ANOTHER SCHOOL/PUBLIC SHOOTING

[HairOfTheDog]

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, those 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 indeed decides to prosecute.

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 for some other reason. It's the mitigating circumstances (including the victims' families' wishes) the DA is considering in order to possibly not charge the boy for his crimes, I suspect.