Kid Shoots Parents over Halo 3--Judge Says Kid Didn't Know They'd Be Dead Forever

[WF_Tomba]

@Whack-a-Mole

In short, you’d have to be flat out insane, as in completely divorced from reality, to believe life worked like the above and the court explicitly rejected the kid’s insanity defense.

I’m having trouble finding specific information about how it works in Ohio, but in general you cannot assume that being crazy as a loon is enough to succeed with an insanity plea.

[Staggerlee]

“I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever,” Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said.

Regardless of Halo-style respawning, the Christian church itself believes in life after death - it’s a major selling point. Maybe the combination of both myths is just too compelling for some weak-minded people.

[WF_Tomba]

OK, so according to this chart, as of 2000 Ohio still used the M’Naughten standard, which allows a defendant to be convicted as long as he understood that his actions were wrong at the time he committed them.

[Nava]

@WF_Tomba

Maybe I’m belaboring the point, but I don’t find it inconceivable that if the judge says something extraordinary about the defendant, it might be because he actually knows something about the defendant that can’t be inferred from his vital statistics alone.

El asesino de la katana (the katana murderer) is a Spaniard who a few years back, at age 17, got off his rocker and murdered his younger sister (who had Downs) and their parents “wanting to spare them more suffering” (sic).

During the proceedings, the doctors figured out that the kid had schizofrenia.

Unless it’s a case along those lines, excuse me: my nephew is 3yo and he already knows that “dead is for ever, ever” and Grampa José isn’t coming back after he was put in a box.

[Steve_MB]

@WF_Tomba

Maybe I’m belaboring the point, but I don’t find it inconceivable that if the judge says something extraordinary about the defendant, it might be because he actually knows something about the defendant that can’t be inferred from his vital statistics alone.

The judge said that this 17-year-old young man didn’t understand that death is forever, and that this 17-year-old young man is not insane.

How can someone with such a skull full of mush be said to “know” anything?

[Hi_Neighbor]

@Justin_Bailey

No, they don’t. This is a moronic thing to even consider unless the kid was mentally deficient or abused in some way. Since there’s no proof that he was, he’s just a deranged fuckhead that will be spending a very long time in jail, where he belongs.

Maybe not this “kid,” who was 17, but saying they all don’t is a pretty broad generalization. Without getting too off topic, what about 10-year-olds? 5-year-olds?

[WF_Tomba]

@Steve_MB

The judge said that this 17-year-old young man didn’t understand that death is forever, and that this 17-year-old young man is not insane.

How can someone with such a skull full of mush be said to “know” anything?

Not understanding that death is forever does not count as insanity under Ohio law.

[Lightnin]

It seems to me that if the kid couldn’t tell the difference between a game and reality, then he shouldn’t have been tried as an adult.

[Steve_MB]

@WF_Tomba

Not understanding that death is forever does not count as insanity under Ohio law.

Cite? In general, inability to comprehend the consequences of one’s actions is one of the basic criteria for legal insanity.

[WF_Tomba]

@Steve_MB

Cite?

Already given.

@Lightnin'

It seems to me that if the kid couldn’t tell the difference between a game and reality, then he shouldn’t have been tried as an adult.

From the Ohio State Bar Association:

Q: When is trial as an adult required?
A: Trial as an adult is mandatory in certain very serious cases: (1) when the charge is aggravated murder or murder, and the child is 16 or 17 and has been committed to an Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) facility; and (2) when the charge is a certain serious felony offense, and the child is age 16 or 17 and either has previously been committed to a DYS facility or used a firearm while committing the offense. If the court finds that these conditions exist and that there is probable cause to believe that the child committed the offense, the child must stand trial as an adult. There are also other limited circumstances in which the child must stand trial as an adult.

Q: When can a court decide whether or not to try a child as an adult?
A: When the law does not require transfer, the court has a choice whether to try a child as an adult, but may do so only if the child was 14 years or older at the time of a felony offense. First, the court conducts a hearing to determine if there is probable cause that the child committed the offense. Next, the court orders an investigation, including a mental examination, and conducts another hearing, often called an “amenability” hearing, to decide whether or not the child is likely to be rehabilitated within the juvenile system, and whether or not the community’s safety requires that the child be subject to adult penalties. Some of the factors the court considers are age, physical and mental maturity, past attempts and future potential for rehabilitation, harm suffered by the victim, use of a firearm, and public safety.

[Hi_Neighbor]

@Steve_MB

Cite? In general, inability to comprehend the consequences of one’s actions is one of the basic criteria for legal insanity.

Although his mind may have been deranged, I don’t believe there was enough evidence to show moral ignorance, the traditional test of legal insanity.

[Whack-a-Mole]

“I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever.”

Since we have no more to go on from the story I see two possibilities.

1. We blame the game for the kid’s misunderstanding. He thought real life worked like the game. In this case he would have to be insane by any definition I can think of. It shows a person utterly out-of-touch with reality.

2. We blame religion. His dad was a minister. Perhaps while he knew he was killing his parents in this world they would go to some afterlife paradise. In this case he is still insane but in better company I think. IIRC there have been some religious nutjobs in the past who murdered thinking they were doing their victims a favor by expediting their trip to the afterlife.

If the judge’s comment is correct I find reasoning #2 as the prime cause for the kid being fucked up as the more compelling one. If it was #1 and he thought his parents would “respawn” or something then he would be utterly and very apparently completely dysfunctional which does not seem to be the case.

[mswas]

Anyone who shoots their parents is mentally unsound…period. Sane people don’t kill their parents.

[Snarky_Kong]

@mswas

Anyone who shoots their parents is mentally unsound…period. Sane people don’t kill their parents.

Sane people don’t kill their parents without cause.

[Justin_Bailey]

@Hi_Neighbor

Maybe not this “kid,” who was 17, but saying they all don’t is a pretty broad generalization. Without getting too off topic, what about 10-year-olds? 5-year-olds?

Why are 5 and 10 year olds playing the Mature rated Halo 3? And where would this hypothetical 5 or 10 year old get a gun to shoot his parents?

[Hi_Neighbor]

@Justin_Bailey

Why are 5 and 10 year olds playing the Mature rated Halo 3? And where would this hypothetical 5 or 10 year old get a gun to shoot his parents?

Why would they have to be playing violent video games in order to not be able to discern fantasy from reality? What about fairy tales, Santa, or even video games with childrens’ themes?

I merely said, “I think some kids have trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality.” How is that not plausible?

[mswas]

@Snarky_Kong

Sane people don’t kill their parents without cause.

Right, being grounded from Halo 3 is not a sufficient cause to be considered sane.

[Lightnin]

@WF_Tomba

Q: When can a court decide whether or not to try a child as an adult?
A: When the law does not require transfer, the court has a choice whether to try a child as an adult, but may do so only if the child was 14 years or older at the time of a felony offense. First, the court conducts a hearing to determine if there is probable cause that the child committed the offense. Next, the court orders an investigation, including a mental examination, and conducts another hearing, often called an “amenability” hearing, to decide whether or not the child is likely to be rehabilitated within the juvenile system, and whether or not the community’s safety requires that the child be subject to adult penalties. Some of the factors the court considers are age, physical and mental maturity, past attempts and future potential for rehabilitation, harm suffered by the victim, use of a firearm, and public safety.

(Bolding mine)

I’d say that a child who can’t tell the difference between fantasy and reality would fail the “mental examination”, and shouldn’t be tried as an adult.

[Ludovic]

@mswas

Right, being grounded from Halo 3 is not a sufficient cause to be considered sane.

Sane people don’t kill their parents.

The second quote is more absolute than the first.

[mswas]

@Ludovic

The second quote is more absolute than the first.

And I stand by it actually. Even if your parents are abusive to the point of causing a child to snap and kill their parents, it’s a rational response but that doesn’t make the person sane. I reiterate, sane people don’t kill their parents.