Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on April 08, 2013, 08:13:58 AM
-
It appears they dropped the charges at the last minute, but I hope whoever decided to charge him gets some kind of punishment for it. Responding officer didn't charge him, driver didn't want to press charges, and parents did all the right things, including calling the police in the first place. Clearly someone in the DA's office wanted to prove a point.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/7-year-old-nabbed-on-felony-bb-gun-charges.html
-
What's missing from the story? THE NAME OF THE PROSECUTOR WHO FILED FELONY CHARGES AGAINST A 7-YEAR OLD IN THE FIRST PLACE! All too often, these people get to maintain their anonymity; if held up to public ridicule, maybe they'd think twice about acting in an asinine manner.
For APS attorneys: Does the law provide for filing felony charges against 7 year olds?
-
For APS attorneys: Does the law provide for filing felony charges against 7 year olds?
I am not familiar with NC law, but a 7 year old can be charged with a felony in my state (MI).
-
I am not familiar with NC law, but a 7 year old can be charged with a felony in my state (MI).
Usually for Felony Gettin' On My Lawn, Dagnabbit!
-
In NY it starts in juvenile court and the judge needs kick it up... with some very good explanation. Shy of Serious Felonies for folks on the age border line that are repeat offenders; I've never heard of it happening or met anyone of note with the opinion that it should.
-
Can't spank kids anymore so gotta send them to prison ;/
-
Hmmm . . . wouldn't a "trial of one's peers" involve more 7 year olds as jurors? ;)
-
There was a common law tradition in America that children under age 10 could not form the mental intent to commit a crime. I don't know of any statutory law on the subject, but here in Ohio there is no minimum age for being charged with a delinquency (criminal) offense. That said, most prosecutors with the common sense God gave a dig would realize that at age 7, the system ain't gonna do anything to help. back in my prosecutor days, we would get criminal complaints from time to time on 8, 9, and 10 year olds, mainly for petty things like theft, criminal trespass, etc. You meet with the parents, make sure they're doing right, and call it a day.
i'd expect something like this up east, but I'd have thought a North Carolina lawyer would know better.
-
I have noticed that some parents threaten their children with the police (and the army). Having completely destroyed the child's conception of their parental authority over them; it seems they move up the ladder. It almost seems like some parents think there is a contest for producing the most dysfunctional child possible. Bonus round for negative contribution as an adult.
That any actual authority figure would play along, much less participate in the idea terrifies me. While I can see not releasing names; I wish I could sleep at night assured there was some talk to Bob about how he is retiring in the next 3 months ect.
-
Why did the mother call the police anyway? I would think they would leave that to the car owner while still taking responsibility. One comment indicated it was a ricochet.
-
i'd expect something like this up east, but I'd have thought a North Carolina lawyer would know better.
umm. :facepalm: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards)
posted from NC.
-
There was a common law tradition in America that children under age 10 could not form the mental intent to commit a crime. I don't know of any statutory law on the subject, but here in Ohio there is no minimum age for being charged with a delinquency (criminal) offense. That said, most prosecutors with the common sense God gave a dig would realize that at age 7, the system ain't gonna do anything to help. back in my prosecutor days, we would get criminal complaints from time to time on 8, 9, and 10 year olds, mainly for petty things like theft, criminal trespass, etc. You meet with the parents, make sure they're doing right, and call it a day.
i'd expect something like this up east, but I'd have thought a North Carolina lawyer would know better.
I don't recall the age cutoff for intent in my state. I think the Supreme Court said that a child under the age of 7 lacked the intent to commit a felony, but I don't recall the case name.
-
[devil's advocate]
Robbins said his son is a good boy who made a bad mistake.
Mah boy's a good boy, he's bringing his life around, oh Lordy yes! ;/
How do we have 11 posts on this story and no one picks up on this line? Granted, the kid is 7 instead of 15. But I think the explanation is that the little boy is "one of us" rather than "one of them." So we aren't picking on him.
When I was 11 years old, I was watching a friend play golf on a local golf course, riding around the perimeter of the course on my bike. All of a sudden the road sign next to me was ringing and cracks were coming from behind me. Some idiot was shooting at me from across the street. I hid behind a guard rail until he ran out of either BB's or interest, then got on my bike and high-tailed it home and called the police. They went and took care of the matter.
Shooting at someone with anything is a violent act, unless it's something relatively safe and consensual like airsoft, paintball or squirt guns.
Accidentally shooting at someone with anything is a violent act. If someone was doing what this boy did, but with a rimfire or centerfire rifle, it could have killed the driver. Heck, if the BB hit the windshield and spiderwebbed the driver's vision on the road he could have been hurt or killed. And shooting across a road (at least in AZ) is a criminal offense. Any road. Can't shoot across a forest road when hunting, or a desert road when setting up long distance target practice, and so on. It's also illegal in AZ to shoot within a quarter mile of a building (unless the building IS a shooting range). And to discharge a firearm INTO a building. And sorry, but BB guns and air rifles count in this regard.
Charging the boy might be a bit absurd, but leaving a 7 year old to his own devices, when he CLEARLY doesn't know his 4 rules of firearm safety and ended up shooting a car, is negligent. If the DA was going to prosecute anyone, it should be the parents. Certainly not felonious, but something in the misdemeanor level that will levy a fine or something. Maybe charge the PARENTS with discharging a firearm across a street, or something.
-
[devil's advocate]
Mah boy's a good boy, he's bringing his life around, oh Lordy yes! ;/
How do we have 11 posts on this story and no one picks up on this line? Granted, the kid is 7 instead of 15. But I think the explanation is that the little boy is "one of us" rather than "one of them." So we aren't picking on him.
When I was 11 years old, I was watching a friend play golf on a local golf course, riding around the perimeter of the course on my bike. All of a sudden the road sign next to me was ringing and cracks were coming from behind me. Some idiot was shooting at me from across the street. I hid behind a guard rail until he ran out of either BB's or interest, then got on my bike and high-tailed it home and called the police. They went and took care of the matter.
Shooting at someone with anything is a violent act, unless it's something relatively safe and consensual like airsoft, paintball or squirt guns.
Accidentally shooting at someone with anything is a violent act. If someone was doing what this boy did, but with a rimfire or centerfire rifle, it could have killed the driver. Heck, if the BB hit the windshield and spiderwebbed the driver's vision on the road he could have been hurt or killed. And shooting across a road (at least in AZ) is a criminal offense. Any road. Can't shoot across a forest road when hunting, or a desert road when setting up long distance target practice, and so on. It's also illegal in AZ to shoot within a quarter mile of a building (unless the building IS a shooting range). And to discharge a firearm INTO a building. And sorry, but BB guns and air rifles count in this regard.
Charging the boy might be a bit absurd, but leaving a 7 year old to his own devices, when he CLEARLY doesn't know his 4 rules of firearm safety and ended up shooting a car, is negligent. If the DA was going to prosecute anyone, it should be the parents. Certainly not felonious, but something in the misdemeanor level that will levy a fine or something. Maybe charge the PARENTS with discharging a firearm across a street, or something.
He's SEVEN.
He just did a lot of stupid things, whether intentional or not, in shooting the car.
But, to reiterate, HE'S SEVEN. You don't use the full force of the power of the District Attorney's office on a seven year old, ESPECIALLY a seven year old that has not harmed anyone. (Some children are already monsters, yes, as a result of parental neglect or training. Shooting at a car with a BB gun is not the act of a monster. It is, in fact, a rather normal act that stupid children do.)
FURTHER, the "My baby didn't do nuthin'" sorts are generally referring to (1) an adult or almost adult as "their baby" and (2) are referring to an adult or almost adult with a lengthy history of "doing nuthin'". A seven year old has not the ability nor the time to have built a lengthy history of "doing nuthin'"
So, to sum up, HE'S SEVEN and he didn't harm, maim or kill anyone. He damaged property, as stupid seven year olds sometimes do.
-
Also, the boy is only seven.
;)
-
Well, he is seven. Given that no one was hurt, he needs discipline of some form, not court involvement that would likely cost thousands.
-
Also, the boy is only seven.
;)
How old he is has nothing to do with it.
The law may categorize the behavior he committed as a felony, but (I'm pretty sure) NC law also says that minor children as essentially incapable of committing criminal acts of any kind - all they can do is commit delinquient acts.
So he would not have a criminal record - merely a record as a juvenile delinquient.
And yes, shooting across a road is both dangerous and stupid - mostly for the reason that something like what happened could happen.
But at age 7 the solution is neither to create another certified, convicted juvenile delinquient nor to sweep it all under the rug. The kid is fortunate that all he has to do to make up the $350 his parents paid to replace an auto window was to polish church pews. (Seriously, is there a "going rate" that folks gert paid to do that?) I would have been more in favor of cutting old folks' lawns, or hauling their trash cans to the curb - stuff that way back in time lids that age were in fact paid to do (unless their parents made them do it at no charge because it was the right thing to do). Depending on the size of the lawn and the size of the kid, between $2 and $5 per lawn (younger kids got paid more - those push mowers were rough) and $0.25 - $0.50 cents per trash can.
One summer I was playing ball and broke a neighbor's window. I was taught how to measure a window for new glass, how to cut glass, and how to glaze a window. Plus I had to mow the neighbor's lawn till I made up the cost of glass and glazing materials. IIRC it took me 5 mowings. Another kid did lawn work all year to pay for the damage caused by a snowball that distracted a driver who then ran into a tree. (Seriously, the steel bumpers on cars back then really protected the vehicles from damage from low-impact collisions. I think it was just to teach him a lesson.)
stay safe.
-
[devil's advocate]
Mah boy's a good boy, he's bringing his life around, oh Lordy yes! ;/
Can't see that applying here. He did something stupid at seven. So did I. As I recall, my friends and I shot at each other a few times, as well as other stuff we shouldn't have been shooting at with BB guns when we were in the 10-12 year old range. We also did dangerous things with Jarts, and bows and arrows, and a host of other things that could have led to serious injury or property damage. Stupid, but we were kids. Had our parents found out, we would have been soundly punished.
His parents found out and he was, from what I can see, punished in a way quite appropriate for his age. Frankly, when I read the story, I was thinking his parents could set a good example for a lot of the "my baby didn't do anything wrong" parental crowd. His mother just said he was a good boy, she never said he was innocent of what he did. She's the one who called the cops.
-
He's SEVEN.
He just did a lot of stupid things, whether intentional or not, in shooting the car.
But, to reiterate, HE'S SEVEN. You don't use the full force of the power of the District Attorney's office on a seven year old, ESPECIALLY a seven year old that has not harmed anyone. (Some children are already monsters, yes, as a result of parental neglect or training. Shooting at a car with a BB gun is not the act of a monster. It is, in fact, a rather normal act that stupid children do.)
FURTHER, the "My baby didn't do nuthin'" sorts are generally referring to (1) an adult or almost adult as "their baby" and (2) are referring to an adult or almost adult with a lengthy history of "doing nuthin'". A seven year old has not the ability nor the time to have built a lengthy history of "doing nuthin'"
So, to sum up, HE'S SEVEN and he didn't harm, maim or kill anyone. He damaged property, as stupid seven year olds sometimes do.
His own parents called the cops. Their kid their choice
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
It takes a village to give a seven yr old a felony.
-
His own parents called the cops. Their kid their choice
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
Parents also call the cops because sweet little johnny wont do the dishes. What's your point?
Kid is seven. I did a LOT of stupid stuff at seven. I did a lot of even stupider stuff as I got old enough to be more creative until the "this is probably a bad idea" half of my brain could catch up. I'd probably still be in prison if I was charged with crimes for half of it.
-
The kid just needs a little talking to. I was running around when I was 7 with my BB gun too.
-
Really? Someone called cops on a kid for not doing dishes? Or were you taking a lil artistic license? Or was that a failed attempt to equare not doung chores with the much more serious failing here?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
Really? Someone called cops on a kid for not doing dishes? Or were you taking a lil artistic license? Or was that a failed attempt to equare not doung chores with the much more serious failing here?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/melissa-townsend-911-mom-cops-come-scare-kids_n_2883499.html?utm_hp_ref=stupid-911-calls
Found that within the first 5 minutes of searching.
-
did the second 5 mins turn up the elusive parents calling for their kids not doing dishes?
your first 5 mins yurned up a case where the mom got arrested not the kids
-
did the second 5 mins turn up the elusive parents calling for their kids not doing dishes?
your first 5 mins yurned up a case where the mom got arrested not the kids
;/
lupinus's point was that parents sometimes call the cops on their kids for stupid *expletive deleted*it that doesn't actually warrant calling the cops. You called him on that and I provided an example. Stop being a nit picking ahole and moving the goal posts every time you're showed to be wrong.
-
;/
lupinus's point was that parents sometimes call the cops on their kids for stupid *expletive deleted* that doesn't actually warrant calling the cops. You called him on that and I provided an example. Stop being a nit picking *expletive deleted* and moving the goal posts every time you're showed to be wrong.
in your example the cops came and arrested the parents for calling. were you attempting to establish an equivalency between that and the case in the op?
further shooting anything where it strikes a car is a serious falure somewhere. my kids woulda been calling the cops themselves to get rescued