11-year-old boy to stand trial for mother's murder, motive suspected to be VR headset
11-year-old boy to stand trial for mother's murder, motive suspected to be VR headset
An 11-year-old Wisconsin boy will stand trial for his mother's murder. Police testified family members were worried the motive behind the homicide was a VR headset.
An 11-year-old Wisconsin boy accused of murdering his mother has been ordered to stand trial.
The boy is charged with first-degree intentional homicide. The district attorney's office is seeking to try him as an adult. The court has ordered that the boy's name not be revealed because he may still be tried as a child.
In July, the court found the boy competent, according to court records.
Milwaukee Detective Timothy Keller testified in court on Tuesday about speaking with the boy about his mother's death.
The detective said he questioned the boy the next day and the then 10-year-old boy admitted shooting her but called it an accident, according to WISN.
"[The boy] stated that he took up a shooting stance and was pointing the gun at her as she was walking towards him and asking him to put it down. And that's when he indicated that he fired the gun with his intent to scare her by shooting the wall behind her," Keller testified.
"He had made a purchase on his mother's Amazon account for some virtual reality goggles the morning after this homicide occurred. And [family] were concerned because he had had an argument with her about whether he could have these prior to the homicide," Keller said.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't understand the US thing about trying children as adults. The whole thing about children is that they're not adults, what's the point of having specific laws to protect children if you're just going to ignore them? What possible argument could there be that a 11 year old is an adult?
American political culture has a strong vein of demanding everyone be "tough on crime", in the entirely mistaken belief that crime comes from not being harsh enough in sentencing. We also know that eleven year olds aren't fully competent adults and we have carve outs in juvenile law that reflect that obvious truth. The intersection of these two facts means that charging decisions on cases like the above depend as much on what the actual right way to charge is as they do on how much what the kid did frightens the general public. What that tends to end in is laws that say you can only charge a minor as an adult in exceptional cases and then a push to make every minor charged with a violent crime the exception.
Alright I can see how culturally you end up going in that direction.
Still, though, I can't fathom someone being smart enough to go through all that education to become a state prosecutor, then seeing a terrible story about a kid have access to a gun when they clearly shouldn't and killing their own mother through sheer childish stupidity and then coming to the conclusion that "you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die."
Who's that person? What happened in their life to make them think like that?
you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die.
Wisconsin hasn't had the death penalty for over 150 years. Not even for Jefferey Dahmer.
Oh good!
Alright then, I guess it's a bit less cruel with decades or life in prison.
Still an unfathomable decision to me but at least they're not angling for an infanticide
It makes sense in obvious cases where a 16 or 17 year old commits an "adult" crime, but having it pushed to under 14 year olds is clearly misuse IMO
It still doesn't tbh. The concept of an "adult crime" is baffling to me.
A 17 year old rapist can be tried as an adult IMO
Why though ? They're not an adult, and rape is depressingly common in children.
Edit: maybe instead I should focus on the core absurdity of it all: isn't saying "a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult" the same as saying "the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists"?
Because in this second case you ensure that all children be given the same rights under the law and you get the same severity for 17 year olds for crimes you decide warrant it, rather than a shoddy "hmmm I think this crime is heinous enough to preemptively strip this person from their rights before we even decide on guilt and stuff and maybe the judge will agree".
Why though ? They’re not an adult
They basically are, we have Romeo and Juliet laws for recognizing that under 18 people are able to consent (with themselves, obviously) so the legal framework for recognizing that a minor can make adult decisions is there. We all understand that maturity is not a binary, and teens can be expected to act like an adult (such as driving), and that comes with adult responsibility.
Me, personally, I think if a minor commits a crime with mature motivations, they can be tried as an adult.
isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?
I suppose, although the latter would be codifying the principle
It's obviously a topic that requires nuance, but I do believe there are circumstances where it fits.
The thing is the motion to be tried as an adult comes before the trial, so it comes before you ascertain anything about motivations, intent, psychological expertise...
I think this whole thing goes with the whole drinking, enlisting in the army, voting... You guys have a legal definition of childhood that's way fuzzier that I'm used to. In my head, a motivation isn't mature or not intrinsically, it's mature or not depending on who has it : if it's a child it's not, if it's an adult it should be so it's considered as such.
I guess having a hard limit on the eighteenth birthday is weird in its own right... Maybe it's because I'm old but in my head it should be fuzzy in the other direction: 18 year olds are definitely still kids in most aspects and should get a chance to be tried as children.
As abbotsbury said, it needs nuance. I am not good at that but I want to discuss, so I'll write it below.
Mainly your point that 18+ year olds don't have mature thinking patterns in some cases if not many: I've read that 25 years of age is when our brains basically start solidifying (I'm forgetting the actual term) and is why alcohol is recommended against until that age, but even that's actually supposed to be fuzzy because aging isn't a clear cut thing and brains and bodies age entirely differently so maybe if some kind of regulations should be set it should be between 16-27 for trial as adults if the need is felt with the cut-off for such judgements being less lenient as their age gets closer to the limit ^((or more lenient, I've confused myself in how this should be worded)^)
Then again this is for a justice system which is not focused on reparations through punishing the preparator instead of corrective measures and trying to create a society where crimes are less likely (equitable society, or a healthier outlook for mental and physical health, etc)
It doesn't matter, he still killed his mother and that is the reason why he's being tried.
The fact that he's a kid and did that makes the case more ironclad in the eyes of most: he's clearly a bad seed so he must be gotten rid of now to protect the lives and rights of everybody else.
Wow, you guys must have a very shallow understanding of what "childhood" and "justice" mean if the culprit being less responsible for their actions make the case more ironclad.
Edit: nvm I've looked at your profile after seeing some of your unhinged comments here ; I now fully believe you are eleven yourself and under the delusion that you are, in fact, an adult.
Edit: nvm I’ve looked at your profile after seeing some of your unhinged comments here ; I now fully believe you are eleven yourself and under the delusion that you are, in fact, an adult.
And yet here you are arguing with me as an adult and wanting me gone as one, regardless of my actual age, so what are you doing except proving my point exactly?
A bad seed? Trim the bad ones for the sake of the future?
Would you put the neurodiverse into a gas chamber for being a burden on society, too?
My lord, you need some help.
This is a kid, it's an accident, a tragic one. He's going to need a psychiatrist his entire life. The punishment is he will live with it.
I don't think he should be charged as an adult but I think there's a gap wider than my mom's ass between "charged as an adult" and "it's an accident just let him go". Even if you didn't intend to kill someone pointing a gun at them and pulling the trigger isn't an accident. There needs to be an intervention here, both for the health of the kid and the safety of other people. This isn't a whoopsiedoodle, he was mad so he shot at her.
I agree, appropriate action should be taken. Just what exactly falls into that bucket though?
You can't put an 11 year old in jail for man slaughter (I would call it that, not murder). Juvi? I really am not qualified enough to know my ass from a hole in the ground here.
What do you think?
following the law as written for an 11 year old defendant would be a good start. I'll admit to also being unqualified but I don't need to know exactly what point a person is fully competent to be treated as an adult by the judicial system to know that an 11 year old hasn't reached that point just like I don't need to know the exact coordinates of the Mexico-US border to know that I, as someone in Pennsylvania, haven't crossed it.
Isn't that the point of the calling someone a "minor", though? Decision making capacity isn't all there yet, higher chance of the stupid, believing you can fly, that sort of thing.
The article said he was aiming for the wall behind the mom. Maybe he thought he was some kind of ace combat special forces or something because of the VR headset stuff.
Would you put the neurodiverse into a gas chamber for being a burden on society, too?
It's honestly hilarious that you're equating random NDs with a child that murdered his own mother and then ordered a VR headset on her Amazon account a day later.
You're missing the point. All I'm saying is that the punishment should fit the crime.
The kid is a kid. Not innocent, but not deserving of the full weight of adult punishment.
Worse yet, could the child be an undiagnosed ND? You and I don't know. What if he is?
Are you seriously trying to compare the neurodiverse with murderers?
Fucking gross dude. Get help.
Oh lol at you comparing some spoiled kid who killed his own mother to neurodivergent people as if that isn't blatantly ableist and insulting as fuck.
Also you need to learn empathy and to start seeing things from the other side. The safety of everyone else is more important than this kid's feelings because he killed an innocent person unjustifiably. That fact does not change because he is a kid. He is now a threat to the community, and you've no right to demand the community subvert its own right to existence just to appease your wack-ass sensibilities.
His punishment has to put him in jail where he'll be removed from society and still retain some rights. It's the only fair and just way.
This is a kid, it’s an accident, a tragic one.
This is you sympathizing with the wrong person and not caring about anyone other than yourself and you making yourself look good at the expense of literally everyone around you.
What are you under the impression will happen if he's charged as a minor and convicted? Like, what do you think the normal sentence is for minors convicted of first degree murder in Wisconsin?
Do you think the kid even fully understands the concept of dead? It's funny because in my country children under 14 are not responsible for their actions, the parents are.
That woman died for her own incompetence, the kid was just the vehicle of her demise. Yes sometimes genuinely evil people are born, but in these cases their upbringing is the entire reason for antisocial conduct.