Kids who murder their own parents

[Darth Wong]

Interesting article

Scout, 15, allegedly killed family without warning

* Story Highlights
* NEW: About 300 teens kill family members each year, experts say
* Families can be affluent, successful and there often is little warning
* Scout, 15, held on $1 million bail in slayings of parents, 2 brothers
* Nicholas Browning had good grades, played golf and lacrosse

COCKEYSVILLE, Maryland (AP) -- Authorities offered no further insight into the motive of a teenager accused in the shooting deaths of his father, mother and two brothers, but experts say such crimes are not unprecedented -- and they often come without any obvious warning signs.

Nicholas W. Browning remained jailed without bond after confessing early Sunday that he killed his father, John Browning, his mother, Tamara, and his younger brothers, Gregory, 14, and Benjamin, 11, according to Baltimore County police.

Browning, who turns 16 on Saturday, had no history of violence, mental health problems or drug problems, according to court documents.

His father was a highly regarded business attorney, and the family lived in an affluent suburb. Browning played golf and lacrosse, was active in his church and was close to becoming an Eagle Scout.

Those details were not surprising to Paul A. Mones, a defense attorney for children accused of killing their parents, who wrote a book about his work called "When a Child Kills."

"This happens to kids in middle- and upper-middle-class, even upper-class homes," said Mones, who practices in Portland, Oregon. "It happens in families that, from the outside, look like normal, typical, great families."

In the United States, about 300 children a year are charged with killing one or both parents, Mones said. Cases where a child kills the entire family, known as "familicide," are less frequent.

Louis B. Schlesinger, a professor of a forensic psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said familicide is more commonly committed by a depressed or jealous father.

Slayings of relatives by teenagers "are usually spontaneous sorts of things," Schlesinger said. "With the brooding, depressive male adult, it's not spontaneous, it's much more thought through, with obsessive rumination prior to it. With a teenager, it's almost always impulsive, spontaneous, and there happens to be a loaded gun around."

Mones said slayings are typically motivated by one of two factors: "extreme family dysfunction in terms of physical and emotional abuse, or severe mental health issues that pervade the family, whether it's the perpetrator or the parents or themselves.

"There are cases where kids just snap out of the blue and go on a rampage, but it's really, really rare."

Bill Toohey, a police spokesman, said Browning told officers where they could find the gun used in the slayings, which he tossed into some bushes near the home. The gun belonged to John Browning and was kept inside the home.

Experts said easy access to guns was a common thread in cases where children kill their parents.

"The biggest risk factor that was not prevented was his access to firearms, and I think that's the biggest tragedy," said Dr. Anandhi Narasimhan, a Los Angeles-based child psychologist.

Narasimhan noted that because mental health records are confidential, it's impossible to know for sure whether Browning was suffering from mental illness or had shown other warning signs, such as bullying at school or cruelty to animals.

Mones hypothesizes that such slayings are more frequent in affluent families because wealth makes abuse easier to conceal.

"If you look at reports of abuse and family problems in upper-middle class families, it's really low, because the walls between the families and the world are very, very high," he said. "In lower-income communities, the police and social service agencies have a major presence, so it's nothing to call 911 when a kid's being mistreated or a neighbor hears screams."

I had no idea that 300 teens kill their parents every year. That's a pretty surprising number. And of course, there's the idiocy of leaving loaded weapons lying around. Teens have notoriously poor impulse control, and giving them easy access to weapons is simply a bad idea all-around.

[Guardsman Bass]

"If you look at reports of abuse and family problems in upper-middle class families, it's really low, because the walls between the families and the world are very, very high," he said. "In lower-income communities, the police and social service agencies have a major presence, so it's nothing to call 911 when a kid's being mistreated or a neighbor hears screams."

This last part really surprised me. I would have thought a Middle Class neighborhood would be among the first to see police and/or social services if word gets around that a child is being abused, or (god forbid) someone actually hears screaming.

I guess if it's true, though, then there probably were warning signs that were overlooked (like, maybe said boy was showing strong sociopathic tendencies, but only around family members, who said and did nothing until it was too late).

[Darth Wong]

"If you look at reports of abuse and family problems in upper-middle class families, it's really low, because the walls between the families and the world are very, very high," he said. "In lower-income communities, the police and social service agencies have a major presence, so it's nothing to call 911 when a kid's being mistreated or a neighbor hears screams."

This last part really surprised me. I would have thought a Middle Class neighborhood would be among the first to see police and/or social services if word gets around that a child is being abused, or (god forbid) someone actually hears screaming.

It's a lot easier to hear a neighbour screaming through the open windows of an adjoining trailer than through the closed windows and brick walls of air-conditioned houses separated by generous lawn space.

I guess if it's true, though, then there probably were warning signs that were overlooked (like, maybe said boy was showing strong sociopathic tendencies, but only around family members, who said and did nothing until it was too late).

Or it's just lousy impulse control combined with easy access to firearms.

[K. A. Pital]

Ah, that's the kind of stats I was looking for in the other thread. Thanks. Illuminating. Yeah, teens with guns are pretty bad. Worse even, if they have guns in disfunctional families. I'm sure there are not only child-parent shootings, but also spouse gun murders.

[Darth Wong]

Oops, I forgot the link.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/06/fam ... index.html

[Broomstick]

These stories always remind me of a fellow student from my high school who killed his parents. It came out that he had been severely and often abused since infancy by his father. However, the family was wealthy, lived in a big house surrounded by acres of land, and the father was smart enough not to leave marks that were too obvious. Being such a well-respected, successful type of professional man allegations of abuse were easily dismissed for years because that sort of thing "just doesn't happen in this neighborhood".



I suspect these "sudden" killings are not as unprovoked as they initially appear to be. The day the teen age boy wakes up and realizes he's taller and stronger and quicker than his aging abuser is a very dangerous one.

[brianeyci]

Surprise surprise you give a kid something he can dick around with before he's mature enough he kills someone. I always wonder why gun people say teaching children about guns makes them more responsible with guns, when the opposite is true with cars. There's a big difference between teaching someone and shoehorning your hobby into a child -- indoctrination.

When we were in high school, our shop teacher was constantly getting on people's asses saying if they made sharpened spears he'd fail them. Every class seemed to have a moron who'd make a sharpened spear out of a steel rod. Sometimes they made swords.

Anybody who doesn't buy the impulse argument doesn't remember what it's like to be a kid. There doesn't need to be any reason or more than meets the eye.

[wjs7744]

Surprise surprise you give a kid something he can dick around with before he's mature enough he kills someone. I always wonder why gun people say teaching children about guns makes them more responsible with guns, when the opposite is true with cars. There's a big difference between teaching someone and shoehorning your hobby into a child -- indoctrination.

Well, as far as I'm aware that argument isn't designed to address deliberate shootings, only accidents involving guns. Of course, knowing how to load and fire a gun will make deliberate shootings easier even as it reduces the chance of accidents. I'm going to say that leaving guns lying around is a stupid idea regardless of whether kids know how to use them, and leaving them around loaded should immediately lose someone their license.

[Lord Insanity]

From the U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in This ~450k report page 18 (pdf page 25)

Figure 13 shows a very strong relationship between owning illegal guns and delinquency and drug use. Seventy-four percent of the illegal gunowners commit street crimes, 24 percent commit gun crimes, and 41 percent use drugs. Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.

From the OP article

Mones hypothesizes that such slayings are more frequent in affluent families because wealth makes abuse easier to conceal.

This is far more likely the case than the notion that he wouldn't have gone psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house.

[Lusankya]

From the OP article

Mones hypothesizes that such slayings are more frequent in affluent families because wealth makes abuse easier to conceal.

This is far more likely the case than the notion that he wouldn't have gone psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house.

I don't think anyone's saying that he would be less likely to go psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house. They're saying that his family would be less likely to be dead if there wasn't a gun in the house, which is self-evident, I would think.

[Surlethe]

From the OP article

Mones hypothesizes that such slayings are more frequent in affluent families because wealth makes abuse easier to conceal.

This is far more likely the case than the notion that he wouldn't have gone psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house.

Why assume abuse when there is no evidence? It's far more parsimonious to say he thought, "Hey, what would happen if ... ?" and then did it.

[Broomstick]

From the OP article

Mones hypothesizes that such slayings are more frequent in affluent families because wealth makes abuse easier to conceal.

This is far more likely the case than the notion that he wouldn't have gone psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house.

I don't think anyone's saying that he would be less likely to go psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house. They're saying that his family would be less likely to be dead if there wasn't a gun in the house, which is self-evident, I would think.

Or he might have used a different weapon. There was a axe-killing in Illinois a few years back, the teenage boy killed both his parents and, I think, some other relatives. Could he have obtained a gun? Sure - guns are legal and available in most of Illinois. It's just that the axe was there and available.

The root problem is not the guns - it's the desire and the will to kill. Yes, guns are lethal and kill at a greater distance than axes, knives, baseball bats, crowbars, or other such objects but simply eliminating guns will not eliminate all these killings.

[Broomstick]

From the OP article

Mones hypothesizes that such slayings are more frequent in affluent families because wealth makes abuse easier to conceal.

This is far more likely the case than the notion that he wouldn't have gone psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house.

Why assume abuse when there is no evidence? It's far more parsimonious to say he thought, "Hey, what would happen if ... ?" and then did it.

The question of abuse has to be raised because it crops up often in cases of relatives killing relatives. Of course, it's not involved in ALL cases of kids killing parents, but since abuse can be concealed for a long time and can take many forms it may not be apparent until after an investigation.

Most people do not kill others without some sort of provocation.

[Lusankya]

I don't think anyone's saying that he would be less likely to go psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house. They're saying that his family would be less likely to be dead if there wasn't a gun in the house, which is self-evident, I would think.

Or he might have used a different weapon. There was a axe-killing in Illinois a few years back, the teenage boy killed both his parents and, I think, some other relatives. Could he have obtained a gun? Sure - guns are legal and available in most of Illinois. It's just that the axe was there and available.

The root problem is not the guns - it's the desire and the will to kill. Yes, guns are lethal and kill at a greater distance than axes, knives, baseball bats, crowbars, or other such objects but simply eliminating guns will not eliminate all these killings.

Since when does less likely mean eliminate?

Fact is, it's harder to kill with an axe than with a gun, because with a gun you can kill from a distance, and it's harder for the other person to fight back. You also don't need much in the way of physical training to be able to operate the "point and shoot" interface of a gun, as opposed to wielding a melee weapon. If I had a gun, I could kill someone easily, but I couldn't with an axe, because to be honest, I could barely lift the damn thing.

[Darth Wong]

Or he might have used a different weapon. There was a axe-killing in Illinois a few years back, the teenage boy killed both his parents and, I think, some other relatives. Could he have obtained a gun? Sure - guns are legal and available in most of Illinois. It's just that the axe was there and available.

Then why are guns involved in most of the cases of parent-killings?

The root problem is not the guns - it's the desire and the will to kill. Yes, guns are lethal and kill at a greater distance than axes, knives, baseball bats, crowbars, or other such objects but simply eliminating guns will not eliminate all these killings.

It will greatly reduce them if the problem is impulse control. A gun is a device that can lead to murder in literally seconds, with a mere gesture of the hand. Other ways of killing still work, but require much more effort. You're basing your entire argument upon the notion that these kids act on a rational plan; if they act on unreasoning impulse, the mere presence of a gun and the great power that it puts into his hand may create a destabilizing factor.

You're an American, so I'm going to assume you've held a gun. If so, then you know perfectly well that there is a palpable feeling of power the moment you hold a gun in your hand. This sense of power is not equaled by the feeling of picking up a kitchen knife, or a hacksaw, or an axe.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed. A teenager would have harder time killing his own parents, who are adults, with a knife or axe, than with a gun. A lot depends on his constitution and physical abilities, as well as the abilities of adults.

In the gun case, everything depends on him knowing how to shoot - in case he can do it, they're all dead. Even if they could've kicked his murderous ass in a hand-to-hand fight.

[Darth Wong]

I think the feeling of power when holding a gun is one of those things that people just don't want to talk about in threads like this. Gun owners don't want to mention it because it is beneficial to the gun control argument (sudden feeling of power + teen angst + poor impulse control = problem). And anti-gun people don't want to mention it because they don't like to admit that they've ever held a gun and it felt good.

[brianeyci]

From the U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in This ~450k report page 18 (pdf page 25)

This is far more likely the case than the notion that he wouldn't have gone psycho if there wasn't a gun in the house.

Are you honestly arguing that children give a shit whether a gun is legal or illegal? They only care if they can get their hands on it.

Legal guns could have less crimes for the simple fact they largely keep their guns safely under lock and key, even from their own children. Guns under multiple combination locks in a basement because the gun owner is afraid of his rifles stolen for crimes doesn't mean the owner's children has easy access without supervision. Some of those gun lockups look like fucking bank vaults. This in no way is a rebuttal to keeping guns away from impulsive children, because you can own a gun and not let your kid touch it.

[Broomstick]

Or he might have used a different weapon. There was a axe-killing in Illinois a few years back, the teenage boy killed both his parents and, I think, some other relatives. Could he have obtained a gun? Sure - guns are legal and available in most of Illinois. It's just that the axe was there and available.

Then why are guns involved in most of the cases of parent-killings?

Availability, of course. I did not deny that eliminating guns wouldn't reduce killings.

However, I don't want to eliminate gun killings only to have them replaced by some other form of killing - I want to eliminate the killing entirely if possible. You are just as dead if your son caves in your skull with a cast iron frying pan or stabs you with a butcher knife or feeds you into a woodchipper. Eliminating guns does not eliminate violent death (although, yes, it does make killing more difficult). Granted, 300 hundred such killings a year makes it "only" one in a million people perpetrating such violence - I suspect other forms of murder are more common - but if there is some common thread prompting this sort of thing I'd rather deal with the root cause than with the particular weapon involved as dealing with the basis of these killings would, in theory, eliminate such killings with ANY weapon. If we can't find a root cause, well, then, weapon restriction might be the best option.

The root problem is not the guns - it's the desire and the will to kill. Yes, guns are lethal and kill at a greater distance than axes, knives, baseball bats, crowbars, or other such objects but simply eliminating guns will not eliminate all these killings.

It will greatly reduce them if the problem is impulse control.

But is it really an impulse control problem? If - as I suspect - abuse is behind a lot of this sort of killing then impulse might play into it, but it may also be that deprived of a gun some other means would be found to eliminate the abuser. There are instances of children poisoning parents, for example, which is clearly pre-mediated killing, or children deliberately burning down a house with parents/family in it, which may either be pre-meditated or impulsive.

Eliminating guns might indeed eliminate the spur-of-the-moment murders, or at least reduce them considerably, but what if it won't reduce significantly the final total of parent killings?

A gun is a device that can lead to murder in literally seconds, with a mere gesture of the hand. Other ways of killing still work, but require much more effort. You're basing your entire argument upon the notion that these kids act on a rational plan; if they act on unreasoning impulse, the mere presence of a gun and the great power that it puts into his hand may create a destabilizing factor.

Oh, I'm not denying that guns make killing easier - that's what they are designed to do. That's why they should be securely locked up when in the vicinity at all, unless you are engaged in a use such target practice, gun maintenance, as part of a job such as would be the case for a police officer, or as legitimate self-defense.

What I am saying is that eliminating the gun doesn't automatically prevent a killing. It will reduce the killings, certainly spur-of-the-moment shootings, but while I have not shown that all, or even some, of these kids are acting on a rational plan neither have you shown that all of them are acting on irrational impulse.

You're an American, so I'm going to assume you've held a gun. If so, then you know perfectly well that there is a palpable feeling of power the moment you hold a gun in your hand.

I do not and have not owned a gun, but yes, I've held and fired one. (Actually, several). While there was a feeling of power for me, at least, there was also responsibility and even fear (self-injury with firearms is possible and nothing to joke about). Then again, I was over 35 years old when I first held a gun, that is, a mature and responsible adult which is MUCH different than a teen ager holding a gun for the first time. Not everyone holding a firearm is drunk with power. Indeed, one reason I do not own guns is that I do not feel I can justify owning one in my own mind - it's just much more than I need for self-defense, and I'm not a hunter nor do I have a job that requires one.

I am also aware that a gun does not solve all problems of self-defense - recently a friend, who DOES carry a loaded gun under the seat of his truck while working in rough neighborhoods (and yes, he is licensed and legal) was the victim of an attempted robbery by two other men when he stopped at a gas station. He couldn't reach his gun after one guy grabbed him - so he used a piece of pipe to knock out one guy, after which the other ran away. The police even asked why he had not used his gun in self-defense. Well, in that case the circumstances led to the gun not being used - which may make no difference to the would-be robber as he is, apparently, still in intensive care and it's questionable whether or not he will survive, much less recover

The point being is that it's not just guns that kill people. Depriving my friend of the opportunity to reach his gun did not prevent him from using potentially lethal force in his own defense. Sure, restrict, perhaps even eliminate guns and it will help but if there's something prompting killings other than just momentary impulse I don't think perpetrators switching to other means is necessarily a gain.

This sense of power is not equaled by the feeling of picking up a kitchen knife, or a hacksaw, or an axe.

No, but my crossbow comes close.

On the other hand, if someone WAS breaking into my home I wouldn't hesitate to arm myself while passing through the kitchen, or to grab a large heavy object to use as a club.

A significant difference, however, is that those other things (except the crossbow) are not primarily weapons - they are purchased as tools for other purposes than killing. One does not (or at least I don't) look at my favorite chef's knife and think "kill people" the way one does with a gun. They are not seen as weapons first and foremost, and in an emotionally charged situation that might be enough to prevent someone from using them on another person.

[Broomstick]

Fact is, it's harder to kill with an axe than with a gun, because with a gun you can kill from a distance, and it's harder for the other person to fight back.

An unarmed person against someone with an axe or large knife is unlikely to mount an effective defense, either. It's not impossible - I've done it. It's not impossible to successfully flee someone shooting at you - I've done that, too. However, in both those cases I was outside and able to freely move in any direction. In the confines of a room or house it become much less likely the unarmed will be able to escape an armed attacker, even if the weapon is not a gun.

You also don't need much in the way of physical training to be able to operate the "point and shoot" interface of a gun, as opposed to wielding a melee weapon. If I had a gun, I could kill someone easily, but I couldn't with an axe, because to be honest, I could barely lift the damn thing.

Really?

Oddly enough, I don't find it much effort to lift an axe. For that matter, I don't find it much effort to lift our sledgehammer a couple of times, either.

You don't need elaborate training to kill someone with an axe. We're not talking "melee" here, we're talking about whacking someone (probably completely unarmed) with the sharp edge. With a knife, you stab them with the pointy end. With blunt objects just hit them over the head. You may need multiple blows, but this isn't rocket science, and if anger/strong emotion is involved one hit can be quite sufficient.

Sure, because a lot of such things are perceived primarily as tools, not weapons, it may not occur to someone acting on emotion and/or irrational to use them as weapons... but impulse killing happens even where there are no guns.

I don't think it's acceptable to merely eliminate gun murder of parents by children. I would much prefer to solve the problem of a child murdering his/her parents by ANY means.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I think the feeling of power when holding a gun is one of those things that people just don't want to talk about in threads like this. Gun owners don't want to mention it because it is beneficial to the gun control argument (sudden feeling of power + teen angst + poor impulse control = problem). And anti-gun people don't want to mention it because they don't like to admit that they've ever held a gun and it felt good.

Eh, the only thing I got from holding an automatic rifle (M-16) was a feelithing of immense unease, and I spent half the time trying to keep it pointed as far away from me as possible. Having 40% of my shots punch a hole in the paper targets head was fun though... ..
Then again, I'm not a typical neurological case .

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think it's acceptable to merely eliminate gun murder of parents by children

If gun murders constitute the majority of murders in a given circumstances or area, by reducing gun murders you would be reducing overall murders. Of course it's not a linear dependence, but you can still achieve effects.

[Lusankya]

Broomstick: your entire argument boils down to "reducing access to guns won't eliminate killings, it will only reduce them, therefore we shouldn't reduce access to guns". This is a retarded argument on many levels: not least the fact that reducing killings in any way possible is a good thing.

[wjs7744]

I think the feeling of power when holding a gun is one of those things that people just don't want to talk about in threads like this. Gun owners don't want to mention it because it is beneficial to the gun control argument (sudden feeling of power + teen angst + poor impulse control = problem). And anti-gun people don't want to mention it because they don't like to admit that they've ever held a gun and it felt good.

Eh, the only thing I got from holding an automatic rifle (M-16) was a feelithing of immense unease, and I spent half the time trying to keep it pointed as far away from me as possible. Having 40% of my shots punch a hole in the paper targets head was fun though... ..
Then again, I'm not a typical neurological case .

You're the second person in this thread to say words to that effect, and I think I'm going to be the third. I've only used a gun once, and I don't remember any 'palpable feeling of power' (gotta love the redundancy). Sure, shooting is fun and I'd like to do it again, but a feeling of power? Not that I remember.

Gun laws should probably be somewhere between the US and the UKs laws, although I remember reading somewhere (sorry, no source) that gun crime in the US is much higher than in other countries with similarly loose laws, so that may not be the real problem.

[wjs7744]

Broomstick: your entire argument boils down to "reducing access to guns won't eliminate killings, it will only reduce them, therefore we shouldn't reduce access to guns". This is a retarded argument on many levels: not least the fact that reducing killings in any way possible is a good thing.

Where does she say that? The way I'm reading it, she just says that removing the guns won't make the problem go away, so it's stupid to simply remove the guns and expect it to do so. No suggestion of not limiting access at all, just don't ban guns and expect the problem to go away.