Today brought two charging decisions in the school shooting from yesterday

The 14 year old gunman was arrested and charged as an adult
His father was also arrested, and charged with murder, held responsible for the actions of his minor son

Now of course there's the obvious infringement on the 2nd amendment posed by charging people with crimes for their legal possession of firearms, illegally used by someone else without the owner's knowledge.
And the general question of how any person can be held culpable for actions that the FBI had determined were not foreseeable, without knowledge or intent
But more direct is the conflict of the above statements:

How can a child simultaneously be held as an adult responsible for his own actions, and also as a minor for whom a parent bears responsibility?

The FBI are not the courts.

Let the evidence and courts decide who is guilty.

The courts charge him as an adult because they won’t let him easily off the hook. He still has to pay for his crimes when he is legally an adult at age 18.

We have laws on the books for criminal negligence. This is how person is charged under these circumstances.. The burden of evidence is much Les, then it would be in virtually any of the case..

Some kids are just super evil sometimes, I have no information on this incident but in previous incidents bad parenting sometimes was a significant factor of the cause. If blatant negligence of the child's condition was ignored by the parents then they are partially to blame for the child obtaining their weapons to do harm, it isn't difficult to make a firearm inaccessible to a child, lol.

To play devil's advocate here I'll also say, some kids hide their intent from their parents and some times the parents truly have no way of knowing and are in my opinion no guilty and are victims of the tragedy as well

The father was charged with two counts of second-degree murder, as per the Georgia statute of a murder committed in the commission of cruelty to children. Which is not negligent homicide. It requires either malice aforethought or the commission of a felony irrespective of malice.



The exact same court that is charging the child as an adult is charging the adult as responsible for the child.
So which is it? Is he legally an adult, responsible for his own crimes, or is he a dependent minor and his actions are the responsibility of his parent?
How can these be anything other than mutually exclusive?

What I am saying is The reason they can charge him is criminal negligence. With that modifier intent is not required, For the crime to be foreseeable Is not required. It's the same way someone can be charged with manslaughter. They had no intent, If they are not intoxicated, Then there are probably no mitigating factors for Foresight.

But they aren't charging him with negligence. And any case premised in negligence would have to account for

• The sheriffs office finding nothing actionable
  
• The school allowing the kid in class
  
• The parent not being responsible for the independent actions of an adult

A 14 year old can't simultaneously be an adult and therefore fully responsible for their actions and tried in an adult court of a law, and also a dependent who isn't fully responsible for his actions but rather under their parent's mantle.

What you don't understand they're not charging him with negligence, Because that is the modifier for the crime they are charging him for.. It's almost like saying, Because he did not do Common sense preventive measures to ensure The safety and security of that weapon, Allowing it to fall into The hands of someone other than the owner Constitutes negligence and even if he had no intent, He is still responsible for the Illegal uses of that weapon. Say I have a weapon in my house, I haven't in a secure locker which is not locked. Someone steals this weapon uses it in the Commission of a crime. In that case, i'm not at fault unforeseeable that at any time, someone can steal anything out of my house regardless of how security it is.In that case, I'm not at fault unforeseeable that at any time, someone can steal anything out of my house. However, if I know I have Another person in the house, And I leave that secured locker unsecured, That is definitionally negligent. And with that Element of the crime, I could be charged as complicit even if there was no intent.

Murder has a specific definition in state and federal crimes. It is distinct from negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, etc. He was also charged with that.
He's being charged with a crime that requires mens rea, not just negligence. That he was an accomplice to the crime of murder by committing felony cruelty to children.

I don't understand, How you were not understanding what i'm saying. I'm saying he is Being charged with a non criminal Motivator separate to the criminal count. This does not constitute double jeopardy. As one is a criminal count, And the other Is distinctly not a criminal count, it is a motivation. Similar to hate crime law, It Is an extenuating factor which allows a person to be charged under hate crime law.