Really? Some kids start puberty that young, and you're telling me there's no 10 year olds that know what sex is?
Bullshit. How is a 10 year old physically incapable of doing those things?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
10 year old kills 90 year old woman
- Thread starter ChainedMaster
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Really? Some kids start puberty that young, and you're telling me there's no 10 year olds that know what sex is?
Bullshit. How is a 10 year old physically incapable of doing those things?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the story indicates that he beat the elderly woman, he didn't just hit her. Not to death, but he beat her just the same. If you assault someone severely, even if you weren't trying to "finish the job", the law holds you responsible if they die, and rightly so.
Even taking that all into account, 10 years old should be old enough to know not to violently assault a frail elderly person. I agree that intent should be factored into any punishment handed down, it would be worse if he was actually trying to kill her. But it's still a heinous crime that a kid that age should know is wrong.
As for the media violence angle, I'm definitely sympathetic to impressionable young kids that grow up on violent video games and action movies. It's definitely a mixed message we send to the youngsters and we as a society should not do that. Still, it's no excuse for violent crimes. We can't have kids running around bludgeoning the elderly without repurcussions because their parents let them play COD.
Edit: YMMV may vary on what a "beating" is. He used a weapon to restrain her and hit her multiple times; that's a beating in my book. Some may disagree if it was only a couple of strikes. I stand by my overall point in either case.
Did someone suggest this? Seriously.
JinjoUnchained
Member
Really? Some kids start puberty that young, and you're telling me there's no 10 year olds that know what sex is?
Bullshit. How is a 10 year old physically incapable of doing those things?
They're not capable of doing any of those things in the way they are intended. Technically, a young child could ingest alcohol, but they can't process it the way an adult can. Doing so would be extremely dangerous to their fragile bodies. Same goes for the other activities: maybe a particular 10 year old is big enough to steer and barely reach the peddles, but they are not physically old enough to drive safely. So we shouldn't expect them to understand the consequences of intoxication, safe driving, and sex at that young of an age. Some kids might be more mature and have an understanding of those things on a theoretical level, but it would not be their fault if they were exposed to them practically and something bad happened.
As I said before, violence is different. Kids can be violent on their own accord from practically the time they can start walking. That's why parents teach them about it from a very young age. So, no, 10 years old is not too young to hold someone accountable for violent actions when they've been conditioned not to be violent since they were 3. Not the same accountability or punishment as an adult, but accountable nonetheless.
Corronchilejano
Member
So, no, 10 years old is not too young to hold someone accountable for violent actions when they've been conditioned not to be violent since they were 3. Not the same accountability or punishment as an adult, but accountable nonetheless.
So... tried as a juvenile?
So... tried as a juvenile?
If this was Canada nothing would happen to him.
CornBurrito
Member
They're not capable of doing any of those things in the way they are intended. Technically, a young child could ingest alcohol, but they can't process it the way an adult can. Doing so would be extremely dangerous to their fragile bodies. Same goes for the other activities: maybe a particular 10 year old is big enough to steer and barely reach the peddles, but they are not physically old enough to drive safely. So we shouldn't expect them to understand the consequences of intoxication, safe driving, and sex at that young of an age. Some kids might be more mature and have an understanding of those things on a theoretical level, but it would not be their fault if they were exposed to them practically and something bad happened.
As I said before, violence is different. Kids can be violent on their own accord from practically the time they can start walking. That's why parents teach them about it from a very young age. So, no, 10 years old is not too young to hold someone accountable for violent actions when they've been conditioned not to be violent since they were 3. Not the same accountability or punishment as an adult, but accountable nonetheless.
Can you provide a legit source showing that adults process alcohol differently than children or young teens? That they get sicker from smaller doses isn't quite what I mean, since that is explainable via body weight.
And if the distinction between violence and sex for you is their ability to do it, do you think someone should be tried as an adult once they hit puberty?
Also what about voting? Are you going to say kids aren't physically capable of that?
Unbound By Death
Member
Man, live 90 years and then go out that way.
Yeah that's what gets me the most.
They're not capable of doing any of those things in the way they are intended. Technically, a young child could ingest alcohol, but they can't process it the way an adult can. Doing so would be extremely dangerous to their fragile bodies. Same goes for the other activities: maybe a particular 10 year old is big enough to steer and barely reach the peddles, but they are not physically old enough to drive safely. So we shouldn't expect them to understand the consequences of intoxication, safe driving, and sex at that young of an age. Some kids might be more mature and have an understanding of those things on a theoretical level, but it would not be their fault if they were exposed to them practically and something bad happened.
As I said before, violence is different. Kids can be violent on their own accord from practically the time they can start walking. That's why parents teach them about it from a very young age. So, no, 10 years old is not too young to hold someone accountable for violent actions when they've been conditioned not to be violent since they were 3. Not the same accountability or punishment as an adult, but accountable nonetheless.
You're making the assumption that this kid was conditioned not to be violent since the age of 3. We don't know anything about his homelife, and it could very well be that the parents are at fault for raising him improperly, and they should be the ones to suffer the consequences, not the 10 year old kid.
A 10 year old brain is not even close to being fully formed, there is still a lot of time to rehabilitate him. Sending him to prison will do absolutely nothing for him.
Sad that this was posted on page 2 and largely ignored.
Martha advised that she has had a lot of trouble with Tristen and that he has had some mental difficulties. She advised that Tristen has been violent in the past and tells lies all the time. Martha then asked me to talk with Tristen. I informed her that Tristen could get into a lot of trouble for something like this and that he could face criminal charges. Martha advised that she understood and still wanted me to speak with him. Martha then advised that she did not want to be in the room and that she wanted me to talk with Tristen alone. I advised her that I typically do not do that when the individual is 10 years old. She advised that she understood that but felt that Tristen would be more honest if she was not there. I then advised Martha that she was allowed to have an attorney in with Tristen or to be in the room herself. She advised that she understood that and still wanted me to talk to Tristen without an attorney present or her in the room.
His mother repeatedly stops the kid's 5th amendment rights from being invoked (it happens elsewhere in the report too). The cop points out that interviewing the kid without a parent or attorney present isn't standard procedure, but the mother has him do it anyway. When a cop is pointing out that you might want an attorney present (completely against his own interest), you'd better pay attention. The mother's insistence on completely cooperating with the police without the presence of an attorney or even a parent at times can easily be seen as a contributing factor to the child's current predicament. An attorney could have kept the kid on a straight track to juvenile court, in my opinion.
Also, some qualifications of the child are made in the report (some from the above quotation):
Martha advised that she has had a lot of trouble with Tristen and that he has had some mental difficulties. She advised that Tristen has been violent in the past and tells lies all the time.
I then spoke with Martha VIRBITSKY and advised her that I would like to get a statement from her son. She advised that Tristen does not write that well.
From these statements we're looking at a child who is at least having trouble, and at most has a developmental or mental disorder.
There's really not much for me to say here, save that I vehemently disagree with the punishment paradigm of the current American prison system and that rehabiliation should always be #1 on our list of priorities as a society in total.
Want to charge him as an adult? Let him vote (until guilty) and drink then. Better get him some driving lessons too.
And allow him to have sex too. Because of course, a ten year old would have a full understanding of all that.
Perfect, thank you. If you're "old enough to know better" then you should be "old enough" to do all of these things.Yeah, that too.
AuthenticM
Member
This is quite honestly one of the most distributing threads I've ever read on GAF.
Anyone who thinks that a 10-year-old child should be tried as an adult and sentenced to life in prison is unfathomably ignorant.
*brofist*
rocketskates
Member
Yeah, more people should see this, it was an interesting read and provides more details.Sad that this was posted on page 2 and largely ignored.
His mother repeatedly stops the kid's 5th amendment rights from being invoked (it happens elsewhere in the report too). The cop points out that interviewing the kid without a parent or attorney present isn't standard procedure, but the mother has him do it anyway. When a cop is pointing out that you might want an attorney present (completely against his own interest), you'd better pay attention. The mother's insistence on completely cooperating with the police without the presence of an attorney or even a parent at times can easily be seen as a contributing factor to the child's current predicament. An attorney could have kept the kid on a straight track to juvenile court, in my opinion.
Also, some qualifications of the child are made in the report (some from the above quotation)
From these statements we're looking at a child who is at least having trouble, and at most has a developemental or mental disorder.
Seriously, what's with comments like these? So many people in here acting like other peoples comments are directly affecting them and are taking this way too personal.That kid needs mental help like the people who thinks he should be charged as an adult instead of as a juvenile.
Opinions, how do they work?
He shouldn't be treated like an adult, he's fucking 10 years old.
Would you be his guardian? I sure as hell wouldn't. Niggas got blood in his hands. What if he liked it?!
Age is nothing but a number at 10 years old we know not to hurt people.
Age is considerably more than a number. Brain formation in young men is nowhere near done at 10. A 10 year old literally doesn't have the same brain with which to make decisions that an adult has. Unsurprisingly, the part of the brain least formed at this stage are the connections to the frontal lobe, which is the part of our brain that allows us to forecast the consequences of what we do. Teens and younger have a frontal lobe, but they have less neural connections to it, making it more difficult for them to understand what's going to happen after they do something.
And that's before we get into any specific problem this kid has with either chemical imbalance or neural formation.
Seriously, what's with comments like these? So many people in here acting like other peoples comments are directly affecting them and are taking this way too personal.
Opinions, how do they work?
Take your own advice, I would say.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.