Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Alpo

Hypothetical legal question

Recommended Posts

9 year old kid gets mad at another one and pushes the second kid. Second kid falls down, lands badly and breaks his neck. DRT.

 

Now if these were adults (basing this opinion solely on years of watching TV crime shows where they don't seem to understand the meaning of the word accident, and if someone gets killed someone else must go to jail) the undead guy would get arrested and tried for manslaughter, at the very least.

 

But these are not adults. These are 9 year old children.

 

What would they do to the first kid - the pusher?

 

The Bones episode about the dead beauty queen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What does DRT mean?

 

The (survivor) kid may be charged with involuntary manslaughter or involuntary homicide and be cycled through the juvenile court system.  I doubt the court would just cut him loose.....the victim died from an intentional, violent, angry act, committed by the survivor.

 

Cat Brules

Edited by Cat Brules
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cat Brules said:

What does DRT mean?

 

The (survivor) kid may be charged with involuntary manslaughter or involuntary homicide and be cycled through the juvenile court system.  I doubt the court would just cut him loose.....the victim died from an intentional, violent, angry act, committed by the survivor.

 

Cat Brules

I agree with this ^^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never too young to learn "Consequences of your actions"...

Hopefully he will learn this during his "Time Out".

Records are sealed. So it doesn't effect the rest of his life.

Pushing someone is assault. There was "Intent". Any death as a result of an illegal act is on you.

An "Accident" is when your riding your bike, loose control and hit someone who dies as a result (unless you were in your Dad's liquor cabinet before hand).

 

But that was back in my day.

Today, you just turn them loose with the rest of the illegals...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer:  I do not usually practice criminal law, unless there are some special circumstances.  So this is based upon basic legal education, not practice experience.

 

In most Western countries, infancy is recognized in some form as a defense; the basic idea is that in order for criminal liability to exist, one must be capable of forming criminal intent.  Proof of that capacity, including presumptions about the age at which that capacity arises, varies widely; but it can be generally stated that most US states have a basic rule that children below a certain age (usually something between 12 and 16) are presumed to lack the ability to form criminal intent, and are therefore usually not subject to criminal prosecution.  There are a ton of exceptions and variations; some states exclude capital or heinous crimes from this analysis; others use a scale of ages depending upon the type of offense.  But the bottom line is that most states do not criminally prosecute most minors for most crimes.

 

That does not mean that youthful offenders walk.  Rather, their handling falls within the control of the juvenile justice system, where the primary concern is rehabilitation rather than punishment. 

 

In the OP, a 9 year old is involved in what may have been an evil act or merely an accident or poor judgment (the province of an underdeveloped brain).  The juvenile court should examine the circumstances, and determine what should be done to best assure that the child is guided back to responsible behavior.  Sounds high minded, but often it's damned hard to accomplish.

 

In some Middle Eastern and African nations, the presumption of inability to form criminal intent expires at age 7; I think that is unrealistic and unnecessarily cruel.  

 

Think of your own kids at age 9; if they got in a pushing match with another kid, and that kid slipped, fell, and broke his neck, would you think it appropriate to try, convict and incarcerate your kid?  Or would it be more appropriate to do something less punitive and more constructive?  

 

LL

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From where I was from there would be no criminal charges. Under the age of 12 child cannot be held responsible for criminal acts. Too young to reasonably understand. Once police respond child would be released to parents/guardian and given paperwork that the juvenile system would be reviewing the incident. More than likely parents/guardian would be called into the juvenile office and determined what action would be taken. This would probably be counseling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Disclaimer:  I do not usually practice criminal law, unless there are some special circumstances.  So this is based upon basic legal education, not practice experience.

 

In most Western countries, infancy is recognized in some form as a defense; the basic idea is that in order for criminal liability to exist, one must be capable of forming criminal intent.  Proof of that capacity, including presumptions about the age at which that capacity arises, varies widely; but it can be generally stated that most US states have a basic rule that children below a certain age (usually something between 12 and 16) are presumed to lack the ability to form criminal intent, and are therefore usually not subject to criminal prosecution.  There are a ton of exceptions and variations; some states exclude capital or heinous crimes from this analysis; others use a scale of ages depending upon the type of offense.  But the bottom line is that most states do not criminally prosecute most minors for most crimes.

 

That does not mean that youthful offenders walk.  Rather, their handling falls within the control of the juvenile justice system, where the primary concern is rehabilitation rather than punishment. 

 

In the OP, a 9 year old is involved in what may have been an evil act or merely an accident or poor judgment (the province of an underdeveloped brain).  The juvenile court should examine the circumstances, and determine what should be done to best assure that the child is guided back to responsible behavior.  Sounds high minded, but often it's damned hard to accomplish.

 

In some Middle Eastern and African nations, the presumption of inability to form criminal intent expires at age 7; I think that is unrealistic and unnecessarily cruel.  

 

Think of your own kids at age 9; if they got in a pushing match with another kid, and that kid slipped, fell, and broke his neck, would you think it appropriate to try, convict and incarcerate your kid?  Or would it be more appropriate to do something less punitive and more constructive?  

 

LL

 

 


I am not suggesting you are wrong OR right.

 

My comments above simply are a high level statement of the probable process that would generally be applied related to the victim’s murderer (yes, murderer).

 

Whatever the outcome, the perpetrator (survivor) kid would be cycled through the juvenile court system.  As he should be.  The dead kid is not coming back.  His death was not an “accident”.  The victim’s death, though perhaps unintended, was the result of the the survivor kid’s intentional, violent, punitive act.  
 

The young killer must face punitive action to satisfy society’s requirements, realize his behavior will not be tolerated and to keep a record of his unlawful acts.

Cat Brules

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thus comes the laws that hold the parent responsible ...

15 hours ago, Alpo said:

kid gets mad at another one and pushes the second kid.

 

Not an accident...  Doesn't matter if it's your kid or mine...

 

If it's not your kids fault, than it must fall on you I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California law holds that a child under the age of 12 is incapable of committing a crime, unless they know the wrongfulness of the act. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 said:

What if the DRT kid was a bully who had a history of tormenting the kid who pushed him?

 

This would change Alpo's question. But, would be the same result as I described. Manslaughter is Manslaughter, you still have a dead body. All the proof in the world that the dead kid was a bully would only be taken into consideration at juve. Still being age 9 cannot be held responsible no matter what kind of individual the deceased was. Years ago had a case where a very vicious 9 year old, ( I believe possessed), intentionally killed a homeless person. Nothing could be done. I had personally know this kid for many years and knew how evil he was. He was eventually executed In Missouri for murders he committed as an adult.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Smoken D said:

From where I was from there would be no criminal charges. Under the age of 12 child cannot be held responsible for criminal acts. 

Same for Georgia.  The officer could file paperwork with the Juvenile Court claiming the child was deprived and possibly get some court ordered counseling but no criminal charges.  Even if the kid was over 12, charging him in Juvenile Court is just an act of frustration.  If the charge was murder, it is automatically sent to Superior Court and the child is tried as an adult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, I think the manner in which the 'Pusher' is punished would be determined

by certain circumstances, such as:

 

1. were they standing at the top of the stairs 

2. were they standing on top of Lookout Mtn

3. was the DRT kid a bully or make some threatening remark right in the Pushers face

4. did the DRT kid bump heads or went nose to nose with the Pusher before being pushed away

5.  Seriously, what area of the country did it happen AND race.   Like it or not, it still determines the fate of some.

6.  was the DRT kid rich or poor..... and was his parents politically associated with the Power that Be.

7.  Does the Pusher have prior problems with other kids, etc....

8.   etc.............

 

..........WIdder

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

1. were they standing at the top of the stairs  IN A PARKING LOT. THE DEAD KID LANDED CHIN FIRST ON ONE OF THOSE CONCRETE THINGS THAT YOU RUB YOUR FRONT TIRES UP AGAINST. THIS PUSHED HER HEAD BACKWARDS AND SNAPPED HER NECK.

2. were they standing on top of Lookout Mtn NO, THEY WERE IN VIRGINIA

3. was the DRT kid a bully or make some threatening remark right in the Pushers face THE TWO KIDS WE'RE BOTH BEAUTY PAGEANT CONTESTANTS. THE DEAD KID WAS THE QUEEN OF THE PAGEANT AND LORDED IT OVER EVERYONE. SHE TOLD THE OTHER GIRL, "YOU WILL NEVER WIN BECAUSE YOU ARE UGLY".

4. did the DRT kid bump heads or went nose to nose with the Pusher before being pushed away NO, WAS JUST BEING "I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT TO AND SAY WHATEVER I WANT TO BECAUSE I AM JUST SO DAMN WONDERFUL"

5.  Seriously, what area of the country did it happen AND race.   Like it or not, it still determines the fate of some. VIRGINIA, AND BOTH GIRLS WERE WHITE

6.  was the DRT kid rich or poor..... and was his parents politically associated with the Power that Be. THAT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP

7.  Does the Pusher have prior problems with other kids, etc.... YES SEE QUESTION 3 AND 4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 9-year-old wouldn't be charged. Most prosecutors would regard him as too young to form criminal intent. In any event, a simple shove hardly shows criminal intent.

 

I shoved and was shoved as a young kid on the playground. Others may have had similar experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I advised many victims of juvenile property crimes that their best recourse was to sue the parents of the juvenile.   Holding the parents financially accountable for the transgressions of their children is way more effective that relying on the Juvenile justice system.   However, I'm not sure this remedy would be effective in Alpo's case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alpo said:
2 hours ago, Alpo said:

WAS JUST BEING "I CAN DO WHATEVER I WANT TO AND SAY WHATEVER I WANT TO BECAUSE I AM JUST SO DAMN WONDERFUL"

 

Well it sounds like she had it coming.:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days, if the pushed kid had well connected parents and/or it got enough press, the 9 year old would be tried as an adult. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.