(03-01-2016, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you come up with a logical or compelling argument to support your contention that this kid deserves a legal exemption/free-pass and opinions to the contrary are ridiculous, Gunnar, I'll look forward to considering it.

(03-01-2016, 04:08 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 03:57 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: You're as bad a troll as you are a thinker, Gunnar.

So, it doesn't surprise me that you think bullshit should be taken seriously and being truthful is funny.

Decades of head-banging will do that to a noggin, I guess.

When it's all said and done. I will be right and you wrong once again, so pat away nit wit.

(03-01-2016, 05:32 PM)sally Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 04:08 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 03:57 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: You're as bad a troll as you are a thinker, Gunnar.

So, it doesn't surprise me that you think bullshit should be taken seriously and being truthful is funny.

Decades of head-banging will do that to a noggin, I guess.

When it's all said and done. I will be right and you wrong once again, so pat away nit wit.

I'll bet against you, Perry Mason. I don't think the DA will share your opinion that he's a stupid kid and learned his lesson or argue whether he only borrowed the gun or stole it. That's why courts have teen diversion programs, for kids who do stupid shit not fully realizing the consequences and to hold them accountable for it while educating them through the process.

(03-01-2016, 05:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you come up with a logical or compelling argument to support your contention that this kid deserves a legal exemption/free-pass and opinions to the contrary are ridiculous, Gunnar, I'll look forward to considering it.

It's pretty simple really HoTD. You need to consider what is fact at this point. MS maintains that the boy supplied the firearm to the girl knowing that she was going to kill her ex and herself and that he should be prosecuted. THAT is ridiculous, If that was the case, he would be an accessory to murder. You kept implying that the boy "stole the weapon" and should be prosecuted for supplying the stolen weapon used in the murder suicide. Here are the known facts: He removed the weapon from the home without his parents knowledge or consent and gave it to his friend because she lied and said her life was in danger, and she did in fact promise to return the gun if it turned out she didn't need it to protect herself. What the MCA is determining right now, is if there is even enough evidence to charge the boy with giving a weapon to a minor. NOTHING more. Nothing less. What I find ridiculous is how quickly the uninformed will jump to a conclusion based on misinformation.

(03-01-2016, 05:43 PM)sally Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you come up with a logical or compelling argument to support your contention that this kid deserves a legal exemption/free-pass and opinions to the contrary are ridiculous, Gunnar, I'll look forward to considering it.

It's pretty simple really HoTD. You need to consider what is fact at this point. MS maintains that the boy supplied the firearm to the girl knowing that she was going to kill her ex and herself and that he should be prosecuted. THAT is ridiculous, If that was the case, he would be an accessory to murder. You kept implying that the boy "stole the weapon" and should be prosecuted for supplying the stolen weapon used in the murder suicide. Here are the known facts: He removed the weapon from the home without his parents knowledge or consent and gave it to his friend because she lied and said her life was in danger, and she did in fact promise to return the gun if it turned out she didn't need it to protect herself. What the MCA is determining right now, is if there is even enough evidence to charge the boy with giving a weapon to a minor. NOTHING more. Nothing less. What I find ridiculous is how quickly the uninformed will jump to a conclusion based on misinformation.

Stole the weapon, removed the weapon, what's the difference? He took it without consent and gave it to someone which is illegal. That's what he is being charged with.

(03-01-2016, 05:40 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I've never contended that he supplied the gun knowing she was going to murder someone with it.

If that were the case I'd argue for him to be charged as an accessory and more.

I'm saying that even though his act was one of pure benevolence, he should still face some sort of discipline.

Sally's idea seems like a minimum sort of punishment, but I could certainly be persuaded to accept that if it were shown that he's had no juvenile record and is a good student.

(03-01-2016, 05:45 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:43 PM)sally Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you come up with a logical or compelling argument to support your contention that this kid deserves a legal exemption/free-pass and opinions to the contrary are ridiculous, Gunnar, I'll look forward to considering it.

It's pretty simple really HoTD. You need to consider what is fact at this point. MS maintains that the boy supplied the firearm to the girl knowing that she was going to kill her ex and herself and that he should be prosecuted. THAT is ridiculous, If that was the case, he would be an accessory to murder. You kept implying that the boy "stole the weapon" and should be prosecuted for supplying the stolen weapon used in the murder suicide. Here are the known facts: He removed the weapon from the home without his parents knowledge or consent and gave it to his friend because she lied and said her life was in danger, and she did in fact promise to return the gun if it turned out she didn't need it to protect herself. What the MCA is determining right now, is if there is even enough evidence to charge the boy with giving a weapon to a minor. NOTHING more. Nothing less. What I find ridiculous is how quickly the uninformed will jump to a conclusion based on misinformation.

Stole the weapon, removed the weapon, what's the difference? He took it without consent and gave it to someone which is illegal. That's what he is being charged with.

No, he hasn't been charged with anything. Keep trying though. This is proving my point from every angle.

(03-01-2016, 05:56 PM)sally Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:45 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:43 PM)sally Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you come up with a logical or compelling argument to support your contention that this kid deserves a legal exemption/free-pass and opinions to the contrary are ridiculous, Gunnar, I'll look forward to considering it.

It's pretty simple really HoTD. You need to consider what is fact at this point. MS maintains that the boy supplied the firearm to the girl knowing that she was going to kill her ex and herself and that he should be prosecuted. THAT is ridiculous, If that was the case, he would be an accessory to murder. You kept implying that the boy "stole the weapon" and should be prosecuted for supplying the stolen weapon used in the murder suicide. Here are the known facts: He removed the weapon from the home without his parents knowledge or consent and gave it to his friend because she lied and said her life was in danger, and she did in fact promise to return the gun if it turned out she didn't need it to protect herself. What the MCA is determining right now, is if there is even enough evidence to charge the boy with giving a weapon to a minor. NOTHING more. Nothing less. What I find ridiculous is how quickly the uninformed will jump to a conclusion based on misinformation.

Stole the weapon, removed the weapon, what's the difference? He took it without consent and gave it to someone which is illegal. That's what he is being charged with.

No, he hasn't been charged with anything. Keep trying though. This is proving my point from every angle.

Jesus Christ. This is the crime that we are discussing him being potentially charged with and if we agree that it is reasonable or not. Better?

(03-01-2016, 05:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you come up with a logical or compelling argument to support your contention that this kid deserves a legal exemption/free-pass and opinions to the contrary are ridiculous, Gunnar, I'll look forward to considering it.

It's pretty simple really HoTD. You need to consider what is fact at this point. MS maintains that the boy supplied the firearm to the girl knowing that she was going to kill her ex and herself and that he should be prosecuted. THAT is ridiculous, If that was the case, he would be an accessory to murder. You kept implying that the boy "stole the weapon" and should be prosecuted for supplying the stolen weapon used in the murder suicide. Here are the known facts: He removed the weapon from the home without his parents knowledge or consent and gave it to his friend because she lied and said her life was in danger, and she did in fact promise to return the gun if it turned out she didn't need it to protect herself. What the MCA is determining right now, is if there is even enough evidence to charge the boy with giving a weapon to a minor. NOTHING more. Nothing less. What I find ridiculous is how quickly the uninformed will jump to a conclusion based on misinformation.

(03-01-2016, 06:15 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:31 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 05:18 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If you come up with a logical or compelling argument to support your contention that this kid deserves a legal exemption/free-pass and opinions to the contrary are ridiculous, Gunnar, I'll look forward to considering it.

It's pretty simple really HoTD. You need to consider what is fact at this point. MS maintains that the boy supplied the firearm to the girl knowing that she was going to kill her ex and herself and that he should be prosecuted. THAT is ridiculous, If that was the case, he would be an accessory to murder. You kept implying that the boy "stole the weapon" and should be prosecuted for supplying the stolen weapon used in the murder suicide. Here are the known facts: He removed the weapon from the home without his parents knowledge or consent and gave it to his friend because she lied and said her life was in danger, and she did in fact promise to return the gun if it turned out she didn't need it to protect herself. What the MCA is determining right now, is if there is even enough evidence to charge the boy with giving a weapon to a minor. NOTHING more. Nothing less. What I find ridiculous is how quickly the uninformed will jump to a conclusion based on misinformation.

MS made no such contention. He simply acknowledged that he doesn't know what the murderer told the boy or what the boy knew, neither do you. None of us do at this point (though the D.A. probably does, and that may be something he factors into his decision).

You still can't seem to process that even though you want to paint the boy as simply borrowing something from his parents without consent in order to innocently and gallantly loan it to a friend, I'm not suggesting that the boy be prosecuted for theft and that's not the charge the DA is considering. So, the semantics are irrelevant to the case, no matter how you try to make them the crux of your argument.

The boy borrowed without permission/took/stole -- whatever -- a loaded gun (or gun and ammo) and secretly gave it someone who wasn't legally qualified to own it. He knew he was breaking the laws and he made that choice. He was old enough to know better.

I would not have borrowed without permission/taken/stolen -- whatever -- my dad's gun and given it a friend who claimed to need it for self-defense when I was 15, no way in hell. First off, my dad was cool, but he did not allow that kind of shit. More importantly, I would have feared for my friend and offered other solutions that didn't add to the danger, even though I was a typical 15-year-old who pulled some dipshit moves in my day.

The law against transferring firearms to people who are not permitted to possess/own them exists for a reason and it's a good one. The juvenile court system exists for a reason as well. I see no reason the DA should not be considering prosecuting the boy for the crime he committed in juvenile court and will not consider it ridiculous if the DA decides to prosecute the boy.

P.s. There is absolutely evidence enough to charge him. The gun was found with the bodies, the girl confessed to getting it from the boy in her murder/suicide note, the boy admits to taking it without consent and illegally giving it to the girl (under false pretenses), and the parents have identified the gun as theirs (confirmed by ATF records). You can't get more evidence than that. If the DA decides not to prosecute, it will not be for lack of evidence, it will be because he doesn't think a legal conviction/punishment would be in the interest of justice or some other factor. It's the mitigating circumstances the DA is considering.

(03-01-2016, 06:26 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Have the parents of the boy come out and said that their son was legally entitled to 'lend' the gun to someone else? Have they said he asked them if it was okay?

If you can't answer yes to either of those questions then he is liable.

Now, it's simply the DA's decision whether to charge or not.

I'm guessing that if the murdered girls family was demanding prosecution, charges would already have been filed.

(03-01-2016, 06:29 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:26 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Have the parents of the boy come out and said that their son was legally entitled to 'lend' the gun to someone else? Have they said he asked them if it was okay?

If you can't answer yes to either of those questions then he is liable.

Now, it's simply the DA's decision whether to charge or not.

I'm guessing that if the murdered girls family was demanding prosecution, charges would already have been filed.

If it was that simple, he would be charged MS. Why hasn't he been charged? And to be clear, the ONLY thing they can charge him with is giving a gun to a minor. This isn't a question of liability for the murder/suicide.

(03-01-2016, 06:33 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:29 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:26 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Have the parents of the boy come out and said that their son was legally entitled to 'lend' the gun to someone else? Have they said he asked them if it was okay?

If you can't answer yes to either of those questions then he is liable.

Now, it's simply the DA's decision whether to charge or not.

I'm guessing that if the murdered girls family was demanding prosecution, charges would already have been filed.

If it was that simple, he would be charged MS. Why hasn't he been charged? And to be clear, the ONLY thing they can charge him with is giving a gun to a minor. This isn't a question of liability for the murder/suicide.

I'm not a mind-reader, but my guess would be that he's conflicted with the wishes of the parents and legally what he can charge the kid with.

(03-01-2016, 06:35 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:33 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:29 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:26 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Have the parents of the boy come out and said that their son was legally entitled to 'lend' the gun to someone else? Have they said he asked them if it was okay?

If you can't answer yes to either of those questions then he is liable.

Now, it's simply the DA's decision whether to charge or not.

I'm guessing that if the murdered girls family was demanding prosecution, charges would already have been filed.

If it was that simple, he would be charged MS. Why hasn't he been charged? And to be clear, the ONLY thing they can charge him with is giving a gun to a minor. This isn't a question of liability for the murder/suicide.

I'm not a mind-reader, but my guess would be that he's conflicted with the wishes of the parents and legally what he can charge the kid with.

The MCA get's paid to prosecute based on evidence, not to consider parents wishes. Pffft. Some Rockford you turned out to be.

(03-01-2016, 06:37 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:35 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:33 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:29 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:26 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Have the parents of the boy come out and said that their son was legally entitled to 'lend' the gun to someone else? Have they said he asked them if it was okay?

If you can't answer yes to either of those questions then he is liable.

Now, it's simply the DA's decision whether to charge or not.

I'm guessing that if the murdered girls family was demanding prosecution, charges would already have been filed.

If it was that simple, he would be charged MS. Why hasn't he been charged? And to be clear, the ONLY thing they can charge him with is giving a gun to a minor. This isn't a question of liability for the murder/suicide.

I'm not a mind-reader, but my guess would be that he's conflicted with the wishes of the parents and legally what he can charge the kid with.

The MCA get's paid to prosecute based on evidence, not to consider parents wishes. Pffft. Some Rockford you turned out to be.

The evidence is there.

It's clear cut.

And yes, you can be Angel any day of the week.

He's likeable even when he's being a prick.

(03-01-2016, 06:33 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:29 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 06:26 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Have the parents of the boy come out and said that their son was legally entitled to 'lend' the gun to someone else? Have they said he asked them if it was okay?

If you can't answer yes to either of those questions then he is liable.

Now, it's simply the DA's decision whether to charge or not.

I'm guessing that if the murdered girls family was demanding prosecution, charges would already have been filed.

If it was that simple, he would be charged MS. Why hasn't he been charged? And to be clear, the ONLY thing they can charge him with is giving a gun to a minor. This isn't a question of liability for the murder/suicide.

I'm not a mind-reader, but my guess would be that he's conflicted with the wishes of the parents and legally what he can charge the kid with.