NationStates Jolt Archive

It's expected that one makes some kind of commentary, rather than just posting an article.

http://www.miamiherald.com/466/story/369053.html

[/QUOTE]A 12-year-old Lauderhill boy has been charged with first-degree murder in the baseball beating death of a toddler who was left in his care, authorities said Sunday.

The boy, who was arraigned in juvenile court Sunday, had been left alone with his 10-year-old brother and a 17-month-old girl at a Lauderhill home on Friday, authorities said. The 12-year-old became upset because the toddler was making noise while he was trying to watch TV.

The 12-year-old grabbed a baseball bat and struck the little girl several times in the head, according to Lauderhill police spokesman Lt. Mike Cochran.

The boy is charged as juvenile at this time and is being held in juvenile detention. Judge Martin Dishowitz found enough reason on Sunday to keep the boy locked up despite the his family's plea to release him. In court, the[/QUOTE]

Damn quotes.

It's expected that one makes some kind of commentary, rather than just posting an article.

I might make commentary, after some other people have posted.

I might make commentary, after some other people have posted.
There's really not a great deal that any of us can say. It's a horrible event.

Someone will point out that the 12 year old shouldn't have been left in charge of other children. Someone else will blame the parent(s) for the mental state of the 12 year old that caused his response to an annoying toddler to be use of a baseball bat. If it goes on long enough, someone will eventually point out that this couldn't have happened if private ownership of baseball bats was outlawed.

Just a bad, sad situation all round :(

The 12-year-old became upset because the toddler was making noise while he was trying to watch TV.

the kid is innocent hand him a medal

seems a little sad, i think in the UK you can't take people under 16 to court (i could be wrong), they get taken to juvenile detention centre for bad kids.

But apart from that maybe a symptom of an overworked population, poor parenting, probably shouldn't have left the toddler with a 12 year old.
I expect to hear more of this kind of thing, unfortunately.

I might make commentary, after some other people have posted.
that still qualifies it as cut and paste spam.

About 1:15 p.m., someone called 911 saying the toddler had difficulty breathing. When Fire Rescue arrived, the child was not breathing and was rushed to Plantation General Hospital.

I wonder who called it in?

sad and tragic... there's really nothing else to say.

I might make commentary, after some other people have posted.Not a good idea, seeing as not adding commentary is considered Copy-Paste spam by the rules governing this forum.

I might make commentary, after some other people have posted.

You really need to read the One Stop Rules Shop....seriously.

But who does that?

I mean come on, some one (A toddler no less) makes some noise while your watching TV and you kill them with a bat?! WTF.

What sort of person has that mindset. I bet the child will get out of proper punishment too.

that still qualifies it as cut and paste spam.



I wonder who called it in?

sad and tragic... there's really nothing else to say.

According to the article, there was also a 10 year old there at the time.

You really need to read the One Stop Rules Shop....seriously.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

really be worth your while.

What sort of person has that mindset. I bet the child will get out of proper punishment too.

I bet the 12 year old will get off because hes actually a child then he will get proper help and counseling not least because of the memory of doing that

its enough to make you sick isn't it! who applies the proper justice system and actually aims to not ruin lives!?

What sort of person has that mindset.

Well.....

I bet the child will get out of proper punishment too.

seems like you answered your own question there.

Tragic. Not much else to say.

Except that you have [/quote] twice, which is why your quote isn't working.

Well.....



seems like you answered your own question there.


So because the boy was a child he's not accountable for his actions?
He's twelve years old, he knows exactly what he was doing.

He's twelve years old, he knows exactly what he was doing.

I'm sorry but have you actually been 12?!

I'm sorry but have you actually been 12?!

Yes and i can tell you i didn't think that i should beat a baby to death because it made noise while i was watching TV.
And i can tell you a twelve year old knows perfectly what he/she is doing and is perfectly accountable for there actions. Hes twelve not a damn seven year old.

Who the fuck leaves a 17 month old in the care of a 12 year old boy and his 10 year old brother?!?

The wrong person got bashed in the head with a bat! :mad:

Do some of you really believe that twelve year olds are incapable of understanding what they are doing and are not accountable for there actions!?

He's twelve years old, he knows exactly what he was doing.Not in the US. :rolleyes:

Not in the US. :rolleyes:

So your saying that in the US every child is to stupid and incompetent to understand what they are doing?

And i can tell you a twelve year old knows perfectly what he/she is doing and is perfectly accountable for there actions. Hes twelve not a damn seven year old.

I'm sorry but have you seen a playground?

maybe I should just point out that your going against the consensus of child psychology to the same level as saying the moon is square

Do some of you really believe that twelve year olds are incapable of understanding what they are doing and are not accountable for there actions!?

yes, I for one stopped believing in evil long ago and it generally helps in these cases to have that mindset

He's twelve years old, he knows exactly what he was doing.

It's interesting that you feel you know so much about this child, his mental state, and his capacity, after reading a single newspaper article

But who does that?

I mean come on, some one (A toddler no less) makes some noise while your watching TV and you kill them with a bat?! WTF.

What sort of person has that mindset. I bet the child will get out of proper punishment too.
a 12 year old. he's being tried for murder as a juvvie. would you rather he be tried as an adult?

According to the article, there was also a 10 year old there at the time. smart kid. seriously, if it does turn out to be that the 10 yr old called it in... smart kid. I just hope the kid did it after the assault and not hours later.

Do some of you really believe that twelve year olds are incapable of understanding what they are doing and are not accountable for there actions!? he may know. but under US laws, the 12 year old is still a minor.

would you rather he be tried as an adult? would you rather all juvie/family court be abolished and all law breakers under the legal age be tried as adults?

It's interesting that you feel you know so much about this child, his mental state, and his capacity, after reading a single newspaper article

I'm basing this on the fact he twelve! He should be perfectly capable of understanding his actions! The only way he could not understand is if he had a mental disability/disorder.

Besides, who knows what the kid was subjected to at home...maybe bashing something to shut it up is logical in his head.

I seem to remember a parenting technique that follows this line of thought...

Do some of you really believe that twelve year olds are incapable of understanding what they are doing and are not accountable for there actions!?

If twelve year olds were able to fully understand the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them, then they would be tried as adults not juveniles.

Besides, who knows what the kid was subjected to at home...maybe bashing something to shut it up is logical in his head.

If twelve year olds were able to fully understand the consequences of their actions and take responsibility for them, then they would be tried as adults not juveniles.

Besides, who knows what the kid was subjected to at home...maybe bashing something to shut it up is logical in his head.

When i was twelve i perfectly understood what i was doing as did all the people i knew.
You have, to be frank rather stupid (At a massive level) not to understand what your doing when your twelve.

If bashing some one is logical in his head then he should not be allowed into society. I suppose when hes older he'll be perfect for a life of crime.

When i was twelve i perfectly understood what i was doing as did all the people i knew.
You be, to be frank rather stupid (At a massive level) not to understand what your doing when your twelve.
Theres a difference between general understanding, and understanding all the consequences to a level where you are fully responsible.

If bashing some one is logical in his head then he should not be allowed into society. I suppose when hes older he'll be perfect for a life of crime.
Oh right, so victims of child abuse who might see actions like this as "normal" shouldn't be allowed into society? :rolleyes:

No, I'm not saying the kid was abused or anything, but the article hardly goes into any depth. There could be plenty of reasons behind his actions.

When i was twelve i perfectly understood what i was doing as did all the people i knew.

well I could argue that you still have no idea what your doing but that would be cruel

tell me why do you think schools have lunch ladies?

You be, to be frank rather stupid (At a massive level) not to understand what your doing when your twelve.

so you still hate your parents and dress like a emo/chav do you?

If bashing some one is logical in his head

its called learned behavior (or whatever that word is that I forget), you can see it clearly in the fact that the male prison population is huge compared to female and it comes from mainly the macho man mentality male culture has

basically bashing someone over the head to solve your problems has been encouraged in him

Theres a difference between general understanding, and understanding all the consequences to a level where you are fully responsible.

Oh right, so victims of child abuse who see actions like this as "normal" shouldn't be allowed into society? :roll:

No, I'm not saying the kid was abused or anything, but the article hardly goes into any depth. There could be plenty of reasons behind his actions.

Why do you think this child is a victim of child abuse?
He probably saw his Daddy threaten his Mother with a bat if she didn't shut up.

"Yo beoitch shut yo mouth I'm trying to watch Sanford and Son, I'm fugonna git da bat!" :rolleyes:

And if he thinks attacking someone with a weapon is normal then he really shouldn't be allowed into society. Like i said twelve years olds are perfectly capable of understanding what they where doing, most people by that time have been able to comprehend what they are doing for a very long time.

And if he thinks attacking someone with a weapon is normal then he really shouldn't be allowed into society.

I actually thought you was being serious for awhile then and then it struck me that your actually portraying the lodger out of clockwork orange...

tell me would you be against making him be good against his own free will?

[snipped]
so again I ask. you would rather all juvinile lawbreakers to be tried as adults?

are you calling for the complete removal of the Juvinile court system?

Why do you think this child is a victim of child abuse?
He probably saw his Daddy threaten his Mother with a bat if she didn't shut up.

"Yo beoitch shut yo mouth I'm trying to watch Sanford and Son, I'm fugonna git da bat!" :rolleyes:

And if he thinks attacking someone with a weapon is normal then he really shouldn't be allowed into society. Like i said twelve years olds are perfectly capable of understanding what they where doing, most people by that time have been able to comprehend what they are doing for a very long time.

That's funny, because I seem to recall from threads about the age of consent that the brain, especially the area related to critical thinking and decision making, doesn't fully form until after adolescence around 18-20. But I'm sure this 12 year old had the brain of someone 6-8 years older than him. That must be it.

Why do you think this child is a victim of child abuse?
He probably saw his Daddy threaten his Mother with a bat if she didn't shut up.

"Yo beoitch shut yo mouth I'm trying to watch Sanford and Son, I'm fugonna git da bat!" :rolleyes:

And if he thinks attacking someone with a weapon is normal then he really shouldn't be allowed into society. Like i said twelve years olds are perfectly capable of understanding what they where doing, most people by that time have been able to comprehend what they are doing for a very long time.
If you're not going to bother reading my posts properly, then I can't be bothered participating any more.

:rolleyes:

If you're not going to bother reading my posts properly, then I can't be bothered participating any more.

:rolleyes:

The point is this child is perfectly capable of understanding what he is doing. If he has the mindset of "beating something" if it annoys him then he really shouldn't be allowed to get of unpunished.

So your saying that in the US every child is to stupid and incompetent to understand what they are doing?I would even extend that to the majority of adults... :(

I would even extend that to the majority of adults... :(

..........
:(

If thats true then ..... :eek:

The point is this child is perfectly capable of understanding what he is doing.

The state prosecutor isn't even going to bother trying to prove that. But since you seem so sure of it, why don't you go right ahead and try.

We obviously need tougher bat control laws.

The state prosecutor isn't even going to bother trying to prove that. But since you seem so sure of it, why don't you go right ahead and try.

How am i supposed to prove it? But my point remains, twelve years old in generality can perfectly understand what they are doing and have been able to for a long time.
And if this child thinks its acceptable to beat something for distracting him the he is a real threat to society.

How am i supposed to prove it?
Link to some studies that concluded that 12 year olds are just as competent as adults. Look for some cases in which 12 year olds were tried as adults. It's not really my problem, you made the claim, you back it up.
But my point remains, twelve years old in generality can perfectly understand what they are doing and have been able to for a long time.
Your point hasn't been backed up, so it does not stand.
And if this child thinks its acceptable to beat something for distracting him the he is a real threat to society.

Which is perhaps why he's facing a trial for murder.

Link to some studies that concluded that 12 year olds are just as competent as adults. Look for some cases in which 12 year olds were tried as adults. It's not really my problem, you made the claim, you back it up.

Your point hasn't been backed up, so it does not stand.


Which is perhaps why he's facing a trial for murder.

Well i stand by my point nonetheless. Although i do strongly believe the child should be punished and tried as an adult.

I have seen some kids throw serious tantrums when it comes to TV.

I don't have a TV and I am not getting one whenever I have a kid.

Well i stand by my point nonetheless. Although i do strongly believe the child should be punished and tried as an adult.

so all your claims that a 12 year old is perfectly capable of understanding what he's doing is NOT baised on any study or fact but is in fact only your opinion.

and thus, you also believe that all crimes committed by minors should be tried in adult courts with adult consequences.

so no more juvie courts and juvie halls, no more wiping the slate clean when they turn 18...

That's funny, because I seem to recall from threads about the age of consent that the brain, especially the area related to critical thinking and decision making, doesn't fully form until after adolescence around 18-20. But I'm sure this 12 year old had the brain of someone 6-8 years older than him. That must be it.
So your argument is the parents were criminally negligent? Because that is what it comes down to.
A 12 year old incapable of discerning right from wrong (ie, beating people to death with a baseball bat is wrong) was left in charge of a year and a half old baby (And a 10 year old). That means the parents are at fault and the 10 year old should be removed from the home.

Not in the US. :rolleyes:
That was uncalled for. I'm not American (I'm Canadian, actually, and I used to be quite anti-American... I still remember when I'd burn computer-printed American flags in the backyard fireplace) but for you to imply that whether or not they know what they're doing can be determined by which country they live in is just ridiculous.

I'm sorry but have you actually been 12?!

So how many 12 year olds club a toddler to death?

Then again you may be right; he may have cried "do over!"

o.o And if 12-year-olds are supposed to be considered accountable for their actions, why don't we take this approach towards bullying while we're at it?

It's interesting that you feel you know so much about this child, his mental state, and his capacity, after reading a single newspaper article

Then does that not beg the question of punishing the people for putting him in charge?

Well i stand by my point nonetheless. Although i do strongly believe the child should be punished and tried as an adult.

Is this going to be another case where you claim you don't really want to debate and if you did you'd go elsewhere?

so again I ask. you would rather all juvinile lawbreakers to be tried as adults?

are you calling for the complete removal of the Juvinile court system?

Well depends on the age.

That's funny, because I seem to recall from threads about the age of consent that the brain, especially the area related to critical thinking and decision making, doesn't fully form until after adolescence around 18-20. But I'm sure this 12 year old had the brain of someone 6-8 years older than him. That must be it.

It may not be fully formed but that doesn't make him incapable. Very few people are incapable of comprehending what they are doing when they are twelve.

That was uncalled for. I'm not American (I'm Canadian, actually, and I used to be quite anti-American... I still remember when I'd burn computer-printed American flags in the backyard fireplace) but for you to imply that whether or not they know what they're doing can be determined by which country they live in is just ridiculous.

you are so anti-American that you printed out your own American flags on your computer to burn them :rolleyes: oh, wow, you are so extremely anti-American.

It may not be fully formed but that doesn't make him incapable. Very few people are incapable of comprehending what they are doing when they are twelve.

Quite a few people have a lack of self control and make poor decisions at 12 years old, it's one of the reasons they aren't allowed to drink, or drive, or sign contracts.

I have seen some kids throw serious tantrums when it comes to TV.

I don't have a TV and I am not getting one whenever I have a kid.


....................

TV is really not worth a tantrum. British TV is just politically correct rubbish.

Well i stand by my point nonetheless. Although i do strongly believe the child should be punished and tried as an adult.
And your point is based on nothing but opinion. You could just as well try to make a point about the size of Europe without consulting a map.
So your argument is the parents were criminally negligent? Because that is what it comes down to.
I don't see where I said that. I wasn't aware that the only options are the 12 year old is basically an adult in a small body or his parents are criminally negligent.
A 12 year old incapable of discerning right from wrong (ie, beating people to death with a baseball bat is wrong) was left in charge of a year and a half old baby (And a 10 year old). That means the parents are at fault and the 10 year old should be removed from the home.
I don't know about totally incapable, but less capable than an adult, surely. Which is why he isn't being tried as one.
It may not be fully formed but that doesn't make him incapable. Very few people are incapable of comprehending what they are doing when they are twelve.

Not incapable, but less capable than an adult.

Someone will point out that the 12 year old shouldn't have been left in charge of other children. Someone else will blame the parent(s) for the mental state of the 12 year old that caused his response to an annoying toddler to be use of a baseball bat. If it goes on long enough, someone will eventually point out that this couldn't have happened if private ownership of baseball bats was outlawed.

Who the fuck leaves a 17 month old in the care of a 12 year old boy and his 10 year old brother?!?

who knows what the kid was subjected to at home...maybe bashing something to shut it up is logical in his head.

We obviously need tougher bat control laws.

Thank you all very much.

Ok

1. Who the fuck leaves a 12 year old to watch over a ten year old and a baby? What, were the parents on a beer run? Seriously, how drunk or high were they when they thought this was a good idea?

Thank you. I was starting to think I was going to be the only one to notice that little tidbit.

Ok

1. Who the fuck leaves a 12 year old to watch over a ten year old and a baby? What, were the parents on a beer run? Seriously, how drunk or high were they when they thought this was a good idea?

2. In what universe did the 12 year old live in when he thought that smashing someone's head in with a baseball bat was a good idea? "Oh the baby won't shut up, maybe smashing his head in will." And I know, I know, 12 year old aren't responsible because they don't comprehend.....blah blah blah. The 12 year old needs to be sent to Juvie, and get some psychological help. At the most extreme, forced sterilization.

Then does that not beg the question of punishing the people for putting him in charge? you can bet that will be looked into.

Well depends on the age. and at what age, in your opinion, would qualify for juvie court vs adult court?

....................

TV is really not worth a tantrum. British TV is just politically correct rubbish.

Totally off topic, but how is Ali G, Borat, et al politically correct?

Thank you. I was starting to think I was going to be the only one to notice that little tidbit.

We're a bit distracted trying to explain that a 12 year old isn't an adult to hurl abuse towards the actual adults.

Ok

1. Who the fuck leaves a 12 year old to watch over a ten year old and a baby? What, were the parents on a beer run? Seriously, how drunk or high were they when they thought this was a good idea? My 12 year old neice is responsible enough to watch her younger brother (about 10 yrs old) for short periods of time. (say an hour or two.)

12 is old enough to know that is a bad idea. Kid is a psycho and needs to be euthanised.

Quite a few people have a lack of self control and make poor decisions at 12 years old, it's one of the reasons they aren't allowed to drink, or drive, or sign contracts.

Wholly irrelevant. A 12 year old should know the difference between right and wrong, end of story.


I don't know about totally incapable, but less capable than an adult, surely. Which is why he isn't being tried as one.
Which isn't the point. He needs a psychological evaluation. I don't give a fuck if he is 12. A 12 year old should know that hitting some one with a baseball bat is wrong. And if they don't, they are either a sociopath or their parents are fucktards.

Thank you all very much.Come one, come all! See NSG's very own Nostradamus! It's free, only a dollar!

At what age does a child definitively learn what is right and wrong? I never knew there was an age when kids at said age regardless of any other factors would undeniably know all that is right or wrong.

I believe that if someone, anyone, intends to murder someone else, and they accomplish their goal, then they should be tried not under Adult or Juvenile law. They should be tried under "Murder" law. Basically, anyone that commits murder is responsible for it, no matter the age.

And a Twelve year old does know the difference between right and wrong, and knows not to beat a baby to death. You don't need a study to prove that.

Is it just me or does no one else remember being taken aside after a bs schoolyard sissy fight and being told that "hitting people is wrong" normally aroud 7 or 8 ?

Wholly irrelevant. A 12 year old should know the difference between right and wrong, end of story.
Because you say so?


Which isn't the point. He needs a psychological evaluation.
Well obviously.
I don't give a fuck if he is 12. A 12 year old should know that hitting some one with a baseball bat is wrong. And if they don't, they are either a sociopath or their parents are fucktards.
Are you sure those are the only possibilities, doctor? Or would you like to make some more highly educated guesses?
I believe that if someone, anyone, intends to murder someone else, and they accomplish their goal, then they should be tried not under Adult or Juvenile law. They should be tried under "Murder" law. Basically, anyone that commits murder is responsible for it, no matter the age.
Does their mental competency come into question? Or are you living in some kind of fantasy world where all murders are premeditated and committed in cold blood?

And a Twelve year old does know the difference between right and wrong, and knows not to beat a baby to death. You don't need a study to prove that.

A judge will want a whole hell of a lot more than that.

Now, I've been a 12-year-old. A bit long ago (I'm 25), but I remember enough to know that I had a really nasty temper on me at that time. If a kid poked me or looked at me funny I'd whale on him, and I was in special ed at that time. But even then, I'd never have done that to someone who was too small to know any better. At worst I might have put the little one in the closet or duct taped her mouth shut (even that's a little far) but... bashing little kids to death is not right.

I assume this kid has been in trouble with the law before? If he has (few people commit murder as their first crime) why did the parents have him watch their kid? Why not ask the kid's parents what he was like? Any sensible employer looks into the prospective employee's background (even, in this day and age, using Facebook against us) and these parents didn't think to find out if they were hiring a loose cannon to watch their kids?

Wholly irrelevant. A 12 year old should know the difference between right and wrong, end of story.

"should" is such a big word.

Maybe something is psychologically wrong with him. It's not completely normal for a 12 year old to bash a baby's head in, I can't really see it happening without something being wrong with the kid. However, there is a reason that you don't leave children that age in charge of anything, they make bad choices, constantly, and have very little interest in the consequences of their actions, nor do they often consider them.

If you ask a 12-13 year old why they did something, 9 times out of 10 they will say "I don't know" and if you push it you might get such insight as "I was bored" or "I was mad", and then when you push it further you get a "I wasn't thinking".


Is it just me or does no one else remember being taken aside after a bs schoolyard sissy fight and being told that "hitting people is wrong" normally aroud 7 or 8 ?

sure, but after your parents have been hitting you for 7 or 8 years to get you to do what they want you to, it's mostly lip service.

sure, but after your parents have been hitting you for 7 or 8 years to get you to do what they want you to, it's mostly lip service.


Due to the fact that you have no proof that there is anything mentally wrong with this kid, other than the fact that he seems to think it's okay to kill a baby for making noises, we have to assume there is nothing else wrong with him.

Does their mental competency come into question? Or are you living in some kind of fantasy world where all murders are premeditated and committed in cold blood?

No. Their mental competency doesn't come into question at all. Murderers are murderers. I'm not trying to be close-minded, but that is the way I think of it.

Due to the fact that you have no proof that there is anything mentally wrong with this kid, other than the fact that he seems to think it's okay to kill a baby for making noises, we have to assume there is nothing else wrong with him.


Why do we have to assume anything?


Why in the world would your first assumption be that there is nothing wrong with a kid who killed a toddler with a baseball bat to the head.

Why do we have to assume anything?

Because then you use something called a brain and you think.

Why in the world would your first assumption be that there is nothing wrong with a kid who killed a toddler with a baseball bat to the head.

There might be something wrong with him, or the way he was raised, but I have no proof, so I'm not going to say there is.

seems a little sad, i think in the UK you can't take people under 16 to court (i could be wrong), they get taken to juvenile detention centre for bad kids.

But apart from that maybe a symptom of an overworked population, poor parenting, probably shouldn't have left the toddler with a 12 year old.
I expect to hear more of this kind of thing, unfortunately.Meh. When I was twelve I was frequently left in charge of younger kids, including infants. The twelve-year old in the article is a creepy little mutant.

Because you say so?
Because that is the standard psychological development of people?

Are you sure those are the only possibilities, doctor? Or would you like to make some more highly educated guesses?
I'm pretty sure psychopath or fucktarded parents covers all possible angles.

Well i stand by my point nonetheless. Although i do strongly believe the child should be punished and tried as an adult.

Again, when you make an opinion available to others you need to have evidence to back it up, not just 'because I think so'.


Anyway, clearly we need a lot more detail of the case to make any real judgements. Both the parents and the child need to have psychological testing, most likely the boy has a mental disorder.

Due to the fact that you have no proof that there is anything mentally wrong with this kid, other than the fact that he seems to think it's okay to kill a baby for making noises, we have to assume there is nothing else wrong with him.
We can hypothesise that there might be something wrong with him, for the purposes of discussion. We're not on the jury or anything.



No. Their mental competency doesn't come into question at all. Murderers are murderers. I'm not trying to be close-minded, but that is the way I think of it.
So someone who doesn't understand that knives are sharp stabs their carer to death, and that's the same as someone else stalking an ex to learn when they're at their most vulnerable so they can attack them? How can you punish someone who doesn't understand what they've done? That's not justice, it's bloodthirsty revenge.
Because that is the standard psychological development of people?
Is that so doctor? Then why, oh why can't 12 year olds drink, or drive, or vote, or join the armed forces, or smoke, or sign a contract?


I'm pretty sure psychopath or fucktarded parents covers all possible angles.

You sure he couldn't just have some kind of impulse control problem?

Due to the fact that you have no proof that there is anything mentally wrong with this kid, other than the fact that he seems to think it's okay to kill a baby for making noises, we have to assume there is nothing else wrong with him.
I assume nothing. Something may very well be wrong with the child.

No. Their mental competency doesn't come into question at all. Murderers are murderers. I'm not trying to be close-minded, but that is the way I think of it.

If the legal world were so black and white......things would be simpler, but many more people would be in jail.

I'm probably going to guess that this child was never taught any morals or he was slowly slipping into the grip of modern American culture.

Either way, just because he's a child doesn't excuse him from the fact that he beat a toddler to death with a baseball bat. Now it's up to the juvenile court what to do with him.

I'm hoping for Juvenile Life Sentence.

I assume nothing. Something may very well be wrong with the child.

The first part you posted contradicts the second. You are assuming that there is something wrong with him other than the fact that he murdered a baby.

If the legal world were so black and white......things would be simpler, but many more people would be in jail.

Sometimes the legal world is that black and white.

So someone who doesn't understand that knives are sharp stabs their carer to death, and that's the same as someone else stalking an ex to learn when they're at their most vulnerable so they can attack them? How can you punish someone who doesn't understand what they've done? That's not justice, it's bloodthirsty revenge.

Do not try to use my words against me.

I said murderers.

And a murderer is:

murderer

noun
a criminal who commits homicide (who performs the unlawful premeditated killing of another human being)

The first part you posted contradicts the second. You are assuming that there is something wrong with him other than the fact that he murdered a baby.
No, she's accepting that there may be something wrong with him. Acknowledging a possibility is not the same as making an assumption.



Sometimes the legal world is that black and white.
Sometimes. So there's no reason to scrap the parts of the legal system that deal with the shades of grey.



Do not try to use my words against me.
Oh yes, how dare I hold you to what you say.

I said murderers.
You also said that mental competency doesn't come into it. I provided a hypothetical comparing two killings, one by an incompetent person, one by a competent person. Are you now withdrawing your statement about mental competency?

And a murderer is:

And one is only a murderer after one has been found guilty of murder, so some kind of special law for trying alleged murderers has nothing to do with the definition of a murderer.

The first part you posted contradicts the second. You are assuming that there is something wrong with him other than the fact that he murdered a baby.
saying that there might be something wrong with him isn't assuming there is.





Sometimes the legal world is that black and white.
it shouldn't be.



Do not try to use my words against me.

I said murderers.

And a murderer is:

from the article it doesn't sound premeditated.....maybe he just snapped, crime of passion.

Are you saying a "crime of passion" that involves killing is not murder as well?

For example, a woman comes home from a bad day at work one day to see she has a message on the machine. She grabs a knife to cut a slice of bread. She plays it. It's from her Boyfriend It goes something like this:

"Yeah, I don't think this is going so great. I'm outta here."

There is a knock on the door.

She answers, while crying:

"Hello?"

It's the Boyfriend:

"Hey, I'm here to get my stuff."

She opens the door and stabs him multiple times.

Do you not think this is murder?

Are you saying a "crime of passion" that involves killing is not murder as well?

For example, a woman comes home from a bad day at work one day to see she has a message on the machine. She grabs a knife to cut a slice of bread. She plays it. It's from her Boyfriend It goes something like this:

"Yeah, I don't think this is going so great. I'm outta here."

There is a knock on the door.

She answers, while crying:

"Hello?"

It's the Boyfriend:

"Hey, I'm here to get my stuff."

She opens the door and stabs him multiple times.

Do you not think this is murder?

In YOUR black and white world. no it's not. because it wasn't premeditated.

I said do you. Not do I.

I know what I think.

And it's not all black & white.

Maybe you don't understand exactly what I'm saying.

I am saying that when a person commits murder, murder being slaying a person in cold blood or premeditating it, then that person should be tried as a murderer. Not as an adult or child.

I said do you. Not do I.

I know what I think.

And it's not all black & white.

Maybe you don't understand exactly what I'm saying.

I am saying that when a person commits murder, murder being slaying a person in cold blood or premeditating it, then that person should be tried as a murderer. Not as an adult or child.

Why would you try someone who has already been convicted of murder? Or is there no innocent until proven guilty in your world?

Is there in the real world?

Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that we've yet to reach. When we do, it'll be the end of basic instinct. Not that you should operate on instinct, but some people do. Like the kid that smashed the baby.

I said do you. Not do I.

I know what I think.

And it's not all black & white.

Maybe you don't understand exactly what I'm saying.

I am saying that when a person commits murder, murder being slaying a person in cold blood or premeditating it, then that person should be tried as a murderer. Not as an adult or child.

I did tell you what I think. the Prosecution can TRY to convict her of murder 1 but they have to prove premeditation.

With your given scenario, there is NO premeditation.

Second Degree murder can be tried, but because of your scenario, she would most likely be convicted of manslaughter which is NOT murder. her defense can be temporary insanity.

oh and nice adjusting of your own definition of Murder. no where in YOUR definition does it state slaying a person in cold blood. only that it's pre-meditated.

Is that so doctor? Then why, oh why can't 12 year olds drink, or drive, or vote, or join the armed forces, or smoke, or sign a contract?
Right from wrong != critical decision making.
And as for drinking and smoking, that is a decision made by the society as a whole and the medical establishment relating to the physical effects of drinking and smoking on the developing body.

Thanks for your input, doctor.


You sure he couldn't just have some kind of impulse control problem?
He went and found a baseball bat and hit the child several times (I assume the first part because I don't know why a baseball bat would be the most handy thing present, he could have just backhanded or punched/kicked the baby if it was an impulse, but no, he got a baseball bat specifically to use). So yes, I'd say I'm sure, as a reasoning human being.

He went and found a baseball bat and hit the child several times (I assume the first part because I don't know why a baseball bat would be the most handy thing present, he could have just backhanded or punched/kicked the baby if it was an impulse, but no, he got a baseball bat specifically to use). So yes, I'd say I'm sure, as a reasoning human being.

not really, he may have had baseball practice yesterday and not put the bat away. or he may have been planning to play baseball later on, after his parents came home. there are many reasons why a bat would be lying around for easy pick up.

Now had it been his father's golf club or a hammer from the workbench...

Is there in the real world?
In many countries, yes.

Innocent until proven guilty is an ideal that we've yet to reach.
False. Why is the burden of proof on the prosecutor if we haven't reached that ideal?
When we do, it'll be the end of basic instinct. Not that you should operate on instinct, but some people do. Like the kid that smashed the baby.
Yes, because trials are so based on instinct these days. :rolleyes:
Right from wrong != critical decision making.
And as for drinking and smoking, that is a decision made by the society as a whole and the medical establishment relating to the physical effects of drinking and smoking on the developing body.

Thanks for your input, doctor.
So you concur that children are not the mental equals of adults. A child cannot make informed decisions the way an adult can. While they may recognise right from wrong, they can't choose between them properly, so they may as well not recognise it.



He went and found a baseball bat and hit the child several times (I assume the first part because I don't know why a baseball bat would be the most handy thing present, he could have just backhanded or punched/kicked the baby if it was an impulse, but no, he got a baseball bat specifically to use). So yes, I'd say I'm sure, as a reasoning human being.

Your assumption is baseless, yet you declare his guilt because of it. And further, you declare this to be a reasoned decision. Sounds more like you made up your mind first and now you're making assumptions as appropriate to back up this decision.

Are you saying a "crime of passion" that involves killing is not murder as well?

For example, a woman comes home from a bad day at work one day to see she has a message on the machine. She grabs a knife to cut a slice of bread. She plays it. It's from her Boyfriend It goes something like this:

"Yeah, I don't think this is going so great. I'm outta here."

There is a knock on the door.

She answers, while crying:

"Hello?"

It's the Boyfriend:

"Hey, I'm here to get my stuff."

She opens the door and stabs him multiple times.

Do you not think this is murder?

in your definition of murder it has to be premeditated, so going on your definition of murder it probably would not be.

However, if we aren't going to use your oversimplified definition then it might be considered murder, depending on many factors.

Why are people assuming the kid intended to kill? From what the article gives us, it doesn't sound like he did.

It sounds like he over-reacted to the noise and did something which he probably knew was wrong. But did he have the intent to kill? Probably not. A twelve year old can know a basic difference between right and wrong and not be mature enough to restrict stupid urges. That's what being a kid is to an extent. Making stupid mistakes. This one just happened to have extreme consequences. He should be psychologically examined, and his homelife examined, but tried as an adult, as a 12 year old? No.

Would you be calling for his head if he had punched her in the head and accidentally killed her?

Would you be calling for his head if he had punched her in the head and accidentally killed her?

Yes. Because he killed a baby.

in your definition of murder it has to be premeditated, so going on your definition of murder it probably would not be.

It's not my definition. It's from dictionary.com

False. Why is the burden of proof on the prosecutor if we haven't reached that ideal?

Just because he has to prove it, doesn't mean that a person isn't thought of as guilty beforehand by the jury.

Yes, because trials are so based on instinct these days.

Humans only use 10% of their brain, so I'd say that's a pretty accurate statement.

Why are people assuming the kid intended to kill?

Because the kid picked up a bat, and slammed the baby.

A child cannot make informed decisions the way an adult can. While they may recognise right from wrong, they can't choose between them properly, so they may as well not recognise it.

I find this highly ignorant. Children aren't as stupid as many people believe them to be. They make act stupid, but they certainly know not to kill things.

It's not my definition. It's from dictionary.com perhaps a legal dictionary or Findlaw.com would be a better resource.

It's not my definition. It's from dictionary.com

When discussing the meaning of legal terms, I suggest you use something more definitive on the subject, like a legal dictionary (such as Black's), and not "dictionary.com"

Okay, but I didn't. And there's no reason to continually tell me I used the incorrect site.

And there's no reason to continually tell me I used the incorrect site.

How else are you supposed to learn?

How else are you supposed to learn?
*Remembers many a legal discussion between Cat-Tribe and Neo-Art*
yeah Xaphian... the repetition does one good. :p

now I know Neo Art, Cat Tribe and others can explain better... but...
Taking a human life falls into many catagories Murder, Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide (and might be others) of which this child's actions can fall into any group depending on the details.

Did he mean to hit the baby on the head?
Was he going to "scare" her by hitting the crib and accitdently hit the child's head?
Was he pushed to the breaking point by the noise and really didn't know what he was doing?

The fact that he's being tried as a Juvie shows how serious the courts are taking this and to assume guilt is wrong.

especially when making that judgement baised only on what is printed in the media.

Yes. Because he killed a baby.
If someone trips and falls off a cliff do you charge them with murder posthumously?



Just because he has to prove it, doesn't mean that a person isn't thought of as guilty beforehand by the jury.
What the jury think doesn't change the reality that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.



Humans only use 10% of their brain, so I'd say that's a pretty accurate statement.
Oh please. What does the levels of brain usage have to do with instinct? But if you want to play that game fine. First you can show evidence that humans only use 10% of their brain, then you can get to demonstrating how that means the trial system is based on instinct. I won't hold my breath.


Because the kid picked up a bat, and slammed the baby.
This doesn't show intention to kill.


I find this highly ignorant.
The irony. It burns!
Children aren't as stupid as many people believe them to be. They make act stupid, but they certainly know not to kill things.
Why would they act stupid if they aren't?

What the jury think doesn't change the reality that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Are you saying that the Jury is not important, and what they think before going into the trial doesn't matter at the end when they deliberate?

If someone trips and falls off a cliff do you charge them with murder posthumously?

:upyours:

Humans only use 10% of their brain

Fine, I was wrong. There is no evidence to support this.

the trial system is based on instinct

Many people believe in "A tooth for a tooth, An eye for an eye."

That's pretty primitive, wouldn't you say?

Primitive can equal instinctual, due to the fact that people think that before they think out a situation completely. And face it, not all juries are made up of people that understand everything.

The irony. It burns!

:upyours:

Why would they act stupid if they aren't?

If you treat the most intelligent child like he's stupid from the day it's born until the day he leaves home, he will act stupid, but will truly be smart.

Are you saying that the Jury is not important,
No, I'm saying that what they think before a trial doesn't change the fact that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise.
and what they think before going into the trial doesn't matter at the end when they deliberate?
No, I'm saying that what they think before a trial doesn't change the fact that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise.



:upyours:
What do you hope to achieve with this?



Many people believe in "A tooth for a tooth, An eye for an eye."


That's pretty primitive, wouldn't you say?

Primitive can equal instinctual
Can but doesn't necessarily.
due to the fact that people think that before they think out a situation completely.
Which is prejudice, not instinct.
And face it, not all juries are made up of people that understand everything.
Which has no bearing on whether the trial system is based on instinct. You see juries != the trial system. They're an important part of it, but not all of it.



:upyours:
Again, what do you hope to achieve with this?


If you treat the most intelligent child like he's stupid from the day it's born until the day he leaves home, he will act stupid, but will truly be smart.
Prove it. In fact, don't bother, since it has nothing at all to do with why you want to try a 12 year old as an adult.

The only thing I'm going to comment on from the last post is this:

why you want to try a 12 year old as an adult.

Because he killed a baby.

I'm done with this thread.

Humans only use 10% of their brain, so I'd say that's a pretty accurate statement.


aaaaand strike two!

http://www.miamiherald.com/466/story/369053.html

A 12-year-old Lauderhill boy has been charged with first-degree murder in the baseball beating death of a toddler who was left in his care, authorities said Sunday.

The boy, who was arraigned in juvenile court Sunday, had been left alone with his 10-year-old brother and a 17-month-old girl at a Lauderhill home on Friday, authorities said. The 12-year-old became upset because the toddler was making noise while he was trying to watch TV.

The 12-year-old grabbed a baseball bat and struck the little girl several times in the head, according to Lauderhill police spokesman Lt. Mike Cochran.

The boy is charged as juvenile at this time and is being held in juvenile detention. Judge Martin Dishowitz found enough reason on Sunday to keep the boy locked up despite the his family's plea to release him. In court, the

WHAT..... THE..... HELL?!
.......I ...... Uh.............Ner ...................I blame television.

I'm done with this thread.

Good good, perhaps someone who is willing to discuss things intelligently will come along.

aaaaand strike two!

I was going to post but since you already called it.

Here is some evidence to back the claim!

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

I might make commentary, after some other people have posted.

No. Please make a statement of your own position in the first post, or comment on which part of the quote / link you think is worthy of discussion, or at least say whether the thread is intended as humour, serious debate or casual discussion.

Or, just don't start threads. It really is expected of you that you start threads with something more than "ooh, look."

============

Most 12 year olds do not have the maturity to mind very small children. A twelve-year-old can be left alone with another kid roughly their own age, but toddlers or babies can be very irritating, and that boy wasn't up to it.

I think there's something wrong with a kid who would hit another kid, toddler or baby with a baseball bat hard enough to kill them, but the real blame falls on whoever left them alone.

Because he killed a baby.
And here we come to the heart of it. Your compassion for the victim has blinded you to the rights of the accused, to a much greater extent than I can claim to have ever encountered before. So great that you feel that overhauling the justice system in order to bias it against those accused of murder would be perfectly reasonable, rights of the accused be damned.

I'm done with this thread.
Disappointing, we might have made some progress with you. Maybe opened your eyes a little. Them's the breaks, I guess.

Who the fuck leaves a 17 month old in the care of a 12 year old boy and his 10 year old brother?!?

The wrong person got bashed in the head with a bat! :mad:

I was babysitting at 12. Used to be fairly normal. Then again, the parents in question also left me with their kids for three days when it was supposed to just be a few hours. I had to call my mom to save us.

No way I'd let someone that young babysit my kids.


We obviously need tougher bat control laws. Quite right. And we also need to make sure you Merkins aren't illegally sneaking your illicit bats into our country. *builds wall*

I was babysitting at 12. Used to be fairly normal.

Even when I was young, babysitters were at least fifteen, and almost always girls.

I don't care if I'm called sexist, twelve year old girls are more responsible than twelve year old boys.

Another thing, is that two babysitters at once are less responsible than one!

Quite right. And we also need to make sure you Merkins aren't illegally sneaking your illicit bats into our country. *builds wall*
Pfft, I don't know what you're talking about, you Canucks all have hockey sticks.
Even when I was young, babysitters were at least fifteen, and almost always girls.

I don't care if I'm called sexist, twelve year old girls are more responsible than twelve year old boys.
Actually it's a pretty well accepted fact that girls mature faster than guys.

Another thing, is that two babysitters at once are less responsible than one!

Well there was a 10 year old there as well.......

Well i stand by my point nonetheless. Although i do strongly believe the child should be punished and tried as an adult.

The way it generally works with children is that they ARE given more leeway because it is proven and acknowledged that children have varying levels of cognitive and social maturity which are not necessarily age-specific. Meaning, you cannot look at a single nine-year old and then say 'well, this is how nine-year olds are'. You have to actually look at the specific child in question and find out where they are, developmentally.

In most jurisdictions the definition of a 'child' is from birth to twelve years. The circumstances would have to be extraordinary for a child within that range to be tried as an adult. They would have to demonstrate adult intelligence and maturity. Part of this is the fact that you need to have a guilty mind for most (but not all) crimes...and children do not always have the capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. At certain stages they are literally UNABLE to understand the consequences of their actions.

A twelve-year old is really at the threshold. Yes, it is most likely this child understood that hitting someone with a bat would result in serious injury at the least. Nonetheless, the next factor to take into account is what outcome would most benefit society. Locking this kid up for life? Perhaps executing him? As has been pointed out, we have no idea what his home life was, what kinds of issues he was facing himself. That's not to say that if he is a victim of abuse himself that he is exonerated from doing harm...but punishment will not solve the problem. Just consider the cost alone of housing this person in the penal system for the remainder of his days.

And more likely, the outcome of jailing this kid would be his release after a decade or so anyway. What kind of person is going to come out of jail at that point? A hardened, street-smart criminal with no prospects and no options other than further criminality.

The kid needs help. That's obvious. Perhaps he can get it in juvy...perhaps he needs to be removed from his home...perhaps he does in fact have a learning disability that makes it impossible for him to truly understand what he has done...in which case, the help he needs is even more essential.

You offer nothing. You offer retribution, without healing. You offer punishment for the sake of punishment. Do you honestly think tossing this kid in jail for life would 'deter' other children from doing heinous things like this? Seriously?

not really, he may have had baseball practice yesterday and not put the bat away. or he may have been planning to play baseball later on, after his parents came home. there are many reasons why a bat would be lying around for easy pick up.

Now had it been his father's golf club or a hammer from the workbench...
If it was an impulse, why did he get a weapon?

So your argument is the parents were criminally negligent? Because that is what it comes down to.
A 12 year old incapable of discerning right from wrong (ie, beating people to death with a baseball bat is wrong) was left in charge of a year and a half old baby (And a 10 year old). That means the parents are at fault and the 10 year old should be removed from the home.

Yep. You can take that to the judge!

=============

My 12 year old neice is responsible enough to watch her younger brother (about 10 yrs old) for short periods of time. (say an hour or two.)

Yes. SOME kids are responsible enough for that ... but if you were making a law about it, there'd be no way to measure it so you'd have to go with an age cutoff.

I also think minding a 10-y-o would be more like playing together, whereas very small children really do tax the patience of anyone. Sometimes they're sweet and quiet, but the babysitter doesn't have a lot of control over that, whereas the 10-y-o would respond to threats at least.

============

Actually it's a pretty well accepted fact that girls mature faster than guys.

Yet, curiously, when the subject was the age of responsibility to consent to sex, a huge majority of NSGers seemed to think it should be higher for girls than for boys.

It is a quite different sort of responsibility, I guess. Girls often behave more responsibly towards others but misjudge their self-interest as badly as boys. Could just be solialization, that.

Well there was a 10 year old there as well.......

Yeah. While two boys do not make a "gang" there's still a possible element of gang-like bravado. (10y-o tells older kid to lay off hitting the baby, older kid shows how he can't be told what to do, by getting the bat. For instance.)

So you concur that children are not the mental equals of adults. A child cannot make informed decisions the way an adult can. While they may recognise right from wrong, they can't choose between them properly, so they may as well not recognise it.
If your 12 year old can't differentiate between right and wrong, and not do something wrong, either you fucked up or you need to take him to a psych.

Your assumption is baseless, yet you declare his guilt because of it. And further, you declare this to be a reasoned decision. Sounds more like you made up your mind first and now you're making assumptions as appropriate to back up this decision.
It doesn't make sense for him to go find a weapon on impulse to repeatedly hit a baby with. As opposed to shaking, kicking, hitting barehanded, throwing the remote at. All impulsive moves.

If your 12 year old can't differentiate between right and wrong, and not do something wrong, either you fucked up or you need to take him to a psych.

Let's keep it real. In this context (assault with a weapon) the distinction between right and wrong should be obvious to a 12-y-o.

The completely general case is far trickier -- even as adults we can't always distinguish right from wrong. Even a single fact, when discovered, can sway us from one side to the other.

It doesn't make sense for him to go find a weapon on impulse to repeatedly hit a baby with. As opposed to shaking, kicking, hitting barehanded, throwing the remote at. All impulsive moves.

What a total crock of shit.

You've never seen a kid smash another kid in the face with a toy truck?

Children can turn anything into a weapon. They don't think about how it will hurt the other kid, they just lash out.

"Oh, he took the few seconds to grab a weapon...that clearly means it wasn't impulse, but rather a completely planned action!"

That line of reasoning doesn't even work with ADULTS.

But who does that?

I mean come on, some one (A toddler no less) makes some noise while your watching TV and you kill them with a bat?! WTF.

What sort of person has that mindset. I bet the child will get out of proper punishment too.

You would, sadly, be surprised at how often this sort of thing actually does happen.

Ah, childhood. Red in tooth and claw.

If it was an impulse, why did he get a weapon?
Because his impulse was to hit the baby with something. Because it was already in his hands, or close enough to grab.
Yet, curiously, when the subject was the age of responsibility to consent to sex, a huge majority of NSGers seemed to think it should be higher for girls than for boys.
At times NSG can be an idiot.

It is a quite different sort of responsibility, I guess. Girls often behave more responsibly towards others but misjudge their self-interest as badly as boys. Could just be solialization, that.
Could be.



Yeah. While two boys do not make a "gang" there's still a possible element of gang-like bravado. (10y-o tells older kid to lay off hitting the baby, older kid shows how he can't be told what to do, by getting the bat. For instance.)
This is true.
If your 12 year old can't differentiate between right and wrong, and not do something wrong, either you fucked up or you need to take him to a psych.
Why are you so insistent that these are the only two options? Were you some kind of saint-like child? Did you never disobey your parents or do anything bad?


It doesn't make sense for him to go find a weapon on impulse to repeatedly hit a baby with. As opposed to shaking, kicking, hitting barehanded, throwing the remote at. All impulsive moves.
There's also anger. There's also potentially undiagnosed psychological problems.
Let's keep it real. In this context (assault with a weapon) the distinction between right and wrong should be obvious to a 12-y-o.
Should is a pretty big word.

The completely general case is far trickier -- even as adults we can't always distinguish right from wrong. Even a single fact, when discovered, can sway us from one side to the other.
Yet a 12 year old is held to a standard that adults often fail to meet. All because the unfortunate victim was a baby.

You would, sadly, be surprised at how often this sort of thing actually does happen.

That's the thing...it's one of the main reasons you do NOT leave children together unsupervised. Hindsight now tells us that this particular 12 year old was not mature enough to leave in charge of other children...I don't even trust most adults with my kids because you just. don't. know.

My daughters are 5 and 3. I can't leave them alone with one another. The 5 year old usually knows better and won't hurt the younger one...but even still, I've caught her with a rope around the younger one's neck, 'playing a game'. All quite innocent, but damn dangerous.

The 3 year old is a menace. She hit the older girl with a toy mini-house and cut her forehead open. She was just angry, grabbed what was nearby.

It's very simple. Kids need supervision. If they're older, they might be fine on their own...but you don't leave them with other kids and just run off.

How am i supposed to prove it? But my point remains, twelve years old in generality can perfectly understand what they are doing and have been able to for a long time.
And if this child thinks its acceptable to beat something for distracting him the he is a real threat to society.

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0205/1.htm

Google is your friend. There are a lot of juvie offenders, and most psychologists say they are not fully able to comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Do they need to be held until they are not a danger to society? Yes.
Do they need mental help? Yes.

I have seen some kids throw serious tantrums when it comes to TV.

I don't have a TV and I am not getting one whenever I have a kid.

Easier to have the TV and not the kid. ;)

Because his impulse was to hit the baby with something. Because it was already in his hands, or close enough to grab.
That's an assumption (an absurd one in the case of him holding a bat while watching tv). Of course I am assuming it wasn't nearby, but I would assume there are other things closer to hit the baby with than a bat.



Why are you so insistent that these are the only two options? Were you some kind of saint-like child? Did you never disobey your parents or do anything bad?
Ok skippy, what are other options? Either the parents didn't teach him being things with a bat is wrong or he has no conscience/empathy.

There's also potentially undiagnosed psychological problems.
Now I want to know what you think psychopathy is.


Yet a 12 year old is held to a standard that adults often fail to meet. All because the unfortunate victim was a baby.
"Hitting people with a bat is wrong" is not exactly a very difficult moral dilemma. If an adult can't meet that, they should be locked away in a mental hospital.


The 3 year old is a menace. She hit the older girl with a toy mini-house and cut her forehead open. She was just angry, grabbed what was nearby.

It's very simple. Kids need supervision. If they're older, they might be fine on their own...but you don't leave them with other kids and just run off.
Oh, of course I'm the idiot assuming a 12 year old knows better than a 3 year old :rolleyes:

http://www.nbc6.net/news/14988905/detail.html?rss=ami&psp=news

Here's more information, at least.

That's the thing...it's one of the main reasons you do NOT leave children together unsupervised. Hindsight now tells us that this particular 12 year old was not mature enough to leave in charge of other children...I don't even trust most adults with my kids because you just. don't. know.

My daughters are 5 and 3. I can't leave them alone with one another. The 5 year old usually knows better and won't hurt the younger one...but even still, I've caught her with a rope around the younger one's neck, 'playing a game'. All quite innocent, but damn dangerous.

The 3 year old is a menace. She hit the older girl with a toy mini-house and cut her forehead open. She was just angry, grabbed what was nearby.

It's very simple. Kids need supervision. If they're older, they might be fine on their own...but you don't leave them with other kids and just run off.

*nod*
I never babysat till I was, oh, twenty-seven. My girlfriend has two kids who are five years apart in age, and I called one afternoon to find her crying because the two wouldn't stop fighting. I told her to choose one to keep, and I'd take the other. Other than the occasional, "Sure I'll watch them while you run to the store," my life has been blessedly responsible-for-child free. ;)

It's a tough job, so someone else ought to do it!

Oh, of course I'm the idiot assuming a 12 year old knows better than a 3 year old :rolleyes:

No, you're the poster who thinks every post is directed at you.

It's not all about you ...

No, you're the poster who thinks every post is directed at you.

It's not all about you ...

It is too all about me. Kidding.

It is too all about me. Gotcha!

Excellent, we agree. It IS all about me! :D


EDIT: One more link (your nbc one), just a couple of new facts.
The 12-yo has made a videotaped confession, and the toddler was not related to the boys.
I don't think this changes the basis of most discussion here, but the mother is in a lot more trouble than if it had been her 17-month-old.

No, you're the poster who thinks every post is directed at you.

It's not all about you ...You had directed a comment at me earlier about how children turn anything into weapons, then you later comment on how your three year old hit her sister with a toy.

I'm sorry, why is a 12 year old being compared to a 3 year old?

You had directed a comment at me earlier about how children turn anything into weapons, then you later comment on how your three year old hit her sister with a toy.

I'm sorry, why is a 12 year old being compared to a 3 year old?

Um...you're mixing up posters. Read that again.

It's very simple. Kids need supervision. If they're older, they might be fine on their own...but you don't leave them with other kids and just run off.
My point there, tangentally, was that no parent should be leaving children in charge of children. A 12 year old might be okay on his or her own...but leaving them in charge of other kids is pushing it.

And sorry...from 3 to 12, children do not magically learn adult self-control and maturity. Twelve year olds are STILL CHILDREN. We recognise this in so many other ways...but you seem to be unwilling to recognise it in this particular situation. Is there a reason for your blindspot? Is it just that the issue of violence tweaks something within you that calls for vengeance, regardless of age or circumstance? Is that tweaking something next to the area that gets all squeamish thinking about children engaging in sexual behaviour? Because violence and sexuality are part of the human condition my friend. They are expressed in different ways as we develop, but they are ALWAYS there.

This child is not a monster. This child is not an aberration. I think THAT scares us much more than discovering he is some sort of psychopath who was just waiting to strike.

When I was 13, I got into a fight with a girl, and repeatedly smashed her head into a locker. Looking at that now, it seems utterly insane...I could have caused her to suffer from brain damage, very easily. That wasn't something I considered, or that gave me pause then. Why? I wasn't high, I wasn't abused, I wasn't particularily alienated or angry in general...so why didn't I stop to think about the consequences? Going beyond just the harm I could have done, I had absolutely no thought for any charges or jail time that could result...and I had plenty of friends who had been locked up for assault, so it's not as though I just didn't know it could happen to me. How could I ignore something back then that now would seem complete idiocy to even THINK of risking now?

Because I was a fucking idiot kid...my only thought was to get her before she got me. I knew I was doing something wrong...I just didn't realise how badly it COULD have gone wrong. A consideration that stops me cold now, as an adult, simply wasn't developed when I was younger.

I'm not saying that sort of behaviour doesn't need intervention. It does. Jail is not intervention. It is the expression of moral outrage.

You had directed a comment at me earlier about how children turn anything into weapons, then you later comment on how your three year old hit her sister with a toy.

I'm sorry, why is a 12 year old being compared to a 3 year old?

you are confusing posters. *nod* Neesika was talking about her 3yo.


If you are accepting of anecdotal evidence though, when I was in the 7th grade I think I bashed a chicks head in with a rollerskate, no premeditation, I was just pissed at her for punching me and I took my skate off, skated on one foot over to her at the pinball machine and bashed her head in until she went unconscious.

I'm not evil, promise. I was just young and stupid.

you are confusing posters. *nod* Neesika was talking about her 3yo.


If you are accepting of anecdotal evidence though, when I was in the 7th grade I think I bashed a chicks head in with a rollerskate, no premeditation, I was just pissed at her for punching me and I took my skate off, skated on one foot over to her at the pinball machine and bashed her head in until she went unconscious.

I'm not evil, promise. I was just young and stupid.

Damn girl...you remind me of me.

Stabbed a chick with a nail file *nods*.

I don't even know that kid anymore.

Damn girl...you remind me of me.

Stabbed a chick with a nail file *nods*.

I don't even know that kid anymore.

I got a scar on my scalp where a chick stabbed me in the head with a nail file.....had to get 4 stitches, she almost punctured my skull....forceful bitch she was, didn't matter though, I knocked out 4 of her teeth, she still doesn't have them.

I got a scar on my scalp where a chick stabbed me in the head with a nail file.....had to get 4 stitches, she almost punctured my skull....forceful bitch she was, didn't matter though, I knocked out 4 of her teeth, she still doesn't have them.

We belong in jail. We could never be useful members of society.

We belong in jail. We could never be useful members of society.

Young lady, you are in violation of forum rules 37(b)(5): directing a post to someone other than Pantless Hero.

please desist from such activities immediately.

you are confusing posters. *nod* Neesika was talking about her 3yo.
Nope I checked, I got the right poster.


If you are accepting of anecdotal evidence though, when I was in the 7th grade I think I bashed a chicks head in with a rollerskate, no premeditation, I was just pissed at her for punching me and I took my skate off, skated on one foot over to her at the pinball machine and bashed her head in until she went unconscious.

I'm not evil, promise. I was just young and stupid.
Ignoring the fact you arn't even sure what you did.. you attacked some one who attacked you? Right, same situation. :rolleyes:

We belong in jail. We could never be useful members of society.

we really do. It's part of why I get so pissy when people talk about "parenting licenses" mine would have totally gotten revoked or actually never given to me....homeless violent drug addict? yeah, no kids for me!

we really do. It's part of why I get so pissy when people talk about "parenting licenses" mine would have totally gotten revoked or actually never given to me....homeless violent drug addict? yeah, no kids for me!

Ditto. Yet somehow, because people actually helped me out, and didn't immediately toss me in jail for my poor choices...I went on to be a teacher and am now half way through a law degree.

Hmmmm.

Young lady, you are in violation of forum rules 37(b)(5): directing a post to someone other than Pantless Hero.

please desist from such activities immediately.

Don't worry, ALL posts are directed at TPH in one way or another.

Don't worry, ALL posts are directed at TPH in one way or another.

is it like Rome?

Don't worry, ALL posts are directed at TPH in one way or another.
Yes, now I'm an idiot for assuming a post quoting me (and directly replying to what I said( was directed at me.

is it like Rome?

Yes but with less crucifixion.

Yes but with less crucifixion.

awww, I like crucifixion!

Yes, now I'm an idiot for assuming a post quoting me (and directly replying to what I said( was directed at me.

No you are an idiot for assuming a post quoting Katganistan, directly replying to what SHE said, was directed at you (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353869&postcount=129).

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13353821&postcount=127

To ME:

Oh, of course I'm the idiot assuming a 12 year old knows better than a 3 year old :rolleyes:

No, you're the poster who thinks every post is directed at you.

It's not all about you ...

To NH:You had directed a comment at me earlier about how children turn anything into weapons, then you later comment on how your three year old hit her sister with a toy.

I'm sorry, why is a 12 year old being compared to a 3 year old?


you are confusing posters. *nod* Neesika was talking about her 3yo.


Nope I checked, I got the right poster.



No. No, you really didn't.

What a total crock of shit.

You've never seen a kid smash another kid in the face with a toy truck?

Children can turn anything into a weapon. They don't think about how it will hurt the other kid, they just lash out.

"Oh, he took the few seconds to grab a weapon...that clearly means it wasn't impulse, but rather a completely planned action!"

That line of reasoning doesn't even work with ADULTS.

So how many kids have you seen take the toy truck and repeatedly smash a kid significantly younger then them in the face?

So how many kids have you seen take the toy truck and repeatedly smash a kid significantly younger then them in the face?

Very few. Why? Because a parent or someone watching the children stopped that child from continuing.

But I've seen a child do something like that right up until they were forcibly restrained from continuing.

Without supervision, do I think an average child could do something like that to another child? Without a question yes.

By the way...what does 'significantly younger' mean when we're discussing children? Are you going to pop back with 'well I don't mean a 5 year old hitting a 2 year old...I said SIGNIFICANTLY younger after all....'

By the way...what does 'significantly younger' mean when we're discussing children? Are you going to pop back with 'well I don't mean a 5 year old hitting a 2 year old...I said SIGNIFICANTLY younger after all....'

I thought a 12 year old beating a nearly 1 1/2 year old counted as significant.....

I'm unsure why the age of the victim should matter in the slightest. When discussing such matters, it appears to me, the only relevant question is whether or not he was old enough and mature enough to make reasonable, intelligent decisions.

What does the question of how much younger the victim was have to do with that?

I thought a 12 year old beating a nearly 1 1/2 year old counted as significant.....

As Neo Art has asked...why should the age difference matter?

As Neo Art has asked...why should the age difference matter?

If age didn't matter then we wouldn't have juvie.

Keep in mind we are only working from a news article so details are lacking.

There is the question to state of mind. We can probably assume since he was left in charge he is probably not mentally deficient as in retarded.

The fact he has a sibling we can probably assume he was told hitting his brother is wrong.

Does a 12 year old equal the mental judgment of a 5 year old(taking from your example)?

Would you feel the same if he say picked up a knife and stabbed the kid? How about shooting him? Is it still lashing out?

Where was the bat? Was it readily available or did he go into another room or garage and retrieve it? Is that lashing out?

Would we have this discussion if he simply hit the kid with his hand?

I don't know myself. It doesn't seem right he picked up a bat and clubbed a kid 10 years younger then him to death.

I don't know. Simply letting the kid go because he was lashing out doesn't seem right. The kid doens't seem right to me.

Again, we don't have all the information....

If age didn't matter then we wouldn't have juvie.

There's a difference between age and age difference. *nods*

I'm unsure why the age of the victim should matter in the slightest. When discussing such matters, it appears to me, the only relevant question is whether or not he was old enough and mature enough to make reasonable, intelligent decisions.

What does the question of how much younger the victim was have to do with that?

It's a question of power imbalance.

If the 12-y-o had snuck up on his abusive father and suddenly attacked him with the baseball bat, hitting him five times until he was dead, surely we'd see that differently?

Perhaps by definition both are murder, but the 12 year-old who could easily smother the toddler, strangle her ... no wait, doesn't even need to kill the toddler to deal with this noise issue which is bothering him ... chose to use this well-recognized weapon, shows an abuse of power.

The 12-yo is abusing his position of power as (a) an older child who can surely understand that a toddler can't be persuaded like a kid of his own age, that in fact he can murder the toddler without the toddler even being aware that's what's going to happen when the bat appears, (b) the surrogate baby-sitter, appointed by his mother, (c) a hugely more physically powerful party than the toddler, who doesn't even need a weapon to kill the toddler.

Now consider the other case I gave, the abusive father asleep on the couch. The 12-yo can't strangle him, or smother him. In fact, if he tries and fails to murder the old man, he may well die himself. In this case, he uses the bat as an equalizer, and we might even have some sympathy if he used a gun on the sleeping man.

It's a question of power imbalance. Using the bat on the toddler pushes it well beyond the "fight between kids" catagory, and I'd say beyond the "playacting" catagory, into the "murder with no claim of self-defence" catagory.

Does a 12 year old equal the mental judgment of a 5 year old(taking from your example)?
Nope, a 12 year old has the same moral development as a 3 year old according to Neesika.

I don't know. Simply letting the kid go because he was lashing out doesn't seem right. The kid doens't seem right to me. I don't think anyone has suggested letting the kid go like nothing happened.

The debate seems to be about whether or not to try him as an adult.

That's an assumption (an absurd one in the case of him holding a bat while watching tv). Of course I am assuming it wasn't nearby, but I would assume there are other things closer to hit the baby with than a bat.
I wasn't making an assumption, I was pointing out how yours was baseless. There's no more reason to believe the kid had to run off on a wild search to find the bat than there is to believe it was the first weapon-like thing to hand.



Ok skippy, what are other options? Either the parents didn't teach him being things with a bat is wrong or he has no conscience/empathy.
He's a child and didn't fully understand what he was doing. Like people have been saying from the start of this thread. Do try to pay attention.


Now I want to know what you think psychopathy is.
Psychopathy is a psychological construct,[1] classified by some as a personality disorder, characterized by amoral and antisocial behavior. It is a term derived from the Greek psyche (soul, breath hence mind) and pathos (to suffer), and was once used to denote any form of mental illness, often being confused with psychosis. The term is often used interchangeably with sociopathy[2].
Having a mental illness != being a psychopath.



"Hitting people with a bat is wrong" is not exactly a very difficult moral dilemma. If an adult can't meet that, they should be locked away in a mental hospital.
No, most of those people end up in jail after hitting someone with a bat. But according to you they must all be psychopaths of some kind.


Oh, of course I'm the idiot assuming a 12 year old knows better than a 3 year old :rolleyes:
No, I'd say your faulty assumption is that a 12 year old knows as well as an adult.
Nope, a 12 year old has the same moral development as a 3 year old according to Neesika.
That's not what she said at all.

I wasn't making an assumption, I was pointing out how yours was baseless.
By making a counter assumption.

There's no more reason to believe the kid had to run off on a wild search to find the bat than there is to believe it was the first weapon-like thing to hand.
See, now that is pointing out how my assumption is baseless without making your own assumption (like you did earlier).

He's a child and didn't fully understand what he was doing. Like people have been saying from the start of this thread. Do try to pay attention.
He should understand hitting people with a bat is wrong. Try to pat attention.


Having a mental illness != being a psychopath.
Psychopathy is still a mental illness.
And if he is likely to off and hit a toddler with a bat at 12, there likely would have been previous incidents of him aggressively lashing out at people that would indicate a mental illness. These things don't normally just poof out of nowhere.


No, most of those people end up in jail after hitting someone with a bat. But according to you they must all be psychopaths of some kind.
If they don't understand hitting some one with a bat is wrong (which is what I said), then yes, they are.


No, I'd say your faulty assumption is that a 12 year old knows as well as an adult.
Really? Maybe you would like to detail all the times I said that? I know I have said a 12 year old should know right from wrong (ie, hitting people is wrong). Yet you people keep insisting that is some sort of ridiculously complicated feat of critical thought. I don't know about you people, but I learned hitting is wrong when I was a kid.

That's not what she said at all.
That's what she implied.

Pantless,
A child can know hitting someone is wrong and still hit someone. I think the child probably knew it was wrong in a sense, but didn't grasp the full consequences of his actions, which is something children do.

Do you think his thought process was as cold as, "That defenseless baby is making noise, let me find a bat and kill it."? I don't honestly see how you could.

It's a question of power imbalance.

If the 12-y-o had snuck up on his abusive father and suddenly attacked him with the baseball bat, hitting him five times until he was dead, surely we'd see that differently?

Perhaps by definition both are murder, but the 12 year-old who could easily smother the toddler, strangle her ... no wait, doesn't even need to kill the toddler to deal with this noise issue which is bothering him ... chose to use this well-recognized weapon, shows an abuse of power.

The 12-yo is abusing his position of power as (a) an older child who can surely understand that a toddler can't be persuaded like a kid of his own age, that in fact he can murder the toddler without the toddler even being aware that's what's going to happen when the bat appears, (b) the surrogate baby-sitter, appointed by his mother, (c) a hugely more physically powerful party than the toddler, who doesn't even need a weapon to kill the toddler.

Now consider the other case I gave, the abusive father asleep on the couch. The 12-yo can't strangle him, or smother him. In fact, if he tries and fails to murder the old man, he may well die himself. In this case, he uses the bat as an equalizer, and we might even have some sympathy if he used a gun on the sleeping man.

It's a question of power imbalance. Using the bat on the toddler pushes it well beyond the "fight between kids" catagory, and I'd say beyond the "playacting" catagory, into the "murder with no claim of self-defence" catagory.

In the US there are millions upon millions of grown adults that find it acceptable and even morally right to hit their young children in order to elicit the behavior they desire, a 12 year old who is angry, who has little impulse control by nature of his age, and who also by nature of his age is prone to making poor decisions, screwing up and violently bashing another child, just isn't surprising to me. It's sad, tragic even, but it's not surprising. Kids don't think through their actions, they have little real time realization of long term consequences. This child may also have some sort of psychological issue, for all we know he was on an SSRI and had a violent outburst, what is more likely is that he is a kid and thus shouldn't have been left home alone with a baby.

By making a counter assumption.
No, by pointing out that there are other possibilities, each as likely as your assumption, thus demonstrating that there is no reason to choose your assumption over any of the others that one could have made.


See, now that is pointing out how my assumption is baseless without making your own assumption (like you did earlier).
Forgive me if you didn't understand how I was putting forth possibilities.


He should understand hitting people with a bat is wrong. Try to pat attention.
Should is a pretty big word. What he should understand has little bearing on what he does understand.



Psychopathy is still a mental illness.
But not all mental illnesses are psychopathy.
And if he is likely to off and hit a toddler with a bat at 12, there likely would have been previous incidents of him aggressively lashing out at people that would indicate a mental illness.
Assumption. We don't know that he had a history of violence. Even if he did, that's no reason to try him as an adult.
These things don't normally just poof out of nowhere.
There has to be a first time, who's to say this isn't it? And if he had shown previous signs of violence, would anyone leave their toddler with him?



If they don't understand hitting some one with a bat is wrong (which is what I said), then yes, they are.
By whose definition of 'psychopath'?



Really? Maybe you would like to detail all the times I said that?
Oh right, that was that other person. Nevermind.
I know I have said a 12 year old should know right from wrong (ie, hitting people is wrong). Yet you people keep insisting that is some sort of ridiculously complicated feat of critical thought.
And you're insisting that a child is fully capable of making rational, well thought out decisions, and thus is fully responsible for what he did, and thus is a psychopath.
I don't know about you people, but I learned hitting is wrong when I was a kid.
So I take it you only ever hit another child once, you were told it was wrong and never ever did it again.

That's what she implied.
I didn't think so. Looked to me more like she was just sharing an anecdote with Kat about how kids can be violent little buggers sometimes.

awww, I like crucifixion!
"Out the door, line to the left, one cross each." :p

Damn girl...you remind me of me.

Stabbed a chick with a nail file *nods*.

I don't even know that kid anymore.

I got a scar on my scalp where a chick stabbed me in the head with a nail file.....had to get 4 stitches, she almost punctured my skull....forceful bitch she was, didn't matter though, I knocked out 4 of her teeth, she still doesn't have them.
huh? one was stabbed with a nail file... another stabbed a girl with a nail file..
do we have a reunion here?

seriously tho. Both of you prove is that children do learn from their experiences and even 'troublesome' children grow into respectable adults.

I was babysitting at 12. Used to be fairly normal. Then again, the parents in question also left me with their kids for three days when it was supposed to just be a few hours. I had to call my mom to save us. hope those parents got what they deserved.

Quite right. And we also need to make sure you Merkins aren't illegally sneaking your illicit bats into our country. *builds wall*
"psst... hey kid... wanna Wiffle huh? brand new and cheap to. feel that heff, yours for a buck." :p

Seriously tho. he isn't the first to be tried for murder. Kat's link mentions Tate who recieved Life. but the sentence was reduced.

"Out the door, line to the left, one cross each." :p
huh? one was stabbed with a nail file... another stabbed a girl with a nail file..
do we have a reunion here?
seriously tho. Both of you prove is that children do learn from their experiences and even 'troublesome' children grow into respectable adults.
hope those parents got what they deserved.
"psst... hey kid... wanna Wiffle huh? brand new and cheap to. feel that heff, yours for a buck." :P
Seriously tho. he isn't the first to be tried for murder. Kat's link mentions Tate who recieved Life. but the sentence was reduced.

I remember that monty python, my favourite part is when the different rebel parties start fighting with each other then "oh no, it's the Judean peoples front!".
"always look on the bright side of life". Monty python.
oh and as for my judgement on what should happen with the 12 year old kid, i don't think the kid really knew what he was doing, or has a mental illness.

I don't know. Simply letting the kid go because he was lashing out doesn't seem right. The kid doens't seem right to me.

Again, we don't have all the information....

Agreed, information is lacking, but even still, I can't imagine a set of circumstances that would lead to anyone suggesting this 12 year old should just be 'let go'. He is going to need quite intensive intervention which indeed may involve removing him from the home, or from contact with the public entirely for a period of time. The focus, however, would be on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Punishment will solve nothing, will not deal with the root of the behaviour, will not teach this child to react in more appropriate ways to strong emotions.

What has been espoused in this thread, disguised as 'justice' has been in reaction to a strawman argument that the only other option available, besides jail for life is total unfettered freedom. I for one, have not seen ANYONE here suggest total unfettered freedom to be a good outcome.

Nope, a 12 year old has the same moral development as a 3 year old according to Neesika.

No wonder you can't debate yourself out of a wet paper bag...you are unable to distinguish when you are being talked to, and what arguments other people are actually making. I'm sure they have classes to help you...

http://www.miamiherald.com/466/story/369053.html

A 12-year-old Lauderhill boy has been charged with first-degree murder in the baseball beating death of a toddler who was left in his care, authorities said Sunday.

The boy, who was arraigned in juvenile court Sunday, had been left alone with his 10-year-old brother and a 17-month-old girl at a Lauderhill home on Friday, authorities said. The 12-year-old became upset because the toddler was making noise while he was trying to watch TV.

The 12-year-old grabbed a baseball bat and struck the little girl several times in the head, according to Lauderhill police spokesman Lt. Mike Cochran.

The boy is charged as juvenile at this time and is being held in juvenile detention. Judge Martin Dishowitz found enough reason on Sunday to keep the boy locked up despite the his family's plea to release him. In court, the[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Dont care what ye say the child is fucking nuts.Im 13 and I wouldnt do that nor would any normal person and yes children are capable of maing rational decisions we arent buffoons.Take it from me Im that gae no normal people do that

Dont care what ye say the child is fucking nuts.Im 13
Clearly.
and I wouldnt do that nor would any normal person and yes children are capable of maing rational decisions we arent buffoons.
O the ironing.
Take it from me Im that gae no normal people do that
Normal isn't a particularly useful adjective in this case, since we have no idea how 'normal' this boy is, aside from this one case of violent homicide.

my spelling was abysmal in that post:headbang:

Agreed, information is lacking, but even still, I can't imagine a set of circumstances that would lead to anyone suggesting this 12 year old should just be 'let go'. He is going to need quite intensive intervention which indeed may involve removing him from the home, or from contact with the public entirely for a period of time. The focus, however, would be on rehabilitation, not just punishment. Punishment will solve nothing, will not deal with the root of the behaviour, will not teach this child to react in more appropriate ways to strong emotions.

What has been espoused in this thread, disguised as 'justice' has been in reaction to a strawman argument that the only other option available, besides jail for life is total unfettered freedom. I for one, have not seen ANYONE here suggest total unfettered freedom to be a good outcome.

We are in agreement. Tried as an adult has to meet certain criteria(I am not up on this) and the kid probably doesn't meet it unless of course they find something like comments, writings etc saying he planned to kill the kid.

The kid is pretty well screwed. Rehab is pretty dismal these days. Especially in prison. Our beloved leader slashed much of the funding for such programs.

my spelling was abysmal in that post:headbang:

*stares into abyss*

Sure was. :p

Here:

*snip quote*

I don't care what ye say -- the child is fucking nuts. I'm 13 and I wouldn't do that nor would any normal person. Yes children are capable of making rational decisions, we aren't buffoons.Take it from me: I'm that age. No normal people do that.

Some thirteen year olds are more responsible and have better thought-out beliefs than some adults. Most of us would acknowledge that ... but still I wouldn't recommend referring to your age, because lots of posters will take that as "don't take me seriously, I'm just a kid."

Sadly, a lot of people don't need a very good reason to dismiss someone else's opinion as nonsense. Don't make it easy for them with sloppy typing or run-on sentences.

*lumbers off to get head stuck in honey-jar*

The kid is pretty well screwed. Rehab is pretty dismal these days. Especially in prison. Our beloved leader slashed much of the funding for such programs.

really? your Govenor slashed funding for your penal and rehab programs? that sucks.

or are you trying to allude that the FEDERAL Government constols STATE Funded institutions?

really? your Govenor slashed funding for your penal and rehab programs? that sucks.

or are you trying to allude that the FEDERAL Government controls STATE Funded institutions?

That would be the govenator ja!

you are so anti-American that you printed out your own American flags on your computer to burn them :rolleyes: oh, wow, you are so extremely anti-American.
o.o Note that I said "used to be"

And what about how I condemned UB's anti-Americanism?

o.o Note that I said "used to be"

And what about how I condemned UB's anti-Americanism?

I think Smunk's post was less criticizing you for BEING anti-american but rather pointing out that your method of demonstrating your anti-american perspective, namely printing out american flags on your computer and burning them in your back yard demonstrated less "well thought out political ideology reached after thinking of the issues" and more "whiny emo child who writes poetry in the dark about how nobody understands him"

That would be the govenator ja!

ah, just making sure since alot of people are quick to blame the fed government for a state Government cockup. :cool:

I think Smunk's post was less criticizing you for BEING anti-american but rather pointing out that your method of demonstrating your anti-american perspective, namely printing out american flags on your computer and burning them in your back yard demonstrated less "well thought out political ideology reached after thinking of the issues" and more "whiny emo child who writes poetry in the dark about how nobody understands him"

Cute.

But in defense of whiney emos everywhere, what the hell is wrong with paying for your own ink and paper to make a private protest?

Presumably, you Well-Thinking-Out Political Ideologues prefer to burn down a large public building, to prove how well you've thought things out?

I think Smunk's post was less criticizing you for BEING anti-american but rather pointing out that your method of demonstrating your anti-american perspective, namely printing out american flags on your computer and burning them in your back yard demonstrated less "well thought out political ideology reached after thinking of the issues" and more "whiny emo child who writes poetry in the dark about how nobody understands him"

I don't really care if someone is anti-American, I am anti-uh....something but it just seems.....hilarious to me to be "so anti-American" that you print out your own flags to burn.....it reminds me of my little sister buying Hansen CD's in the Mmmbop craze to scratch them.

As Neo Art has asked...why should the age difference matter?

Probably because of the visceral "OMG and she couldn't even fight back/run" feeling.

Probably because of the visceral "OMG and she couldn't even fight back/run" feeling.

which, despite such a visceral reaction, has almost nothing to do with whether this child knew what he was doing was wrong and had the full understanding of his actions

*lumbers off to get head stuck in honey-jar*

silly ol' bear... ;)

Probably because of the visceral "OMG and she couldn't even fight back/run" feeling.

Bingo!

The same kind of logic that goes on in prison and why a child killer has to be separated from the general populace.

I once saw a show where a convicted killer explained is simply as a man, woman, teenager and old person has some sort of chance to defend themselves. A child does not.

I don't really care if someone is anti-American, I am anti-uh....something but it just seems.....hilarious to me to be "so anti-American" that you print out your own flags to burn.....it reminds me of my little sister buying Hansen CD's in the Mmmbop craze to scratch them.
:headbang: And did it ever occur to you that my MENTION of how I did that was meant to compare my past self to UB's present self in terms of the irrationality in anti-Americanism? I mean, come on, didn't I make it clear enough that it was for comparison, or are you just jumping to an opportunity to make fun of random people? And also, what makes you think that something like "well it doesn't matter what your AGE is, your NATIONALITY is what determines whether or not you know what you're doing" is any more "well thought out" than using my own paper to make American flags to burn privately, especially when I mentioned how this was years ago?

*stares into abyss*

Sure was. :p

Here:



Some thirteen year olds are more responsible and have better thought-out beliefs than some adults. Most of us would acknowledge that ... but still I wouldn't recommend referring to your age, because lots of posters will take that as "don't take me seriously, I'm just a kid."

Sadly, a lot of people don't need a very good reason to dismiss someone else's opinion as nonsense. Don't make it easy for them with sloppy typing or run-on sentences.

*lumbers off to get head stuck in honey-jar*



I know people on this forum especially do but I dont mind well I do I go nuts but still.

I pride myself on my English(I'm Irish but you know what I mean I'm a good writer and so on and so forth)

I might make commentary, after some other people have posted.

I really rather prefer it when the op give some sort of opinion or insight, it gives a starting point. Also, one might consider your reluctance to make an initial comment somewhat ... dare we say .... chicken.

:headbang: And did it ever occur to you that my MENTION of how I did that was meant to compare my past self to UB's present self in terms of the irrationality in anti-Americanism? I mean, come on, didn't I make it clear enough that it was for comparison, or are you just jumping to an opportunity to make fun of random people? And also, what makes you think that something like "well it doesn't matter what your AGE is, your NATIONALITY is what determines whether or not you know what you're doing" is any more "well thought out" than using my own paper to make American flags to burn privately, especially when I mentioned how this was years ago?

:p you're funny. Also, UB is forever and a day on ignore. You should do it too, makes life just a little more sunny.

Cute.

But in defense of whiney emos everywhere, what the hell is wrong with paying for your own ink and paper to make a private protest?
What's the point in a private protest?

What's the point in a private protest?in a private protest, your viewpoint is correct and there are no nasty counter points to deal with.

:p you're funny. Also, UB is forever and a day on ignore. You should do it too, makes life just a little more sunny.
And why aren't you saying just what you find funny?

And what does "foever and a day on ignore" mean?

What's the point in a private protest?
I dunno... I guess I just "felt" that I wanted to burn an American flag and figured I'd do it with my own paper in the privacy of my own home. Again, this was years ago.

Do some of you really believe that twelve year olds are incapable of understanding what they are doing and are not accountable for there actions!?

I believe that only about a 20 year old is beginning understand implications beyond themselves...and that some are never old enough. ;)

In this case, uncontrolled egoism combined with bad parenting and education were probably the causes so I really can't blame the kid for acting irrationally.