11-year old shoots Father's girlfriend

[CaptainChewbacca]

Link

CNN) -- An 11-year-old boy is facing adult charges in the shooting death of his father's pregnant girlfriend, authorities said Saturday.

Police say the boy shot Kenzie Marie Houk, who was eight months pregnant, once at point-blank range in her farmhouse in western Pennsylvania.

The boy, whose name was withheld by CNN because he is a juvenile, was charged with one count each of criminal homicide and homicide of an unborn child in the death of Houk, 26, Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo told CNN.

Houk's 4-year-old daughter found her in her bed Friday, according to police. The child alerted landscapers working near the home, who then called authorities.

This is something that you wouldn't even think of in your worst nightmare, that you'd have to charge an 11-year-old with homicide," Bongivengo said, according to CNN affiliate WTAE. "It's heinous, the whole situation."

Under Pennsylvania law, anyone over the age of 10 accused of murder or homicide is charged as an adult. If convicted, the boy faces a maximum sentence of life in prison, Bongivengo said.

Authorities said the boy is the son of the victim's live-in boyfriend at the home in Wampum, about 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh.

"At this point, we don't believe it's accidental," Bongivengo said.

The weapon was a youth model 20-gauge shotgun, designed for use by children, that belonged to the boy, according to investigators.

Bongivengo told reporters the household has no history of child abuse, but that an investigation is ongoing.

Calls to the boy's public defender, Dennis Elisco, went unanswered Saturday.

I predict multiple shitstorms, because this story has everything; Trying an 11-year-old as an adult, the fact that he owned a gun designed for children...

Damn, its just every kind of fucked-up. Sorry if this was posted already, I didn't find it in a search.

[Jim Raynor]

Before this story broke, I never knew there was such a thing as a "youth model" shotgun. You have to be 18 or 21 to do all sorts of other things, but not shooting deadly weapon?

[Alyeska]

There is nothing wrong with a youth model gun so long as the child has proper supervision and the gun is kept locked away from the child when not supervised. The child bears a strong degree of guilt, but so does the parent who completely failed in their duty to keep the weapon safe in the first place.

[The Spartan]

There is nothing wrong with a youth model gun so long as the child has proper supervision and the gun is kept locked away from the child when not supervised.

To add to this, when they say "youth model" they mean one where the stock is sized for a child to hold it. A adult model shotgun is often too large for a younger shooter to hold.

As a matter of fact, I own one that was "mine" when I was a kid. It's a Winchester 20 gauge. Here's the thing: I was never allowed to touch it, or any other gun in the house for that matter, except under my dad's supervision. Ever. And then I still had to obey all the rules of safe gun handling; treat every gun as if it's loaded, never point a gun at someone, etc.

[Beowulf]

An adult shotgun really won't be comfortable to shoot unless you're approximately the size of an adult. You could expect a 14 year old or so to be able to use a normal shotgun, but not an 10 year old. Also, most adults want something a bit larger than 20 gauge. I see nothing wrong with the idea that the shotgun was "his". The father was negligent in that he shouldn't have had the gun someplace where the kid could get to it (very least it should have had a trigger lock, preferably locked up in a safe).

[AMT]

Shit... not only are there child sized shotguns, but they have rifles that look like toys

Personally, I see little need for a child to have a gun at such a young age. Maybe 16 or so, after the proper training, but 11? There's just little way for someone that young to have the proper responsibility to handle the weapon.

[Alyeska]

Shit... not only are there child sized shotguns, but they have rifles that look like toys

Personally, I see little need for a child to have a gun at such a young age. Maybe 16 or so, after the proper training, but 11? There's just little way for someone that young to have the proper responsibility to handle the weapon.

Do you not comprehend the issue at hand? It has nothing to do with a weapon designed for children. It has to do with negligent parents who don't keep the weapon safe. An adult should always supervise a child with a firearm. Any gun that a child "owns" is actually the parents firearm that they let the child use while under supervision.

[AMT]

Shit... not only are there child sized shotguns, but they have rifles that look like toys

Personally, I see little need for a child to have a gun at such a young age. Maybe 16 or so, after the proper training, but 11? There's just little way for someone that young to have the proper responsibility to handle the weapon.

Do you not comprehend the issue at hand? It has nothing to do with a weapon designed for children. It has to do with negligent parents who don't keep the weapon safe. An adult should always supervise a child with a firearm. Any gun that a child "owns" is actually the parents firearm that they let the child use while under supervision.

Except that, as this case shows, many parents do not have the proper ability or inclination to do such a thing. And even for those that do, there are many kids who are capable of bypassing those restrictions, either by finding the key for the gun-safe, or the combination. Either way, there is no reason an 11 year old should have any access to these weapons.

[Alyeska]

Except that, as this case shows, many parents do not have the proper ability or inclination to do such a thing. And even for those that do, there are many kids who are capable of bypassing those restrictions, either by finding the key for the gun-safe, or the combination. Either way, there is no reason an 11 year old should have any access to these weapons.

If a child has a demonstrated safety record with firearms, the situation might change. Here in Montana its not unknown to have children the age of 12 go hunting. That said, its under adult supervision. Adult responsibility is still key here. Ultimately what you keep harping on is irrelevant. The child broke the law, the parents were negligent. We already agree they should be punished. So just why do you keep harping this point? Seriously, your arguing with no one.

[AMT]

Actually, all I did was point out that the gun manufacturers don't only market child sized weapons, but weapons which look like toys, as well as my belief that children that age are too young to have them. You were the one who started harping on this, without showing how an environment where children are able to handle deadly weapons marketed like toys is a good thing. In any event, I have no reason to continue this discussion with you as I feel I made my point in the original post I made.

[Alyeska]

Actually, all I did was point out that the gun manufacturers don't only market child sized weapons, but weapons which look like toys, as well as my belief that children that age are too young to have them. You were the one who started harping on this, without showing how an environment where children are able to handle deadly weapons marketed like toys is a good thing. In any event, I have no reason to continue this discussion with you as I feel I made my point in the original post I made.

So fucking what if they are child sized? You have to be 18 years old to purchase a long gun and 21 to purchase pistols. These are clearly weapons and should be treated as such. They happen to be made child sized and toy like in order to be less intimidating to novice shooters and to make it clear to others these are not full size weapons. This has no bearing on their lethality and they are still treated as such.

The "point" you make is that its somehow wrong to design guns to be fired by children. This ignores the fact that the parent owns the weapon and supervises the children. If no such child size weapons existed, parents would simply use normal weapons but of smaller calibers and use that with their children. The child would still have the exact same opportunities to get at this weapon. So your point is completely and utterly irrelevant.

[Solauren]

Except that, as this case shows, many parents do not have the proper ability or inclination to do such a thing. And even for those that do, there are many kids who are capable of bypassing those restrictions, either by finding the key for the gun-safe, or the combination. Either way, there is no reason an 11 year old should have any access to these weapons.

Oh, bull fucking shit. I have cousins that lived on farms isolated enough a gun was required to keep some of the wild life at bay / in line. The guns were kept locked up, and the ammo was seperate. In one case; 5 kids, all knowing how to use guns, and no accidents or injuries. Because the parents were responsible.

And provide stats for your 'many' claim or retract it.

[AMT]

Except that, as this case shows, many parents do not have the proper ability or inclination to do such a thing. And even for those that do, there are many kids who are capable of bypassing those restrictions, either by finding the key for the gun-safe, or the combination. Either way, there is no reason an 11 year old should have any access to these weapons.

Oh, bull fucking shit. I have cousins that lived on farms isolated enough a gun was required to keep some of the wild life at bay / in line. The guns were kept locked up, and the ammo was seperate. In one case; 5 kids, all knowing how to use guns, and no accidents or injuries. Because the parents were responsible.

And provide stats for your 'many' claim or retract it.

Well seeing as how people can bypass gun locks with safety pins and there have been many stories about how easy they are to break... yeah. It's all online, if you just do a quick google search. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a scientific study based on it, but simple logic can see that "faulty gun locks capable of being picked by an every day household item= easy for children to bypass"

[erik_t]

"It's all online and you can do a quick google search" does not pass muster for evidence on this forum. Not to play mod or anything, but that's not an acceptable level of evidence. If it's so easy to find, find it and link to it.

[Aratech]

Except that, as this case shows, many parents do not have the proper ability or inclination to do such a thing. And even for those that do, there are many kids who are capable of bypassing those restrictions, either by finding the key for the gun-safe, or the combination. Either way, there is no reason an 11 year old should have any access to these weapons.

Oh, bull fucking shit. I have cousins that lived on farms isolated enough a gun was required to keep some of the wild life at bay / in line. The guns were kept locked up, and the ammo was seperate. In one case; 5 kids, all knowing how to use guns, and no accidents or injuries. Because the parents were responsible.

And provide stats for your 'many' claim or retract it.

Well seeing as how people can bypass gun locks with safety pins and there have been many stories about how easy they are to break... yeah. It's all online, if you just do a quick google search. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a scientific study based on it, but simple logic can see that "faulty gun locks capable of being picked by an every day household item= easy for children to bypass"

Ummm, last I checked, if you want to make the claim, you have to provide the proof. If it's so easy to google, surely coming up with a half dozen or so links to said studies should be child's play.

Like Solauren, I've been using guns since I was 5, neither I nor my brother, nor anyone else in our area (who likewise, learn to use weapons/hunt at a young age) have had any accidents whatsoever. And likewise, our parents are wise enough to use gun closets and trigger locks, with some of the heavier ordinance, such as 30.06 rifles, being stored in a location in the house that wasn't even revealed to us until we turned 15.

[AMT]

Ummm, last I checked, if you want to make the claim, you have to provide the proof. If it's so easy to google, surely coming up with a half dozen or so links to said studies should be child's play.

Like Solauren, I've been using guns since I was 5, neither I nor my brother, nor anyone else in our area (who likewise, learn to use weapons/hunt a young age) have had any accidents whatsoever. And likewise, our parents are wise enough to use gun closets and trigger locks, with some of the heavier ordinance, such as 30.06 rifles, being stored in a location in the house that wasn't even revealed to us until we turned 15.

Except again, as I said there are no studies. Just evidence showing faulty locks. Which, again, can be googled rather easily.
And just because you may have been fine doesn't mean there aren't other inquisitive kids who are able to get that access to weapons.
But again, my original point, which is getting distorted, has been made. I see no need to try and argue a tangent I didn't even wish to bother with in the first place.

[Aratech]

Ummm, last I checked, if you want to make the claim, you have to provide the proof. If it's so easy to google, surely coming up with a half dozen or so links to said studies should be child's play.

Like Solauren, I've been using guns since I was 5, neither I nor my brother, nor anyone else in our area (who likewise, learn to use weapons/hunt a young age) have had any accidents whatsoever. And likewise, our parents are wise enough to use gun closets and trigger locks, with some of the heavier ordinance, such as 30.06 rifles, being stored in a location in the house that wasn't even revealed to us until we turned 15.

Except again, as I said there are no studies. Just evidence showing faulty locks. Which, again, can be googled rather easily.

You are still obligated to provide the evidence to back up your claim. I don't have to go out and google it. You google it, and then post the relevant data.

And just because you may have been fine doesn't mean there aren't other inquisitive kids who are able to get that access to weapons.
But again, my original point, which is getting distorted, has been made. I see no need to try and argue a tangent I didn't even wish to bother with in the first place.

You have attempted to make a point, yes. Don't expect your view to be universal, especially with evidence to the contrary.

[K. A. Pital]

There is quite a lot of evidence that most commonly used locks are unsafe, or at least there is some. I could find more,

Not to play mod or anything, but that's not an acceptable level of evidence

To be fair, he never spoke about scientific studies. He spoke of the faulty locks and ease of access.

Personally, I don't see a reason for children to be trained to use firearms at all. Maybe I'm biased; sure. There's a fundamental problem: I see a firearm as a very complex and dangerous professional tool. It's generally intended for professional use, which entails destruction of living or inanimate targets such as sports targets, animals and finally, humans in the case of police and army professions.

Just like we don't give a huge pneumatic hammer or an electric drill to a child, we shouldn't be at all eager to give it a gun. These kind of work tools are made for adults.

[AMT]

I agree that my view isn't universal, nor did I ever expect it to be. I was stating my personal viewpoint regarding such weapons, not trying to make a de facto claim, hence my attempt to shy away from universal terms such as "all" "everyone" etc.

All I've tried to show is that it's dangerous and on average, it can be easy for a child to get access to weapons which they are not responsible enough to use, getting them either due to parental irresponsibility, or the ease which is showcased here to pick a gun lock.

And an article about gun lock safety. Or lack thereof

Edited to Add: You stole my second link Stas! Oh well..

[Alyeska]

Personally, I don't see a reason for children to be trained to use firearms at all. Maybe I'm biased; sure. There's a fundamental problem: I see a firearm as a very complex and dangerous professional tool. It's generally intended for professional use, which entails destruction of living or inanimate targets such as sports targets, animals and finally, humans in the case of police and army professions.

This is why children would only use firearms under the supervision of adults. My first encounter with a gun was when I was 9 years old. I got to shoot a .22 pistol at targets. First I had to prove myself with a pellet pistol for two days before they even let me use the .22 pistol. Even then they supervised me and were in direct control if anything were to happen. My father was standing behind me ready to grab my hands in a moments notice.

Just like we don't give a huge pneumatic hammer or an electric drill to a child, we shouldn't be at all eager to give it a gun. These kind of work tools are made for adults.

There is nothing wrong with a child using a firearm in a controlled supervised setting. Or do you think children should be disallowed from driving bumper cars too? Its a moving vehicle. A gun is only as dangerous as the person using it. When an adult provides supervision and takes responsibility for the situation, there is little of consequence. We aren't talking about giving a gun to a child and letting them wander about. We are talking proper education and supervision to ensure safety.

[TheKwas]

Except that, as this case shows, many parents do not have the proper ability or inclination to do such a thing. And even for those that do, there are many kids who are capable of bypassing those restrictions, either by finding the key for the gun-safe, or the combination. Either way, there is no reason an 11 year old should have any access to these weapons.

Oh, bull fucking shit. I have cousins that lived on farms isolated enough a gun was required to keep some of the wild life at bay / in line. The guns were kept locked up, and the ammo was seperate. In one case; 5 kids, all knowing how to use guns, and no accidents or injuries. Because the parents were responsible.

And provide stats for your 'many' claim or retract it.

Where on earth do your cousins live? The African safari? I spent about half my childhood on a fairly isolated farm and not once have I, or anyone around me that lived on that farm, felt threated enough by wildlife to determine that every child must learn how to use a weapon.

Also, pointing out examples of people using guns responsibly doesn't provide much weight to your argument. No one doubts that most gun users are responsible and can be trusted with a gun, it's the few that are not responsible that we are worried about and how to deal with them. Children are generally more likely to fall into the latter category, and thus it is prudent to not advocate their handling of guns.

[Akkleptos]

Where on earth do your cousins live? The African safari? I spent about half my childhood on a fairly isolated farm and not once have I, or anyone around me that lived on that farm, felt threated enough by wildlife to determine that every child must learn how to use a weapon.

He did say "keep some of the wild life at bay / in line". I'm fairly sure he meant that as in "shooting coyotes trying to sneak in to the henhouse, or wolves, pumas, rabid dogs, and other animals farmers find undesirable", rather than as in "protect their lives from...".

In any case, the parents are ultimately responsible here. While there is a blurry line when it comes to defining when a person is legally responsible for his actions (i.e. is it at 10, or 14, or 16, or 18?), it has been established that the parents in one way or another failed to keep guns out of the reach of unsupervised children, a thing they were responsible of (well, dad was). Of course, there's the matter of poorly designed gunlocks, so the company that makes them would also be liable, and a lawsuit would also be in order.

Certainly, there was a criminal intent on the boy's part; and maybe the legal debate would spin around whether the boy could have commited the crime without having had access to the gun. But the resonsibility on the parent's side should not be overlooked.

In some countries, a 10 year-old would legally have an "unimputable" status, which would mean they couldn't be criminally charged at that age for a crime -though there's usually a juvenile conviction for "reforming".

[TheKwas]

My understanding is that the discussion was revolving around the 'kiddie guns', but apparently the discussion took a turn right before that post. I retract my paragraph in that regard.

[K. A. Pital]

This is why children would only use firearms under the supervision of adults.

Exchange the "would" for "should", and I'll be okay. You see, between something that you want, desire and envision as an ideal, and the real world there's a huge difference. The problem is that in the real world, gun safety is really lacking, and improving it might not even be that feasible considering the fact that people on the average are not smart.

There is nothing wrong with a child using a firearm in a controlled supervised setting. Or do you think children should be disallowed from driving bumper cars too? Its a moving vehicle.

You are seriously comparing a toy car to a real automobile in terms of lethality? Because that's the issue: most "child" guns are just as lethal as real guns; they are in fact real guns.

The appropriate comparison would be giving the child the wheel of an Audi in a "controlled supervised setting". Incidentally, that is a criminal offense in many nations. Be a father caught teaching an underage driver on a real car, he'd face prison.

But for some reason firearms are ohkay. That doesn't follow.

A gun is only as dangerous as the person using it.

A gun is always dangerous. A high danger tool is always a danger. A car, a gun, an industrial machine is always a danger. It's not becoming a danger when people are neglient, it's a danger all the time and it kills people when they let down their guard next to that danger.

[Patrick Degan]

This case goes way beyond the parent's negligence in letting his 11 year old have access to a firearm and right to the apparent negligence in upbringing which would produce a kid more than willing to snuff out a human life with no more consideration that he'd give to stepping on a bug if this was not accidental. If so, this kid is already a sociopath and you have to wonder how nobody was watching his development along that path in the first place.