2/1-

[Aradia5]

But you'd stop to let the dog out?

In case they came back

[Hawk]

What if that is what the kid saw happen?

He has told someone what he did, or what he saw. He's in major league trouble and he knows it. Like all humans he seeks companionship. Someone to confide in.

I don't need a PHD to know that much.

[GentleBreeze]

A thermal shirt will do just fine.

Then why weren't Tim and Vinnie just dressed in thermal shirts?

I sure would like to know if he had a jacket on when he got off that bus.

imoo

[Aradia5]

Maybe a new gun that he wasn't supposed to be playing with?
:wink:

What new gun?

[rusure?]

Then why weren't Tim and Vinnie just dressed in thermal shirts?

I sure would like to know if he had a jacket on when he got off that bus.

imoo

We may never know that. Did LE question the bus driver or the other kids on the bus??

The boy may have even left it at school. A child that forgets to bring a paper home from school very well could forget his jacket.

[GentleBreeze]

In case they came back

You would expect a 5 month old puppy to protect you that had just been traumatized by the gunfire going off there like the Fourth of July????

Good luck. I imagine once Nellie was released from her cage she bolted for the open door of the home.

imo

[muska]

It is not reasonable, however, trauma has the effect of causing people to behaving unreasonably. When I was told my uncle had died, I called his cell phone. That was a completely unreasonable and utterly stupid thing to do, but I did it anyway. I honestly cannot remember what prompted me to do it, either. All I recall is being in total disbelief.

However, why would an 8-year-old even think about someone still being in the house or particularly care at that point? Is it really that improbable that a child would want to see if his father was okay?

I read a study about kids who have survived traumatic accidents.
It said that a common reaction is for them to intially be excited and like all the attention, even when they are injured and in the ER. They often will try to avoid talking about the accident. It said some kids experience emotional numbing immediately after the trauma.

Some of these reactions seem similar to the ways the boy reacted.

[rusure?]

You would expect a 5 month old puppy to protect you that had just been traumatized by the gunfire going off there like the Fourth of July????

Good luck. I imagine once Nellie was released from her cage she bolted for the open door of the home.

imo

You would expect an 8 yo kid to think like you just did????

[Hawk]

Maybe a new gun that he wasn't supposed to be playing with?
:wink:

The only guns we know were in the house were much too large for him to shoulder. Except the little .22.
Curiosity is the biggest enemy of young boy. He knew the big bore rifles were beyond his ability. Wouldn't stop him from playing with them.

Grandpa's Mossberg would not have fit his shoulder, nor does it fit the evidence.

[rusure?]

I read a study about kids who have survived traumatic accidents.
It said that a common reaction is for them to intially be excited and like all the attention, even when they are injured and in the ER. They often will try to avoid talking about the accident. It said some kids experience emotional numbing immediately after the trauma.

Some of these reactions seem similar to the ways the boy reacted.

Yes, that does happen. The boy also was the person who found them as well. I hope he got some counseling soon afterward, or he could be a candidate for PTSD down the road.

[Details]

You would expect an 8 yo kid to think like you just did????Kids know dogs protect people from bad guys. That's what they see, that's what they're generally told. And no reason a puppy wouldn't.

[GentleBreeze]

You would expect an 8 yo kid to think like you just did????

I would think that a child, once seeing a bloody body, which would be so foreign to them ............to immediately run away to a neighbors. Not push a door up against the dead man's head and enter the home.

imo

[rusure?]

I would think that a child, once seeing a bloody body, Which would be so foreign to them ............to immediately run away to a neighbors. Not push a door up against the dead man's head and enter the home.

imo

He was going in to look for his dad, whom he loved very deeply.

[Details]

The only guns we know were in the house were much too large for him to shoulder. Except the little .22.
Curiosity is the biggest enemy of young boy. He knew the big bore rifles were beyond his ability. Wouldn't stop him from playing with them.

Grandpa's Mossberg would not have fit his shoulder, nor does it fit the evidence.According to your guess - as you put it - not according to anything solid.

It's a thought often neglected in the investigation of this case - but - guess what - people are frequently killed with guns NOT in the house. Yes indeed, killers sometimes use their very own personal gun!

[IAMME]

But you'd stop to let the dog out?


I would but I already stated that, dogs are great protection....or at least in theory, im not sure my dog wouldnt just lick an intruder....but I would feel safer and less alone, and I KNOW i would do this if I percieved danger bc I have seen me do it. And a little boy is generally very close to his dog.

[rusure?]

When my son was 7, he woke me up in the middle of the night to tell me there was water on the floor of the kitchen. I yelled at him for being up so late and told him to go back to sleep. He came back again and said..."Mom...you need to get up NOW....there is water running somewhere and its on kitchen floor!" Well, that got me up!

I got downstairs to two inches of water in the kitchen and after a quick search, realized the hose to my fridge water dispenser had cracked open and water was gushing all over the place. Frantic, I ran downstairs to get a cooler and put the hose into the cooler then called my neighbor who ran over in his pj's and slippers through the snow. (My husband was out of town.)

He pulled out the fridge and shut off the water because I had no idea where my water shutoff was. My little genius son just saved my house from sure ruin and I was so proud of him for doing what he did! Beaming with pride at him doing everything to help us, just like a little man of the house with Daddy gone and all, I sent him upstairs to fetch as many towels as possible from my bathroom.

My little genious son proudly came down a couple of minutes later with....get this....a box of kleenex!!! I couldn't stop laughing as I was wading through my kitchen!

I think everyone is truly overestimating the genius capability of an 8 year old.

IMO-the kid was out playing with his gun and didn't want to get into trouble so he lied about walking around the block. He came home, saw the car, saw Tim, dropped his gun on the cage and ran up the stairs to find his dad. Shocked and traumatized by what he had seen, he ran to a neighbor for help. He tried to keep his lie about the gun and ended up getting tripped up into a confession.


That is very possible.:thumbup:

[Aradia5]

I would think that a child, once seeing a bloody body, which would be so foreign to them ............to immediately run away to a neighbors. Not push a door up against the dead man's head and enter the home.

imo

Didn't he say he felt bad because he accidentally bumped Tim's head. You are acting like he slammed a door on the guys head,

Video quality stinks. I can hardly hear them.

[Hawk]

According to your guess - as you put it - not according to anything solid.

It's a thought often neglected in the investigation of this case - but - guess what - people are frequently killed with guns NOT in the house. Yes indeed, killers sometimes use their very own personal gun!

So far there is no evidence of that.

[Details]

So far there is no evidence of that.There's no evidence of anything. No evidence the Chipmunk was the gun.

[Hawk]

You're forgetting the boy volunteered information that he did indeed sometimes use the airsoft gun behind his daddy's back.

Boys love guns. We should be grateful they do or we'd never won a war.
To think an 8 year old boy isn't going to play with the most exciting thing in his life is naive beyond comparison. Kids learn by example.
Boys, real boys, love guns.
If they don't you'd better learn different languages.

[rusure?]

I would think that a child, once seeing a bloody body, which would be so foreign to them ............to immediately run away to a neighbors. Not push a door up against the dead man's head and enter the home.

imo

I was responding to your post 1109:

You would expect a 5 month old puppy to protect you that had just been traumatized by the gunfire going off there like the Fourth of July????

Good luck. I imagine once Nellie was released from her cage she bolted for the open door of the home.

imo

So, I'll ask it again. Do you expect an 8 year old to think like you just did?

[muska]

Didn't he say he felt bad because he accidentally bumped Tim's head. You are acting like he slammed a door on the guys head,

Video quality stinks. I can hardly hear them.

You can read the transcript of the "confession." It is listed at the ChildsVoice myspace page. I would give you the link but I don't think we are suppose to list it here because his name is in it. I know it was removed from the Links section.

[IAMME]

so close he chose to ignore his pup and walk around the block 10+ times without her.

Yup, not hard to believe a littlel boy who was grounded and was not supposed to be out walking around would not go home, and if he waited til his parents got home, then he gets to leave AGAIN to walk the dog.......that is what i woulda done when i was a kid, and what my kids woulda tried to pull also....my dog never got walked so often with less resistance than when my kids were grounded...

GB- if you knew my dog you would realize how ridiculus it would be for ANYONE to expect him to protect me, my kids...maybe...me nope he would prb hide behind me, but he made me feel better and i got him before calling the police.

And it is also quite possible that the boy let teh dog out to protect HER as much as hisself.....he beleived the bad ppl were gonna come back and get him too! (paraphrasing)

[rusure?]

so close he chose to ignore his pup and walk around the block 10+ times without her.

But you don't believe he walked around the block 10+ times.

[Hawk]

There's no evidence of anything. No evidence the Chipmunk was the gun.

The evidence is in shell locations that could have only been done by a single shot gun. The Chipmunk was the only weapon found that matches the description.

[GentleBreeze]

I would but I already stated that, dogs are great protection....or at least in theory, im not sure my dog wouldn't just lick an intruder....but I would feel safer and less alone, and I KNOW i would do this if I perceived danger bc I have seen me do it. And a little boy is generally very close to his dog.

We would all like to believe that about our dogs but they having feelings too and can sense harm and danger. Most dogs are terrified of gunshots unless they are adult dogs who have been trained to go hunting or for war.

Having a dog does not protect unless possibly the owner has taught them to attack or be agressive. When the Greone's were murdered there were two dogs in the home at the time and one a pit bull. The dogs didn't try to save the owners, they tried to hide, in order to save themselves. Duncan said the dogs just whimpered and left the living room.

imoo

[rusure?]

Nope, do you?

I don't know. I wasn't there. I believe he did walk. He may have exagerated the 10+ times.

[Details]

The evidence is in shell locations that could have only been done by a single shot gun. The Chipmunk was the only weapon found that matches the description.Again - people are frequently killed with guns that are NOT left at the scene. That's the most common case - even if the killer uses a gun they find, leaving it behind doesn't usually happen. Without actual evidence, it's very premature to say it was the Chipmunk. And it is still your "guess" that says single shot gun - Tim's chest wounds say the opposite. As does two adult healthy men dead without time for any significant resistance.

[Hawk]

I don't know. I wasn't there. I believe he did walk. He may have exagerated the 10+ times.

And was alone for an hour and a half. And nobody saw him. And he didn't see Mr. Romans truck go by. And he yelled 'Tim' from three houses up. Etc..........

[rusure?]

The evidence is in shell locations that could have only been done by a single shot gun. The Chipmunk was the only weapon found that matches the description.

How could they have only been done by a single shot gun?

[GentleBreeze]

I was responding to your post 1109:



So, I'll ask it again. Do you expect an 8 year old to think like you just did?

No, I think they would be even more terrified than an adult.

imoo

[rusure?]

And was alone for an hour and a half. And nobody saw him. And he didn't see Mr. Romans truck go by. And he yelled 'Tim' from three houses up. Etc..........

Maybe nobody saw him because seeing him walking in the neighborhood is as common as seeing the mailman truck.

[Details]

And was alone for an hour and a half. And nobody saw him. And he didn't see Mr. Romans truck go by. And he yelled 'Tim' from three houses up. Etc..........No body noticed him. No shock - it's just a kid walking around. No reason to take any particular note - for those few people home, outside, and watching.

I don't see the mailman come by - I've no doubt that he does.

[GentleBreeze]

How could they have only been done by a single shot gun?



Why couldn't they? Sure is a simple mechanism. That is why it is made for children and their small hands and fingers. It is very easy to shoot, eject, reload and shoot again.

iimoo

[rusure?]

No, I think they would be even more terrified than an adult.

imoo

Post 1218, again.

[rusure?]

Why couldn't they? Sure is a simple mechanism. That is why it is made for children and their small hands and fingers. It is very easy to shoot, eject, reload and shoot again.

iimoo

The key word in my question was ONLY

[IAMME]

We would all like to believe that about our dogs but they having feelings too and can sense harm and danger. Most dogs are terrified of gunshots unless they are adult dogs who have been trained to go hunting or for war.

Having a dog does not protect unless possibly the owner has taught them to attack or be agressive. When the Greone's were murdered there were two dogs in the home at the time and one a pit bull. The dogs didn't try to save the owners, they tried to hide, in order to save themselves. Duncan said the dogs just whimpered and left the living room.

imoo

I edited my post b4 i saw this one, bc of one you were quoted on above....see post 223 If I, an adult, think like this when I precieve danger then what is to say the boy didnt as well as silly as it is....and believe me my dog (who died two days after xmas) would have prob licked an intruder in the face WHILE I was bludgeoned to death...but you do not think logically in an emergency, see my previous post about my friend and the fire.....This is not just some people but MOST people do not react well in these kind of stressful situations. And we are talking about a CHILD, who doesnt have near the same amount of life experience to draw on when deciding what the safest, most appropriate action to take would be.

[Hawk]

Again - people are frequently killed with guns that are NOT left at the scene. That's the most common case - even if the killer uses a gun they find, leaving it behind doesn't usually happen. Without actual evidence, it's very premature to say it was the Chipmunk. And it is still your "guess" that says single shot gun - Tim's chest wounds say the opposite. As does two adult healthy men dead without time for any significant resistance.

Mr. Romans chest wounds suggest nothing beyond he was incapacitated and falling at the second chest shot. May well have been bending over in pain from the first shot that went through his arm then into his body. All of Mr. Romans wounds were deadly.
The last head shots were spiteful. These were hateful killings.

[rusure?]

No body noticed him. No shock - it's just a kid walking around. No reason to take any particular note - for those few people home, outside, and watching.

I don't see the mailman come by - I've no doubt that he does.

And the boy said he walked every Wednesday and (can't remember if it was Monday or Friday). So why pay any attention to it? OOOO. Maybe the shooter knew the boy would be walking until after 5..

[GentleBreeze]

And was alone for an hour and a half. And nobody saw him. And he didn't see Mr. Romans truck go by. And he yelled 'Tim' from three houses up. Etc..........


So how far away would the house be if he was three houses away when he yelled to Tim?

I know we had a link one time of the area but three houses away seems awfully far to start yelling for someone.

imoo

[Details]

Why couldn't they? Sure is a simple mechanism. That is why it is made for children and their small hands and fingers. It is very easy to shoot, eject, reload and shoot again.

iimooThe reason why not - two shots in Tim's chest - slanting downwards, not contact. That means he was up, and somehow endured 2 shots before going down, which means they had to happen very fast. Two adult men, taken down before they could do much of anything. Again suggests something far faster than a single-shot, for the initial shots.

It might not be impossible, maybe - although I tend to think so.

But the question wasn't a "why not" it was a "why" - as in why does Hawk think it could ONLY have been a single shot, that any other weapon is impossible. IIRC, it goes to his "guess" about the order of the shots. IMO, it's not correct, and makes too many assumptions about the order and position of the shooter.

[Hawk]

Maybe nobody saw him because seeing him walking in the neighborhood is as common as seeing the mailman truck.

The kids would have remembered. It was a short time between the murders and headline news. They would remember.

[rusure?]

So how far away would the house be if he was three houses away when he yelled to Tim?

I know we had a link one time of the area but three houses away seems awfully far to start yelling for someone.

imoo

Not if you're a kid.

[Details]

Mr. Romans chest wounds suggest nothing beyond he was incapacitated and falling at the second chest shot. May well have been bending over in pain from the first shot that went through his arm then into his body. All of Mr. Romans wounds were deadly.
The last head shots were spiteful. These were hateful killings.You yourself posted what being shot in the chest with a 22 felt like. Even without hitting the spine - you aren't going to just stay standing after that. And this was his second shot - he'd been shot once in the driveway, likely in the arm and lung (head shot would have been fatal, chest shot would not likely have allowed him to walk up to the doorway), then shot in the chest, then, with these two shots in him, have to have remained standing there for the third shot.

Someone wanted Tim very dead. One more thing that does not fit this boy.

[Hawk]

So how far away would the house be if he was three houses away when he yelled to Tim?

I know we had a link one time of the area but three houses away seems awfully far to start yelling for someone.

imoo

Why would he yell for Tim anyway? Why not "Dad"?

[GentleBreeze]

I edited my post b4 i saw this one, bc of one you were quoted on above....see post 223 If I, an adult, think like this when I perceive danger then what is to say the boy didn't as well as silly as it is....and believe me my dog (who died two days after xmas) would have prob licked an intruder in the face WHILE I was bludgeoned to death...but you do not think logically in an emergency, see my previous post about my friend and the fire.....This is not just some people but MOST people do not react well in these kind of stressful situations. And we are talking about a CHILD, who doesnt have near the same amount of life experience to draw on when deciding what the safest, most appropriate action to take would be.

I don't agree about the dog issue concerning this boy. I think he kept the dog caged up, so she would not be right up at him or the victims and once it was over he let the dog out.

But I am very sorry to hear about the loss of your dog.:rose:

imoo

[GentleBreeze]

Why would he yell for Tim anyway? Why not "Dad"?

Danged if I know. It doesn't make sense to me.

imoo

[rusure?]

Danged if I know. It doesn't make sense to me.

imoo

Because he saw Tim's Truck and thought Tim was right there.

[Details]

I don't believe he yelled for Tim. I think that was one of three possibilities - 1: Pure made up story designed to misdirect police. 2: Someone calling to Tim that he did not want his wife to know about, so he told her it was the boy. 3: Simply a traumatic false memory.

[Hawk]

Because he saw Tim's Truck and thought Tim was right there.

And didn't think his dad was with him?

[rusure?]

And didn't think his dad was with him?

I think he thought his dad was in the house. especially since he saw the truck door open.
Or better yet, he may have already known that his dad was going to help a friend after work, and saw Tim's truck, and was wondering, what was going on.

[rusure?]

Well, I gotta go for the evening.
See you guys tomorrow.

[Hawk]

I think he thought his dad was in the house. especially since he saw the truck door open.
Or better yet, he may have already known that his dad was going to help a friend after work, and saw Tim's truck, and was wondering, what was going on.

Must have loved Tim so much that he called his name, rather than his dad's, three doors down. How is it Tim was shot to pieces less than a minute later when the boy arrived home?
Maybe he's a slow walker. And deaf. Near blind. Not paying attention. Attention diverted. Cold.

[Jacobtk]

The kids would have remembered. It was a short time between the murders and headline news. They would remember.

Did the police ask any of the children in the neighborhood if they saw or played with the boy after school that day? It seems that it would be fairly easy to ask around.

[Hawk]

Did the police ask any of the children in the neighborhood if they saw or played with the boy after school that day? It seems that it would be fairly easy to ask around.

They interviewed all the neighbors. Had any of them reported seeing the boy it would have been reported. Kids included.

[Jacobtk]

I don't agree about the dog issue concerning this boy. I think he kept the dog caged up, so she would not be right up at him or the victims and once it was over he let the dog out.

That sounds more like adult thinking than a child's thinking. Assuming the boy was the shooter and in that moment thought like an adult, why would he let the dog out at all? Any adult would realize it makes more sense to leave the dog in the cage as that would substantiate the claim that they just happened upon the scene.

[Details]

They interviewed all the neighbors. Had any of them reported seeing the boy it would have been reported. Kids included.Any kid who is at home would likely be in the back yard or inside playing on something electronic - unlikely to see someone walking outside. Adults, even more so, on a cool day, would be inside - those few who were home. A kid walking by wouldn't be very noticable - I doubt anyone would have taken note enough to say they saw him later.

[Hawk]

Any kid who is at home would likely be in the back yard or inside playing on something electronic - unlikely to see someone walking outside. Adults, even more so, on a cool day, would be inside - those few who were home. A kid walking by wouldn't be very noticable - I doubt anyone would have taken note enough to say they saw him later.

If he saw, or played with, other children, they would remember. No doubt. It's the talk of the town. Memories would be shaken.

[Hawk]

Any kid who is at home would likely be in the back yard or inside playing on something electronic - unlikely to see someone walking outside. Adults, even more so, on a cool day, would be inside - those few who were home. A kid walking by wouldn't be very noticable - I doubt anyone would have taken note enough to say they saw him later.

Perhaps, unlike your environment, all children don't have video games and indoor activities to keep them busy. There remains an outdoor playground for many children. All of them aren't limited to a 1/3 acre lot and over protective parents.

[Details]

I was talking about outdoor play. But most places - that's backyard, not front. IIRC, it's been established there is no local park in that area, so they wouldn't be there. The front yard is not generally where kids play, because they don't have their toys there. Swings, forts, and the like are nearly always in the back.


However - reality is many of them will be inside watching TV, if given the chance.

[Hawk]

Grasping at straws.

[Details]

Posting reality. I've seen it, I've lived it (hey, I was a kid once - even played with the neighborhood kids - in our back yards!). Most of the time, we wouldn't have known if a marching band and elephants were walking around our block.

[Hawk]

Posting reality. I've seen it, I've lived it (hey, I was a kid once - even played with the neighborhood kids - in our back yards!). Most of the time, we wouldn't have known if a marching band and elephants were walking around our block.

Then you went home and slaughtered two people?

[Details]

Then you went home and slaughtered two people?Going personal again - can't answer?

If you hadn't noticed - I'm talking about the theoretical possible witnesses to a kid walking around the block. I doubt any kid doing that around my house would have been seen or remembered, back when I was growing up. Because all of us kids were playing inside the house or out in the backyard (boy, we tore the house up some days too - indoor hide and seek is the worst!). And this wasn't during any cold weather - sunny San Diego.


What do you see in your area on cold days? A bunch of people out in their front yards watching the sidewalk? Kids playing out front - or out back - or inside? A kid isn't anything to notice. I work from home, by a window, don't see the mailman come - does that mean he didn't come? Or just that I didn't notice.

[Hawk]

Going personal again - can't answer?

If you hadn't noticed - I'm talking about the theoretical possible witnesses to a kid walking around the block. I doubt any kid doing that around my house would have been seen or remembered, back when I was growing up. Because all of us kids were playing inside the house or out in the backyard (boy, we tore the house up some days too - indoor hide and seek is the worst!). And this wasn't during any cold weather - sunny San Diego.


What do you see in your area on cold days? A bunch of people out in their front yards watching the sidewalk? Kids playing out front - or out back - or inside? A kid isn't anything to notice. I work from home, by a window, don't see the mailman come - does that mean he didn't come? Or just that I didn't notice.

Please accept my apology. The last thing I want to do is get personal. I understand that this case causes emotion. To me too.

[Details]

Sure, thanks.

[Hawk]

To suggest that the boy is an anomaly would be ridiculous to the educated, I suppose.

[muska]

Just looked back at the "confession." The first three times Avila asks the boy about what he found on his arrival home, he says, "I saw Tim by the door and then I called Dad, Dad." He never mentions calling Tim until Avila starts saying someone was calling you and you weren't answering, which was strange for her to say because no one ever said that at all. Then she asked when did you call Tim. That's when he says, "I just was saying, Tim, you're home right?" as he got close to the house. I think she wanted to say from inside the house but she did not make that clear enough. She tried several times to get him to say that but he never says he called from inside the house....just from outside.

She never let him tell his story and he was willing to go along with whatever she suggested. There is no way to know what parts are real and what parts are not.

[Details]

To suggest that the boy is an anomaly would be ridiculous to the educated, I suppose.An anomaly in what way? He seems a normal little boy - and if I'm right - he is - a combo of a particular crime scene, police, detectives and DA ready to take the easiest fastest answer is the anomaly here.

If he's a killer - he's a huge anomaly - the planning, coordination needed is huge, and well beyond anything I've ever seen in a child some years older than him.

Parents who don't have guns well secured - I wish I thought that was an anomaly - but we know it's not. I prefer to think most do - but ... can't say I'm sure of that.

[Hawk]

An anomaly in what way? He seems a normal little boy - and if I'm right - he is - a combo of a particular crime scene, police, detectives and DA ready to take the easiest fastest answer is the anomaly here.

If he's a killer - he's a huge anomaly - the planning, coordination needed is huge, and well beyond anything I've ever seen in a child some years older than him.

Parents who don't have guns well secured - I wish I thought that was an anomaly - but we know it's not. I prefer to think most do - but ... can't say I'm sure of that.

He's a huge anomaly right now.
Psychoanalysts have a job ahead of them that no professor has ever read about. And certainly never experienced. School books won't give them the answer. Lectures are worthless.
This is real world in real time. Statistics are meaningless.
This a real 'New Deal'.

[Details]

Stats and books and education are never meaningless. There's no stat for a child locked in solitary at 8 - but that doesn't mean the knowledge they have is meaningless - it just needs to be adapted as best as possible to help him deal with what was done to him. Take the info they have about older kids dealing with a similar experience, apply what we know about 8 year old coping capabilities and psychology, and there you go.

Hopefully there will be some reforms, and children like him will never become common enough to be a statistic.

[Hawk]

Stats and books and education are never meaningless. There's no stat for a child locked in solitary at 8 - but that doesn't mean the knowledge they have is meaningless - it just needs to be adapted as best as possible to help him deal with what was done to him. Take the info they have about older kids dealing with a similar experience, apply what we know about 8 year old coping capabilities and psychology, and there you go.

This is 'uncharted waters' to quote the Judge. There are no rules. This case will redefine Juvenile cases across our great country.
Throw the law books out the window. Men wrote them, They can revise them. It isn't Scripture.

[Details]

This is 'uncharted waters' to quote the Judge. There are no rules. This case will redefine Juvenile cases across our great country.
Throw the law books out the window.Put reason back in, recognize there's not an 8 year old in the world competent to stand trial, and raise the age back up! You don't need to redefine the juvenile system for this case (it does need to be completely revamped period - 8 year olds aren't the only people who shouldn't be exposed to that environment - but that's another subject), because this case should never be.


If he did it - and you know my thoughts there - it would be the fault of those who let him have a gun. No 8 year old should have a gun. They are not competent, they are not responsible, and that is a simple fact of biology. Nearly every other country in the world understands this.

[Hawk]

Put reason back in, recognize there's not an 8 year old in the world competent to stand trial, and raise the age back up! You don't need to redefine the juvenile system for this case (it does need to be completely revamped period - 8 year olds aren't the only people who shouldn't be exposed to that environment - but that's another subject), because this case should never be.


If he did it - and you know my thoughts there - it would be the fault of those who let him have a gun. No 8 year old should have a gun. They are not competent, they are not responsible, and that is a simple fact of biology. Nearly every other country in the world understands this.


With the blood of our children we have saved most every country in the world. (But, of course guns should be locked and not available to children).
I could care less what they think.

Access to guns does not in any way justify the murders of one's father and room mate. Nor anyone else.

[Jacobtk]

This is 'uncharted waters' to quote the Judge. There are no rules. This case will redefine Juvenile cases across our great country.

The Ryan Harris case did not redefine juvenile cases across the country. There were two boys accused of premeditated rape and murder (who turned out to be innocent despite virtually everyone stating the boys did it). I doubt this case will end any differently than that one.

As for rules, there are plenty of rules. It just so happens that the police, the DA and in certain instances Judge Roca decided to ignore them using the boy's age as an excuse.

As for the boy, there is nothing to suggest he is an anomaly or anything other than a normal little boy. The more people label him, the easier it is to think of him as less of a person than everyone else and the easier it is to trample over his rights and treat him like some kind of monster. Right now, based on what has been released, the state cannot even put the boy at the scene of the crime without using a coerced confession and an unsubstantiated claim made by a person on a phone.

[Hawk]

The Ryan Harris case did not redefine juvenile cases across the country. There were two boys accused of premeditated rape and murder (who turned out to be innocent despite virtually everyone stating the boys did it). I doubt this case will end any differently than that one.

As for rules, there are plenty of rules. It just so happens that the police, the DA and in certain instances Judge Roca decided to ignore them using the boy's age as an excuse.

As for the boy, there is nothing to suggest he is an anomaly or anything other than a normal little boy. The more people label him, the easier it is to think of him as less of a person than everyone else and the easier it is to trample over his rights and treat him like some kind of monster. Right now, based on what has been released, the state cannot even put the boy at the scene of the crime without using a coerced confession and an unsubstantiated claim made by a person on a phone.

I respectfully disagree. Brain science aside. If he killed these men he is, indeed, an anomaly in society, regardless of what world you live in.

Head scratching and all.

[Hawk]

Don't reckon young Romero ever heard of Ryan Harris. Doubt it would have changed things if he had.

[Details]

With the blood of our children we have saved most every country in the world. (But, of course guns should be locked and not available to children).
I could care less what they think.

Access to guns does not in any way justify the murders of one's father and room mate. Nor anyone else.We know children aren't responsible - we deny them most rights because of this. Giving them a gun without supervision is irresponsible and indeed anything that happens is not the child's fault - not fully. They should never have a gun. A child can have a tantrum and wish you were dead over a bit of ice cream. And this is not because they are a murderer, but because they are a child - their emotions control their thoughts, they do not understand reality, permanence, etc. Giving them a gun is as irresponsible as giving them cyanide capusles.

Justify murder? Nope - nothing justifies murder - but that's not what I'm doing. If you give a child a gun, and they shoot someone - you are the one responsible. Because you are the adult, they are the child, you are responsible, they quite simply do not have the capacity - not to any degree that can be relied on in life or death situations. They're children. Not fully developed, immature - children.




And to believe that America must be right, when every other civilized country goes the other way - I don't have that type of ego. America is great, and we've spilled blood for freedom. So have other countries, and no one is always right, and when a huge number of people say you are wrong, it's common sense to take a look and see if they might just be right. Nor do I believe that. Children should not be criminally charged, not this young, not anything close. Maybe some true rehab - but that's the end of it. Our justice system right now is too much about revenge, vengance, and not enough about justice. Taking a child who doesn't even understand what he did and was too young to have adult impulse control, and punishing him as if he had full control of his actions does nothing good - not for the victims, not for the child, and not for society.

An adult with the mind of an 8 year old - we'd call him insane. An 8 year old with the mind of an 8 year old is no more responsible for his actions.

[Hawk]

[QUOTE=Details;12737922]We know children aren't responsible - we deny them most rights because of this. Giving them a gun without supervision is irresponsible and indeed anything that happens is not the child's fault - not fully. They should never have a gun. A child can have a tantrum and wish you were dead over a bit of ice cream. And this is not because they are a murderer, but because they are a child - their emotions control their thoughts, they do not understand reality, permanence, etc. Giving them a gun is as irresponsible as giving them cyanide capusles.

Justify murder? Nope - nothing justifies murder - but that's not what I'm doing. If you give a child a gun, and they shoot someone - you are the one responsible. Because you are the adult, they are the child, you are responsible, they quite simply do not have the capacity - not to any degree that can be relied on in life or death situations. They're children. Not fully developed, immature - children.




And to believe that America must be right, when every other civilized country goes the other way - I don't have that type of ego. America is great, and we've spilled blood for freedom. So have other countries, and no one is always right, and when a huge number of people say you are wrong, it's common sense to take a look and see if they might just be right. Nor do I believe that. Children should not be criminally charged, not this young, not anything close. Maybe some true rehab - but that's the end of it. Our justice system right now is too much about revenge, vengance, and not enough about justice. Taking a child who doesn't even understand what he did and was too young to have adult impulse control, and punishing him as if he had full control of his actions does nothing good - not for the victims, not for the child, and not for society.

An adult with the mind of an 8 year old - we'd call him insane. An 8 year old with the mind of an 8 year old is no more responsible for his actions.[/QUOTE)

I'm grateful that our government didn't side with a 'huge group of Americans' that were against non- slavery laws and women's right to vote.

[TaraCrazyHair]

With the blood of our children we have saved most every country in the world. (But, of course guns should be locked and not available to children).
I could care less what they think.

Access to guns does not in any way justify the murders of one's father and room mate. Nor anyone else.

Access to guns in no way justify murder .. or accidental death

But when parents leave guns available to children, the parents must pay

Maybe I should say .. leave bullets available to children since a gun cannot kill without a bullet in the chamber

[Hawk]

We know children aren't responsible - we deny them most rights because of this. Giving them a gun without supervision is irresponsible and indeed anything that happens is not the child's fault - not fully. They should never have a gun. A child can have a tantrum and wish you were dead over a bit of ice cream. And this is not because they are a murderer, but because they are a child - their emotions control their thoughts, they do not understand reality, permanence, etc. Giving them a gun is as irresponsible as giving them cyanide capusles.

Justify murder? Nope - nothing justifies murder - but that's not what I'm doing. If you give a child a gun, and they shoot someone - you are the one responsible. Because you are the adult, they are the child, you are responsible, they quite simply do not have the capacity - not to any degree that can be relied on in life or death situations. They're children. Not fully developed, immature - children.




And to believe that America must be right, when every other civilized country goes the other way - I don't have that type of ego. America is great, and we've spilled blood for freedom. So have other countries, and no one is always right, and when a huge number of people say you are wrong, it's common sense to take a look and see if they might just be right. Nor do I believe that. Children should not be criminally charged, not this young, not anything close. Maybe some true rehab - but that's the end of it. Our justice system right now is too much about revenge, vengance, and not enough about justice. Taking a child who doesn't even understand what he did and was too young to have adult impulse control, and punishing him as if he had full control of his actions does nothing good - not for the victims, not for the child, and not for society.

An adult with the mind of an 8 year old - we'd call him insane. An 8 year old with the mind of an 8 year old is no more responsible for his actions.




Give a child a gun and anything that happens isn't their fault?

Give him a shovel and if he whacks you over the head it's your fault.
Give him a steak knife and he cuts your throat it's your fault.
Give him a ball bat and he bashes your brains out it's your fault.

[Details]

I'm grateful that our government didn't side with a 'huge group of Americans' that were against non- slavery laws and women's right to vote.If that's the criteria - then do we punish murder at all, since a huge group of Americans believe murder is wrong?

The views of a majority don't make something wrong or right - but they should be considered, because there's no reason to be so arrogant as to think that you're smarter or more correct than everyone in a group that size without reason. But when you have reason - then you move forward.

Huge groups think murder and theft are wrong, children need protection and love, and that eggs are delicious. I disagree about one of those - but I'd never assume that being in the minority makes me right - any more than it makes me wrong. And having so many disagree with me is a rational reminder to think my position over again, to be sure if I'm right or wrong.

(Eggs really are horribly awful tasting things. And that smell!)

[Hawk]

Access to guns in no way justify murder .. or accidental death

But when parents leave guns available to children, the parents must pay

Maybe I should say .. leave bullets available to children since a gun cannot kill without a bullet in the chamber

I agree. Except this parent had to pay a bit too much.

[Hawk]

If that's the criteria - then do we punish murder at all, since a huge group of Americans believe murder is wrong?

The views of a majority don't make something wrong or right - but they should be considered, because there's no reason to be so arrogant as to think that you're smarter or more correct than everyone in a group that size without reason. But when you have reason - then you move forward.

Huge groups think murder and theft are wrong, children need protection and love, and that eggs are delicious. I disagree about one of those - but I'd never assume that being in the minority makes me right - any more than it makes me wrong. And having so many disagree with me is a rational reminder to think my position over again, to be sure if I'm right or wrong.

(Eggs really are horribly awful tasting things. And that smell!)

Hell yes! Killum' all and let GOD sort them out!

[TaraCrazyHair]

Boys love guns. We should be grateful they do or we'd never won a war.
To think an 8 year old boy isn't going to play with the most exciting thing in his life is naive beyond comparison. Kids learn by example.
Boys, real boys, love guns.
If they don't you'd better learn different languages.

That is so true

Almost an inbred thing with males I think

I hate guns .. period!

When my boys where young, I refused toy guns, squirt guns, bubble making guns .. any and all!

So they used fingers or tree sticks, anything became a gun to them

Finally I relented when they hit 13 & 14 and allowed a BB gun and only when I was there to watch them

Guess how long that lasted!!

But if I had real guns in my household .. I shudder to think what would have happened or could have happened

I really do

[Hawk]

If that's the criteria - then do we punish murder at all, since a huge group of Americans believe murder is wrong?

The views of a majority don't make something wrong or right - but they should be considered, because there's no reason to be so arrogant as to think that you're smarter or more correct than everyone in a group that size without reason. But when you have reason - then you move forward.

Huge groups think murder and theft are wrong, children need protection and love, and that eggs are delicious. I disagree about one of those - but I'd never assume that being in the minority makes me right - any more than it makes me wrong. And having so many disagree with me is a rational reminder to think my position over again, to be sure if I'm right or wrong.

(Eggs really are horribly awful tasting things. And that smell!)

You're too smart for me. I'm a nuts and bolts man.

[Cherishlove]

I really have always found it hard to believe that just one day this little boy decides to kill his father and friend for no reason whatsoever, what would the motive be? If something like this were to ever happen we all know something horrible would be going on in that home. Also they arrested him within 20 hours without a proper investigation, that is pure injustice. I pray everyday for this small child. But you know leaving guns out with children in the home is wrong, and if someone gets hurts or dies the parents are to blame. I'll never understand why they locked up a child so young especially in isolated Juvie that to me is horribly wrong, if they felt he was the shooter at the time why not lock up the parent that was left alive for leaving guns out. I still feel they have some serious investigating to do.

[TaraCrazyHair]

I agree. Except this parent had to pay a bit too much.


Quite possibly!

If he killed him

There were a few posters who asked about charges against Tiffany since she is a responsible member of the household ... I must say that despite a time of grief, yes she should face a charge but that is another debate

But I am really puzzled why a boy "capable of this" was allowed access to weapons

I am still hoping to hear what the grandparents meant by that

It has to be more than fibs or lies .. he must have shown signs of aggressive or raged behavior

If he never did .. then odds he committed the crime is very slim

Even with free access to a chipmunk

[Hawk]

That is so true

Almost an inbred thing with males I think

I hate guns .. period!

When my boys where young, I refused toy guns, squirt guns, bubble making guns .. any and all!

So they used fingers or tree sticks, anything became a gun to them

Finally I relented when they hit 13 & 14 and allowed a BB gun and only when I was there to watch them

Guess how long that lasted!!

But if I had real guns in my household .. I shudder to think what would have happened or could have happened

I really do

Guns, ammo, and curiosity around boys can lead to disaster!

[Details]

Give a child a gun and anything that happens isn't their fault?

Give him a shovel and if he whacks you over the head it's your fault.
Give him a steak knife and he cuts your throat it's your fault.
Give him a ball bat and he bashes your brains out it's your fault.Yes - and a gun is completely different from those other tools. A gun kills - that's what it's made for. A gun gives a child the ability to kill - the others do not - they make it possible for them to hurt others - but they can be stopped. An unarmed adult versus a child with a shovel, knife, or bat - the adult can stop them.

It's your fault, because a death from a gun is an easily forseeable event you should have known - it is your fault. A death from a shovel, knife, bat - not forseeable, not near the same probablility.

It's the difference between letting the child have a vitamin pill and a cyanide pill. A tool that only causes death and rapidly, versus a tool that is used for many other things, and can only cause death in exceptional circumstances.


But do you really see no difference? Would you hand a child a baseball bat with the same readiness you'd hand them a loaded gun? Supervise them the same way with both? I don't think so. You know the difference just as anyone else would.

[Details]

Hell yes! Killum' all and let GOD sort them out!Kill all the eggs? Yeah! I'll never have to smell them again!
:tonguewag:

[Kara]

I've posted that so many times that interest has waned.I know, I know...I'm behind.

But, if you are tired of restating your position on how the shell chasing prove the boy's guilt, just link to your previous post instead of typing it all up again.

I know I've read it many times and I fail to see your logic, but others may see what I fail to see.

[TaraCrazyHair]

Give a child a gun and anything that happens isn't their fault?

Give him a shovel and if he whacks you over the head it's your fault.
Give him a steak knife and he cuts your throat it's your fault.
Give him a ball bat and he bashes your brains out it's your fault.

Kind of reaching there hawk (:

Parents are responsible for their children and and their children's actions .. period

As long as they are minors

Some crimes they face alone, some crimes they face along with their parents

Although it is considered "delinquent acts" not crimes under age 18 unless tried as an adult