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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by Kara

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]

Originally Posted by Kara

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]

Originally Posted by LindaNJ1216

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]

Originally Posted by Kara

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by Kara

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by FurthurBB

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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...%20HEARING.pdf

[PensiveOne]

Originally Posted by Emyo

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]

Originally Posted by blue bird

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.
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.

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.

Originally Posted by blues_cat

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

That is not exactly what the DA said.

Here is the actual motion.

http://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/docs...%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]

Originally Posted by JD1974

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]

Originally Posted by Justice_Dawg

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!

Originally Posted by BobbisAngel

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.

Originally Posted by BobbisAngel

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)

Originally Posted by bookie

Does it make me old if I got it?

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.

[GentleBreeze]

Originally Posted by JD1974

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]

Originally Posted by BobbisAngel

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]

Originally Posted by PensiveOne

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by bkwits

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]

Originally Posted by bkwits

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by bkwits

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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]

Originally Posted by steffaroob4

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]

Originally Posted by steffaroob4

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]

Originally Posted by secrets

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]

Originally Posted by secrets

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]

Originally Posted by GentleBreeze

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 or a knife, not the death of 2 adults, at least.