I haven't read into the specifics of this case

A 14 year old doing this is a hell of a black pill

If the father bought the gun for the 14 year old, is that not highly illegal?

It doesn't make sense to charge the father with murder itself, but criminal negligence & reckless endangerment, not sure what the precedent is in these cases if there is any

Similar to if someone walked into a Starbucks, left a loaded rifle on the table then went to the bathroom, meanwhile someone picked up the gun and started shooting people

And likewise with the absurdist legal arguments shared in other high profile cases like the Kim Potter trial-

if you accept the legal charge that the father committed murder in the second degree in the commission of felony cruelty to children in the act of owning a gun his son could access, whether it was locked or given- it means you need to support the charge of attempted murder / felony cruelty to children existing in that moment before anyone knew he'd go on to shoot up a school. That is to say, any random citizen of the united states, legally purchasing a firearm while in a household that has a child who once posted an angry message on discord, is now committing a felony. Doesn't matter if their kid goes on a Columbine spree, the very action of owning a gun your child could theoretically access for a theoretical future shooting is enough to make you bear responsibility for futurecrime.

The jury in the Kim Potter trial was told how to sustain the charge against her, the very action of attempting to use a taser on a dangerous murder suspect attempting to flee in a vehicle that could drag police officers, was itself felony assault and potter would need to be locked up even if she hadn't accidentally drawn her firearm instead. The contrived legal argument that doing her job in a sensible manner by the book with proportional force, was a felony regardless of outcomes. And in that case, she was convicted by the lynch mob, no judge would risk his own ass to intercede despite the clear insanity of the charges. That's what happens when mobs and public furor drive the legal system instead of dispassionate logic, criminal justice or rehabilitation. The question isn't of proportionality or outcomes or serving the public good, it doesn't matter how much money we're pouring into the springfield bear patrol and having kids do bear attack drills. Its about a mob demanding public sacrifice.



it would be a coherent legal argument even if a wrong one. You can't have it both ways, but you can choose one way or the other.
If it was a 5 year old shooting a classmate in kindergarten, we'd say its very clearly the responsibility of the parent and the toddler couldn't possibly form the criminal responsibility on his own.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Sep 6 2024 04:43pm

It's frankly SO obvious that the transgender thing is exactly that, it's a way for people to take some power back when they had none, it's not surprising at all that many/most of these shooters are involved in that

There are 14 year old gang members popping caps at each other.
I have no issue with this waste of human space being considered an adult.

They did the crime and should be put on death row for no more than a week.
The next crime is tax payers feeding this thing.

This whole charging people as adults/children makes no sense to me in the context of these extremely violent crimes

The purpose of incarceration is to eliminate the public threat, not punishment, thus it is irrelevant whether they know what they're doing/medically insane/too young/other

is it not the responsibility of the gun owner to store/lock/safeguard their gun to avoid situations like this?

apparently in Georgia you arent. one of the perks of living in a conservative state i guess??

Based on your own post, I'm having trouble seeing how it suddenly becomes a coherent legal argument if the kid is not charged as an adult. How is that the factor which turns the legal argument into a coherent one?

If the kid is charged as a juvenile, we're saying he's not fully responsible for his own actions. Below the age of adulthood, we regard children as some degree of responsibility of their guardians, their parents, their schoolteachers, etc. Clearly entirely their responsibility for toddlers, and at some point they can be independent and willful enough to be considered as adults in the eyes of the law. It would be coherent to say a child is not fully responsible for his actions, and therefore parents bear some responsibility. Or that an adult is fully responsible for his actions, and his parents aren't. Tim Kaine's son was arrested at a riot against Trump's victory where he attacked police at the capitol and needed to be put in a headlock to get him under control. Should Tim Kaine have been arrested too? Linwood Kaine was 24 years old. And like I said, Tim Walz was personally involved in a case over just this distinction with Myon Burrell, who at 16 murdered an 11 year old girl and was later set free with his sentence commuted by Tim Walz on the basis that a 16 year old wasn't old enough to be fully responsible for his actions (even if Myon Burrell Jr was a year old when his father was 16)

There are arguments I agree with and arguments I disagree with, but then there are incoherent arguments trying to have it both ways, standing on mutually exclusive ground.

I didn't know about this.
sheesh.. Tim Walz keeps having terrible things resurface about him every day.

Just found out the dad bought the little asshole the gun as a birthday present, yeah let the charges stand.