ANOTHER SCHOOL/PUBLIC SHOOTING

[Blindgreed1]

The only one on a "soap box", albeit a wobbly one, is you Gunnar.

"The guilt is punishment enough for stealing a gun and giving it someone who wasn't eligible to use it". That is, in fact, contrary to all your previous "enforce the existing laws!" soap box proclamations.

The families of the two girls could seek retribution from the boy's parents in civil court, no doubt. But, I'm not aware of how the boy's parents could be held criminally responsible under the exiting law.

So, enlighten me. How could the parents be successfully prosecuted for their teen stealing their gun and loaning it to a friend who used it in a murder in Arizona if they were completely in the dark and not legally negligent in their parental responsibilities?

You keep implying that the teen "stole the gun." Prove the kid committed a crime by acquiring a gun from the home he lives in. That would be the first challenge I put before you if you aspire to criminalize this kids actions in all of this. You're a nit picker. Show me the nit. Liberal nit wit.

[HairOfTheDog]

You're sounding more and more ridiculous with each defensive ad-hominem laced post, Gunnar.

The boy's parents and the police confirmed that the boy did not have the gun owners' (parents') permission to take the gun from the home. Thus, he 'stole' the gun. Just like if he'd secretly taken money from their wallets without authorization, he'd have 'stolen' money from them.

Why you wanna nit-pick semantics is beyond me. If you'd rather say "the minor male illegally borrowed his parents' gun against their previous directives and without authorization" instead of saying he "stole" it, fine by me.

But, keep in mind, the parents aren't looking to press charges against their own son for taking their gun. The state is considering pressing felony charges against the teen for illegally transferring his parents' gun to a minor who used it to commit premeditated murder.

[Blindgreed1]

You're sounding more and more ridiculous with each defensive ad-hominem laced post, Gunnar.

The boy's parents and the police confirmed that the boy did not have the gun owner's (parents') permission to take the gun from the home. Thus, he 'stole' the gun. Just like if he'd secretly taken money from their wallets without authorization, he'd have 'stolen' money from them.

Why you wanna nit-pick semantics is beyond me. If you'd rather say "the boy borrowed his parents' gun against their previous directives and without authorization" instead of saying he "stole" it, fine by me.

But, keep in the mind, the parents aren't looking to press charges against their own son for taking their gun. The state is considering pressing felony charges against the teen for transferring his parent's gun to a minor who used it to commit premeditated murder.

So you know for a fact he had no intention of returning the gun? I don't believe you do. I'm certain you couldn't prove that in a court of law so I call bullshit. He borrowed the weapon and lent it to his friend.

[HairOfTheDog]

Jesus Christ, Gunnar.

Though it doesn't change the case at hand in the least, I'll reword my synopsis just for you:

"The minor male illegally borrowed the gun from his parents without their knowledge or consent, then he illegally transferred it to a minor female for her personal use. HOWEVER, he had planned to secretly return the gun to the legal owners (parents) at a later date."

[Blindgreed1]

Jesus Christ, Gunnar.

Though it doesn't change the case at hand in the least, I'll reword my synopsis just for you:

"The minor male illegally borrowed the gun from his parents without their knowledge or consent, then he illegally transferred it to a minor female for her personal use. HOWEVER, he had planned to secretly return the gun to the legal owners (parents) at a later date."

No, he loaned it to her for her protection because she misled him to think her life was in danger. He didn't loan it to her to go murder someone, or go target shooting. It absolutely has an effect on the case at hand because he loaned it to her so that she could defend herself. And Jesus was a cvnt.

[Duchess]

Jesus was a cvnt.

*gasp* Jesus was not a cunt!

[HairOfTheDog]

The state is not considering charging the boy as an accessory or accomplice, Gunnar.

The boy's lack of knowledge as to the murderer's intent is irrelevant in the potential prosecution of this case. The firearm was not a long gun. So, when the boy stole or borrowed it from his parents, at 15-years-old, he was illegally in possession of the gun without the supervision of a parent and willfully transferred it to the girl who was not legally eligible to be in possession of it either. The illegal transfer is the crime the state is considering prosecuting.

In any case, I don't think the boy should get a pass. I think he should be prosecuted and held accountable for his actions (which he knew were wrong and he tried to conceal), not punished for the actions of the murderer. However, as I said, I'm not suggesting that he's a monster who should have the book thrown at him.

[Blindgreed1]

The state is not considering charging the boy as an accessory or accomplice, Gunnar.

Intent is irrelevant in the potential prosecution of this case. The firearm was not a long gun. So, when the boy stole or borrowed it from his parents, at 15-years-old, he was illegally in possession of the gun without the supervision of a parent and willfully transferred it to the girl who was not legally eligible to be in possession of it either. The illegal transfer is the crime the state is considering prosecuting.

In any case, I don't think the boy should get a pass. I think he should be prosecuted and held accountable for his actions (which he knew were wrong and he tried to conceal), not punished for the actions of the murderer. However, as I said, I'm not suggesting that he's a monster who should have the book thrown at him.

Illegally possessing a gun... That I can get behind. Anything else and you're just being an asshole. And he didn't fucking steal the gun. I believe the charge they are seeking though is sale or gift of a firearm to a minor. Additionally, word on the street is the DA won't go after the kid because DA agrees with me.

[Blindgreed1]

Jesus was a cvnt.

*gasp* Jesus was not a cunt!

"settle down Francis" Jesus is a common name down here.

[Duchess]

And he didn't fucking steal the gun.

I'm curious to know why you don't view it as stolen. If you take something of mine without asking for permission, you have stole from me. In my mind, it's just that simple.

[Blindgreed1]

And he didn't fucking steal the gun.

I'm curious to know why you don't view it as stolen. If you take something of mine without asking for permission, you have stole from me. In my mind, it's just that simple.

Not if i'm your kid.

[Duchess]

"settle down Francis" Jesus is a common name down here.

You can call me Elisabeth or you can call me Boss but I ain't answering to Francis.

[Maggot]

Yeah..........I want my virginity back!

[Duchess]

Not if i'm your kid.

I'm not going to view you as my kid, I'm going to view you as a thief. You're grounded, bitch and give me your goddamn phone too.

[Blindgreed1]

"settle down Francis" Jesus is a common name down here.

You can call me Elisabeth or you can call me Boss but I ain't answering to Francis.

[Blindgreed1]

Not if i'm your kid.

I'm not going to view you as my kid, I'm going to view you as a thief. You're grounded, bitch and give me your goddamn phone too.

Send me to your room.

[Duchess]

Yeah..........I want my virginity back!

I ate it.

[HairOfTheDog]

The state is not considering charging the boy as an accessory or accomplice, Gunnar.

Intent is irrelevant in the potential prosecution of this case. The firearm was not a long gun. So, when the boy stole or borrowed it from his parents, at 15-years-old, he was illegally in possession of the gun without the supervision of a parent and willfully transferred it to the girl who was not legally eligible to be in possession of it either. The illegal transfer is the crime the state is considering prosecuting.

In any case, I don't think the boy should get a pass. I think he should be prosecuted and held accountable for his actions (which he knew were wrong and he tried to conceal), not punished for the actions of the murderer. However, as I said, I'm not suggesting that he's a monster who should have the book thrown at him.

Illegally possessing a gun... That I can get behind. Anything else and you're just being an asshole. And he didn't fucking steal the gun. I believe the charge they are seeking though is sale or gift of a firearm to a minor. Additionally, word on the street is the DA won't go after the kid because DA agrees with me.

That makes no sense to me.

I'd either charge him with both illegal possession and illegal transfer, or charge him with the crime that contributed to the deaths of two teens (the transfer). The gun was found with the two dead girls. The severity of the charges and punishment would depend on the details, some of which have not been revealed.

Giving a gift, making a loan, or selling something to someone is a transfer.

[Maggot]

is this about the 2 girls that killed themselves in school?

[HairOfTheDog]

They didn't both kill themselves.

One girl planned, in detail, to murder the other and then kill herself because she was heart-broken over the end of their romantic relationship, according to her murder/suicide note.

She got the gun she used to kill her friend and herself from a 15-year-old boy who took his parents' gun from their home without their knowledge and gave it to the murderer. She had reportedly told him that she needed it for the day for self-defense (we don't know the details of her story to him). In her murder/suicide letter, she admitted that she lied to him in order to get the murder weapon.

The parents of the dead girls reportedly don't want the boy prosecuted, but the state is considering prosecuting him for illegally transferring a gun to a minor.