Boy, 14, fatally shot after egging SUV

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by igyman:

Well, you've insisted that they be held accountable by law, which lead me to believe that you considered some kind of sentence as an appropriate punishment

But you didn't say "some kind of sentence", did you Igy. You said what amounted to: "Spider wants those poor innocent kids who throw things at cars to be incarcerated in juvenile homes!!!!11"

 

And frankly, you must have been intentionally trying to misrepresent my position... because I certainly never mentioned the question of sentencing, let alone the specific: "juvenile homes". So, please leave the straw men indoors, eh Ig?

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

If I am mistaken, then I apologize, but I would like to ask that you clarify what you meant by ''dealt with under the law, by the law.''

Well... what part of it is unclear to you?

 

Dealt with "under the law" means that legal channels should be followed in determining how they should be dealt with, and "by the law" means that the police and judiciary should be the ones to administer this legal justice.

 

Now that we've made that absolutely crystal clear, perhaps we can return to the question of WHY you believe that throwing things at moving cars isn't life-threateningly dangerous to drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

[igyman]

And frankly, you must have been intentionally trying to misrepresent my position... because I certainly never mentioned the question of sentencing, let alone the specific: "juvenile homes". So, please leave the straw men indoors, eh Ig?

No, you didn't mention it specifically, but, as I've said, your posts so far lead me to believe you were supporting that attitude. I didn't intentionally try to misinterpret anything, but I do apologize for misinterpreting what you've said. I have no problem with being wrong.

 

Dealt with "under the law" means that legal channels should be followed in determining how they should be dealt with, and "by the law" means that the police and judiciary should be the ones to administer this legal justice.

OK, I assumed as much, but I was specifically referring to what kind of punishment would you consider appropriate, I'm sorry for not being clear with my question.

 

Now that we've made that absolutely crystal clear, perhaps we can return to the question of WHY you believe that throwing things at moving cars isn't life-threateningly dangerous to drivers, passengers and pedestrians.

I never said I believe it's not dangerous (though I'll admit that some of my posts could have been interpreted that way). I was simply arguing that those kids who did it (do it) did not have criminal intentions, that they were acting without considering all the consequences and that they were doing it because they thought it would be fun. Looking from that aspect, I don't consider their behavior criminal, though I agree that it could be life-threatening.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by igyman:

No, you didn't mention it specifically, but, as I've said, your posts so far lead me to believe you were supporting that attitude. I didn't intentionally try to misinterpret anything, but I do apologize for misinterpreting what you've said. I have no problem with being wrong.

Well it's a heck of a mistake to make, Iggster. But since you insist it wasn't an intentional stab at a straw-man, I suppose the least I can do in the christmas spirit is to accept your apology. You're forgiven.

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

OK, I assumed as much, but I was specifically referring to what kind of punishment would you consider appropriate, I'm sorry for not being clear with my question.

Well your question was perfectly clear. If it wasn't the question you wanted to ask... that's another matter.

 

As regards sentencing for such crimes, that would be a case-by-case judgement on the part of the judiciary. If you want to give me a specific hypothetical example with more details, I might be able to make a rational judgement on how extreme the punishment for the specific crime should be.

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

I never said I believe it's not dangerous (though I'll admit that some of my posts could have been interpreted that way).

You said earlier of you and your friends' actions in throwing things at moving cars: "our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did"

 

Now that's not a case of subjective interpretation on my part, it's clear and uncontestable that with this statement, you show that you consider your actions (and those of your chums) to have been non-life-threatening for drivers, passengers and pedestrians. But of course they were. Throwing things at moving cars? It's obviously dangerous to the people inside the car and outside. Any number of awful things can happen when a driver loses his or her concentration, up to and including deaths and maimings.

 

If you believed the statement when you typed it, you were surely in denial. If you still believe it, you still are.

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

I was simply arguing that those kids who did it (do it) did not have criminal intentions, that they were acting without considering all the consequences and that they were doing it because they thought it would be fun. Looking from that aspect, I don't consider their behavior criminal, though I agree that it could be life-threatening.

And once again, assertions of good intent do not impact the criminality of the type of actions we're discussing. Intent matters when one is charging someone with such crimes as "attempted murder" or conspiracy charges. Intent doesn't matter a great deal when you are charging someone with recklessly throwing objects at people and property. The intent CAN matter when it comes to sentencing for such crimes.

 

If you throw something, your subsequent assertions that you "didn't mean any harm" don't hold a great deal of weight, either legally or morally. It's the same with any violent act, be it socking someone upside the head, setting fire to a building or setting off fireworks in ill-advised directions.

 

As stated before, kids already get special treatment in that they're punished more leniently for their crimes. But the crimes are still crimes.

[igyman]

You said earlier of you and your friends' actions in throwing things at moving cars: "our lives, or anybody else's were never threatened because of the dumb things we did"

When I said that I was actually trying to say that nothing life-threatening happened, to us or the drivers. I don't deny that something could have happened if one of those snowballs hit the windshield, instead of the roof, or the side of the vehicle, but as it is, nothing did happen.

 

If you want to give me a specific hypothetical example with more details

I was actually hoping to hear what specific punishment would in your opinion be appropriate for this type of behaviour - throwing snowballs, or eggs at moving vehicles.

 

As stated before, kids already get special treatment in that they're punished more leniently for their crimes. But the crimes are still crimes.

Be that as it may, but do you really think those children would learn something, if they were prosecuted and sentenced? I just don't think they deserve a criminal record for this specific situation, I don't think it would do them any good, or teach them anything about responsibility, or improve their future. That's why I think their parents should take care of the matter, I think that those children would learn much more from a talk with their parents than from a criminal proceeding.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by igyman:

When I said that I was actually trying to say that nothing life-threatening happened, to us or the drivers. I don't deny that something could have happened if one of those snowballs hit the windshield, instead of the roof, or the side of the vehicle, but as it is, nothing did happen.

Of course something "life-threatening" happened, you threw something at a moving car!

 

Nothing actually fatal happened, fortunately. But that's a different thing. The fact that you got away with it without harming anyone was most fortunate... but it doesn't alter the nature of your acts nor the risk factors involved.

 

And of course, it's worth remembering that even if an object doesn't hit the windshield of the car, it can distract the driver and cause an accident. The windshield would be merely the most unfortunate of the available targets.

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

I was actually hoping to hear what specific punishment would in your opinion be appropriate for this type of behaviour - throwing snowballs, or eggs at moving vehicles.

Yeah, and as I said, you'll have to give me a hypothetical example with more specifics, as these things would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

Many factors are involved in determining a sentence for such a crime, including: age of the criminal(s), criminal history of the criminal(s), number of cars attacked, weapon used in the attack, circumstances of the attack, etcetera etcetera. So think up a good example and I'll address it.

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

Be that as it may, but do you really think those children would learn something, if they were prosecuted and sentenced? I just don't think they deserve a criminal record for this specific situation, I don't think it would do them any good, or teach them anything about responsibility, or improve their future. That's why I think their parents should take care of the matter, I think that those children would learn much more from a talk with their parents than from a criminal proceeding.

You could ask the same question about sentences for adult criminals. "Will they learn anything?" The answer is: that's up to them. But criminal sentences aren't about "what the criminals learn", (though sometimes rehabilitation is a factor) they're about a concept of justice in society in which people pay the debts that they themselves accrue.

 

And as regards "letting the parents take care of it", the police and judiciary should decide whether the parents can "take care of it" in a case in which laws have been broken. It's not up to parents to decide what laws their child can and cannot break. If the crime is minor enough, police can (and routinely do) allow parents to determine punishment for the child. But that doesn't alter my points at all, because the police and judiciary must still be involved.

[ET Warrior]

If those kids who did (or do) those kinds of things (including me when I was a kid) do it because they want to cause a traffic accident and hurt the person(s) in the vehicle, then I would agree that their behaviour is criminal, but they don't have that intention when they do it.

By this logic, if I were to get ridiculously drunk, and then drive myself home because I need to get some rest and go to work tomorrow, and on the way home I slam into some innocent single mother driving to her midnight work shift and kill her, then I shouldn't be criminally prosecuted, as it was not my intention to kill her. I just wanted to get home.

 

Or even if I didn't kill anyone, if I just got pulled over and arrested for driving drunk. I didn't even hurt anyone, and I had no intent to hurt anyone, so why am I being punished?

 

I'm being punished because what I am doing is endangering the lives of others, regardless of my intent.

[igyman]

I'm being punished because what I am doing is endangering the lives of others, regardless of my intent.

I see your point, but we are talking about children here. Children don't realise completely the consequences of their actions and I don't think they should be prosecuted unless they actually cause an accident. Even then, I don't think they should be prosecuted, but their parents, because the parents are responsible for the children's behaviour. It's their fault their child doesn't know that people can be injured, or die, if they throw stuff at moving vehicles.

 

Yeah, and as I said, you'll have to give me a hypothetical example with more specifics, as these things would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

OK, a specific example. I thought I gave you one, but here: A kid and a couple of his friends decide it would be fun to throw eggs at moving cars. They get the eggs and start throwing. Unfortunately for them, one of the cars they hit pulls over and the driver exits the vehicle and runs towards the kids. All but one of the kids manage to run away. If you were the driver, would you:

a) call the kid's parents and discuss the situation with them (if the eggs did any damage to the car, then agree on a damage compensation);

b) call the police and keep the kid from leaving until the police arrived?

If you chose b) and the case gets to trial (assume the kid gave up his friends who ran away and they all stand trial), if you were the judge, what sort of punishment would you deem appropriate?

I don't think I could get any more specific than this.

 

You could ask the same question about sentences for adult criminals. "Will they learn anything?" The answer is: that's up to them.

When adults are concerned, I completely agree, but we are talking about kids here and when kids are concerned, the answer is: no, it's not entirely up to them. They are kids and they need someone to explain to them why are things like that wrong and why they shouldn't do it ever again. You have to realize that teenagers mainly don't commit such acts (at least as far as I know), they have matured enough to know that it's foolish and not at all fun (there are obviously exceptions, as this boy that got shot, but I think fourteen is the top age limit). We are talking about mostly kids who are below fourteen and mostly between eight and eleven-twelve. I just don't think kids should be branded as criminals at that age, I think a criminal record would seriously hurt their future and not teach them anything about right or wrong, or about responsibility. It would simply freak them out.

[ET Warrior]

Children don't realise completely the consequences of their actions

Neither do drunk people. Ignorance doesn't give one an exemption from the law.

[igyman]

You cannot compare adults to children. Adults are called adults because they are considered to be responsible and mature members of human society. When an adult breaks the law he alone is responsible for his actions. A child is not mature enough to understand everything about responsibility and ''right and wrong''. It's the main reason children don't have the right to vote - they aren't self-conscious, mature and educated enough to take that responsibility.

[narfblat]

so lets balance it out, eh? Children are ignorant, therefore they must be educated. On the first such offense, parents should be notified, and maybe bring in police just to shake the kids up a bit.

[igyman]

I can live with that. Maybe even let the police explain to the kid(s) in question why they shouldn't do such things.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by igyman:

I see your point, but we are talking about children here. Children don't realise completely the consequences of their actions and I don't think they should be prosecuted unless they actually cause an accident. Even then, I don't think they should be prosecuted, but their parents, because the parents are responsible for the children's behaviour. It's their fault their child doesn't know that people can be injured, or die, if they throw stuff at moving vehicles.

And once again, you're not putting forward any reason for your assertion that kids should never be prosecuted.

 

"Kids don't realise the consequences of their actions". Well neither do a lot of adults. MOST adults, in fact. Should we not prosecute them?

 

And perhaps the parents should be censured... AS WELL as the child. But if it's an issue of "they should have taught the kid that throwing stuff at cars is wrong"... Should we prosecute the kid's schoolteachers too? I'll be frank with you, nobody ever had to "teach" me that throwing things at cars specifically was wrong. It was common sense that led me to this conclusion. And yes, kids have common sense too.

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

OK, a specific example. I thought I gave you one, but here: A kid and a couple of his friends decide it would be fun to throw eggs at moving cars. They get the eggs and start throwing. Unfortunately for them, one of the cars they hit pulls over and the driver exits the vehicle and runs towards the kids. All but one of the kids manage to run away. If you were the driver, would you:

a) call the kid's parents and discuss the situation with them (if the eggs did any damage to the car, then agree on a damage compensation);

b) call the police and keep the kid from leaving until the police arrived?

If you chose b) and the case gets to trial (assume the kid gave up his friends who ran away and they all stand trial), if you were the judge, what sort of punishment would you deem appropriate?

I don't think I could get any more specific than this.

Okay. First, I can't see a case like this making it to trial. If the case got as far as a trial, the police and judiciary must have thought it was quite a bad crime.

 

Secondly I'd always plump for option "b", the police MUST be involved when lives are threatened and property damaged.

 

Lastly, say it DID make it to trial, and I was the judge: I think I would sentence the kids dependent on their ages. If they were teenagers, it'd be a community service order, for say... oh, twenty hours. If they were younger than teenagers, I might force their parents to attend some crime-prevention lectures with them or something. Also in the latter case, the parents would pay for the damage caused to the vehicles involved. In the former case, the teens would be billed.

 

But in both cases as you will see, the kids receive a punishment. It isn't juvenile detention in this case, but in some cases where the kids are habitual offenders, it might be.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

When adults are concerned, I completely agree, but we are talking about kids here and when kids are concerned, the answer is: no, it's not entirely up to them. They are kids and they need someone to explain to them why are things like that wrong and why they shouldn't do it ever again. You have to realize that teenagers mainly don't commit such acts (at least as far as I know), they have matured enough to know that it's foolish and not at all fun (there are obviously exceptions, as this boy that got shot, but I think fourteen is the top age limit). We are talking about mostly kids who are below fourteen and mostly between eight and eleven-twelve. I just don't think kids should be branded as criminals at that age, I think a criminal record would seriously hurt their future and not teach them anything about right or wrong, or about responsibility. It would simply freak them out.

Firstly your assertion that "fourteen is the top age limit" for such behaviour is a nonsense. ADULTS commit similar acts, and worse.

 

Secondly if you're concerned that kids need someone to explain to them why things like that are wrong... The police and judiciary will do that. They still have to be involved.

 

Originally Posted by igyman:

You cannot compare adults to children. Adults are called adults because they are considered to be responsible and mature members of human society. When an adult breaks the law he alone is responsible for his actions. A child is not mature enough to understand everything about responsibility and ''right and wrong''. It's the main reason children don't have the right to vote - they aren't self-conscious, mature and educated enough to take that responsibility.

To be frank, neither are most adults. I can state that YOU were more mature than some adults when you were a young kid, without fear of contradiction. I can state that I was more mature than some adults when I was a young kid, without fear of contradiction.

 

If a lack of maturity means one should not be prosecuted for one's crimes... we wouldn't prosecute HALF the adult criminals in the world.

 

And once again, kids get special treatment already. In sentencing. That's enough of an acknowledgement of their age. It's quite enough.

[igyman]

Well, though we haven't managed to convince each other to change our opinion about these things getting to trial, at least we are both clear on each other's opinion on the matter.

The thing I said about getting the cops to explain to the kids why certain things are wrong, dangerous and criminal is as far as I'd be willing to go when police involvement is concerned.