabbings are increasing.

imoo

[bkwits]

That is a loaded question. Most people that have firearms for protection in their homes never have to use it against an intruder and if they do have to pull their weapon 90% of the time they never have to fire it to thwart the act.

It has happened to me twice in my lifetime. I pointed the weapon twice........the first group fled. The second one was held at bay with the gun pointed at them until police arrived.

imoo

So, you kinda seem to be arguing against yourself. You have said that it is very rare for a youngster to shoot someone deliberately when he has been taught gun safety, you have said that possibly VR did keep his gunas and ammo put away, and you pointed out that at least twice that you personally confronted intruders with a firearm.

If I didn't know better. I would deduce from these points that you would tend to believe an intruder shot the two men and not the little boy who had been taught gun safety.

JMO

[Crispy]

They are going to be talking about this case on Issues with Jane Valez Mitchell (sp?) It's on Headline News.

[GentleBreeze]

So, you kinda seem to be arguing against yourself. You have said that it is very rare for a youngster to shoot someone deliberately when he has been taught gun safety, you have said that possibly VR did keep his gunas and ammo put away, and you pointed out that at least twice that you personally confronted intruders with a firearm.

If I didn't know better. I would deduce from these points that you would tend to believe an intruder shot the two men and not the little boy who had been taught gun safety.

JMO

It is rare an 8 year old kills his parents or anyone, period. I am saying that millions of youngsters who were taught to hunt do not kill their parents. But that doesn't mean that this one didn't. I think he is a very different 8 year old than the vast majority.

I said "we do not know how the ammunition or the gun was accessed." I still don't know.

[Details]

We don't even know what gun was used - this still seems a very unlikely crime for a single-shot weapon. Just because there's a 22 in the house, doesn't mean a thing, we might find out it's a pure coincidence, not that uncommon a caliber of weapon. But there's no forensics back, according to the defense (it's not breaking a gag order, I think, to comment on what you don't have - saying what the results are, that's a violation - not that the gag order is being much respected). So we know almost nothing.

Oh, for CPS involvement - I was wondering - sounded like there was a CPS visit requested on the 12th or 17th or some such - what date was the search warrent requested that used CPS info as it's base - anyone know? I'm wondering if it was before or after the 12th.

[Crispy]

One woman on that show just said it seems like a perfect storm around this child. (BTW, I didn't hear anybody say he didn't do it, but I did miss some of it) He had been spanked, he had been taught how to kill while hunting, and he had easy access to guns. Of course she said it way better than I just did.

[LindaNJ1216]

I think it was a good post. I also think it's too bad people are already trying to call this kid a psychopath and interject assumptions about what happened acting as if they are the truth.


I think it's too bad that people think they are superior arm chair detectives and think the police are idiots and this kid couldn't possibly have committed this crime based on the evidence available to them..

[LindaNJ1216]

One woman on that show just said it seems like a perfect storm around this child. (BTW, I didn't hear anybody say he didn't do it, but I did miss some of it) He had been spanked, he had been taught how to kill while hunting, and he had easy access to guns. Of course she said it way better than I just did.


The kid claims he was spanked 1000 times. IMO it's just another in a long string of lies this kid told.

There wasn't a mark on him.

My parents think I'm too strict on my son........grandparents always in my experience and that of my friends say the same. Grands tend to endulge and spoil grandkids.

[Details]

One woman on that show just said it seems like a perfect storm around this child. (BTW, I didn't hear anybody say he didn't do it, but I did miss some of it) He had been spanked, he had been taught how to kill while hunting, and he had easy access to guns. Of course she said it way better than I just did.There's an assumption the police are always right. And they're generally good - but they're human, and can make mistakes. This one looks entirely like one.


Any other time, when you have a dead victim who was about to propose to his mistress, I think the wife would have been the top suspect. But not here. When you've got someone who has done drug dealing in the past, you'd look to it being a drug hit - but not here. When one of the two dead men was shot at his truck, ran into the house, to be killed there, you'd normally look for the shooter to have come from the street - but not this time.

I hope they find out who really did this. I'm not buying the little kid with the incredibly fast reload, long stretchy legs, willingness to confess to whatever the detectives suggest, who still doesn't manage to have any confession that matches the crime scene, as the killer. It just doesn't fit.

[steffaroob4]

One woman on that show just said it seems like a perfect storm around this child. (BTW, I didn't hear anybody say he didn't do it, but I did miss some of it) He had been spanked, he had been taught how to kill while hunting, and he had easy access to guns. Of course she said it way better than I just did.

Thanks for the heads up, I caught most of it. Didn't they mention the plea deal being offered so early was strange??? Did they say anything about none of the evidence being back yet?

[Crispy]

In all fairness, the people prosecuting and defending this case don't even have all the evidence. At the time of the hearing, there hadn't even been an autopsy and the detectives on the case hadn't even gone through all the statements. I can say, based on what I have heard so far, that I'm not convinced he did this.

[Details]

The kid claims he was spanked 1000 times. IMO it's just another in a long string of lies this kid told.

There wasn't a mark on him.

My parents think I'm too strict on my son........grandparents always in my experience and that of my friends say the same. Grands tend to endulge and spoil grandkids.He's such a liar and bad seed - but there isn't a spot on his record? Does that make any sense? No school issues? No juvenile record? No neighbors talking? All the neighbors say is that he seemed a good kid, with good manners, with an involved father that he loved doing things with. He's not only a prodigy with the gun, with having an adult understanding of death 10 years earlier than most, not only that, but he's also got a premature and completely abnormal ability to conceal all of this evil and lies and the like and only unleash it at this one point?

Would your grandparents say, if you turned up dead, that your kid probably killed you because of the abuse you were dishing out? If not - then I think this is maybe just a teensy itsy bit different than your grandparents.

[Crispy]

The kid claims he was spanked 1000 times. IMO it's just another in a long string of lies this kid told.

There wasn't a mark on him.

My parents think I'm too strict on my son........grandparents always in my experience and that of my friends say the same. Grands tend to endulge and spoil grandkids.

I guess I'm a different kind of person. I just can't take that 1,000 time thing as pure fact. We don't know if that's true, we haven't seen any of the ledger he supposedly wrote and we don't know in what context he said 1,000 would be his limit. I need to see more evidence, maybe that could convince me one way or the other.

[steffaroob4]

There's an assumption the police are always right. And they're generally good - but they're human, and can make mistakes. This one looks entirely like one.


Any other time, when you have a dead victim who was about to propose to his mistress, I think the wife would have been the top suspect. But not here. When you've got someone who has done drug dealing in the past, you'd look to it being a drug hit - but not here. When one of the two dead men was shot at his truck, ran into the house, to be killed there, you'd normally look for the shooter to have come from the street - but not this time.

I hope they find out who really did this. I'm not buying the little kid with the incredibly fast reload, long stretchy legs, willingness to confess to whatever the detectives suggest, who still doesn't manage to have any confession that matches the crime scene, as the killer. It just doesn't fit.

I asked an expert marksman about this case, he has shot competively for years and he was shocked about the number of shots. He said he would wait for ballistic results before he would believe that the boy did it. He has seen very, very good 10U year old shooters in competions, but he is having an issue with the amount of shots. We both thought that a teen could get off that many shots in a few minutes.


He thought for sure the gun had to be an auto-reloader and thought I was mistaken about that part.

[Details]

I guess I'm a different kind of person. I just can't take that 1,000 time thing as pure fact. We don't know if that's true, we haven't seen any of the ledger he supposedly wrote and we don't know in what context he said 1,000 would be his limit. I need to see more evidence, maybe that could convince me one way or the other.We don't know about that - what we do know is that they didn't find the supposed ledger, which to me makes the whole story - that the kid supposedly said this - highly questionable. Was it just more pushing by an adult, a kid telling them what they wanted to hear, and they go with it again?

Early on in this case, a poster told about her son, questioned by CPS at this age, about his broken arm. He told her Daddy broke it. When asked why he told that story - he said he figured if he said what she wanted to hear, he could go out and play soccer again. The kid has already learned once that these adults are going to keep pestering him until he gives them the story they're looking for. Did they do it again? CPS I'd expect to know little kids better - but that's really not always true.


I'm not ready to buy those grandparents, nor the prosecutor, nor the defense (at least, if the defense were selling any stories - so far all he's saying is that we don't have the evidence), nor the notion this kid was abused - nor the notion that he wasn't, and I'm sure not buying that pathetic excuse for a confession.

All we have that is sure is the basic facts of the crime scene - where the bodies were, blood trail, and shells. And that doesn't fit the kid nor the gun, to me. And the neighbors don't seem to have any reason to make up their stories that the father and son seemed good together.

[bkwits]

One woman on that show just said it seems like a perfect storm around this child. (BTW, I didn't hear anybody say he didn't do it, but I did miss some of it) He had been spanked, he had been taught how to kill while hunting, and he had easy access to guns. Of course she said it way better than I just did.

I was shocked that they (on the show) seemed to have already tried and convicted the child.

How come the Pros. gets to drop these little tidbits about the child keeping a journal of the spankings, when they even say they haven't found any evidence of such writings. On the show, they mentioned the 1,000 spankings hyperbole (IMO) and even held up sheets of court documents like there was some support of that factoid.

:flamemad:

[Details]

I asked an expert marksman about this case, he has shot competively for years and he was shocked about the number of shots. He said he would wait for ballistic results before he would believe that the boy did it. He has seen very, very good 10U year old shooters in competions, but he is having an issue with the amount of shots. We both thought that a teen could get off that many shots in a few minutes.


He thought for sure the gun had to be an auto-reloader and thought I was mistaken about that part.That's what I think - 10 shots with a single shot gun - doesn't fit. Something with a magazine - yeah. But we've got no ballistics, so it's just a police guess as to which gun was used.

They arrested this kid, locked him away, with nothing but a weak and incompatible confession, and a report from someone that is as likely as him to be a suspect. They didn't have his fingerprints, so they had no matching information, and they still don't have ballistics, so we can be pretty sure they didn't have ballistics info that night either.

[GentleBreeze]

We don't even know what gun was used - this still seems a very unlikely crime for a single-shot weapon. Just because there's a 22 in the house, doesn't mean a thing, we might find out it's a pure coincidence, not that uncommon a caliber of weapon. But there's no forensics back, according to the defense (it's not breaking a gag order, I think, to comment on what you don't have - saying what the results are, that's a violation - not that the gag order is being much respected). So we know almost nothing.

Oh, for CPS involvement - I was wondering - sounded like there was a CPS visit requested on the 12th or 17th or some such - what date was the search warrant requested that used CPS info as it's base - anyone know? I'm wondering if it was before or after the 12th.

I thought they find .22 caliber shells all around the bodies? That was the only .22 in the home. The other guns were higher caliber weapons.

The additional search warrant was after the one that was done the night the bodies were found but I don't know exactly when. They don't put search warrants themselves on the Apache site do they?

imoo

[Crispy]

So far they haven't put up any search warrants on the website. I wish they would have. Can you tell me where they said that was the only 22 in the house? TIA

[bkwits]

[QUOTE=LindaNJ1216;12482782]The kid claims he was spanked 1000 times. IMO it's just another in a long string of lies this kid told.

There wasn't a mark on him.

My parents think I'm too strict on my son........grandparents always in my experience and that of my friends say the same. Grands tend to endulge and spoil grandkids.[/QUOTE




Where did you hear or see that the child said he WAS spanked 1,000 times?

I have never heard that. Is there any plausible evidence that he wrote or said anything about 1,000 spankings?

[GentleBreeze]

That's what I think - 10 shots with a single shot gun - doesn't fit. Something with a magazine - yeah. But we've got no ballistics, so it's just a police guess as to which gun was used.

They arrested this kid, locked him away, with nothing but a weak and incompatible confession, and a report from someone that is as likely as him to be a suspect. They didn't have his fingerprints, so they had no matching information, and they still don't have ballistics, so we can be pretty sure they didn't have ballistics info that night either.

It certainly fits to me. It takes mere seconds to slam the bolt back and the bullet casing flips out and then put bullet in and slam bolt back again. 1,2, 3, very quick and easy.

The neighbors said that the gunshots they heard was a "pop" then a "delay" up to four shots all with a delay each time. If it was a semi automatic or automatic it would be rapid fire with no delay. The pop and delay is very consistent with a single bolt action .22 rifle.

[bkwits]

I thought they find .22 caliber shells all around the bodies? That was the only .22 in the home. The other guns were higher caliber weapons.

The additional search warrant was after the one that was done the night the bodies were found but I don't know exactly when. They don't put search warrants themselves on the Apache site do they?

imoo

A handgun can also use .22 shells, right?

[GentleBreeze]

So far they haven't put up any search warrants on the website. I wish they would have. Can you tell me where they said that was the only 22 in the house? TIA

Oh my goodness. I have read so much material that I can't remember right of the bat but let me think about it.

I know I did read it but where.....lol I am not sure now.

I am sure there was no other youth model 22s in that house. He was the only kid there and VR would have larger caliber weapons.

imoo

[Crispy]

A handgun can also use .22 shells, right?

From what I know and what my husband has told me those shells can only be fired by a .22, granted neither of us are real experts and I hadn't even held a gun until the Spector trial. He is quite sure of himself though

[GentleBreeze]

A handgun can also use .22 shells, right?

Yes. However they arent shells. They are casings. Shotguns have shells.

They will know it was fired from this gun though imo. The firing pin hits a bullet casing at the same strike each time and can identify if the bullet was fired with that gun.



imoo

[Details]

I thought they find .22 caliber shells all around the bodies? That was the only .22 in the home. The other guns were higher caliber weapons.

The additional search warrant was after the one that was done the night the bodies were found but I don't know exactly when. They don't put search warrants themselves on the Apache site do they?

imooThat means nothing. No reason to think it was the murder weapon. The killer could have had their own gun. We've got good reason to think it was a 22 - but nothing all that strong to say it was that 22. A reloader makes a lot more sense.

I don't know if they do put the search warrents on - it has to be somewhere that so many people have seen it, to see it's allegation that the boy told CPS about spankings. But - if the search warrent was asked for before the judge authorized CPS visit, that would prove that CPS had been to see the boy before the murders.

[LindaNJ1216]

He's such a liar and bad seed - but there isn't a spot on his record? Does that make any sense? No school issues? No juvenile record? No neighbors talking? All the neighbors say is that he seemed a good kid, with good manners, with an involved father that he loved doing things with. He's not only a prodigy with the gun, with having an adult understanding of death 10 years earlier than most, not only that, but he's also got a premature and completely abnormal ability to conceal all of this evil and lies and the like and only unleash it at this one point?

Would your grandparents say, if you turned up dead, that your kid probably killed you because of the abuse you were dishing out? If not - then I think this is maybe just a teensy itsy bit different than your grandparents.

Are you claiming that a child is incapable of understanding death until they're 18?

Psychopaths mimic normal behavior. Not all are made, some are born. The fact that he was able to mask it so well proves to me he had a good role model to learn from. His dad.

[LindaNJ1216]

I guess I'm a different kind of person. I just can't take that 1,000 time thing as pure fact. We don't know if that's true, we haven't seen any of the ledger he supposedly wrote and we don't know in what context he said 1,000 would be his limit. I need to see more evidence, maybe that could convince me one way or the other.


Regardless if it's true or not, abuse is going to be his defense. I said that back on day 1

[GentleBreeze]

That means nothing. No reason to think it was the murder weapon. The killer could have had their own gun. We've got good reason to think it was a 22 - but nothing all that strong to say it was that 22. A reloader makes a lot more sense.

I don't know if they do put the search warrants on - it has to be somewhere that so many people have seen it, to see it's allegation that the boy told CPS about spankings. But - if the search warrant was asked for before the judge authorized CPS visit, that would prove that CPS had been to see the boy before the murders.

Oh I think they did have a lot to base it on. They had the discarded casings in locations relative to the dead bodies. They had a gun consistent to the casings. The police officers are aware of exit and entry wounds made by a .22 or if it was some larger caliber weapon. They also are aware that when a .22 bullet goes through clothing it can make a very small hole. I believe one of the officers said he observed those small holes or small pinpoints.

He did reload. Not sure what you mean by a reloader?

My husband has hunted for 56 years. He counted off on his watch last night, 6 seconds. He said that is more than ample time to eject the casing out, put bullet in and slam bolt shut. This was a used gun and used guns have a much more smooth fluid motion than a brand new gun that can sometimes be stiffer. Even giving him a full minute for each shootings it was still over almost as quickly as it began imo.

Right and only the District Attorney can have access to that information. He did when this first happened. He would not wait to inquire about that. The DA himself, said there was no complaints filed about this boy with CPS. That was a day or two after this happened when he spoke to the media. However he was assigned caseworker after his arrest and then is when he told about the 1000 spankings. They are bound by law to turn that information over if the DA requests it for a criminal case.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

O/T I just read on my news ticker that one in five young adults have a personality disorder.

[Details]

Are you claiming that a child is incapable of understanding death until they're 18?

Psychopaths mimic normal behavior. Not all are made, some are born. The fact that he was able to mask it so well proves to me he had a good role model to learn from. His dad.Wow - now you're suggesting the dad is a psychopath too? Based on what?

Yes, a child of 8 is not capable of understanding death without some severe trauma to teach them. Otherwise - as the defense attorney said - they still believe in Santa Claus. Shooting animals doesn't teach them about death - it's just little animals, and they see them back again the next day. At what point they get to understand death depends on a lot - on their experiences - but 8 years old means he doesn't understand consequences, finality, a ton of things that mean he doesn't understand death.

This isn't about mental disorders - this is about the way the brain matures, the way children grow up. No matter what pressure, no matter what disorder, the brain still has to grow, and that takes time.


Are you really suggesting that the evidence he's a psychopath is that he's such a normal good kid? Boy, I've got to be a lot more afraid of my nieces, I guess.

[emdragon]

The kid claims he was spanked 1000 times. IMO it's just another in a long string of lies this kid told.

There wasn't a mark on him.

My parents think I'm too strict on my son........grandparents always in my experience and that of my friends say the same. Grands tend to endulge and spoil grandkids.

How do you know there wasn't a mark on him?

The step-mother has already admitted the spanking occurred the night before. (so he didn't lie about that)

When he said 1000 spanks it was over time not all at once.

And to address your earlier post the interrogation tapes are proof enough that LE is playing fast and loose on this one- so logic would lead us to believe that may not be the only element of the arrest they played loose with.

[blue bird]

Take this for what it's worth. My friend that knows the Dad's family, as I stated before, feels the boy did the shootings. I asked her if she heard anything about the step mom and she said the family doesn't really talk to her because they don't care for her and they didn't like that she was disciplining the boy. From what was told to her, the boy was not ever really disciplined then recently the couple decided it was time to get strict with him all of a sudden and the family felt it was overboard.

Again, take it for what it's worth. :shrug:

[justaguy]

It certainly fits to me. It takes mere seconds to slam the bolt back and the bullet casing flips out and then put bullet in and slam bolt back again. 1,2, 3, very quick and easy.

The neighbors said that the gunshots they heard was a "pop" then a "delay" up to four shots all with a delay each time. If it was a semi automatic or automatic it would be rapid fire with no delay. The pop and delay is very consistent with a single bolt action .22 rifle.

now i know why you picked that name...the gentle breeze is what i feel as the artillary shell whizzes by my cheek! :biggrin:

have a good evening G-breeze! btw sounds like you know how to use your firearm..i applaud that.

[Details]

Oh I think they did have a lot to base it on. They had the discarded casings in locations relative to the dead bodies. They had a gun consistent to the casings. The police officers are aware of exit and entry wounds made by a .22 or if it was some larger caliber weapon. They also are aware that when a .22 bullet goes through clothing it can make a very small hole. I believe one of the officers said he observed those small holes or small pinpoints.

He did reload. Not sure what you mean by a reloader?

My husband has hunted for 56 years. He counted off on his watch last night, 6 seconds. He said that is more than ample time to eject the casing out, put bullet in and slam bolt shut. This was a used gun and used guns have a much more smooth fluid motion than a brand new gun that can sometimes be stiffer. Even giving him a full minute for each shootings it was still over almost as quickly as it began imo.

Right and only the District Attorney can have access to that information. He did when this first happened. He would not wait to inquire about that. The DA himself, said there was no complaints filed about this boy with CPS. That was a day or two after this happened when he spoke to the media. However he was assigned caseworker after his arrest and then is when he told about the 1000 spankings. They are bound by law to turn that information over if the DA requests it for a criminal case.

imoAs I said - they've got plenty to know that it's a 22 - that part I have no problem with. But to know that it is this 22 gun, as opposed to another - let's say one with a reloader (some form of magazine, in other words, not a single-shot, manual reloading gun) - that I don't see any strong evidence of. There were plenty of guns in that house, and we've had people saying they had a bad habit of leaving them around. There's no reason to be sure that one gun was it. Versus the killer bringing their own 22 caliber rifle that has some form of a magazine.

6 seconds - think about it. You're Tim, standing by your truck, and you are shot, and bleeding heavily enough that it drips onto the concrete. 6 seconds - enough time to take cover, enough time to grab your gun from the seat in the truck right beside you, enough time to see where the guy with the gun is and run away from them. 6 seconds, and a little kid is watching a big (to the perspective of a child) angry adult running towards them (if we accept the blood trail and the confession as somehow consistient) and still reloads without a bobble, without a fumble, aims and shoots.


You are guessing about what the DA was told and when - we simply don't have that information. He said no complaints about this boy - was that to indicate no complaints for the boy either? Or only that there were no complaints of the boy hurting others - the topic of that interview? The wording is open to interpretation - and lawyers know all about using words to their advantage.

[LindaNJ1216]

Wow - now you're suggesting the dad is a psychopath too? Based on what?

Yes, a child of 8 is not capable of understanding death without some severe trauma to teach them. Otherwise - as the defense attorney said - they still believe in Santa Claus. Shooting animals doesn't teach them about death - it's just little animals, and they see them back again the next day. At what point they get to understand death depends on a lot - on their experiences - but 8 years old means he doesn't understand consequences, finality, a ton of things that mean he doesn't understand death.

This isn't about mental disorders - this is about the way the brain matures, the way children grow up. No matter what pressure, no matter what disorder, the brain still has to grow, and that takes time.


Are you really suggesting that the evidence he's a psychopath is that he's such a normal good kid? Boy, I've got to be a lot more afraid of my nieces, I guess.

I am not suggesting his father was a psychopath. Exactly the opposite. I am saying the child learned to mimic normal social behavior. I am saying his father was excellent dad. Caring, involved etc...



I still totally disagree that an 8 yr old is incapable of comprehending death. I also disagree that a 8 yr old doesn't understand consequences.

The things this child said proves he knew his dad was dead forever and knew he was in big trouble. That's why he lied. He knew right from wrong, he just didn't care.

[GentleBreeze]

How do you know there wasn't a mark on him?

The step-mother has already admitted the spanking occurred the night before. (so he didn't lie about that)

When he said 1000 spanks it was over time not all at once.

And to address your earlier post the interrogation tapes are proof enough that LE is playing fast and loose on this one- so logic would lead us to believe that may not be the only element of the arrest they played loose with.

Because if he had been bruised then the step mom would have been arrested when LE investigated whether there was abuse.

I haven't heard the step mom say anything. When was that?

[LindaNJ1216]

How do you know there wasn't a mark on him?

The step-mother has already admitted the spanking occurred the night before. (so he didn't lie about that)

When he said 1000 spanks it was over time not all at once.

And to address your earlier post the interrogation tapes are proof enough that LE is playing fast and loose on this one- so logic would lead us to believe that may not be the only element of the arrest they played loose with.

1 because even his defense attorney said so.
2 yes, i know. 5 swats doesn't equal abuse, there were no marks
3 I know

This isn't a who did it case. Period.

[GentleBreeze]

As I said - they've got plenty to know that it's a 22 - that part I have no problem with. But to know that it is this 22 gun, as opposed to another - let's say one with a reloader (some form of magazine, in other words, not a single-shot, manual reloading gun) - that I don't see any strong evidence of. There were plenty of guns in that house, and we've had people saying they had a bad habit of leaving them around. There's no reason to be sure that one gun was it. Versus the killer bringing their own 22 caliber rifle that has some form of a magazine.

6 seconds - think about it. You're Tim, standing by your truck, and you are shot, and bleeding heavily enough that it drips onto the concrete. 6 seconds - enough time to take cover, enough time to grab your gun from the seat in the truck right beside you, enough time to see where the guy with the gun is and run away from them. 6 seconds, and a little kid is watching a big (to the perspective of a child) angry adult running towards them (if we accept the blood trail and the confession as somehow consistient) and still reloads without a bobble, without a fumble, aims and shoots.


You are guessing about what the DA was told and when - we simply don't have that information. He said no complaints about this boy - was that to indicate no complaints for the boy either? Or only that there were no complaints of the boy hurting others - the topic of that interview? The wording is open to interpretation - and lawyers know all about using words to their advantage.


No I am not. He is quoted as saying it. HE said there were no complaints filed with CPS concerning this boy. Cant get any plainer than that. It goes right along with what he and LE stated from Wednesday until Monday when the gag order was then put in place. They said they had uncovered no abuse. Even Brewer was saying the same thing. That was 5 days after the murders.

imoo

[emdragon]

I am not suggesting his father was a psychopath. Exactly the opposite. I am saying the child learned to mimic normal social behavior. I am saying his father was excellent dad. Caring, involved etc...



I still totally disagree that an 8 yr old is incapable of comprehending death. I also disagree that a 8 yr old doesn't understand consequences.

The things this child said proves he knew his dad was dead forever and knew he was in big trouble. That's why he lied. He knew right from wrong, he just didn't care.

If that is all true why can't an 8 year old drive,drink,smoke or consent to sex?

We know it is scientific FACT that the brain is not mature until after age 18- that it doesn't process information the same as an adults brain.

[GentleBreeze]

If that is all true why can't an 8 year old drive,drink,smoke or consent to sex?

We know it is scientific FACT that the brain is not mature until after age 18- that it doesn't process information the same as an adults brain.

Is murdering someone a privilege when they turn a certain age?

Kids 8 years old and older can be charged with a crime in AZ.

imoo

[LindaNJ1216]

If that is all true why can't an 8 year old drive,drink,smoke or consent to sex?

We know it is scientific FACT that the brain is not mature until after age 18- that it doesn't process information the same as an adults brain.

I am not debating whether or not this child should be tried as an adult.

I am simply stating he is guilty of the murder of two men with premeditation.

What to do with him is another whole ball of wax

[emdragon]

1 because even his defense attorney said so.
2 yes, i know. 5 swats doesn't equal abuse, there were no marks
3 I know

This isn't a who did it case. Period.

Actually 5 swats CAN be abuse. Just depends on where you are at and whose opinion it is.

GB I have read the step mother spanked him the night before- I believe that was in the reports.

[JD1974]

Is murdering someone a privilege when they turn a certain age?

Kids 8 years old and older can be charged with a crime in AZ.

imoo


Having sex is a privlege? I also didn't realize you had to earn the right to vote, smoke or drink? How do you earn those? Just by being the right age I suppose, you know an age where you can understand the consequences of the action....

[LindaNJ1216]

Actually 5 swats CAN be abuse. Just depends on where you are at and whose opinion it is.

GB I have read the step mother spanked him the night before- I believe that was in the reports.


His parents were well within their legal rights.

Again, there were no marks

[GentleBreeze]

I believe one of the officers on the scene had been on the force for 10 years. I would think that one of them immediately bent down close to the barrel opening of the gun they found, and smelled if they could smell a strong odor of being recently fired. It is easy to tell when a weapon has been recently shot. It has its own strong odor in which I think most police officers are familiar with. The more recent the stronger the smell.

imoo

[Details]

I am not suggesting his father was a psychopath. Exactly the opposite. I am saying the child learned to mimic normal social behavior. I am saying his father was excellent dad. Caring, involved etc...



I still totally disagree that an 8 yr old is incapable of comprehending death. I also disagree that a 8 yr old doesn't understand consequences.

The things this child said proves he knew his dad was dead forever and knew he was in big trouble. That's why he lied. He knew right from wrong, he just didn't care.If 8 year olds understood consequences, we'd let them make decisions. They don't. They do what adults say because we make them, but just as the gun on the table story shows, they don't understand consequences. And death - a brain that can still believe in Santa and all kinds of fairy tales, does not understand death.

If he'd understood right from wrong, if he'd understood consequences, he wouldn't have told the police he shot them. But he didn't, so every new story they suggested to him, he went along with. Even though none of them matched the facts, even though it would get him in trouble - he went along with it.

Glad to hear I misunderstood you - I thought you meant a different type of role model. But kids don't learn instantaneously - I know a parent of a psycopath. They don't learn to hide it without it showing - heck, they don't learn to hide it much at all, because they see no reason to, as children.

[GentleBreeze]

Having sex is a privlege? I also didn't realize you had to earn the right to vote, smoke or drink? How do you earn those? Just by being the right age I suppose, you know an age where you can understand the consequences of the action....

It is a privelege or right to get to vote, drive, smoke, drink when we get a certain age. Are you saying that we can do those things while we are not of age yet?:confused:

I knew by the age of 5-6 between right or wrong. I knew that death was final around age 7.

imoo

[JD1974]

Actually 5 swats CAN be abuse. Just depends on where you are at and whose opinion it is.

GB I have read the step mother spanked him the night before- I believe that was in the reports.



As far as I know ONE swat can be abuse, depends on what you use to swat and how hard you do it. Kids are abused every day who are never even physically touched. Sad. I read about the swats too, I just can't get over letting your wife of two months spank your child...amazes me that because your ex gets married that means some stranger can discipline your child, without the paper it would be battery.

[LindaNJ1216]

Having sex is a privilege? I also didn't realize you had to earn the right to vote, smoke or drink? How do you earn those? Just by being the right age I suppose, you know an age where you can understand the consequences of the action....

Wow, IMO you're doing a huge injustice to the vast majority of 8 year olds that do get it. If what you claim is true, there would be mountains of dead parents by the hands of clueless angry 8 yr olds. There isn't.

The reason can't simply be they don't have access to guns. They have access to knives, poisons, baseball bats car keys etc...It doesn't happen because there are fledgling psychopaths. There hard core ones...like this one, only make up about 1% of the population. That explains it. Nothing else does.

imo

[GentleBreeze]

now i know why you picked that name...the gentle breeze is what i feel as the artillary shell whizzes by my cheek! :biggrin:

have a good evening G-breeze! btw sounds like you know how to use your firearm..i applaud that.


Hi justaguy!:seeya:

Yep, even in my older age now I am still a bulleye gal. :D

[JD1974]

Wow, IMO you're doing a huge injustice to the vast majority of 8 year olds that do get it. If what you claim is true, there would be mountains of dead parents by the hands of clueless angry 8 yr olds. There isn't.

The reason can't simply be they don't have access to guns. They have access to knives, poisons, baseball bats car keys etc...It doesn't happen because there are fledgling psychopaths. There hard core ones...like this one, only make up about 1% of the population. That explains it. Nothing else does.

imo


I have an 8 year old and do you know what is worse than dying to her, her friend down the street moving, a bad letter from me to Santa Claus and the easter bunny running out of eggs. Not all 8 year olds have to grow up fast and have the mentality of a 20 year old and frankly I feel sorry for the ones that have to.

[LindaNJ1216]

If 8 year olds understood consequences, we'd let them make decisions. They don't. They do what adults say because we make them, but just as the gun on the table story shows, they don't understand consequences. And death - a brain that can still believe in Santa and all kinds of fairy tales, does not understand death.

If he'd understood right from wrong, if he'd understood consequences, he wouldn't have told the police he shot them. But he didn't, so every new story they suggested to him, he went along with. Even though none of them matched the facts, even though it would get him in trouble - he went along with it.

Glad to hear I misunderstood you - I thought you meant a different type of role model. But kids don't learn instantaneously - I know a parent of a psychopath. They don't learn to hide it without it showing - heck, they don't learn to hide it much at all, because they see no reason to, as children.


you're wrong about that last part. I have worked with hundreds of children and argued like many of you here. Until I experienced one......outwardly he was a model child, well liked, respected, charming and well mannered on the outside. There were no clues, no red flags as to what he was capable of. He was cold, twisted and...well...scary evil. Like this child....when caught he had no idea how to react. What a normal response would be...he went flat. Just like this kid.....totally inappropriate affect for the situation. after my experience with the child I contacted Dr Hare and attended a presentation and dinner when he was lecturing. Read everything I could. That's what lead me to my opinion. The child I am speaking of and this one are so eerily similar it's frightening to me.

[JD1974]

It is a privelege or right to get to vote, drive, smoke, drink when we get a certain age. Are you saying that we can do those things while we are not of age yet?:confused:

I knew by the age of 5-6 between right or wrong. I knew that death was final around age 7.

imoo


You don't earn those rights or privledges they come to you as you age, so as long as you live to see those ages you have the right to do them. The whole point is there is a reason you have to be that age to have the right to participate in that activity, the powers that be made the law that said you cannot be trusted with the responsibility before then.

[LindaNJ1216]

As far as I know ONE swat can be abuse, depends on what you use to swat and how hard you do it. Kids are abused every day who are never even physically touched. Sad. I read about the swats too, I just can't get over letting your wife of two months spank your child...amazes me that because your ex gets married that means some stranger can discipline your child, without the paper it would be battery.


I agree with that. Step parents, unless it's from practically from birth have no business disciplining someone else's child.

[Details]

No I am not. He is quoted as saying it. HE said there were no complaints filed with CPS concerning this boy. Cant get any plainer than that. It goes right along with what he and LE stated from Wednesday until Monday when the gag order was then put in place. They said they had uncovered no abuse. Even Brewer was saying the same thing. That was 5 days after the murders.

imooWords have a lot of meanings. "concerning" - being concerned with his welfare, or concerned about him assaulting others? "complaints about" - regarding in any context, or only "complaints about" him hurting others? Attorneys know how to use words to their advantage.

"Uncovered no abuse" - another fun one - uncovered no allegations, or uncovered no absolute proof?

A clever DA will use the words to suggest what he wants people to believe, while keeping the precise meaning only to what he can prove. It's a good technique when it comes to working to get the guilty to plead out - but of course the DA isn't always right about who they think are guilty.

[JD1974]

you're wrong about that last part. I have worked with hundreds of children and argued like many of you here. Until I experienced one......outwardly he was a model child, well liked, respected, charming and well mannered on the outside. There were no clues, no red flags as to what he was capable of. He was cold, twisted and...well...scary evil. Like this child....when caught he had no idea how to react. What a normal response would be...he went flat. Just like this kid.....totally inappropriate affect for the situation. after my experience with the child I contacted Dr Hare and attended a presentation and dinner when he was lecturing. Read everything I could. That's what lead me to my opinion. The child I am speaking of and this one are so eerily similar it's frightening to me.


So you are basing your opinion on all children and what they understand, how they act on ONE child? There are evil children, I will be the first to admit that, but I cannot see how seeing a short tape and hearing how well behaved this child is can lead you to the conclusion that he is evil?

[Details]

Is murdering someone a privilege when they turn a certain age?

Kids 8 years old and older can be charged with a crime in AZ.

imooMurder isn't a privilege - it's a legal definition. The difference between killing someone and murder is a legal definition that includes intent. If you can't rationally form the intent, due to mental illness or your age - how can you murder someone?

A law doesn't change medical fact - AZ can make what laws they like - doesn't change reality.

[LindaNJ1216]

I have an 8 year old and do you know what is worse than dying to her, her friend down the street moving, a bad letter from me to Santa Claus and the easter bunny running out of eggs. Not all 8 year olds have to grow up fast and have the mentality of a 20 year old and frankly I feel sorry for the ones that have to.


agree...to a point.



Go ask her if it's okay to kill someone.

I would bet she would get it right as would almost every other 8 yr old in the country.

[Details]

I believe one of the officers on the scene had been on the force for 10 years. I would think that one of them immediately bent down close to the barrel opening of the gun they found, and smelled if they could smell a strong odor of being recently fired. It is easy to tell when a weapon has been recently shot. It has its own strong odor in which I think most police officers are familiar with. The more recent the stronger the smell.

imooYou would think - and they could have - but we've got zero, zilch, nada, to say that they did. So, either they didn't, or they didn't smell anything, or it was one of the many reports not signed. But you'd think that if they had smelled that, it'd be part of the court proceedings, they'd have testified to that in the hearing. It's a relevant fact, and the only bit of hard evidence tieing the boy to the crimes to any degree.

I'm well aware of that smell thing - but they said nothing about smelling it. Plenty about the scene, plenty about their actions - and nothing about smelling it. So - did they not smell it, did they leave that fact out for some strange reason, or did it not smell of gunpowder?

[LindaNJ1216]

So you are basing your opinion on all children and what they understand, how they act on ONE child? There are evil children, I will be the first to admit that, but I cannot see how seeing a short tape and hearing how well behaved this child is can lead you to the conclusion that he is evil?

I considered every piece of information in this case. the totality of everything lead me to my opinion.

And no....not all children, just the ones that murder with premeditation. Ones that lay in wait, lure and have a plan. Ones that seem to have no remorse. The ones that skip off and have a soda or go play with friends without a care in the world.

[LindaNJ1216]

Murder isn't a privilege - it's a legal definition. The difference between killing someone and murder is a legal definition that includes intent. If you can't rationally form the intent, due to mental illness or your age - how can you murder someone?

A law doesn't change medical fact - AZ can make what laws they like - doesn't change reality.

Do you think this 8 year old didn't intend to kill? What was he planning to do? Tickle them?
:confused:

[Details]

agree...to a point.



Go ask her if it's okay to kill someone.

I would bet she would get it right as would almost every other 8 yr old in the country.Yeah - until that someone had taken her Easter bunny. And ask what happens to someone who is shot - plenty of movies have shown her that one - they come back.

And there's a difference between the answer they give (as in the case of the gun on the table - all of those kids would happily tell you correctly that they should never touch a gun - but given a chance, they'll do it), and what they really believe, at the emotional, internal level. It's because they don't understand consequences - they'll parrot our rules back at us, and follow, most of the time - but they don't understand, not really. It takes time and development.

[LindaNJ1216]

Yeah - until that someone had taken her Easter bunny. And ask what happens to someone who is shot - plenty of movies have shown her that one - they come back.

And there's a difference between the answer they give (as in the case of the gun on the table - all of those kids would happily tell you correctly that they should never touch a gun - but given a chance, they'll do it), and what they really believe, at the emotional, internal level. It's because they don't understand consequences - they'll parrot our rules back at us, and follow, most of the time - but they don't understand, not really. It takes time and development.

Has your child never own a pet that has died? She honestly has no concept of death?

[Details]

Do you think this 8 year old didn't intend to kill? What was he planning to do? Tickle them?
:confused:First - I don't believe he killed them. The evidence doesn't support it. His confession doesn't support it. I find it far more suspicious that there's a wife and a mistress, and past drug deals, and the guy with the most bullet holes in him was about to propose to the mistress. And that wife gives the only piece of evidence we have against the boy. A blood trail leading towards where the police would have the boy shooting just does not fit.



But - let's say he killed them. I'd say he intended to hurt them or to make them stop bothering him. The idea that this was permanent, the idea that this meant he'd never see his dad again, the idea that this would hurt Tim permanently, the idea that this was anything more than a clever plan like he'd see on his cartoon shows, where in the end everything turns out just fine - that is what I think he was too young to get.

He's not old enough that we'd let him say OK to sex of his own free will - something with far lesser consequences. He's not old enough that we think he can be allowed to log into a website without parental permission, he's not old enough to be asked for his address without parental permission. We don't consider him to have sufficient judgement to make the least, most minor decisions on his own - and we somehow think here, in this serious matter, he gets it?

[GentleBreeze]

Words have a lot of meanings. "concerning" - being concerned with his welfare, or concerned about him assaulting others? "complaints about" - regarding in any context, or only "complaints about" him hurting others? Attorneys know how to use words to their advantage.

"Uncovered no abuse" - another fun one - uncovered no allegations, or uncovered no absolute proof?

A clever DA will use the words to suggest what he wants people to believe, while keeping the precise meaning only to what he can prove. It's a good technique when it comes to working to get the guilty to plead out - but of course the DA isn't always right about who they think are guilty.

What are you talking about?

Brewer also said they had uncovered no abuse. So is he thinking the boy is guilty too?:confused:

imoo

[LindaNJ1216]

Yeah - until that someone had taken her Easter bunny. And ask what happens to someone who is shot - plenty of movies have shown her that one - they come back.

And there's a difference between the answer they give (as in the case of the gun on the table - all of those kids would happily tell you correctly that they should never touch a gun - but given a chance, they'll do it), and what they really believe, at the emotional, internal level. It's because they don't understand consequences - they'll parrot our rules back at us, and follow, most of the time - but they don't understand, not really. It takes time and development.

I was raised in a family of hunters, guns everywhere. I never hunted but enjoyed target and skeet shooting. I was a responsible kid and my parents trusted me to never touch them unless someone had broken into the house. They were always accessible and loaded. I was taught to have great respect for guns. I never once showed them to friends or even touched them without a parent.

BUT I saw the show you're describing above. I have never forgotten it. That show is the reason I will not have a gun in my house. My 10 yr old is very mature...for 10..., responsible and trustworthy. I don't think he would mess with it...but I am not willing to bet his life on it!

[emdragon]

http://www.prairiepublic.org/features/healthworks/grief/kids_understand.htm

Children's Understanding of Death

6-9 years
Believes thoughts can make things happen. May accept finality and reality of death but does not personalize it. Increased interest in physical and biological aspects of death. Death may be thought of as a person or ghostly figure.





http://www.sidsma.org/bereaved_families/bereavement_packet/understanding_death.html

Children's Understanding of Death
Six to Nine Years

Child's Perception: Child begins to somewhat understand the finality of death

# Fear that death is contagious and other loved ones will "catch it" and die, too
# Very curious about the body and may worry own the deceased can eat or breathe
# Connects death with violence and may ask, "Who killed him?"
# Asks more detailed questions
# Guilt - may possible blame self for death
# Continues to have difficulty expressing feelings, which may cause aggression
# Afraid to go to school or be away from the home, especially if living with a single parent
# Continues to have difficulty with spirituality

Providing Support:
# Talk and ask questions with child
# Make sure child does not feel responsible in any way
# Identify specific fears; share bad dreams
# Provide opportunity for play, drawing, art
# Be honest and tell a child if you do not have an answer
# Help them with positive memories of the deceased
# Model healthy coping behaviors
# Avoid "Don't worry, things will be O.K.," "You're such a strong boy/girl"
# Use honest words. Avoid "Your brother went to sleep and is now in heaven"

[Details]

Has your child never own a pet that has died? She honestly has no concept of death?No concept of death as we know it. The pet went away. Seeing a dead body doesn't mean they get it. And understanding that an animal can die doesn't mean they understand a person can die, particularly not mommy or daddy - we're just always going to be here.

But things don't die - they just go away. And they see plenty of shows - and their sense of reality isn't good enough to know what is true, and what is fantasy - to say that a dead parent comes back - whether it's the Lion King, or Ghost Dad, or any one of a number of shows that have dream sequences, or Bugs Bunny - death isn't permanent, it's not even all that bad.

Reality is not a strong concept. No matter how much you teach them, even if you decide to crush all of their dreams - not that we know that that happened. To understand that death is permanent - nope, I don't buy it - not at 8. You can be an evil little critter at 8, wanting to hurt anyone who thwarts your slightest whim (not that there is the slightest hint that this is true of this little kid) - and you still don't get what you are doing to others.

[LindaNJ1216]

http://www.prairiepublic.org/features/healthworks/grief/kids_understand.htm





http://www.sidsma.org/bereaved_families/bereavement_packet/understanding_death.html

hmmmmmm Maybe my kid IS rocket scienctist material:cool: he totally got it at 6

[emdragon]

What are you talking about?

Brewer also said they had uncovered no abuse. So is he thinking the boy is guilty too?:confused:

imoo

He said they had uncovered no abuse not that none occurred. There is a difference and his statement could change in the coming days.

[LindaNJ1216]

He said they had uncovered no abuse not that none occurred. There is a difference and his statement could change in the coming days.

It's going to be the only defense they have...regardless if it's true or not.

He did it. Just put him in some locked residential facility that offers intense therapy until he's 18 and hope for the best for society when he's released.

[Details]

What are you talking about?

Brewer also said they had uncovered no abuse. So is he thinking the boy is guilty too?:confused:

imooI'm saying attorneys use words quite precisely, sometimes for precision, sometimes to allow enough wiggle room that they can deny they said what they appear to have said. And DAs have in the past, and no doubt will in the future, lied (with enough wiggle room that they'll say, "What, you thought I meant this? No, I was talking about that!").

[GentleBreeze]

First - I don't believe he killed them. The evidence doesn't support it. His confession doesn't support it. I find it far more suspicious that there's a wife and a mistress, and past drug deals, and the guy with the most bullet holes in him was about to propose to the mistress. And that wife gives the only piece of evidence we have against the boy. A blood trail leading towards where the police would have the boy shooting just does not fit.



But - let's say he killed them. I'd say he intended to hurt them or to make them stop bothering him. The idea that this was permanent, the idea that this meant he'd never see his dad again, the idea that this would hurt Tim permanently, the idea that this was anything more than a clever plan like he'd see on his cartoon shows, where in the end everything turns out just fine - that is what I think he was too young to get.

He's not old enough that we'd let him say OK to sex of his own free will - something with far lesser consequences. He's not old enough that we think he can be allowed to log into a website without parental permission, he's not old enough to be asked for his address without parental permission. We don't consider him to have sufficient judgment to make the least, most minor decisions on his own - and we somehow think here, in this serious matter, he gets it?

What does any of that have to do with being a murderer. He wasn't having underage sex. He wasn't logging into a website. He wasn't asked for his address. He killed people. When would anyone be of age of sufficient judgment to make that illegal call?

I just don't buy he lived in laa laa land and in a video world of pretend reality. This boy was no couch potato nor did he live his life in some type of concrete and steel world. He was surrounded by nature and wild life. He shot and killed wild life and if his family ate the meat from the wild life he darned sure knew, without a doubt, the animal was deader than a door nail from those gun shots and not going anywhere but in a container to be cooked for breakfast, lunch or dinner.

[LindaNJ1216]

I'm saying attorneys use words quite precisely, sometimes for precision, sometimes to allow enough wiggle room that they can deny they said what they appear to have said. And DAs have in the past, and no doubt will in the future, lied (with enough wiggle room that they'll say, "What, you thought I meant this? No, I was talking about that!").

Very true...but when a defense attorney says it...............that speaks volumes

[Details]

I was raised in a family of hunters, guns everywhere. I never hunted but enjoyed target and skeet shooting. I was a responsible kid and my parents trusted me to never touch them unless someone had broken into the house. They were always accessible and loaded. I was taught to have great respect for guns. I never once showed them to friends or even touched them without a parent.

BUT I saw the show you're describing above. I have never forgotten it. That show is the reason I will not have a gun in my house. My 10 yr old is very mature...for 10..., responsible and trustworthy. I don't think he would mess with it...but I am not willing to bet his life on it!I've seen many shows along that line. One good one about what all responsible and even most irresponsible parents teach their kids over and over - never talk to strangers, never, ever, ever, ever go anywhere with them. And parents who say their kids are quite responsible, would never break that rule are shocked when they see the hidden cameras showing how quickly their kids go off with a stranger at the park (but he needed help looking for his lost puppy! I introduced myself, so he wasn't a stranger anymore. etc.).

They're kids. Not adults. The brain is simply not fully developed, fantasy is nearly as real as reality.

[Details]

hmmmmmm Maybe my kid IS rocket scienctist material:cool: he totally got it at 6Maybe so - or maybe he indulged in that little kid thing of repeating back what you tell him - even if he doesn't fully understand it or believe it.

[emdragon]

hmmmmmm Maybe my kid IS rocket scienctist material:cool: he totally got it at 6

You think he got it. That doesn't mean he really did- we NEVER know what our kids are truly thinking. Very possible yours let you see what you wanted to see.

My oldest is a very old soul and has always been mentally older than her peers. When her sister lost her hearing as parents my husband and I took great pains to insure that the oldest was given as much attention as her sister and that she was included in things related to her sisters condition. I went so far as to try and start a support group for older siblings of deaf kids- (they are effected and react differently than younger siblings)

We thought we had done a pretty good job- but when my daughter went off to college I found out she always resented the extra attention her sister got and the things she got away with. Color me shocked since we really thought we had balanced things very well. But she never let us see how she felt while she was still growing up.

Kids have a different perspective on everything and no matter how smart and advanced a child is they just don't fully connect the cause and effect of things.

Can an 8 year old kill? sure but do they fully understand their actions? Rarely.
And how can an 8 year old be convicted of "laying in wait" when they don't have a clue what it means?

[GentleBreeze]

He said they had uncovered no abuse not that none occurred. There is a difference and his statement could change in the coming days.


Of course it will change. You really don't believe it is going to remain like he stated do you? That he was mad with his father.

They have to go with abuse. What else do they have. The kicker for him is going to be Tim Romans', collateral death. Tim Romans was known as a man who was kind to young people and people in his town said he was a mentor to their child.

imoo

[Details]

What does any of that have to do with being a murderer. He wasn't having underage sex. He wasn't logging into a website. He wasn't asked for his address. He killed people. When would anyone be of age of sufficient judgment to make that illegal call?

I just don't buy he lived in laa laa land and in a video world of pretend reality. This boy was no couch potato nor did he live his life in some type of concrete and steel world. He was surrounded by nature and wild life. He shot and killed wild life and if his family ate the meat from the wild life he darned sure, without a doubt, the animal was deader than a door nail from those gun shots and not going anywhere but in a container to be cooked for breakfast, lunch or dinner.He's not allowed to do those things because we know his brain isn't sufficiently developed to understand, really, even those little consequences. Yeah, you eat an animal - but that doesn't mean the cute furry thing was hurt or went away. He lived in an 8 year old's world, with an 8 year old's brain.

If a 1 year old pulled that trigger, would you think them responsible? Or would it be obvious that the infant didn't know what pulling the trigger would mean? As they get older, they understand more - but to understand what death is, that it will be permanent, even though it's daddy, that it hurts them and others - nope.

You can choose to believe child psychologists are wrong, and that evil brains develop faster than good ones or whatever - but when we know their judgement, grip on reality, understanding of consequences are so feeble we tell them they cannot so much as give out their address on Disney.com without a parent approving of it - it's clear that the law, at least, understands that these are developing brains that do not understand, not truly, the consequences of their actions.

[LindaNJ1216]

Maybe so - or maybe he indulged in that little kid thing of repeating back what you tell him - even if he doesn't fully understand it or believe it.


nope, when he was 5 our dog was very ill and we had to take him to the er vet. He had to be euthanized. My son was devastated and sobbed uncontrollably. The staff were so concerned they gave me the number of a grief counselor. We had to bring the dog home with us to bury and my son held him sobbing and saying his good-byes the whole way home. He was inconsolable. I was getting desperate and did something I, as an atheist, never thought I'd do. I told him about heaven. It helped a great deal.

when he was 6, his grandfather who he was extremely close to, died . he understood, grieved and said his good-byes.

[emdragon]

Of course it will change. You really don't believe it is going to remain like he stated do you? That he was mad with his father.

They have to go with abuse. What else do they have. The kicker for him is going to be Tim Romans', collateral death. Tim Romans was known as a man who was kind to young people and people in his town said he was a mentor to their child.

imoo

And plenty of communities have said the same thing about the local little league coach or priest only to later find out the guy had a appetite for things he shouldn't have.

Bottom line is we really don't know what happened or why. And yet the child is being made out to be evil.

Everything that child has done and said- his reactions all fit the descriptions of the understanding of death for his age.

[GentleBreeze]

I've seen many shows along that line. One good one about what all responsible and even most irresponsible parents teach their kids over and over - never talk to strangers, never, ever, ever, ever go anywhere with them. And parents who say their kids are quite responsible, would never break that rule are shocked when they see the hidden cameras showing how quickly their kids go off with a stranger at the park (but he needed help looking for his lost puppy! I introduced myself, so he wasn't a stranger anymore. etc.).

They're kids. Not adults. The brain is simply not fully developed, fantasy is nearly as real as reality.

That was just so foolish. First anyone who has a gun laying in plain sight and just leaves the room with it laying there is a stupid fool whether there are kids or adults in the room.

You can't dangle a carrot right in front of a child or an adults face and say, now don't touch it.

Our guns are concealed. I would never leave a firearm even unloaded just on a table out in the open.

I always find those videos so ridiculous.

Why don't they show children in their home, with the guns out of sight and then see if the child goes looking for them and gets them.

imoo

[Crispy]

They don't have to go with abuse if the evidence comes back and shows he didn't do it.

Seriously, unless you know this kid personally, I don't think anybody can say what he does/doesn't know or even what he should know. Every kid is different than the next. jmo

[LindaNJ1216]

They don't have to go with abuse if the evidence comes back and shows he didn't do it.

Seriously, unless you know this kid personally, I don't think anybody can say what he does/doesn't know or even what he should know. Every kid is different than the next. jmo

THIS kid is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different than ALL the rest. I don't have to know him personally to know that.

[GentleBreeze]

And plenty of communities have said the same thing about the local little league coach or priest only to later find out the guy had a appetite for things he shouldn't have.

Bottom line is we really don't know what happened or why. And yet the child is being made out to be evil.

Everything that child has done and said- his reactions all fit the descriptions of the understanding of death for his age.

Yep, he knew to completely kill them make sure they are shot in the head which he said he did twice which I believe will show he did all of the shots. He even said his dad wouldn't not be needing his cell phone because he wont be coming back. Yes, sounds pretty final to me.

What does that have to do with this case. :confused: There has been absolutely no evidence to support any of those things that you have mentioned about those other men.

moo

[Details]

That was just so foolish. First anyone who has a gun laying in plain sight and just leaves the room with it laying there is a stupid fool whether there are kids or adults in the room.

You can't dangle a carrot right in front of a child or an adults face and say, now don't touch it.

Our guns are concealed. I would never leave a firearm even unloaded just on a table out in the open.

I always find those videos so ridiculous.

Why don't they show children in their home, with the guns out of sight and then see if the child goes looking for them and gets them.

imooIf the child understood the reasons, it wouldn't matter -whether it's a gun on a table, or a nice gentleman in the park who needs help finding his lost puppy. The kids got in the car. How well do you think they really understood? Guns too - they kill - and no doubt the parents told them all about how much they'll hurt you - didn't matter - the kids touched it. Because their judgement is not where an adult's is. Their understanding is not where an adults is.

Because they are not adults.

[GentleBreeze]

THIS kid is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different than ALL the rest. I don't have to know him personally to know that.


Oh yes, he is that, alright. No doubt about it.

imoo

[bkwits]

What are you talking about?

Brewer also said they had uncovered no abuse. So is he thinking the boy is guilty too?:confused:

imoo

How would NO abuse make the child seem guilty? I thought abuse was a possible motive.

:shrug:

[emdragon]

That was just so foolish. First anyone who has a gun laying in plain sight and just leaves the room with it laying there is a stupid fool whether there are kids or adults in the room.

You can't dangle a carrot right in front of a child or an adults face and say, now don't touch it.

Our guns are concealed. I would never leave a firearm even unloaded just on a table out in the open.

I always find those videos so ridiculous.

Why don't they show children in their home, with the guns out of sight and then see if the child goes looking for them and gets them.

imoo

You really haven't seen those? There have been more than a couple- some the kids know where the gun is kept and when the adult leave they go look for it others just show them finding the gun. The results were the same the kids took the gun out and played with it.

Teach your children gun safety but never leave a gun unlocked. It is simply irresponsible and not worth the risk.

[GentleBreeze]

You would think - and they could have - but we've got zero, zilch, nada, to say that they did. So, either they didn't, or they didn't smell anything, or it was one of the many reports not signed. But you'd think that if they had smelled that, it'd be part of the court proceedings, they'd have testified to that in the hearing. It's a relevant fact, and the only bit of hard evidence tieing the boy to the crimes to any degree.

I'm well aware of that smell thing - but they said nothing about smelling it. Plenty about the scene, plenty about their actions - and nothing about smelling it. So - did they not smell it, did they leave that fact out for some strange reason, or did it not smell of gunpowder?

Oh I don't think so. The hearing was not nearly as long as the trial will be when further information will be disclosed. All they needed was to show probable cause and they did. They would want to limit what they knew when they don't have to enter all of it anyway then.

imo

[LindaNJ1216]

If the child understood the reasons, it wouldn't matter -whether it's a gun on a table, or a nice gentleman in the park who needs help finding his lost puppy. The kids got in the car. How well do you think they really understood? Guns too - they kill - and no doubt the parents told them all about how much they'll hurt you - didn't matter - the kids touched it. Because their judgement is not where an adult's is. Their understanding is not where an adults is.

Because they are not adults.

children that have never seen a real gun before let alone shot one are going to be curious.

this child was taught the dangers, knew and understood dead.

[GentleBreeze]

You really haven't seen those? There have been more than a couple- some the kids know where the gun is kept and when the adult leave they go look for it others just show them finding the gun. The results were the same the kids took the gun out and played with it.

Teach your children gun safety but never leave a gun unlocked. It is simply irresponsible and not worth the risk.

I have five kids. They never touched the guns. They are all fine and well. Never were harmed or harmed anyone else.

imoo

[emdragon]

Yep, he knew to completely kill them make sure they are shot in the head which he said he did twice which I believe will show he did all of the shots. He even said his dad wouldn't not be needing his cell phone because he wont be coming back. Yes, sounds pretty final to me.

What does that have to do with this case. :confused: There has been absolutely no evidence to support any of those things that you have mentioned about those other men.

moo

I'm saying we don't know what went on inside that house. Period.

[LindaNJ1216]

How would NO abuse make the child seem guilty? I thought abuse was a possible motive.

:shrug:

huh?:confused:

[GentleBreeze]

How would NO abuse make the child seem guilty? I thought abuse was a possible motive.

:shrug:

I am not sure what you mean, bkwits.:shrug:

[GentleBreeze]

I'm saying we don't know what went on inside that house. Period.

IMO, he does. He was the only one left standing and unharmed.

ETA: Oh you mean in the home when they were all alive.

[LindaNJ1216]

IMO, he does. He was the only one left standing and unharmed.


and the woman that administered the 5 swats...you'd think he'd target her too....

[LindaNJ1216]

I'm saying we don't know what went on inside that house. Period.

I know there wasn't a whole lotta cleaning going on :D

[emdragon]

I have five kids. They never touched the guns. They are all fine and well. Never were harmed or harmed anyone else.

imoo

Yeah well no disrespect intended but I grew up before car seats, mandatory seat belt laws, and bike helmets and I am alive and kicking that doesn't mean I'd be stupid enough to allow my kids to do the same now that we know better.


Your kids may be well taught but you never know what their friends might have done.

[Details]

THIS kid is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different than ALL the rest. I don't have to know him personally to know that.Yeah, I think you do. Unless you're an expert in how kids who have just found their father dead on the floor, and been pressured by police to admit you killed him - unless you've seen a whole bunch of kids like that, and none of them act this way (people do handle grief differently - going into shock and not showing emotion to the scary police officers is not an unlikely response) - I don't buy at all that you have any knowledge that this kid is different than all the rest.

To me, he looks like a normal kid, who is running on autopilot, emotionally in denial, in shock. And it's a familiar way to process things, because I process them that way too. Lotsa denial. It's a way to avoid having to deal with the situation all at once, when you're overwhelmed. He's just getting through, not thinking about anything he doesn't have to. Different people grieve differently - see any funeral to see that - some cry, some try to find something humerous to distract themselves, some are stoic and show no emotion (but when they crack - they really crack), some complain, some praise the dead - all different responses for different types of people.

The kid said what he was expected to to get through that interview, for all we know, was and still is blaming himself as so often happens for little kids even when they've no connection to the death (if I'd gone straight home from school, I'd have been there for Dad), but for all his confessions, not one of them remotely matched the facts. The police had to prompt him for every detail, provide the details even.

[GentleBreeze]

Murder isn't a privilege - it's a legal definition. The difference between killing someone and murder is a legal definition that includes intent. If you can't rationally form the intent, due to mental illness or your age - how can you murder someone?

A law doesn't change medical fact - AZ can make what laws they like - doesn't change reality.

So you think he will be ruled mentally incompetent? I don't and if AZ can charge 8 year old children with a crime they think they have the ability to understand right from wrong or they wouldnt charge them.

imoo

[Crispy]

and the woman that administered the 5 swats...you'd think he'd target her too....

So why didn't he? You would think if he was angry about being spanked, he would have waited around for her. If he was that cold and calculated, she got off work at 5, not long after the dad and TR got home. He could have waited until Tim was in the house and shot him, hung out and shot his step mom when she got in.

[Details]

Oh I don't think so. The hearing was not nearly as long as the trial will be when further information will be disclosed. All they needed was to show probable cause and they did. They would want to limit what they knew when they don't have to enter all of it anyway then.

imoThe hearing is when they give the evidence to show he did it so he can be kept in jail - yeah, if they had any little bit of concrete evidence, that'd be the time to provide it. You don't want to gamble on the judge ruling against you on such a flimsy case, when you've got a bit more evidence in your pocket.

[LindaNJ1216]

Yeah, I think you do. Unless you're an expert in how kids who have just found their father dead on the floor, and been pressured by police to admit you killed him - unless you've seen a whole bunch of kids like that, and none of them act this way (people do handle grief differently - going into shock and not showing emotion to the scary police officers is not an unlikely response) - I don't buy at all that you have any knowledge that this kid is different than all the rest.

To me, he looks like a normal kid, who is running on autopilot, emotionally in denial, in shock. And it's a familiar way to process things, because I process them that way too. Lotsa denial. It's a way to avoid having to deal with the situation all at once, when you're overwhelmed. He's just getting through, not thinking about anything he doesn't have to. Different people grieve differently - see any funeral to see that - some cry, some try to find something humerous to distract themselves, some are stoic and show no emotion (but when they crack - they really crack), some complain, some praise the dead - all different responses for different types of people.

The kid said what he was expected to to get through that interview, for all we know, was and still is blaming himself as so often happens for little kids even when they've no connection to the death (if I'd gone straight home from school, I'd have been there for Dad), but for all his confessions, not one of them remotely matched the facts. The police had to prompt him for every detail, provide the details even.

Ah...but you assume he's innocent, I don't.

[GentleBreeze]

Yeah well no disrespect intended but I grew up before car seats, mandatory seat belt laws, and bike helmets and I am alive and kicking that doesn't mean I'd be stupid enough to allow my kids to do the same now that we know better.


Your kids may be well taught but you never know what their friends might have done.

Well I am not stupid and neither are our children. They were children that adhered to the rules. They were allowed to hunt but only used the weapons if we were with them at all times. We did not let them have company when we weren't home.

Their friends were very much like them and still are even though they are all grown now.

imoo

[Details]

So you think he will be ruled mentally incompetent? I don't and if AZ can charge 8 year old children with a crime they think they have the ability to understand right from wrong or they wouldnt charge them.

imooI think he IS not capable of murder - of killing people - anyone is capable of that, given the right circumstance - give an infant a button to push that kills someone, and they can kill. But murder indicates a level of knowledge, awareness, that he just can't have at this age. What the law rules - the law rules some pretty stupid things. And judges sometimes are ready to buy really dumb arguments. I believe they'll see reality here - but if they don't - that doesn't change reality.

Judges have ruled that a woman is a man, that Letterman (IIRC - or was it Leno) should be prohibited from sending mental signals to a deranged woman, that laws against interracial marriage are fine, that the Sun goes around the Earth - and any number of other nonsensical things. And when we get to laws, politicians have made laws that are even more ridiculous than that.

None of that changes reality.

I do think we'll have justice in this case - hopefully - with the new prosecutor, and what seems to be a fairly good defense attorney.

[GentleBreeze]

The hearing is when they give the evidence to show he did it so he can be kept in jail - yeah, if they had any little bit of concrete evidence, that'd be the time to provide it. You don't want to gamble on the judge ruling against you on such a flimsy case, when you've got a bit more evidence in your pocket.

Nope, it is a bare bones for a probable cause hearing. Not the entire kitchen sink.

They werent gambling, They knew they had entered enough and they were right.

[LindaNJ1216]

The hearing is when they give the evidence to show he did it so he can be kept in jail - yeah, if they had any little bit of concrete evidence, that'd be the time to provide it. You don't want to gamble on the judge ruling against you on such a flimsy case, when you've got a bit more evidence in your pocket.

Apparently it wasn't half as flimsy as you imagine it is.

[Details]

Ah...but you assume he's innocent, I don't.I think you missed the point.

Nothing in his demeanor is different than what an innocent child might show - for the reasons I gave. Nothing in his confession.


Hey - were you the one who talked about how he looked at his father's funeral? I forget.

[emdragon]

Ah...but you assume he's innocent, I don't.

I don't know if he is innocent or guilty- he could be either.

But I DO know that LE intimidated this kid into a confession.
That is why they dropped the charge for the father and why they have done an about face and are offering a deal.

That would lead me to BELIEVE the confession was the meat of their case.

[bkwits]

I am not sure what http://boards.insessiontrials.com/images/editor/color.gifyou mean, bkwits.:shrug:

Maybe I misunderstood you when you mentioned that Brewer said that no abuse was uncovered. You then asked the OP if that means Brewer thinks the boy is guilty.
So, I am thinking that if the child didn't shoot them, then the "no abuse" would fit that scenario.

[LindaNJ1216]

I think you missed the point.

Nothing in his demeanor is different than what an innocent child might show - for the reasons I gave. Nothing in his confession.


Hey - were you the one who talked about how he looked at his father's funeral? I forget.

In your opinion. Everything about him SCREAMS the exact opposite to me....and apparently to LE, DA, Judge..........

wasn't me

[Details]

Apparently it wasn't half as flimsy as you imagine it is.It worked - we don't know how flimsy the judge considered it. He sure was willing to let the child out.

But it's always a gamble - and if they smelled gunpowder (hmmm, wouldn't that have been covered in that question if the police had anything else to say it was the boy?) - it seems a foolish thing to try to hide. Not like that's going to help the defense any.

[LindaNJ1216]

I don't know if he is innocent or guilty- he could be either.

But I DO know that LE intimidated this kid into a confession.
That is why they dropped the charge for the father and why they have done an about face and are offering a deal.

That would lead me to BELIEVE the confession was the meat of their case.

They dropped the charge and preserved their right to refile later. it's a common strategic move. About face? think not...this case is a nightmare. He's guilty and he's 8

[emdragon]

They dropped the charge and preserved their right to refile later. it's a common strategic move. About face? think not...this case is a nightmare. He's guilty and he's 8

Of course it was a strategic move- I said so the minute they did it.
But If they were 100% sure this case was a lock they wouldn't have needed to make the move in the first place, and they didn't until the confession was questioned.


Offering a deal is an about face- they originally WANTED to try him as an adult.

[GentleBreeze]

I think you missed the point.

Nothing in his demeanor is different than what an innocent child might show - for the reasons I gave. Nothing in his confession.


Hey - were you the one who talked about how he looked at his father's funeral? I forget.

I don't agree. This boy was odd to say the least. He certainly was very different than any child I have ever seen.

I know of no child if they saw their father laying there dying who would just nudge him with the toe of his shoe, as if he was a piece of dead meat, he was trying to shove out of his way.

It shows such callousness and detachment. I agree with Linda something is very wrong with this boy.

imoo

[LindaNJ1216]

Of course it was a strategic move- I said so the minute they did it.
But If they were 100% sure this case was a lock they wouldn't have needed to make the move in the first place, and they didn't until the confession was questioned.

and the story went nationwide....then worldwide. The law says he can be charged at 8...come on...he's 8! They want justice for the two dead men and the quietest quickest resolution for this nightmare of a case.

[GentleBreeze]

Of course it was a strategic move- I said so the minute they did it.
But If they were 100% sure this case was a lock they wouldn't have needed to make the move in the first place, and they didn't until the confession was questioned.


Offering a deal is an about face- they originally WANTED to try him as an adult.

:confused:The confession has been known since the day he was arrested.

[Crispy]

I don't agree. This boy was odd to say the least. He certainly was very different than any child I have ever seen.

I know of no child if they saw their father laying there dying who would just nudge him with the toe of his shoe, as if he was a piece of dead meat, he was trying to shove out of his way.

It shows such callousness and detachment. I agree with Linda something is very wrong with this boy.

imoo

but yet he says he didn't mean for the door to hit Tim's head when he went in.

Maybe there is something I'm not getting here:shrug:

[GentleBreeze]

and the story went nationwide....then worldwide. The law says he can be charged at 8...come on...he's 8! They want justice for the two dead men and the quietest quickest resolution for this nightmare of a case.

Like the DA said cases like this of heinous double homicide really wasn't set up to be tried in juvenile court. I wonder if that area of AZ has had another double homicide like this one committed by any other young juvenile there.

[GentleBreeze]

but yet he says he didn't mean for the door to hit Tim's head when he went in.

Maybe there is something I'm not getting here:shrug:

He is very odd. He even tries to be some kind of sick twisted hero by saying he shot his father and Tim in the head so they wouldn't suffer. :chicken::chicken: What normal kid thinks like that or would do that.

[LindaNJ1216]

but yet he says he didn't mean for the door to hit Tim's head when he went in.

Maybe there is something I'm not getting here:shrug:


he also said he shot his dad to end his suffering after he found him already shot..he said that to make himself look better. He said he stayed with his dead fathers body for 30 minutes and cried another lie to make himself look better. He said lots of things............just like Casey Anthony. If his mouth is moving he's probably lying. Thank God he's 8 and not a a fantastic convincing liar ...yet

[GentleBreeze]

In your opinion. Everything about him SCREAMS the exact opposite to me....and apparently to LE, DA, Judge..........

wasn't me

He creeps me out, Linda.

imo

[LindaNJ1216]

He is very odd. He even tries to be some kind of sick twisted hero by saying he shot his father and Tim in the head so they wouldn't suffer. :chicken::chicken: What normal kid thinks like that or would do that.

hey GMTA:beer:

[GentleBreeze]

he also said he shot his dad to end his suffering after he found him already shot..he said that to make himself look better. He said he stayed with his dead fathers body for 30 minutes and cried another lie to make himself look better. He said lots of things............just like Casey Anthony. If his mouth is moving he's probably lying. Thank God he's 8 and not a a fantastic convincing liar ...yet


That is so strange that you mentioned that. I watched his interview several times and I kept thinking "here we go, Casey Anthony, all over again."

[Crispy]

I hardly think you can compare this 8 year old to Casey Anthony. I'm sure you can if you're going for dramatic effect, but seriously nothing alike. Not even close.

[LindaNJ1216]

That is so strange that you mentioned that. I watched his interview several times and I kept thinking "here we go, Casey Anthony, all over again."


we're sure in sync on this one:)

Weren't we on opposite sides for Cody Posey?

[LindaNJ1216]

I hardly think you can compare this 8 year old to Casey Anthony. I'm sure you can if you're going for dramatic effect, but seriously nothing alike. Not even close.

in your opinion

only thing different imo is this father held him accountable and punished him for lying.

[Crispy]

He is very odd. He even tries to be some kind of sick twisted hero by saying he shot his father and Tim in the head so they wouldn't suffer. :chicken::chicken: What normal kid thinks like that or would do that.

Well, he was such a hunter..don't you think his father would have told him to not let an animal suffer?

[LindaNJ1216]

Well, he was such a hunter..don't you think his father would have told him to not let an animal suffer?


yep. exactly the point. It's the right thing to do. That's why the boy said it...ro make himself look good

[GentleBreeze]

I hardly think you can compare this 8 year old to Casey Anthony. I'm sure you can if you're going for dramatic effect, but seriously nothing alike. Not even close.

I think there is, Crispy. His tales are very grandiose. Way over the top and it was just uncanny how he could change directions so quickly and never miss a beat.

imoo

[emdragon]

:confused:The confession has been known since the day he was arrested.

But then the tapes of the confession were aired.

I always hear "justice for the victim" do you really think treating this child as an adult is justice Or that his father would think it was?

[Crispy]

Because that's what 8 year old kids think about is making themselves look good and look like a hero.

[GentleBreeze]

Well, he was such a hunter..don't you think his father would have told him to not let an animal suffer?

Yes, but I assure you his father never told him if he sees human beings in distress to pump bullets into their head.

He knows the difference in a wild animal and human beings.

imoo

[Crispy]

I think there is, Crispy. His tales are very grandiose. Way over the top and it was just uncanny how he could change directions so quickly and never miss a beat.

imoo

Well, the difference is he is a child. Casey Anthony is an adult. That's one difference. I can think of more but the Anthony case is off topic on this forum. jmo

[GentleBreeze]

Wow....with the number of posts on here convinced this boy not only did this crime but also should be charged with the crime and that he has the mental capacity to truly understand the finality of death and his actions, one would think that the overwhelming majority of people feel that way. But when you realize that just about all of these posts are from the same two people, I am comforted.

The majority of right minded people realize that an 8 year old boy cannot possibly understand the consequences of his actions and should not be treated in the way he has been treated (basically as an adult or a juvenile much older than him.) Even if he did do it I think most would agree that he was probably abused and was acting in a form of self defense. Also, if he did do it, I think most would agree that the adults in that household created an unsafe environment for that child and ultimately themselves.

Furthermore, I think the majority of posters here are withholding their final opinions until they hear more evidence in the case and in the meantime are more concerned that an innocent child might be being persecuted that justice at this point.

Just because someone posts their opinions a lot doesn't mean there are that many out there.

IMO

It really doesn't matter what we think.

The DA and LE think differently and the Judge presiding over the case does not agree with you. He found probable cause and the case is going forward as it should.

imoo

[LindaNJ1216]

But then the tapes of the confession were aired.

I always hear "justice for the victim" do you really think treating this child as an adult is justice Or that his father would think it was?

That's the problem. He's 8. What do you do with an 8 yr old that boldly and coldly murders two people?

The question is...can he be rehabilitated? What if he can't or isn't by the time he's 18? Involuntary commitment?

I do not have the answers and I think the problem is...no one else does either.

[GentleBreeze]

That's the problem. He's 8. What do you do with an 8 yr old that boldly and coldly murders two people?

The question is...can he be rehabilitated? What if he can't or isn't by the time he's 18? Involuntary commitment?

I do not have the answers and I think the problem is...no one else does either.

No we dont and I sure think the DA is very worried about that.

[GentleBreeze]

Well, the difference is he is a child. Casey Anthony is an adult. That's one difference. I can think of more but the Anthony case is off topic on this forum. jmo


LOL Yes, I can just imagine Casey Anthony as a child. Her weirdness didn't just start now nor her pathological lying.

imo

[LindaNJ1216]

Wow....with the number of posts on here convinced this boy not only did this crime but also should be charged with the crime and that he has the mental capacity to truly understand the finality of death and his actions, one would think that the overwhelming majority of people feel that way. But when you realize that just about all of these posts are from the same two people, I am comforted.

The majority of right minded people realize that an 8 year old boy cannot possibly understand the consequences of his actions and should not be treated in the way he has been treated (basically as an adult or a juvenile much older than him.) Even if he did do it I think most would agree that he was probably abused and was acting in a form of self defense. Also, if he did do it, I think most would agree that the adults in that household created an unsafe environment for that child and ultimately themselves.

Furthermore, I think the majority of posters here are withholding their final opinions until they hear more evidence in the case and in the meantime are more concerned that an innocent child might be being persecuted that justice at this point.

Just because someone posts their opinions a lot doesn't mean there are that many out there.

IMO

Don't get so comforted...the other board I'm on overwhelmingly is in agreement with the two of us here...it's kinda boring actually..that's the only reason I'm here.

[GentleBreeze]

But then the tapes of the confession were aired.

I always hear "justice for the victim" do you really think treating this child as an adult is justice Or that his father would think it was?

I don't know what the father would think or the family of the father. Plus there is another family effected in this nightmare.

I think he will be tried in juvenile court at sometime.

[Details]

Joran can't be tried because his confession doesn't match the evidence, and there's not enough other evidence to convict him - so far, exactly like this kid.

Arrested on the basis of a nonconforming confession of a child, and testimony of one of the other natural suspects.

[muska]

I have been thinking about the Ryan Harris case in Chicago. The original suspects in that murder were two boys, 7 and 8 years old. They confessed to more than the boy in this case; they confessed to beating the nine year old girl to death with a brick, sexually abusing her with some kind of tube and then smothering her with her own underwear. They agreed with police interviewers that they'd done all this because they wanted her bike. They were allowed to go home under house arrest because Illinois at the time would not accept such young kids into a juvenile facility. About a month later, the case unraveled and the boys were released with all kinds of apologies. A month or so after their release, a pedophile was arrested and eventually convicted of Ryan's murder. I hope the police in the Romero case will be willing to admit it if they've made a mistake.

[Details]

There are so many of these cases. When you put police, used to questioning hardened criminals, and adults, used to using all kinds of ploys and methods of getting a confession out of an adult planning to lie, put those police in the room with a child, it seems not uncommon that they forget that they've got a child, and just go for getting the confession, forgetting that kids will believe every word they say, will agree with them because they're adults and authority figures.

Ryan Harris, Stephanie Crowe, there are many similar cases. Police techniques can get innocent adults to confess, it's no surprise it works on kids. Especially on little 8 year old kids. Especially on traumatized little kids who have just lost a loved one.

[clara2]

If he picked up the gun and accidently shot his father..I could see it,but shooting grown men multiple times and seeing them bleeding and dying....?I dont see how a normal child could do this .
I have a ten year old boy and I know at 8 and that he knows right from wrong .Of course I know they dont think exactly like adults but pretty darn close...my kids always were taught to respect and have empathy for others.

[beattherap]

[snip]The majority of right minded people realize that an 8 year old boy cannot possibly understand the consequences of his actions and should not be treated in the way he has been treated (basically as an adult or a juvenile much older than him.) [snip]
IMO
i keep seeing posts claiming that 8 year-olds don't understand death ... is there anything except personal anecdotes to back that up ?...

the american academy of pediatrics states that "By school age, children understand that death is an irreversible event."...

per another site--- "By ages 9 or 10, however, most children have developed an understanding of death as final, irreversible, and inescapable (Worden, 1996, pp. 10-11; NCVC, 2003)."...

i'll bet anything that this particular child understands death.
imo.

[TopsyCrete]

Wow....with the number of posts on here convinced this boy not only did this crime but also should be charged with the crime and that he has the mental capacity to truly understand the finality of death and his actions, one would think that the overwhelming majority of people feel that way. But when you realize that just about all of these posts are from the same two people, I am comforted.

The majority of right minded people realize that an 8 year old boy cannot possibly understand the consequences of his actions and should not be treated in the way he has been treated (basically as an adult or a juvenile much older than him.) Even if he did do it I think most would agree that he was probably abused and was acting in a form of self defense. Also, if he did do it, I think most would agree that the adults in that household created an unsafe environment for that child and ultimately themselves.

Furthermore, I think the majority of posters here are withholding their final opinions until they hear more evidence in the case and in the meantime are more concerned that an innocent child might be being persecuted that justice at this point.

Just because someone posts their opinions a lot doesn't mean there are that many out there.

IMO
I am here :seeya: watching the same 2 posters agree with each other. I see alot more posting in defense of the child.

[LindaNJ1216]

That may be because, here in America, someone is assumed innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law.

You have convicted him based on a series of leaks that may or may not be accurate, and your own perceptions based on factors that do not involve this boy.

Have you ever served on a jury?

Is that why he's sitting in detention?

IUPG is for the jury. The judge already found probable cause he committed the crime.

Hey, I honestly hope I am wrong. Who wants an 8 year old to be guilty of such heinous murders?

[LindaNJ1216]

I am here :seeya: watching the same 2 posters agree with each other. I see alot more posting in defense of the child.

Time will tell ...won't it?

[GentleBreeze]

That may be because, here in America, someone is assumed innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law.

You have convicted him based on a series of leaks that may or may not be accurate, and your own perceptions based on factors that do not involve this boy.

Have you ever served on a jury?

I just don't understand why this particular case is supposed to be tried differently than any other case. When did our laws change and some are done one way and some are done another way? I thought the justice system is for all, straight across the board? All juveniles are under the same rule if it is being tried in juvenile court. All adults are under the same law if they are in the Adult court system.

Everyday on this message board, from its inception, we have discussed cases and exchanged opinions about other defendants. None of us have any conviction capabilities concerning any defendant. IUPG is for a court of law...we are on a crime message board where it does not apply....not jurors sitting on a case being discussed.

A presumption of innocence is the legal standard that his jury must give him. Not people on message boards. They have a right to post their opinions about any case discussed here whether they believe the defendant is guilty or innocent.

This case is no different than the hundreds or possibly over a thousand cases that have been discussed throughout the years here.

imo

:shrug:

[LindaNJ1216]

i keep seeing posts claiming that 8 year-olds don't understand death ... is there anything except personal anecdotes to back that up ?...

the american academy of pediatrics states that "By school age, children understand that death is an irreversible event."...

per another site--- "By ages 9 or 10, however, most children have developed an understanding of death as final, irreversible, and inescapable (Worden, 1996, pp. 10-11; NCVC, 2003)."...

i'll bet anything that this particular child understands death.
imo.


Oh for sure this kid understands death.

[LindaNJ1216]

I just don't understand why this particular case is supposed to be tried differently than any other case. When did our laws change and some are done one way and some are done another way? I thought the justice system is for all, straight across the board? All juveniles are under the same rule if it is being tried in juvenile court. All adults are under the same law if they are in the Adult court system.

Everyday on this message board, from its inception, we have discussed cases and exchanged opinions about other defendants. None of us have any conviction capabilities concerning any defendant. IUPG is for a court of law...we are on a crime message board where it does not apply....not jurors sitting on a case being discussed.

A presumption of innocence is the legal standard that his jury must give him. Not people on message boards. They have a right to post their opinions about any case discussed here whether they believe the defendant is are guilty or innocent.

This case is no different than the hundreds or possibly over a thousand cases that have been discussed throughout the years here.

imo

:shrug:
you have the patience of a saint!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GentleBreeze]

The police arrested and charged him with murder BEFORE they even got any test results back. Idiots is a mild term compared to some that would fit them.

So you are saying that a defendant is never charged right away and LE always waits until the test results come back weeks or months later?

Then why do the Judges tell both the Prosecutor and Defense they must turn over discovery in a certain amount of time before the trial if you are saying that tests results already have to be back before they are even charged?

imo

[LindaNJ1216]

No one is saying that you do not have a right to say whatever you want to say and understand that it is in a court of law. But many people disagree with your opinion and have the right to express their opinions as well.

You may certainly say whatever you like, but the general consensus is that IUPG is simply an acceptable way of treating one another in a society. We hope that juries are able to practice this standard prior to entering a jury box rather than thinking what they want and the expect them to change their attitude in there!

Look-the difference in this case is that we have a very young child accused of these heinous crimes. I think many of us here have grave concerns about the treatment this child is getting-coerced confession with no attorney or parent present, no Mirandas, police and prosecution leaking things to the media especially the video, and many instances of threatening to try this child as an adult.

This goes way too far for most people in my opinion. 8 years old is simply way too young to look at this boy like any other defendant. My 8 year old son still believes in Santa, is having trouble with simple division and makes up his own knock knock jokes that make no sense, but crack him up! He and his school mates think passing gas is about the funniest thing in the entire world and when he goes to bed he makes me leave a light on and snuggles his stuffed animals.

An 8 year old is innocent. They are just on the cusp of learning that the world has evil in it, yet as parents we want to hold them innocent for just a little bit longer.

This boy has experienced a lifetime of horror in this past month. We want to protect him from more.

IM

The vast majority of 8 year olds ARE innocent. There's something very wrong with this one.

[Kara]

<snipped so that only your response to Details query about the boy's demeanor at the funeral remains>

wasn't me
http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12455690#post12455690

witnesses saw him go straight into the house after school. The phone call records between the dead roommate and his wife,(as roommate was being lured to his death), the gun used, fingerprints on the gun & casings, his demeanor & affect at the funeral, and all times after, other than his confession to name a few.

Color added by me, but the words are your own.

:biggrin:

[TopsyCrete]

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12455690#post12455690



Color added by me, but the words are your own.

:biggrin:
You are good.

[GentleBreeze]

No one is saying that you do not have a right to say whatever you want to say and understand that it is in a court of law. But many people disagree with your opinion and have the right to express their opinions as well.

You may certainly say whatever you like, but the general consensus is that IUPG is simply an acceptable way of treating one another in a society. We hope that juries are able to practice this standard prior to entering a jury box rather than thinking what they want and the expect them to change their attitude in there!

Look-the difference in this case is that we have a very young child accused of these heinous crimes. I think many of us here have grave concerns about the treatment this child is getting-coerced confession with no attorney or parent present, no Mirandas, police and prosecution leaking things to the media especially the video, and many instances of threatening to try this child as an adult.

This goes way too far for most people in my opinion. 8 years old is simply way too young to look at this boy like any other defendant. My 8 year old son still believes in Santa, is having trouble with simple division and makes up his own knock knock jokes that make no sense, but crack him up! He and his school mates think passing gas is about the funniest thing in the entire world and when he goes to bed he makes me leave a light on and snuggles his stuffed animals.

An 8 year old is innocent. They are just on the cusp of learning that the world has evil in it, yet as parents we want to hold them innocent for just a little bit longer.

This boy has experienced a lifetime of horror in this past month. We want to protect him from more.

IM

Where has the Prosecution leaked anything? Until the gag order they have always given the media assess to any case that is newsworthy. They did not leak anything. If they had "leaked" it then the Judge would have admonished them for doing that and he hasn't. The media has a lot of power and even Judge Roca recognizes that in his motions. That is the purpose of the Apache Court site which was set up for this high profile case and okayed by the Judge in order to publish information about this case. The only one I see violating the gag order is Brewer.

I really doubt this boy is anything like your child. I know plenty of children by that age that no longer believes in Santa and those that absolutely knows right from wrong and that death is final. But none of us can compare other children with this boy imo. We do not even know this boy. His own grandmother thinks he is capable of murder. That is a clue that this boy is very, very different from most.

I only heard them saying they were going to try him as an adult when he was first arrested. I have seen nothing that they are trying to try him as an adult now.

I don't know why you are telling me that you can voice your own opinion and disagree with me. When have I ever told anyone they couldn't express their own opinions or can't disagree? I haven't and wont because I respect all entitled opinions even if they are in disagreement with my own.:shrug:

imoo

[LindaNJ1216]

http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?p=12455690#post12455690



Color added by me, but the words are your own.

:biggrin:

Hmmmmmm you're right. I don't recall he attended the funeral, I think he was being held at the time. and I'm not sure why I wrote that. I do however recall reading he was comforting otherfamily members after the murders and made a few innapropriate comments.

[Kara]

You are good.
Nah...it wasn't hard to find at all.

[Details]

Hmmmmmm you're right. I don't recall he attended the funeral, I think he was being held at the time. and I'm not sure why I wrote that. I do however recall reading he was comforting otherfamily members after the murders and made a few innapropriate comments.You were the one. You kept making remarks about his demeanor at the funeral - that he wasn't at - and about the fingerprint and other evidence - that doesn't exist. I'm still waiting for those links.


I'll wait for the links on inappropriate comments too - since there's been not a whisper of that either.

I'm really curious, because it keeps sounding like you think this kid is guilty based on a bunch of evidence that doesn't exist - like his demeanor at the funeral.
witnesses saw him go straight into the house after school. The phone call records between the dead roommate and his wife,(as roommate was being lured to his death), the gun used, fingerprints on the gun & casings, his demeanor & affect at the funeral, and all times after, other than his confession to name a few. You said this was the evidence that convinced you - but so far as I can tell, none of it exists other than the confession. We have no phone call records - just a statement that there was a phone call. We have no fingerprints, he wasn't at the funeral, nor was he out afterwards. I'm not aware of any witness saying they saw him go into the house either.

[nothingnew]

Oh for sure this kid understands death.

his daddy took him out to hunt (which is KILLING BTW) prairie dogs, so yes, I think he has the concept of "death". Seriously, try shooting some little fur-bear in the head and tell me you don't understand "death", sad lesson to be learning at 8. I don't think he did it-he's just so agreeable about the whole thing AND things don't match up. jmo

[Kara]

<snipped>

I just think it is a pity that people are ready to make this boy swing, without hearing all the evidence. And Innocent until Proven Guilty is an established facet of our legal system, not just for a jury..
To be fair, IUPG is a legal concept designed to protect a defendant in a court of law. Of course we are free to speculate and form opinions prior to adjudication of a case, as long as we're not on the jury.

I just believe there should be more to support an opinion of guilt than a mere arrest. Being arrested usually is a great indicator of guilt because cops don't just pick a name out of a hat...they do follow the evidence. But they also screw up sometimes.

In regard to using the term alleged, I think as long as we follow up a post with a disclaimer that it is only our opinion or if the phrasing of the post clearing indicates it is only an opinon, you're okay.

For instance... if I say that I know for a fact that Gentlebreeze used to post under the name Oceanblueeyes, I better be able to prove it. If I say I believe she used to post under that nic, I'm safe from having to prove it as the word believe clearly indicates it is my opinion.

moo (my opinion only)

:cool:

[bkwits]

I have been thinking about the Ryan Harris case in Chicago. The original suspects in that murder were two boys, 7 and 8 years old. They confessed to more than the boy in this case; they confessed to beating the nine year old girl to death with a brick, sexually abusing her with some kind of tube and then smothering her with her own underwear. They agreed with police interviewers that they'd done all this because they wanted her bike. They were allowed to go home under house arrest because Illinois at the time would not accept such young kids into a juvenile facility. About a month later, the case unraveled and the boys were released with all kinds of apologies. A month or so after their release, a pedophile was arrested and eventually convicted of Ryan's murder. I hope the police in the Romero case will be willing to admit it if they've made a mistake.

Yes, I have spoken about that case many times on this board. The cops actually fed the two youngsters details of how the body was found, then proceeded to say that the two boys knew details of the crime only known to the cops. Meanwhile the real perp was out there raping others.

The kids won million $ judgments from the arrest.

[bkwits]

If he picked up the gun and accidently shot his father..I could see it,but shooting grown men multiple times and seeing them bleeding and dying....?I dont see how a normal child could do this .
I have a ten year old boy and I know at 8 and that he knows right from wrong .Of course I know they dont think exactly like adults but pretty darn close...my kids always were taught to respect and have empathy for others.

But we don't know for sure that the child shot the men.

[Details]

IPUG is for the jury. But even with the very limited evidence we have here - I'm just not seeing anything to suggest this boy did it. Children this age kill very rarely - you have to go back 18 years, for another case (of course, you also have to exclude the false confession cases we know about - Ryan Harris). But children this age confess falsely very easily. On the other hand, people being murdered over affairs, drug deals, work relationships - that's very common.

We need to know what is true in this case - but the evidence doesn't match the confession, the crime scene doesn't match the little boy nor the gun, and given a choice between a highly improbable murder being committed in a highly improbable way - or a far more common scenario that fits the evidence.

[Details]

his daddy took him out to hunt (which is KILLING BTW) prairie dogs, so yes, I think he has the concept of "death". Seriously, try shooting some little fur-bear in the head and tell me you don't understand "death", sad lesson to be learning at 8. I don't think he did it-he's just so agreeable about the whole thing AND things don't match up. jmoNope - kids that age don't get death. Yeah, killing little furry things - but not people. Someone already posted what 6-8 year olds think about death - and that's a description of how they understand it after a person they knew dies, how to handle their likely reactions.

He goes out and shoots a praire dog, and there's a little furry corpse - and the next day the prarie dog is right back there again. Kids shows continually show death as something temporary, for people. Whether it's "They killed Kenny" (which I hope he wasn't watching), or Wile-e-Coyote dying 3 times an episode or The Lion King or Ghost Dad or any number of series that have dream sequences and the like - death is usually temporary.

The idea that killing someone means that they're dead, and that it's forever, and that they don't come back, to have the intent to really mean it, to understand that you're taking away someone's life - that's just beyond what they understand. As the attorney said - he still believes in Santa Claus! This is not a rational adult, this is a child.

[bkwits]

Don't get so comforted...the other board I'm on overwhelmingly is in agreement with the two of us here...it's kinda boring actually..that's the only reason I'm here.


What "other board" is that? I've not seen it in those that I've visited.

[Kara]

IPUG is for the jury. But even with the very limited evidence we have here - I'm just not seeing anything to suggest this boy did it. Children this age kill very rarely - you have to go back 18 years, for another case (of course, you also have to exclude the false confession cases we know about - Ryan Harris). But children this age confess falsely very easily. On the other hand, people being murdered over affairs, drug deals, work relationships - that's very common.

We need to know what is true in this case - but the evidence doesn't match the confession, the crime scene doesn't match the little boy nor the gun, and given a choice between a highly improbable murder being committed in a highly improbable way - or a far more common scenario that fits the evidence.I think people forget just how very much kids want to please adults. If you just clue them in on your expectations, they will jump through hoops to please you, even if it means confessing to a crime you didn't commit.

[Details]

I think people forget just how very much kids want to please adults. If you just clue them in on your expectations, they will jump through hoops to please you, even if it means confessing to a crime you didn't commit.Yep, indicate you want a lie, they'll tell that lie. They don't get the world yet, won't for quite some time, they're just trying to figure out how to make things work. And when you've got them in a room, and want a lie, they'll tell it to get out of the room.

[TopsyCrete]

his daddy took him out to hunt (which is KILLING BTW) prairie dogs, so yes, I think he has the concept of "death". Seriously, try shooting some little fur-bear in the head and tell me you don't understand "death", sad lesson to be learning at 8. I don't think he did it-he's just so agreeable about the whole thing AND things don't match up. jmo

Very well stated. I am with you on this.

[GinoA797]

I think the "other board" must consist of only 2 posters! :rolleyes:

LOL I agree :seeya:

[beattherap]

[snip]The idea that killing someone means that they're dead, and that it's forever, and that they don't come back, to have the intent to really mean it, to understand that you're taking away someone's life - that's just beyond what they understand. As the attorney said - he still believes in Santa Claus! This is not a rational adult, this is a child.
do you have child development support for that statement ?... i've seen, and linked to sources, including the american academy of pediatrics, that say 8 year-olds generally do understand the finality of death...

i don't have an opinion on whether the child is guilty, but please, you're wrong according to various experts --- "by around age seven at the earliest, children acquire an adult understanding of death. They recognize “that death comes to all living things, that death is the final stage in the life cycle, that it is inevitable and irreversible, ...” (Slaughter, 2005, p. 179)."
imo.

[emdragon]

To be fair, IUPG is a legal concept designed to protect a defendant in a court of law. Of course we are free to speculate and form opinions prior to adjudication of a case, as long as we're not on the jury.

I just believe there should be more to support an opinion of guilt than a mere arrest. Being arrested usually is a great indicator of guilt because cops don't just pick a name out of a hat...they do follow the evidence. But they also screw up sometimes.

In regard to using the term alleged, I think as long as we follow up a post with a disclaimer that it is only our opinion or if the phrasing of the post clearing indicates it is only an opinon, you're okay.

For instance... if I say that I know for a fact that Gentlebreeze used to post under the name Oceanblueeyes, I better be able to prove it. If I say I believe she used to post under that nic, I'm safe from having to prove it as the word believe clearly indicates it is my opinion.

moo (my opinion only)

:cool:

I just read a venting rant of my dads on his Myspace... He is retired LE and his rant was about Nancy Grace and those like her who are trying cases in the media making it impossible for any dependent to receive a fair trial- guilty or innocent. Take it for what it is worth but it was his career and is the same thing I have been saying for years. Everyone who loves to pipe in with "IUPG" is a legal term simply don't understand the concept and use that as an excuse.

Every media report that interjects someones opinion or point of view taints potential jurors. crime reporting should be just the facts nothing more.
We are free to discuss it and debate back and forth without harm to the defendant here on a message board and we are free to have an opinion since we can't taint the case. But the media should facts.

IUPG was so much more than a simple legal issue to our founding fathers. It is such a shame most people have forgotten that.

[emdragon]

do you have child development support for that statement ?... i've seen, and linked to sources, including the american academy of pediatrics, that say 8 year-olds generally do understand the finality of death...

i don't have an opinion on whether the child is guilty, but please, you're wrong according to various experts --- "by around age seven at the earliest, children acquire an adult understanding of death. They recognize “that death comes to all living things, that death is the final stage in the life cycle, that it is inevitable and irreversible, ...” (Slaughter, 2005, p. 179)."
imo.

http://www.prairiepublic.org/feature...understand.htm

Quote:
Children's Understanding of Death

6-9 years
Believes thoughts can make things happen. May accept finality and reality of death but does not personalize it. Increased interest in physical and biological aspects of death. Death may be thought of as a person or ghostly figure.


http://www.sidsma.org/bereaved_famil...ing_death.html

Quote:
Children's Understanding of Death
Six to Nine Years

Child's Perception: Child begins to somewhat understand the finality of death

# Fear that death is contagious and other loved ones will "catch it" and die, too
# Very curious about the body and may worry own the deceased can eat or breathe
# Connects death with violence and may ask, "Who killed him?"
# Asks more detailed questions
# Guilt - may possible blame self for death
# Continues to have difficulty expressing feelings, which may cause aggression
# Afraid to go to school or be away from the home, especially if living with a single parent
# Continues to have difficulty with spirituality

Providing Support:
# Talk and ask questions with child
# Make sure child does not feel responsible in any way
# Identify specific fears; share bad dreams
# Provide opportunity for play, drawing, art
# Be honest and tell a child if you do not have an answer
# Help them with positive memories of the deceased
# Model healthy coping behaviors
# Avoid "Don't worry, things will be O.K.," "You're such a strong boy/girl"
# Use honest words. Avoid "Your brother went to sleep and is now in heaven"
__________________

[Kara]

I just read a venting rant of my dads on his Myspace... He is retired LE and his rant was about Nancy Grace and those like her who are trying cases in the media making it impossible for any dependent to receive a fair trial- guilty or innocent. Take it for what it is worth but it was his career and is the same thing I have been saying for years. Everyone who loves to pipe in with "IUPG" is a legal term simply don't understand the concept and use that as an excuse.

Every media report that interjects someones opinion or point of view taints potential jurors. crime reporting should be just the facts nothing more.
We are free to discuss it and debate back and forth without harm to the defendant here on a message board and we are free to have an opinion since we can't taint the case. But the media should facts.

IUPG was so much more than a simple legal issue to our founding fathers. It is such a shame most people have forgotten that.
I do think some cases are tried in the media...but honestly if we were to take IUPG literally, LE could never pursue a suspect or build a case against a suspect because it would be wrong to suspect someone before a conviction.

Even as a juror, an opinion is formulated during the presentation of evidence. You just can't enter the trial with an opinion and you can't cement any opinons formed during the presentation of evidence...you have to maintain an open mind into deliberations.

moo

[TopsyCrete]

I just read a venting rant of my dads on his Myspace... He is retired LE and his rant was about Nancy Grace and those like her who are trying cases in the media making it impossible for any dependent to receive a fair trial- guilty or innocent. Take it for what it is worth but it was his career and is the same thing I have been saying for years. Everyone who loves to pipe in with "IUPG" is a legal term simply don't understand the concept and use that as an excuse.

Every media report that interjects someones opinion or point of view taints potential jurors. crime reporting should be just the facts nothing more.
We are free to discuss it and debate back and forth without harm to the defendant here on a message board and we are free to have an opinion since we can't taint the case. But the media should facts.

IUPG was so much more than a simple legal issue to our founding fathers. It is such a shame most people have forgotten that.

Can we see your dad's myspace? Pretty please? I bet it is a hoot.

[Details]

do you have child development support for that statement ?... i've seen, and linked to sources, including the american academy of pediatrics, that say 8 year-olds generally do understand the finality of death...

i don't have an opinion on whether the child is guilty, but please, you're wrong according to various experts --- "by around age seven at the earliest, children acquire an adult understanding of death. They recognize “that death comes to all living things, that death is the final stage in the life cycle, that it is inevitable and irreversible, ...” (Slaughter, 2005, p. 179)."
imo.I'm talking about the emotional, real understanding of death. They believe in fantasy, they believe what they think can affect reality. Ask them about death, they can repeat by rote what we've taught them. That doesn't mean they really understand it. They understand well before that that stealling is wrong - and still will take things without understanding. They understand you don't talk to strangers - but still talk to strangers.

I'm going off of this - which really expresses what I've seen, and what I believe to be true, from emdragon's post earlier:
http://www.prairiepublic.org/feature...understand.htm

Quote:
Children's Understanding of Death
6-9 years
Believes thoughts can make things happen. May accept finality and reality of death but does not personalize it. Increased interest in physical and biological aspects of death. Death may be thought of as a person or ghostly figure.


http://www.sidsma.org/bereaved_famil...ing_death.html

Quote:
Children's Understanding of Death
Six to Nine Years

Child's Perception: Child begins to somewhat understand the finality of death

# Fear that death is contagious and other loved ones will "catch it" and die, too
# Very curious about the body and may worry own the deceased can eat or breathe
# Connects death with violence and may ask, "Who killed him?"
# Asks more detailed questions
# Guilt - may possible blame self for death
# Continues to have difficulty expressing feelings, which may cause aggression
# Afraid to go to school or be away from the home, especially if living with a single parent
# Continues to have difficulty with spirituality

Providing Support:
# Talk and ask questions with child
# Make sure child does not feel responsible in any way
# Identify specific fears; share bad dreams
# Provide opportunity for play, drawing, art
# Be honest and tell a child if you do not have an answer
# Help them with positive memories of the deceased
# Model healthy coping behaviors
# Avoid "Don't worry, things will be O.K.," "You're such a strong boy/girl"
# Use honest words. Avoid "Your brother went to sleep and is now in heaven"They might understand the biology, but not the reality, and especially not as it applies to people they know.


Look at that list up there, those descriptions - does that sound like anyone who understands death? Understands what it means to kill someone? Wondering if they breathe, how they can eat? Thinking it's contagious? They don't personalize it - it's something we've taught them - but not something they can absorb - not something they understand applies to people they know.


Ah, I see Emdragon requoted it - it's a good post.

[beattherap]

http://www.prairiepublic.org/feature...understand.htm

Quote:
Children's Understanding of Death

6-9 years
Believes thoughts can make things happen. May accept finality and reality of death but does not personalize it. Increased interest in physical and biological aspects of death. Death may be thought of as a person or ghostly figure.


http://www.sidsma.org/bereaved_famil...ing_death.html

Quote:
Children's Understanding of Death
Six to Nine Years

Child's Perception: Child begins to somewhat understand the finality of death

# Fear that death is contagious and other loved ones will "catch it" and die, too
# Very curious about the body and may worry own the deceased can eat or breathe
# Connects death with violence and may ask, "Who killed him?"
# Asks more detailed questions
# Guilt - may possible blame self for death
# Continues to have difficulty expressing feelings, which may cause aggression
# Afraid to go to school or be away from the home, especially if living with a single parent
# Continues to have difficulty with spirituality

Providing Support:
# Talk and ask questions with child
# Make sure child does not feel responsible in any way
# Identify specific fears; share bad dreams
# Provide opportunity for play, drawing, art
# Be honest and tell a child if you do not have an answer
# Help them with positive memories of the deceased
# Model healthy coping behaviors
# Avoid "Don't worry, things will be O.K.," "You're such a strong boy/girl"
# Use honest words. Avoid "Your brother went to sleep and is now in heaven"
__________________
right, i think your quotes support the idea that 8 year-olds may understand the finality of death ... to say no 8 year-old or This 8 year-old didn't know death, shooting, killing means gone, kaput, not coming back... is imo presumptuous and misleading of the what experts say.
imo.

[Kara]

At the age of 8 I reluctantly gave up my belief in Santa Claus when my older brother made fun of me for still believing.

I also cried my eyes out when my best friend moved away at the age of 8. I didn't understand why I was so sad and I was embarassed by my tears.

If I couldn't understand why I was sad about my best friend moving away, could I possible understand death at that age? (and my best friend's dad was a veterinarian who also raised and killed his own poultry...but I still didn't get that whole death thing...esp. since chickens don't stop moving when their heads are chopped off)

I had witnessed death of pets...but that didn't mean I got it.

[emdragon]

right, i think your quotes support the idea that 8 year-olds may understand the finality of death ... to say no 8 year-old or This 8 year-old didn't know death, shooting, killing means gone, kaput, not coming back... is imo presumptuous and misleading of the what experts say.
imo.

Did you miss the words "May" and "Somewhat"? this is the age group just beginning to understand the realities of death. But they don't have it completely yet. They can and often do think they caused the death.

No an 8 yr old does not understand "laying in wait" or "murder" they are certainly capable of pulling a trigger but that doesn't mean they comprehend the full results of doing so.

TopsyCrete
what is so funny about my dads Myspace? many older people have them, in fact it looks like many in his church do. He has a daughter 25yr, I have one that age as well (yeah BIG gape between his two kids lol) and is why I have one.
He uses it to keep in touch with my mother- his first true love- I find it romantic not funny.

[GentleBreeze]

The video should have never been released to the public. It is a video of a minor and in the interest of decency should not have been released. I am actually glad it was because the video, to me, speaks volumes. I just think it backfired on the prosecution because he was trying to gain an advantage (IMO) with the public to say-look-see-he even admitted it-we're not just making this up. But I think most people who have seen the video agree it was coerced and does not match what evidence we do know.

Gentle-you are the one who seems offended that anyone could possibly take you to task for your views and defend yourself by saying "this is a message board and not a court of law" well then practice what you preach. If you make statements and act in a way that people vehemently disagree with, then you should expect some unkind words directed your way as well.

Your partner Linda, who you feel so "in synch" with on this issue has stated that this child is not like other children his age and you say all minors should be treated the same across the board. Neither of these make sense. Treating an 8 year old like a 16 year old? Impossible! When does it end? Can you treat a 6 year old like a 10 year old? How about a 4 year old? Can they be treated like a 6 year old? What if they are "different" from other kids their own age? Should we treat them as their age (as we do with adults) or as an individual?

In my opinion, and 8 year old boy is an 8 year old boy and has a vast difference of intellect from children just a couple years older or younger.

This case IS different from most others you have read about because there are very few cases where an 8 year old child shot and killed 2 people in cold blood without some kind of abuse situation. So rather than trying to dictate justice to this child as it is dole out across the board, why not take a breath, take a closer look at the child, his situation, other evidence, other suspects, etc...before we simply run down the road of conviction.

If there ever has been an instance of a need for IUPG and proving beyond a reasonable doubt it is this one because I would be afraid of what would happen to my soul if I were one of the prosecutors in this case and it turned out I was wrong.

IMO

:rose:

I am not even sure where your rambling are coming from. You or any other poster that may want to say unkind things to me just doesn't matter to me at all. That is their choice, not mine. I do not attack anyone personally. So what they do or may want to do is of no concern to me. I post my opinions about the case. And yes, when we are told that we cant have an opinion of guilt because the defendant is IUPG, then I will remind them that we are on a message board and not a juror, as they seems to have forgotten that we all have freedom of speech, not just a selected group. I certainly wouldn't want to be on a board where every posts was just a clone of someone else's thoughts. That would be beyond boring. I expect posters to not agree with me and I welcome it, as it makes for good debate, but I do at times get tired of the sarcastic personal barbs that are attached to it, instead of consistently keeping to issues in the case itself.

See, there ya go again.....:rolleyes:You just cant resist can you? "Your partner Linda,....." The only partner I have is my husband. I do not know Linda nor do I remember ever posting with them before. Are you saying people must have partners to help them think? Hmmm Do I tell you, "your partners?" Nope .

IMO, this case happened in AZ. It is governed under AZ law where it says that 8 year olds can be charged and convicted of a crime. I didn't create the laws. It is what it is.

There is IUPG already in place. There will be a sole Judge presiding over the case. There are no jury trials in juvenile court. He certainly understands that the case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

While I do understand that your support is for the child, it in no way means that I have to support him too. I support the murder victims that were heinously killed. Why should I change my advocacy on this particular case when the countless others cases it was with the murder victims, not the defendant? Why should I throw them under the bus for this particular defendant? Especially when we don't even know a thing about this boy, except his own grandmother said he is capable of killing them.

Each case has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury, not just this case, among those tried everyday in our country. The jury makes that determination not the DA, he just enters the evidence and the jury decides. Imo, he does have the evidence but he has been handed a horrible case. Like he has said these kind of heinous murders aren't meant for the juvenile court to handle. The juvenile system was established to rehabilitate youthful offenders who have done petty, nonviolent crimes but the DA is going to do the best he can in the predicament he is facing, due to the heinousness of the crime and the young age of the defendant. He is between a rock and a hard place.

Personally, imoo, I think it is just best that each poster posts their own opinions concerning THE case and not make personal comments about other posters. Also telling them how they should think on any issue is also counterproductive to a message board.

So I am going to take my own advice and return back to the issues of the case.

You have a good day, MzMary.



imoo

[GentleBreeze]

http://www.hospicenet.org/html/understand.html

Six to Nine Years
Child's Perception: Child begins to understand the finality of death; some do and some may not.

1. Sees death as a taker or spirit that comes and gets you
2. Fear that death is contagious and other loved ones will "catch it" and die too
3. Fascinated with issues of mutilation; very curious about what body looks like
4. Connects death with violence and may ask, "who killed him?"
5. 3 categories of people. who die: Elderly, handicapped, klutzes
6. Asks concrete questions
7. Guilt - blames self for death
8. May worry how the deceased can eat, breathe, etc.
9. Continues to have difficulty expressing feelings verbally
10. Increased aggression
11. Defends against feeling helpless
12. Somatic symptoms
13. School phobia (especially if single parent)
14. Continues to have difficulty comprehending abstractions such as heaven, spirituality


Nine to Thirteen Years
Child's Perception: Child's understanding is nearer to adult understanding of death; more aware of finality of death and impact the death has on them

Thirteen to Eighteen Years
Adolescent's Perception: Adolescent has adult understanding about death

I think there are variables that any expert must take into account with each individual child, whether to ascertain if they know death is final. It is not some magical box of a certain age but the individual child. Lots of kids are beyond their biological age in what they comprehend and know.

I was 7-8 when I began hunting. I knew then the wild game was not going to get back up and run off somewhere, when it had been shot. I knew the farm animals, that got sickly and died, weren't coming back either. I knew when the wild game was killed that my mother was going to cook it for us to eat. I knew if it was the game that I had killed or one that my father had killed.

This boy was also very aware his father was not coming back. The very next day when he asked to look at a cell phone stating his dad had one like it, he told them his dad wouldn't be coming back.

So imo, yes this kid knew finality very well and he is closer to 9 years of age than 8. His birthday is the 29th of this month.

JMO

[justaguy]

Hi justaguy!:seeya:

Yep, even in my older age now I am still a bulleye gal. :D
well anyone who has a gun should be. i aint antigun at all..am anti-people who don't know how to use one. i grew up with them, mainly for hunting. and gained a healthy respect for what they can do...bring meat to the table or end someone's life.

[frances1]

First, not all experts agree on this topic so citing one expert doesn't cut it. Second, the concept of death is complex and trying to claim one aspect of it, "permanence", can prove this 8 year old fully understands the concept because he is 'old enough' or whatever is ridiculous. Third, I'm really wondering why some of you seem to really want to see this kid guilty and want to claim he's basically adultlike at all, let alone this early in the case.

And I'm really wondering why some of you have just 'decided' that this boy did not commit these shootings, when all the facts are not in. I have also seen it stated as fact that this boy was abused, when none of us could possibly know that. I have no idea if these shootings were done by this boy. I could understand why some would say they 'hope' he did not do this; I certainly do. Some posters, however, have gone way beyond what any of us know about this case.

[LindaNJ1216]

edited
Your partner Linda, who you feel so "in synch" with on this issue has stated that this child is not like other children his age and you say all minors should be treated the same across the board.
:rose:

Please direct me where anyone stated "all minors should be treated the same across the board".