http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/boy.homicide/index.html

Quote :

"(CNN) -- A judge in Pennsylvania has denied a request from a 12-year-old killing suspect to have his case transferred to juvenile court. The boy is facing adult charges in the February 2009 shooting death of his father's pregnant girlfriend, and a judge turned down a petition to have the case transferred from criminal to juvenile court. Police have said the boy, then 11, shot Kenzie Marie Houk, who was eight months' pregnant, once at point-blank range in her farmhouse in western Pennsylvania. CNN has withheld the boy's name because he is a juvenile. He has been charged with one count each of criminal homicide and homicide of an unborn child in the death of Houk, 26, Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said. Houk's 4-year-old daughter found her mother in her bed, according to police. The child alerted landscapers working near the home, who then called authorities. "This is something that you wouldn't even think of in your worst nightmare, that you'd have to charge an 11-year-old with homicide," Bongivengo told CNN affiliate WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh at the time of the killing. "It's heinous, the whole situation." Under Pennsylvania law, anyone over 10 accused of murder or homicide is charged as an adult. If convicted, the boy faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, Bongivengo said. Authorities said the boy is the son of the victim's live-in boyfriend at the home in Wampum, about 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. "At this point, we don't believe it's accidental," Bongivengo said. The weapon was a youth model 20-gauge shotgun, designed for use by children, that belonged to the boy, according to investigators."

I remember this case when it was first reported and shook my head that the dad is not legally liable for what his unsupervised 11 year old did with the gun.

If someone gave their 11 year old car keys and they ran someone over they would be charged criminally with something, but apparently not if you give your kid a gun of his own and do not lock it up when you are not there to supervise.

I support people who are willing to go through the proper procedures rights to own a gun but this is fucking ridiculous. A 11 year old can not be expected to understand the consequences of his actions enough to "own" a firearm. If 11 year olds had the level of responsibilty required to own a gun they would also be able to drive, open credit, sign contracts, and work inside meat departments of stores (non of which they can legally do, they can not even legally work a job).

The fathers negligence in this case effectively ended 3 lives 1) his sons 2) his girlfriends 3) the unborn child's.

I am assuming this guy bought his kid the gun so they could go hunting together and there is nothing wrong with that assuming the child does not have access to the guns while not hunting and not supervised.

I do not understand the backwoods mentality that thinks peoples rights are being violated when they are legally required to be responsible with gun ownership. What is so hard about passing a law that says its a felony to have unsecured firearms a home with minors present? Gun safes are not that expensive, it is not that hard to put things in a safe. If someone is too fucking stupid to take common sense measures to ensure firearm safety they are too fucking stupid to own guns. Charge them with the felony and strip them of that right.

In this case the father should be charged with negligent manslaughter since his negligence caused multiple deaths.

3/29/2010 3:24:21 PM

But the father did not have custody of the child, the girlfriend did. If he gunned someone down while under her custody, it would be her fault for allowing him to have a gun... except, she is now dead and cannot be charged. From the article, it seems the father was not home. It is not even suggested that it was the father's gun. For all we know, the mother is a gun nut and was teaching the kid to load and unload the gun, but the child shot her instead.

You have clearly let your emotions run away from you.

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/29/2010 3:49:47 PM

Quote :

"Under Pennsylvania law, anyone over 10 accused of murder or homicide is charged as an adult."

How does nonsense like this persist?

3/29/2010 4:08:32 PM

^ In many jurisdictions, you play adult games (operating a vehicle, using a weapon intentionally, etc), you are tried as an adult, it's not just a PA thing.

And even if you could hold the parent responsible, it'd be pretty hard to win at court, you'd have to prove negligent supervision. Which means you'd have to show that the parents were aware of specific instances of prior conduct to put them on notice of the act, and that the father had the opportunity to control the child.

Also:

Quote :

""This offense was an execution-style killing of a defenseless pregnant young mother. A more horrific crime is difficult to imagine," Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto wrote in his opinion refusing to move the case to juvenile court."

Quote :

"Prosecutors have suggested the boy was jealous of Houk and her unborn son. Police had said Brown hid the weapon under a blanket so Houk's 7-year-old daughter wouldn't see it as he entered her mother's room. Later, authorities say, he threw the spent shell casing along a path on his way to a bus and went to school."

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/29/1843723/adult-trial-for-boy-in-death-of.html#ixzz0jbBJ3yEc



[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 4:19 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2010 4:10:48 PM

^^ What, do you think an 11 year old is incapable of murder? Some eggs are just bad.

3/29/2010 4:15:38 PM

LoneSnark, what did you say in your first post? Th dead woman was not the mother of the boy. She had no legal relationship with him either (foster parent, etc).

What the OP is saying the father should be charged because HIS son had access to a gun while he (father) was out of the house. That's a fair thing to say. Don't you think it is highly irresponsible to let your kid have access to a gun while you are out of the house, and the only adult in the house has no biological or legal relationship with your kid?

I agree, the father should be charged with negligence, and get 2-3 years in jail.

3/29/2010 4:21:14 PM

^Is that just because it's a gun? Would you think differently if there were a different weapon used, like a kitchen knife or a hammer?

3/29/2010 4:26:29 PM

Yes.

You don't need licenses to buy hammers or kitchen knives. They are not legally controlled items. I would gladly leave my 11 year old kid in my house with an unrelated adult around with possible access to knives and hammers, but never with access to a gun. Either I would lock it away, or if that was not possible, I would take it with me, or if that was not possible, I would take my kid with me. (I would have my gun under lock and key most of the time anyway)

And I believe the vast majority of people would agree with what I said in the paragraph above about leaving my kid alone under various circumstances.

3/29/2010 4:53:26 PM

Okay. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just trying to see where you would draw the line. I am split on the issue. If the kid has been shooting with his father (like hunting trips, or general knowledge of guns) since an early age, and has proven himself to be knowledgeable about the consequences of gun ownership, then I would have a hard time blaming the father in this case. But for a lot of kids, that is not the case. For the average 11 year old out there, I wouldn't leave them in a house with an unsecured gun. However, that doesn't inherently mean it was the wrong thing to do in this case. Without more information, I just don't know, so I have a hard time immediately blaming the father.

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2010 5:01:50 PM

^^ what would you say at the point that knives became "legally controlled"?

3/29/2010 7:01:56 PM

Sounds like you're hinting at a slippery slope argument. There's a difference between a knife and a gun and everyone knows it.

3/29/2010 7:10:32 PM

one is pointy.

3/29/2010 7:29:31 PM

^^ I'm hinting at nothing. I'm asking why the distinction matters. Are not both items dangerous? Why draw the distinction at what is "legally controlled"?

3/29/2010 7:40:01 PM

Frankly, there's not that much difference between knives and guns when used by an 11-year-old against a sleeping person. He could have killed her with any number of things if he'd really wanted to. A negligence charge against the father would make sense if the kid had accidentally killed someone with an unsupervised firearm, but the article and police accounts seem to suggest that this was very deliberate and the shotgun was likely just the most convenient method...

That said, I don't think it's necessary to charge the father in this case (at least, not based on the information we are given by the news story), but charging the kid as an adult is ridiculous. His crime should be taken extremely seriously, but he still ought to be tried as a juvenile, because he is one.

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 7:46 PM. Reason : .]

3/29/2010 7:44:00 PM

Quote :

"Frankly, there's not that much difference between knives and guns when used by an 11-year-old against a sleeping person. He could have killed her with any number of things if he'd really wanted to. A negligence charge against the father would make sense if the kid had accidentally killed someone with an unsupervised firearm, but the article and police accounts seem to suggest that this was very deliberate and the shotgun was likely just the most convenient method..."

It takes a bigger monster to kill a human by stabbing/bludgeoning than by shooting. I seriously doubt an 11 year old would have stabbed or hammered an adult woman to death.

Regardless of whether this was an accident or intentional (and it was this), the point is, you can't leave unsecured guns and ammo when you leave the house and there are kids in the house. If anything happens while you are out involving guns and kids, whether an accident or intentional harm, you should be held partly responsible.

3/30/2010 4:29:18 AM

Maybe I just don't know enough about the phrase "Charged as an adult". Does it mean the sentencing is the same, except he goes to kiddie prison until he turns 18?

I don't doubt that a 12-year-old is capable of first degree murder, but I'm certain he is not capable of making rational decisions; responsibility for his actions is not entirely his own.

3/30/2010 9:21:30 AM

Right now, he's in adult prison, but he has no contact with the other inmates. If he were charged as a child, the court would lose jurisdiction once he hits 21, so if there's a chance he could re-offend, they don't want to do that. I'm not certain on all the PA specifics though, but I'm under the impression he's completely treated as an adult.

3/30/2010 9:50:21 AM

qft

Quote :

"Regardless of whether this was an accident or intentional (and it was this), the point is, you can't leave unsecured guns and ammo when you leave the house and there are kids in the house. If anything happens while you are out involving guns and kids, whether an accident or intentional harm, you should be held partly responsible."

3/30/2010 12:33:39 PM

Regardless if the father is somehow held accountable for this, the boy pulled the triggered and committed a double-homicide, and according to their law he pretty much is a lifer. You can't charge the father with murder, and I don't think the father had a clue that a boy with knowledge of guns and gun safety would do this, although I would not let a child have free access to a gun. I can understand people being mad at the father, but the fact of the matter is that the boy committed the murder, and he should have to be handed justice just like anyone else that murders.

3/30/2010 12:48:05 PM

i dont think anyone was arguing that he shouldn't be. i think they were simply saying that as a parent you should be held somewhat responsible for firearms since 1) we do regulate them and 2) it is pretty easy to kill someone with quickly/efficiently and without much of a second thought.

3/30/2010 1:45:38 PM

Quote :

"Th dead woman was not the mother of the boy. She had no legal relationship with him either (foster parent, etc). "

Yes she did. If I leave my child in the care of someone else, anyone else, then they have a legal responsibility to keep the child away from dangerous things. If I leave my child at day-care and they let him have a gun, then God damn it, they should be held responsible for something.

What is your obsession with the biological relationship? He was not there, he may not have been there for days for all we know. She was the only person in any position to keep the 11 year old away from lethal weapons.

Quote :

"the father should be charged because HIS son had access to a gun while he (father) was out of the house"

How? If he was out of the house, then he had no say over whether his son had access to a gun or anything else. As the present care giver of the child, this women had legal authority over the child to deprive him of anything she wished, be it TV, food, friends, and even guns. For all we know, the gun was locked up until the women gave it to the child. For all we know, it was her gun.

I have on occasion baby-sat for friends. When I get there, I go about the house putting dangerous things out of reach. That is because for a given time, it is my responsibility to keep the child away from unsafe things, be it Aspirin, knives, or whatever. The only way this could possibly be the father's fault is if he conspired to keep the presence of the gun secret... to what end?

3/30/2010 4:03:38 PM

^ See that logic makes no sense.......minors can not legally "own" guns, an adult has to purchase the firearm, if the father purchased the firearm and failed to keep it locked up when not there to supervise then he should be partially liable for what happened.

3/30/2010 10:30:48 PM

I don't see why the father has to be charged.

In general 11 year olds in our society can't take responsibility for something like this on their own, but this is by no means a definite rule. There are always exceptions.

The prosecution could argue that the father shouldn't have given him a gun, but if he lived on a farm (which seems to be the case), in a rural area, it's somewhat common for kids that age to start learning how to shoot (and why shouldn't it be?).

[Edited on March 30, 2010 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2010 10:37:57 PM

^^ Exactly: IF it is the father's gun, then I would say it is the current care-givers responsibility to make sure the gun stays locked up. If the father left the gun on the kitchen table, then once he was out the door it was her responsibility to get it under control. For all we know, it was the women's gun and she was letting the boy play with it, because the boy's father didn't like guns and didn't let his son handle it while he was home. We simply don't know. And because we can't know, I think the rules should be thus: only she could know what was going on the house, therefore what happens in the house was her responsibility.

3/31/2010 10:06:10 AM

I just wonder if it was an adult that murdered a late term pregnant woman in her sleep if they would recommend the death penalty....

3/31/2010 10:13:58 AM

Quote :

"homicide of an unborn child"

What the hell is up with that? (I actually agree with it)

Women can kill their own babies because they are not persons, so killing them is not homicide, just waste removal. When someone else does it, it becomes homicide?

3/31/2010 5:00:03 PM

Yeah, just like I can have my dog destroyed, but if you shoot it, that's destruction of property.

3/31/2010 5:08:35 PM

^ Then he should be charged with destruction of property, not homicide right?

3/31/2010 9:45:10 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, just like I can have my dog destroyed, but if you shoot it, that's destruction of property."

i lol'd

4/1/2010 12:16:49 AM