Newport News: Boy aged six detained after shooting teacher in US Newport News: Boy aged six detained after shooting teacher in US - BBC News
Apparently the shooting was intentional.
Note that the victim is not dead (but in serious condition), so at best it’s attempted murder so far.
IANAL but as I understand it a crime is always a crime. It’s just a matter of whether it’s charge-able or not. Even if a 3-year old pulled the trigger it would still be homicide; it’s just that no district attorney would actually charge such a kid.
I’m no big city lawyer, but I can’t imagine that a six-year-old is capable of possessing mens rea or a meaningful intent to kill. Children that age barely have a concrete understanding of what death even is.
Remember the killing of James Bulger (3 years odl) by two 10 years old boys? They were the youngest persons sentenced for murder in the UK so far.
Then there is the concet of doli incapax, the age below which a child is legally incapable of commiting a crime. This age varies from country to country, but note that some states in the USA are the only places in the world where this age ends at birth. I interpret that in the sense that an unborn baby is considered incapable of commiting a crime, all the others are leglly liable (see linked Wikiarticle).
I don’t know what is crazier or scarier: that a baby is considered legally responsable for his actions or that a six year old shoots his teacher willfully with the intent to kill her.
I don’t know how much blame to put on the six year old.
But I sure hope that the adult who let him have access to the gun gets sent to jail for a long long time–as a very public lesson and warning to other gun owners.
100% parent/guardian’s fault.
I was in Arizona when there was a locally infamous case in St. Johns. An 8 year old killed his dad and his dad’s friend and he ended up pleading guilty to negligent in the death of the friend.
This was definitely the fault of whichever adults were supposed to be taking care of the 6-year-old. However, he can’t just go home, as he is a danger to himself and others. I’m not sure what kind of long-term residential care is available for 6-year-olds. I’ve heard stories of parents with disturbed children who definitely needed something like long-term, heavy-duty, inpatient treatment, and they couldn’t get it or had to wait years. Maybe since this kid already acted out in a serious way, he will get immediate treatment. I hope.
It seems that Virginia (where this case happened) is one of those states - it has no minimum age of criminal responsibility. Though at least those under 14 cannot be tried as adults in VA.
According to Virginia Law:
" § 18.2-56.2. Allowing access to firearms by children; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of fourteen. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to authorize a child under the age of twelve to use a firearm except when the child is under the supervision of an adult. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, “adult” shall mean a parent, guardian, person standing in loco parentis to the child or a person twenty-one years or over who has the permission of the parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis to supervise the child in the use of a firearm."
$500 fine.
We currently have no idea of how he got ahold of the gun, or whose gun it was, afaik.
Agreed. I am just pointing out the law involved if (as some here have speculated) this is a case of parental/guardian malfeasance.
I dont understand how, in USA, it is possible to trial a child as an adult? What on earth is the reason for this thinking? If people get mad enough about the crime, they try the child as an adult, or what is the reason?
There’s absolutely no way a six-year-old would be tried as an adult. 16, maybe, depending on the crime and the offender’s history.
It’s extremely unlikely the alleged offender in this latest case would face adult justice.
Kids! I don’t know what’s wrong with these kids today!
Kids! Who can understand anything they say?
Kids! They’re disobedient, disrespectful oafs!
Noisy, crazy, dirty, lazy, loafers!
If you mean under 18 vs 18 and older, the idea is you don’t magically wake up on your 18th birthday now knowing right from wrong. If you are 17 for example you should know murder is wrong and have the self-control to not kill someone. So if you do murder someone, then why shouldn’t you have the same penalties and someone 18 or older? So the question is at what age should you know murder is wrong and be able to not shoot someone? 16? 13? 8? 6?
I don’t know about other states, but here in Washington, the answer to the OP is no.
RCW 9A.04.050
People capable of committing crimes—Capability of children.
Children under the age of eight years are incapable of committing crime. Children of eight and under twelve years of age are presumed to be incapable of committing crime, but this presumption may be removed by proof that they have sufficient capacity to understand the act or neglect, and to know that it was wrong. Whenever in legal proceedings it becomes necessary to determine the age of a child, he or she may be produced for inspection, to enable the court or jury to determine the age thereby; and the court may also direct his or her examination by one or more physicians, whose opinion shall be competent evidence upon the question of his or her age.
As I understand it, the difference between being tried as a child vs as an adult is making how the court is set up.
An adult on trial will be in the dock, promising to tell the truth etc, and then possibly being cross-examined after the various witnesses have their say. A children’s court is much more relaxed, with an emphasis on discovering what happened and why.
A child who spends time playing shoot-em-ups on a computer may not understand that bullets fired from a gun can kill or injure real people. The real culprits here are whoever had the responsibility for raising this child and they should certainly be hauled in front of judge and jury. Any “sentence” for the child should only be to rehabilitate, not to punish.
So, the gun the child used was reportedly bought legally by his mother. He had it on his person and drew it while the teacher was teaching. She took a defensive posture and was shot through her hand and chest. She freakin’ got the other kids evacuated after being shot.
Ummmm … the 5th Amendment has been repealed?