10y/o shoots himself with illegal 22. Can't they charge the parents with something?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dec41971

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
248
I know you can't always control your kids 100% of the time, but are parents not liable for minors with fire arms? Apparently in Washington
According to state law, children between the ages of 9 and 11 "are presumed to be incapable of committing crime" unless a judge determines that the youth has the "sufficient capacity to understand the act or neglect, and to know that it was wrong."
Click to expand...
But if a 10y/o has had 13 investigations in for all sorts of crimes in the last 2yrs, then is involved in a robbery and ends up shooting himself, are the parents of said kid and his accomplises as well as the juvenile owner of the fire arm not liable for something?

Story after the jump....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012673873_boyshot20m.html?prmid=related_stories_section
 
I'm not 100% on the firearms laws in Washington, but didn't that .22 become illegally possessed as soon as it was in the possession of a 10 year old child and no adult present supervising the use of the firearm?
 
Didn't the article say that the handgun had the serial numbers scratched off? The gun was illegal when the numbers were scratched off, if not before (probably stolen). The 17 year old had a gun. He had to know that it's illegal for a 17 year old to be in possession of a handgun. He also had to know that numbers were scratched off.

The half brothers (10 year old and his accomplices) were known members of a gang. Is it possible that this was rival gang members accosting a member of another gang?

I know the article doesn't say much about the 17 year old, but it does say that the 10 year old knew the 17 year old had the gun in his back pack. These guys all knew each other it would seem.
 
Bizarre, maybe he 17y/o was carrying for self defense against this gang???? Who knows. I don't know what can be done about the parents (sounds like a divorce/separation) but I think the kids should be tried as adults. At 10, if he's been doing stuff like this for 2 years, he fully understands what he is doing.
 
Here in Florida the parents can be fined for the actions of kids even finding handguns in the home and shooting.
 
The title given by the OP does not even go with the story.

10 year old shoots himself?
No a boy in a group was forcefully going into another teen's pack according to the story, when during the struggle the gun was discharged.


Assuming the serial number really was specifically scratched off (cannot assume anything in the media) and the gun not just in horrible scratched up condition, it gives the impression that the 17 year old with the gun was no angel. Not only in illegal possession of a loaded gun, but one further altered.



While parenting may play a crucial role, this incident appears to have nothing to do with immediate parental oversight involving an accident with a firearm as the title would imply.
Rather it has to do with a group of criminals, one of whom just managed to get shot while trying to take another person's gun from their backpack by force.






On a related note though I have become more against children with firearms in recent years, even responsible ones. If they are not old enough to be criminally charged, then they are not old enough to handle a gun.
Would you want someone driving a vehicle next to you that was immune to the law? Could drink and drive, cut you off, run you off the road, run over pedestrians and break any traffic law they wished with legal impunity, even if they chose to be responsible?

According to state law, children between the ages of 9 and 11
Click to expand...

Until someone is old enough to be held responsible for their actions at least in juvenile court, they are not old enough to be allowed many actions. Any adult who provides any gun or other inherently dangerous tool to someone too young to be charged should be held accountable as if they misused the gun if there is any problem.
In that specific state that would be age 12. (6-8 or no minimum age in most states.)
In many states it is a few years younger dating back to English Common Law.
Take a kid to the range or hunting who is younger than 12 in that state and they shoot someone? The adult should be accountable.
Don't like it? Then lower the minimum age someone can be charged.
The minimum age of criminal responsibility should be the minimum age someone is handed a gun unless someone else is assuming legal responsibility for any and all actions.
 
Last edited:
Under our state's current juvenile sentencing law, juveniles who are convicted of illegal gun possession receive a sentence of "local sanctions," meaning that they remain in the community, often serving light sentences of only a few days of home detention, according to the King County Prosecutor's Office.

A juvenile's first conviction won't bring more than 30 days at the county's juvenile facility.

The 30-day maximum is the same for second, third and fourth offenses, said Dan Donohoe, spokesman for Prosecutor Dan Satterberg.

5 CONVICTIONS before they do more than 30 days.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/218730.asp
 
This the Legal forum and the legal aspects of the shooting and the firearm are all that is within scope of the discussion.

The failed parenting of Ms. Ford is entirely out of scope for Legal and THR.
 
Here in Florida the parents can be fined for the actions of kids even finding handguns in the home and shooting.
Click to expand...

more than just fined. unless i'm mistaken, it's actually a FELONY, down here to foul up and let your kid find your chunk. obviously, it only becomes known when something terrible happens, which actually makes it's a useful law. i don't get charged because my Sig is laying on the coffee table within arm's reach of my 9 yr old, who knows how to safely handle firearms, but the meth dealer who takes in a piece on trade and leaves it where his uneducated kid finds it and shoots the neighbor. well... he gets charged. makes sense to me :)

also - in my state, ANY gun with a modified serial number is illegal to posess.
 
hso said:
This the Legal forum and the legal aspects of the shooting and the firearm are all that is within scope of the discussion.

The failed parenting of Ms. Ford is entirely out of scope for Legal and THR.
Click to expand...
How is that? From what I know, in places like NJ, Ms Ford would have been legally liable and been charged with something. Second, someone said the gun went off in a struggle... well actually on the same paper there are links to more articles in the days prior about this incident, and the 10y/o did actually shoot himself while struggling with the 17y/o according to other articles. There is no dispute as to that. The 10y/o actually discharged the fire arm into his own hand. I think it is terrible and the parents are liable. They were all juveniles, they all knew the gun was in the back pack. I am just surprised the 17y/o and the parents are not having to face a judge for their roles in this though.
 
Not many folks appear to have read the whole article. Yes, it's a tad confusing, but it looks like:

The gun was in the backpack of the victim, but the backpack was apparently hand-carried, not worn. The 10-y.o. was the "mouthpiece" of a robbery attempt where the objective was the handgun, known to be in the possession of the 17-y.o.

A struggle ensued over the backpack. The gun went bang. The article said three holes in the backpack. Apparently, one wound to the hand of the 10-y.o.

Gun illegality? Serial numbers scratched off is a no-no. Possession in public by a minor is probably some sort of offense by the 17-y.o.

The parenting issue is pretty much irrelevant.

As far as the 9 to 11 thing, the judge needs to go ahead and find the little twerp has the mental capacity to know he was wrong. You don't accumulate that sort of track record with the cops except by doing wrong, so the kid had to know. Or else he's such a slow learner that he oughta be locked away in the state home for the terminally bewildered.
 
As far as the 9 to 11 thing, the judge needs to go ahead and find the little twerp has the mental capacity to know he was wrong. You don't accumulate that sort of track record with the cops except by doing wrong, so the kid had to know. Or else he's such a slow learner that he oughta be locked away in the state home for the terminally bewildered.
Click to expand...

Thanks Art, you're always a breath of fresh air.
 
If you had a big dog that was allowed to roam you would be held responsible if it bit someone or caused damage right?

Why would you not be responsible if your unattended children harm someone or their property?

If children are not to be held responsible for their actions, shouldn't the person responsible for the child be held accountable?

I never have understood the logic behind this, but then again, when it comes to childrenlaws are not based on logic but rather emotion.
 
Owen, you are at least seeing what I am wondering about. Its a known fact that in certain neighborhoods, they use minors in the gang to commit serious crime because minors are practically imune to any real prosecution. I like the stray dog analogy. "Guardian" means you are at least responsible to some degree for what the damn kid does. I am very surprised there is no mention at all of the legal guardian having to answer for anything. If this is not at least grounds for them loosing the child to the state child welfare services for a period of time, I don't know what is. This kid had this many run ins with the cops you just start to wonder why the guardian has not been cited for something. 9-11 y/o not knowing what is wrong is just stupid. :uhoh:
 
Owen, SFAIK, parents are legally responsible for the actions of minor children. Probably varies by state. Check your own state's law on this.

In this particular for-instance, however, parental responsibility is a side-issue and not germane to the specific event. It's possible that a follow-up article might speak to the issue, depending on prosecutorial decisions.
 
acdodd said:
Under our state's current juvenile sentencing law, juveniles who are convicted of illegal gun possession receive a sentence of "local sanctions," meaning that they remain in the community, often serving light sentences of only a few days of home detention, according to the King County Prosecutor's Office.

A juvenile's first conviction won't bring more than 30 days at the county's juvenile facility.

The 30-day maximum is the same for second, third and fourth offenses, said Dan Donohoe, spokesman for Prosecutor Dan Satterberg.

5 CONVICTIONS before they do more than 30 days.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/archives/218730.asp
Click to expand...
:what: Wow! No wonder junior there acts like a made man.
 
Art Eatman said:
Owen, SFAIK, parents are legally responsible for the actions of minor children. Probably varies by state. Check your own state's law on this.

In this particular for-instance, however, parental responsibility is a side-issue and not germane to the specific event. It's possible that a follow-up article might speak to the issue, depending on prosecutorial decisions.
Click to expand...
Thanks Art, subscribed! I really am interested to see what happens with this. I sure hope she's not just going to get yelled at for being a poor parent, because next time her brat going to take some ones life and no punishment can make up for that. Yet since he's so young he will be running around at 18 with a clean record.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top