(03-01-2016, 06:29 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: And to be clear, the ONLY thing they can charge him with is giving a gun to a minor.

And that is the only charge we've discussed and the only charge pending against him. A low level felony. All the evidence is there so I don't know why you keep saying it's not, he admitted to taking his parent's gun and giving it to the girl. Do you think it's ok for kids to do whatever the fuck they want with firearms just because whatever?

The girl told him she was going to get jumped after school by a gang of girls so he felt sorry for her and loaned her the gun thinking it was no big deal and never imagining it would end in murder. That's just a scenario and one that would gain him some sympathy, but still a dumbass move and teenagers should be held accountable for doing dumbass shit otherwise they'll always be dumbasses. How you can't reason with that is beyond me. They're not trying to give him the fucking electric chair.

I don't think the boy "stole" the gun any more than your kid "steals" your car if he takes it out while you're not home. Could you call the cops and report it stolen? Yes. Does that make you a terrible parent? Also yes. However, letting your unlicensed friend drive your parents car, which results in damage to the car and possible injury to you and your friend... incredibly stupid. And you'd be punished.

Specific to this case, the kid needs to be held responsible. The "he thought she needed protection" defense is bullshit. What if she was telling the truth? What if a group of 6 girls was going to jump her after school, and instead she shot 6 girls to death with her borrowed gun. Is that somehow better than what happened in reality? You don't give a dangerous weapon to someone. Period. I'm not saying you need to throw the book at him. Don't charge him as an adult, ask for the min sentence, and kick it down to the programs Sally was talking about. Perfectly reasonable to me.

The boy did steal the gun from his parents.

Steal (from Websters)
: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal

I can see how some people could view it as "borrowing without permission" instead of "stealing" since the boy claims he intended to return it. I wouldn't argue that view; but it's irrelevant semantics when it comes to the charge under consideration.

BG just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. Which I agree is fun, but he does it above and beyond.

(03-01-2016, 10:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The boy did steal the gun from his parents.

Steal (from Websters)
: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal

I can see how some people could view it as "borrowing without permission" instead of "stealing" since the boy claims he intended to return it. I wouldn't argue that view; but it's irrelevant semantics when it comes to the charge under consideration.

It's less to do with the fact that he intends to return it and more to do with the fact that it belongs to the family. I get the whole "he didn't ask his parents for permission," but when an object is not owned by a single member of the family, the familial claim branches out to include kiddo. Like... he doesn't own the house, but you'd be hard pressed to claim destruction of property if he smashed a chair. He didn't have permission to do it... but it's practically his chair.

Legally it does not matter one iota. I'm not trying to argue semantically or say it matters for the case, just I don't see it as theft. /Shrug.

He stole the fuckin' gun. Jesus Christ. "Borrowing without permission". Hahaha! Everyone has heard the old adage "when you're under my roof, you'll live by my rules". The home belongs to the parent, not the kid. If you break a chair in a home I own, you broke my fuckin' chair, not your chair, my chair, I own it. Is it because he took it from his parents and not a stranger that some of you won't accept he stole it? Kids steal from their parents all the time. Most kids learn at a very young age not to simply take something that doesn't belong to them because it's considered stealing.

He didn't "borrow" his parents hammer. He "borrowed" a GUN. Even if the girl said it was for protection, there was the risk of someone getting hurt or killed.

Being the horny little devil I was at that age it makes me wonder if he didn't loan, steal, borrow, pilfer, whatever the gun thinking he might get a P.O.A. for being such a nice guy. I know I did some crazy shit at that age because I was thinking with the wrong head.
Just saying

(03-02-2016, 12:15 AM)Cutz Wrote:

(03-01-2016, 10:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: The boy did steal the gun from his parents.

Steal (from Websters)
: to take (something that you are not supposed to have) without asking for permission
: to take (something that does not belong to you) in a way that is wrong or illegal

I can see how some people could view it as "borrowing without permission" instead of "stealing" since the boy claims he intended to return it. I wouldn't argue that view; but it's irrelevant semantics when it comes to the charge under consideration.

It's less to do with the fact that he intends to return it and more to do with the fact that it belongs to the family. I get the whole "he didn't ask his parents for permission," but when an object is not owned by a single member of the family, the familial claim branches out to include kiddo. Like... he doesn't own the house, but you'd be hard pressed to claim destruction of property if he smashed a chair. He didn't have permission to do it... but it's practically his chair.

Legally it does not matter one iota. I'm not trying to argue semantically or say it matters for the case, just I don't see it as theft. /Shrug.

Because it's not theft. But, because it's a gun we're talking about "he stole it."

If my kid goes into my room and takes my personal belongings and can't let me know about it because he knows the answer would be no in the first place then I'd consider that sneaky and stealing. Whether it be my gun, my money, my credit cards, my weed....

(03-02-2016, 11:03 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Because it's not theft.

What is your definition of theft? I ask because you are basically saying that term does not apply when one takes something that doesn't belong to them. What term does apply when helping yourself to something that isn't yours?

(03-02-2016, 12:33 PM)sally Wrote: If my kid goes into my room and takes my personal belongings and can't let me know about it because he knows the answer would be no in the first place then I'd consider that sneaky and stealing. Whether it be my gun, my money, my credit cards, my weed....

Yeah, that's 'stealing' by definition and it's asinine to argue otherwise or claim that the word "steal" when used with a firearm is discrimination against the firearm.

And, those items you listed are not shared common household items for family use, like a chair or a table or a tv remote, obviously.

Anyway, if your kid stole your gun, it would not be 'criminal theft' unless you filed a police report and pressed charges against him (which the parents in this case did not do and nobody has claimed otherwise).

Here's a scenario that's comparable to the case at hand.

My niece, at 13 (three years younger than the legal age and without a license/permit), sneaks my key out of my purse when I'm sleeping, drives down the street and drops my truck off at her 13-year-old friend's house because the friend says he needs to drive to school and pick up his math book before his mom gets home from the night shift and beat his ass again...

Her male friend ends up using my truck to ambush and run over his mom and then drives my truck into a wall and kills himself. First responders find a note with his body which explains how he tricked my niece into getting my truck and requests that my niece not get in trouble.

I expect that the police would come knocking on my door and I'd be facing a rude awakening shortly thereafter. I would not be surprised if, once police confirmed that I had never authorized my niece or her friend to illegally drive my truck or any other vehicle, my niece would be looking at juvenile charges of authorizing an unlicensed minor to drive a vehicle, or an existing law of that nature, despite the fact that I wouldn't be filing a police complaint against her for stealing my truck (and therefore she might avoid also being charged with 'auto theft' and driving a vehicle without a license).

I would not insist that my niece should not be held accountable for her actions because she was duped, or that because she'd ridden in the truck with me before that she innocently assumed the truck was community property to be shared with friends in despair, or that LE was trying to "scapegoat" my niece for the murder/suicide, or that people who wanted my niece to accept legal responsibility were discriminating against automobiles, or anything of that sort... because I'm not full of shit.

If the dead kid's father (dead mom's ex-husband) told the DA he didn't want my niece to be prosecuted, I'd appreciate the DA considering the victim's wishes and maybe working with me to get her into some kind of a program to learn, take accountability for her illegal actions, and minimize the chances of her committing other such crimes in the future.

However, I would understand if the DA instead felt he had an obligation to prosecute her as a juvenile under the existing laws and go for a light/minimum sentence; I would not consider that 'ruining my niece's life'. I would consider it requiring her to take reasonable personal responsibility for her willful illegal actions.

In any case, you bet your ass that my niece would be facing separate consequences from me for stealing my truck and the tragedy that ensued (along with compassion for her loss/guilt and securing whatever professional psychological/emotional counseling she needed to deal with the situation).

I think most responsible parents/guardians would think along the same lines.

(03-02-2016, 01:56 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(03-02-2016, 11:03 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Because it's not theft.

What is your definition of theft? I ask because you are basically saying that term does not apply when one takes something that doesn't belong to them. What term does apply when helping yourself to something that isn't yours?

Lets say you have a kid. Let's say the kid has a license and is insured to drive. Lets say he takes the car without asking. Is it grand theft auto? No. The End. You ladies can sit and yammer on about it all you want, but the police aren't going after the kid for theft of a firearm, which they would if he stole it. I get it. The cops get it. The Maricopa County Attorney get's it. But for a few here, everybody seems to get it. If you have kids in your home the personal property within the home is communal.

(03-02-2016, 03:09 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: If you have kids in your home the personal property within the home is communal.

I probably don't get it because I wasn't raised like that. I was taught to respect the property of others even if it was one of my brother's baseball bats or one of their hockey sticks I wanted to use. It was theirs and I was expected to ask permission, not simply take it because I wanted to use it.

(03-02-2016, 03:37 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(03-02-2016, 03:09 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: If you have kids in your home the personal property within the home is communal.

I probably don't get it because I wasn't raised like that. I was taught to respect the property of others even if it was one of my brother's baseball bats or one of their hockey sticks I wanted to use. It was theirs and I was expected to ask permission, not simply take it because I wanted to use it.

You probably don't get it because you're not a dumbass enabler raised by dumbass enablers.

Your prescription pills, your credit cards, your vibrator, your gun...are not communal property for children in your home unless you're a negligent dumbass parent.

In the case at hand, the parents presumably are not being charged because they had made it clear that their gun was not to be touched without their supervision, except perhaps in the case of an intruder in the home. Therefore, they did not break the federal/state laws because they did not authorize their son to possess/carry their handgun prior to his 18^th birthday.

And...................it still has nothing to do with the case at hand because the DA is only considering charging the boy with illegal transfer of a firearm to a minor, the evidence of which is uncontested. The DA is not looking to pile on theft and illegal possession charges, according to what's been published thus far.

8^th Grader Wounds 4 Classmates in Ohio



The eighth-grader who deputies said opened fire on fellow students in at Madison Jr./Sr. High School Monday told classmates he had a gun before he used it in the cafeteria, according to Sgt. Rob Whitlock.

^ James Austin Hancock, 14, said that he got his gun from a family member, Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones said. Depending on where Hancock got the gun, "there could be other charges," Jones said.

Surveillance cameras caught the shooting on video, but Jones said the video will not be released.

Investigators believe Hancock waited for a school resource officer to leave the cafeteria before opening fire on his classmates,

Jones also said Hancock had extra rounds for the .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun with him when he fired at students.

Hancock was arrested Monday and charged with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, inducing panic and making terrorist threats.

Hancock denied those charges in court on Tuesday, which is the juvenile court equivalent of a not guilty plea. Hancock was ordered to have no contact with the alleged victims. A pretrial date will be set for April. Prosecutors are considering whether to charge Hancock as an adult.

Four teens are recovering after the shooting, which happened inside the school's cafeteria during lunchtime Monday.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/butl...m-relative

When one thinks about it children today are fairly fucked up. They have evolved from having some kind of conscious into idiots with no common sense or empathy. I'm not sure if its violent games, movies, television, loss of religious indoctrination or a motivating factor to do the right thing. But when kids go crazy and start shooting up their own families with any gun they can get their grubby paws on because they have to get up and go to school I tend to think the problem is not the gun.
If guns were gone they would find something else. So take away my oxygen and feed me nitro and I might think that a gun is the issue but I believe its not. Its society and a loss of self sufficiency that is the problem.

link

People really need to stop looking for the easy way out and start addressing the real problem before junior figures out a way to split an atom in the basement.

(03-02-2016, 03:37 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(03-02-2016, 03:09 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: If you have kids in your home the personal property within the home is communal.

I probably don't get it because I wasn't raised like that. I was taught to respect the property of others even if it was one of my brother's baseball bats or one of their hockey sticks I wanted to use. It was theirs and I was expected to ask permission, not simply take it because I wanted to use it.

You are discussing common courtesy and how you were raised, which really doesn't relate to the law. People often confuse what's morally right or wrong as well, but it all comes down to what is legal and what isn't. If your brothers or parents accused you of "stealing" something that didn't belong to you, that is just how they chose to raise you. If they tried to call the cops and have you prosecuted for that "theft" the cops wouldn't respond. Even for a vibrator, because you had access to the vibrator being an occupant and family member in the home.

(03-02-2016, 05:30 PM)Maggot Wrote: When one thinks about it children today are fairly fucked up. They have evolved from having some kind of conscious into idiots with no common sense or empathy. I'm not sure if its violent games, movies, television, loss of religious indoctrination or a motivating factor to do the right thing. But when kids go crazy and start shooting up their own families with any gun they can get their grubby paws on because they have to get up and go to school I tend to think the problem is not the gun.
If guns were gone they would find something else. So take away my oxygen and feed me nitro and I might think that a gun is the issue but I believe its not. Its society and a loss of self sufficiency that is the problem.

link

People really need to stop looking for the easy way out and start addressing the real problem before junior figures out a way to split an atom in the basement.

No one was vilifying the gun or the boy in the Arizona murder/suicide case Maggot. You and Gunnar keep suggesting that's the case, but there's not one post to support that inaccurate insinuation.

We're saying it's reasonable for the kid to be held legally accountable for his actions under existing law in the juvenile criminal justice system. It's not confusing nor complicated. It's one way to address the issues you mention in your post; holding teens responsible for their choices when they disobey and/or break the law. Good/proactive parenting goes a long way too, of course.

So, once again...............If the kid in the story at hand had sneaked his parents' car, driven it to another 15-year-old kid's house and secretly given the friend the keys and permission to use his parents' car for any reason.......and the friend ended up getting caught driving it or the car ended up being used as a murder/suicide weapon, the same argument for holding the kid legally responsible for transferring his parents' car to another ineligible minor would apply.