An 11-year-old Wisconsin boy accused of murdering his mother has been ordered to stand trial.
The boy is charged with first-degree intentional homicide. The district attorney’s office is seeking to try him as an adult. The court has ordered that the boy’s name not be revealed because he may still be tried as a child.
In July, the court found the boy competent, according to court records.
Milwaukee Detective Timothy Keller testified in court on Tuesday about speaking with the boy about his mother’s death.
The detective said he questioned the boy the next day and the then 10-year-old boy admitted shooting her but called it an accident, according to WISN.
“[The boy] stated that he took up a shooting stance and was pointing the gun at her as she was walking towards him and asking him to put it down. And that’s when he indicated that he fired the gun with his intent to scare her by shooting the wall behind her,” Keller testified.
“He had made a purchase on his mother’s Amazon account for some virtual reality goggles the morning after this homicide occurred. And [family] were concerned because he had had an argument with her about whether he could have these prior to the homicide,” Keller said.
Its interesting how if the boy shot and murdered someone else, the mother would be the one responsible for it, due to leaving the gun somewhere the boy could access it and shoot it.
But now that she specifically is the one who got shot, with her own gun, now the boy is the one responsible.
It doesnt seem logical that you can have both, who gets shot with the gun shouldnt shift responsibility. She left an extremely dangerous and lethal weapon laying around where the 11 year old boy could just get his hands on it. She is responsible for her own death through her own negligence.
It’s actually insane that this literal child is being tried for an adult, a threshold he is barely half way towards hitting. This kid literally is still in elementary school and has only just started to be taught basics of multiplication. His brain isn’t even remotely close to done developing, and he hasnt even really started puberty yet.
If he was, say, 16 or 17, sure I could see it. But fucking eleven? Insane, ludicrous, actually crazy. That is not an adult, and anyone trying to try the kid as an adult is a fucking lunatic.
She would be responsible for an unsecured firearm and child endangerment, but I don’t think they’re usually charged with the actual murder (unless it would be a felony murder rule).
But this kid certainly shouldn’t be tried as an adult.
In any case, I’d like to back waaaaay up and ask how this kid got access to a loaded gun in the first place.
I think it’s more often an involuntary manslaughter charge due to the gross negligence of allowing a child access to a gun. But sometimes it can be counted as murder even if it was unintentional if you were doing something so reckless and stupid you should have realized it would likely result in someone’s death. There’s an argument to be made that keeping a gun somewhere a child could access it would count.
But sometimes it can be counted as murder even if it was unintentional if you were doing something so reckless and stupid you should have realized it
Just depends on the state. So you have to look at the definitions. State A might have Murder and Manslaughter, State B might have Murder and Negligent Homicide and State C might have Murder-I and Murder-II or first and second degree.
I’ve seen a bunch where charges will come out of Texas for Assault and people freak out thinking it’s being played down despite Texas Assault being the same as Battery in their state. Or Aggravated Assault being the same as Attempted Murder in their state.
Basics of multiplication in sixth grade? We were learning that in second grade …
deleted by creator
Idk, I was programming computers at age 11
This has no baring on the issue and is orthogonal.
At 11 years old, their brain is not even remotely close to fully developed. They havent even started puberty yet. It is unhinged and ridiculous to try an eleven year old as an adult.
They literally are only just barely halfway in their development to adulthood.
deleted by creator
I don’t know about you but I was long past knowing whether or not to point a loaded gun at my parents and then immediately go online with their account to buy a nice VR headset.
Well see the neato thing is, you weren’t raised by that kids mother.
You might be able to, hopefully, connect the dots that the kid who perhaps struggles with the concept of whether to point a loaded gun at their mother is also going to be the same kid who has a mother… who leaves a loaded gun lying around accessible to a child…
deleted by creator
In both cases both would share the responsibility
So by your logic and reasoning this poor woman apparently committed suicide(?)!
Yes he’s a kid but he also resides in a state where anyone committing this crime is tried as an adult - that doesn’t mean that he’ll go to an adult prison if the outcome is prison time. If you read anything about it you’ll know he’s a straight-up psychopath and needs serious mental help!
If you read anything about it you’ll know he’s a straight-up psychopath and needs serious mental help
Source? Because the above article didn’t contain any of that info.
If you read anything about it you’ll know he’s a straight-up psychopath and needs serious mental help!
So he needs help and not to be tried as an adult making decisions with a clear mind. I love it when people disagree with themselves in 3 sentences or less.
LOLWUT! I’m guessing you’re retarded.
Why? Because you contradicted yourself? Seems like you might just be a idiot.
So by your logic and reasoning this poor woman apparently committed suicide(?)!
Lol, what?
Negligence is not Suicide. Suicide is intentional. If she put the gun in the childs hand and forced him to shoot her with her own hands, that would be suicide.
But negligence is what its name implies… Neglect.
If you are an idiot and accidently kill yourself, do you think that is suicide? Obviously not, right? You are of course still responsible for having done it, but an accident != suicide.
I think the OP was under the impression the child would not be charged but the parent would if they had shot anyone else. In that circumstance he made it would not really be suicide as much as an accident I think. Like accidentally shooting yourself due to negligence in handling the firearm but here the negligence is allowing access to a child.
I don’t understand the US thing about trying children as adults. The whole thing about children is that they’re not adults, what’s the point of having specific laws to protect children if you’re just going to ignore them? What possible argument could there be that a 11 year old is an adult?
American political culture has a strong vein of demanding everyone be “tough on crime”, in the entirely mistaken belief that crime comes from not being harsh enough in sentencing. We also know that eleven year olds aren’t fully competent adults and we have carve outs in juvenile law that reflect that obvious truth. The intersection of these two facts means that charging decisions on cases like the above depend as much on what the actual right way to charge is as they do on how much what the kid did frightens the general public. What that tends to end in is laws that say you can only charge a minor as an adult in exceptional cases and then a push to make every minor charged with a violent crime the exception.
Alright I can see how culturally you end up going in that direction.
Still, though, I can’t fathom someone being smart enough to go through all that education to become a state prosecutor, then seeing a terrible story about a kid have access to a gun when they clearly shouldn’t and killing their own mother through sheer childish stupidity and then coming to the conclusion that “you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die.”
Who’s that person? What happened in their life to make them think like that?
you know what would reestablish justice in this situation? Injecting poison into that kid and watching him die.
Wisconsin hasn’t had the death penalty for over 150 years. Not even for Jefferey Dahmer.
Oh good!
Alright then, I guess it’s a bit less cruel with decades or life in prison.
Still an unfathomable decision to me but at least they’re not angling for an infanticide
It makes sense in obvious cases where a 16 or 17 year old commits an “adult” crime, but having it pushed to under 14 year olds is clearly misuse IMO
It still doesn’t tbh. The concept of an “adult crime” is baffling to me.
A 17 year old rapist can be tried as an adult IMO
Why though ? They’re not an adult, and rape is depressingly common in children.
Edit: maybe instead I should focus on the core absurdity of it all: isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?
Because in this second case you ensure that all children be given the same rights under the law and you get the same severity for 17 year olds for crimes you decide warrant it, rather than a shoddy “hmmm I think this crime is heinous enough to preemptively strip this person from their rights before we even decide on guilt and stuff and maybe the judge will agree”.
Why though ? They’re not an adult
They basically are, we have Romeo and Juliet laws for recognizing that under 18 people are able to consent (with themselves, obviously) so the legal framework for recognizing that a minor can make adult decisions is there. We all understand that maturity is not a binary, and teens can be expected to act like an adult (such as driving), and that comes with adult responsibility.
Me, personally, I think if a minor commits a crime with mature motivations, they can be tried as an adult.
isn’t saying “a 17 year old rapist should be tried as an adult” the same as saying “the laws concerning rape in children 17 and above should be the same as the laws concerning adult rapists”?
I suppose, although the latter would be codifying the principle
It’s obviously a topic that requires nuance, but I do believe there are circumstances where it fits.
The thing is the motion to be tried as an adult comes before the trial, so it comes before you ascertain anything about motivations, intent, psychological expertise…
I think this whole thing goes with the whole drinking, enlisting in the army, voting… You guys have a legal definition of childhood that’s way fuzzier that I’m used to. In my head, a motivation isn’t mature or not intrinsically, it’s mature or not depending on who has it : if it’s a child it’s not, if it’s an adult it should be so it’s considered as such.
I guess having a hard limit on the eighteenth birthday is weird in its own right… Maybe it’s because I’m old but in my head it should be fuzzy in the other direction: 18 year olds are definitely still kids in most aspects and should get a chance to be tried as children.
As abbotsbury said, it needs nuance. I am not good at that but I want to discuss, so I’ll write it below.
Mainly your point that 18+ year olds don’t have mature thinking patterns in some cases if not many: I’ve read that 25 years of age is when our brains basically start solidifying (I’m forgetting the actual term) and is why alcohol is recommended against until that age, but even that’s actually supposed to be fuzzy because aging isn’t a clear cut thing and brains and bodies age entirely differently so maybe if some kind of regulations should be set it should be between 16-27 for trial as adults if the need is felt with the cut-off for such judgements being less lenient as their age gets closer to the limit ^((or more lenient, I’ve confused myself in how this should be worded)^)
Then again this is for a justice system which is not focused on reparations through punishing the preparator instead of corrective measures and trying to create a society where crimes are less likely (equitable society, or a healthier outlook for mental and physical health, etc)
Removed by mod
Wow, you guys must have a very shallow understanding of what “childhood” and “justice” mean if the culprit being less responsible for their actions make the case more ironclad.
Edit: nvm I’ve looked at your profile after seeing some of your unhinged comments here ; I now fully believe you are eleven yourself and under the delusion that you are, in fact, an adult.
Removed by mod
A bad seed? Trim the bad ones for the sake of the future?
Would you put the neurodiverse into a gas chamber for being a burden on society, too?
My lord, you need some help.
This is a kid, it’s an accident, a tragic one. He’s going to need a psychiatrist his entire life. The punishment is he will live with it.
I don’t think he should be charged as an adult but I think there’s a gap wider than my mom’s ass between “charged as an adult” and “it’s an accident just let him go”. Even if you didn’t intend to kill someone pointing a gun at them and pulling the trigger isn’t an accident. There needs to be an intervention here, both for the health of the kid and the safety of other people. This isn’t a whoopsiedoodle, he was mad so he shot at her.
I agree, appropriate action should be taken. Just what exactly falls into that bucket though?
You can’t put an 11 year old in jail for man slaughter (I would call it that, not murder). Juvi? I really am not qualified enough to know my ass from a hole in the ground here.
What do you think?
following the law as written for an 11 year old defendant would be a good start. I’ll admit to also being unqualified but I don’t need to know exactly what point a person is fully competent to be treated as an adult by the judicial system to know that an 11 year old hasn’t reached that point just like I don’t need to know the exact coordinates of the Mexico-US border to know that I, as someone in Pennsylvania, haven’t crossed it.
Isn’t that the point of the calling someone a “minor”, though? Decision making capacity isn’t all there yet, higher chance of the stupid, believing you can fly, that sort of thing.
The article said he was aiming for the wall behind the mom. Maybe he thought he was some kind of ace combat special forces or something because of the VR headset stuff.
deleted by creator
Would you put the neurodiverse into a gas chamber for being a burden on society, too?
It’s honestly hilarious that you’re equating random NDs with a child that murdered his own mother and then ordered a VR headset on her Amazon account a day later.
You’re missing the point. All I’m saying is that the punishment should fit the crime.
The kid is a kid. Not innocent, but not deserving of the full weight of adult punishment.
Worse yet, could the child be an undiagnosed ND? You and I don’t know. What if he is?
Removed by mod
What are you under the impression will happen if he’s charged as a minor and convicted? Like, what do you think the normal sentence is for minors convicted of first degree murder in Wisconsin?
Do you think the kid even fully understands the concept of dead? It’s funny because in my country children under 14 are not responsible for their actions, the parents are.
That woman died for her own incompetence, the kid was just the vehicle of her demise. Yes sometimes genuinely evil people are born, but in these cases their upbringing is the entire reason for antisocial conduct.
The 10 year old got a hold of a loaded gun, presumably owned by his criminally neglectful parents, who were responsible for it’s secured storage. Oh well, so sad, too bad, glad it happened to them, and not a school full of children.
Sounds like she did not lock up her gun and did not teach her child gun safety at all. That’s sad but unless they can show intent, it seems a little ridiculous to charge him.
I guess never too young to be taugh gun safety but it just feels weird to prepare a 10-yo kid to handle a gun. Dunno if that would’ve saved her in this case. Should’ve had the gun in a more secure location.
That’s sad but unless they can show intent, it seems a little ridiculous to charge him.
He did shoot her and by his own account understood what guns do. Of course they’re going to charge him.
You’re right. I can’t think of any way this could have possibly been avoided. After all, this happens in every civilized nation in the world…
Even if they try him as an adult, what happens to him if he’s convicted? How do they punish an 11-year-old?
Life in prison.
But like would he get put in an adult prison?
IANAL but I think they put them in juvenile detention until they turn 18, then move them to prison
Charged as an adult, but put in a juvenile detention center because they acknowledge he’s not an adult. He was 10 when it happened, likely hadn’t even started puberty. Anyone asking to charge him as an adult is without a doubt a fucking moron. They should all be fired, shunned, and never allowed to hold a position of authority again.
Probably in solitary for his own protection until he’s 18
Gosh that’s terrible.
I mean, he shot his own mother dead. There’s no winners here.
No, I know, just…that’s just terrible any way you slice it.
This is obvious fucked up, but what’s the point of child sentencing at all if they can try an 11 year old as an adult? This is her obviously not an adult.
Unfathomably sad situation.
deleted by creator
