Because they can both have a level of responsibility that demands legal accountability?

I agree with this sentiment. However, in this case. Due to the extreme nature. I believe it's justified. Otherwise as a 16 year old child you could murder with impunity. An unsustainable position.

Funny you say that. The newer schools are often built from modified prison blue prints. The newest one in my hometown for example. Cellblock => education Pod

Honestly, if the design maximizes population control safety etc, use it. With decorations of course

I suppose we could polish them up. But I suppose we'll never have the schools I went to, which look like a university rather than a fortress.

This is just a jab at firearm owners.
Under an anti-firearm administration.

The goal is to make it difficult and expensive to own firearms.
Since they can't remove the 2nd amendment, they will do everything in their power to stop access to firearms.

Including creating the narrative that every single person you come in contact with is your responsibility.
Then if any person you ever come in contact with, steals your firearm and uses it in a crime, you go to prison for their actions.

I know how these anti-firearm people think.
Sending firearm owners to prison is their wet dream.

This post was edited by Mondain on Sep 6 2024 03:26pm

Where do you all get this nonsense from?
Why do the nonsense shitposts start straight after every traumatic event?
Is it alex jones you are subscribed to or some other nonsense?

Not if the premise for that accountability is the responsibility for the actions of a minor, and the law needs to decide whether that minor is fully responsible for his own actions, or a dependent who's guardian is responsible for him.
Its a natural law that no man can be held accountable for the independent actions of another beyond his control. If the law wants to say parents are accountable for their children who aren't yet independent, then the law can't turn around and treat the child as an independent adult.

Its simply mutually exclusive. They could argue that this 14 year old should be tried in juvenile court. Tim Walz is running for vice president and he set free a guy who murdered an 11 year old girl when he was 16 (and already a parent himself), and Walz's specifically cited argument was that the juvenile brain isn't fully developed and he shouldn't have been treated as fully responsible for his actions, and the Minnesota justice system is being staffed by likeminded progressives who do not want to try children 'as adults' as a rule. Of course, the guy Tim Walz set free rejoined his gang and was just convicted again of selling fentanyl at george floyd square while carrying illegal firearms so what does that say about society's lenient streak

of course, they could try the shooter as an adult, say that he made the purposeful choice to commit mass murder with planning and malice aforethought, that nobody else was involved in his plot or had foreknowledge and therefore he's solely responsible and not charge anyone else. But that would just be sane

Fully responsible doesn't mean solely responsible. The dad bought his 14 year old son an AR-15, after the FBI visited the house to investigate the son's threats about shooting up his school. The son proceeded to shoot up his school.

Could be that the second-hand murder charges are typical overcharging by a DA but the idea that the dad would not face any legal consequences is kind of silly.

This post was edited by IceMage on Sep 6 2024 04:11pm

If the child is fully responsible for his actions than you can't hold someone else accountable for them. His father didn't buy a gun with instruction or coordination to commit a shooting, there was no element of intent, no mens rea. They aren't alleging that in the indictment. So any of the normal legal standard for an accomplice or murder by hire or gang hit is all out the window. Its an argument that his father 'should have known' that his son was a risk and that the mere action of buying a legal firearm constituted felony cruelty to children because of the 'foreseeable' threat his son would pose to classmates. The premise isn't that the father did anything purposefully negligent or wrong in the moment of buying that gun beyond having a gun near his child that he should have presciently known would commit a later crime. It would be different if we were talking about wanton negligence, of someone institutionalized for violence, or encouraging him to violently confront classmates or covering up violent criminal acts that could have warned of this. Instead we're just talking about criminal charges for owning a gun.

That's the legal argument here, and it stinks. For every 1 case where a kid would go on to commit a mass shooting after vague signs of behavioral problems and being picked on at school, there's 10000 more where he won't. If the father is responsible for the actions of his child, so is the school district for letting him into class, so is the sheriff for giving him a pass. And if the father is responsible for the kid's actions then the kid isn't fully responsible for his own actions.

Its not like this is some wild legal conundrum or smoke screen kicked up by a defense. Its a very easy knot to unravel and has never existed in the law until the dumb Michigan precedent. Its answered by either treating someone as responsible for their own purposeful and malicious planned actions (ding ding) or by diffusing the responsibility onto every institution and authority figure around them (dumb dumb).

I'm confused by the bold. Are you saying that if they were not charging the kid as an adult, the charges on the father would be warranted?