An ethics question - a 15 yo boy is killed by his friend - who is culpable?

Having grown up around guns and people who used them responsibly, I'd have to say the burden of guilt must lie with the shooter's parents. They should not have allowed their 15 yr old son to have a loaded gun in his bedroom since it was against the law to do so. They broke a law to there.
Fifteen year olds are not known for making the best decisions which is why we need responsible involved parents to help avert such tragedies. IMHO. It's a terrible tragedy no matter how you look at it. It's important to prevent such things from happening - period. Of course they're going to, but education might help to diminish the number of such cases.
 

QuickSilver said:
In my son's shooting.. it was an accidental situation of two young boys finding a parent's unlocked gun and playing with it while the mother was not at home and her son left unattended.(unknown to my mother who was watching my son while I was at work) I did not choose to press legal charges against the boy. DCFS was involved with the mother. I did however pursue civil action against the mother and my son was awarded a large settlement.. SO... there is legal culpability on the parents for harm to others done by their minor children.. whether it was an accident or intentional.
Click to expand...

That's civil liability, as opposed to criminal culpability -- a different colored horse.
 

SifuPhil said:
I agree that it was preventable. The kids shouldn't have been roaming around knocking on windows at 2:30 in the morning.

I still disagree that the parents of the shooter would have been able to respond fast enough in a real situation. I taught self-defense for over 35 years, I know what response times are for a variety of scenarios. If the intruders had guns they would have shot the boy a second after he screamed - no parent is THAT fast.

I agree that both parents share responsibility. I believe it was an accident - had he known who the intruders were would he have pulled the trigger?
Click to expand...


Phil---You are creating a situation that may or may not have happened. Why even scream? Why not just run into your parent's room and yell, "Someone's tapping at my window?" Heck, it may have even been a small animal. This is why we always identify our target before we start blasting away. What if his Dad was out there checking on a loose storm window? There, I created a situation that may or may not happen, as well. I don't see this as an accident. Accidents are events that have happened without forethought. This was an 'intentional' event. He heard a noise, grabbed the gun and started blasting. He accomplished what he intended to do; to destroy the target. If I would start blasting every time that I heard a noise or a sound at my window, my house would be full of holes. And, BTW, when was the last time that you heard of a 17 year old boy being shot to death while in his bed sleeping and by a person outside his window? I am sure that it may have happened at some point in history, but doubtful that it is a recurring event.

While in Vietnam, I heard plenty of noises and I also was a young scared kid, but I didn't shoot at each and every noise that I heard. If I had, I would have been out of ammo by morning on some nights. I thought every time that I heard a rustle in the rice fields or high grass that Charlie was sneaking up on me, especially when I was on watch at 3:00 a.m.

Here's a story about a young man in a nearby town from where I live that killed a family of three one night. Different scenario, but I would agree that this is when the kid should have had a gun, although it may not have done him any good since he was attacked while sleeping. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Devon_Kreider also http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/kreider-alec-devon.htm
 
Yeah, you're right, Oldman. Looked at that way, you're right. Still, I think our definitions of "accident" may be a little different - I guess that's where a jury comes in.

My student and I discussed this incident yesterday and he took the same view as you - that you have to identify the target first.

Thanks for your service. ;)
 
Seriously, Phil, it's not about being right. All too often we hear and read (even here on SF) about the bad gun owners killing people. Then, along comes a case like this that just adds to the mess about guns and gun owners. I am a gun owner and I include myself as being a responsible gun owner. Always having them locked or put away and out of anyone's intended reach. OK, so here you are a martial arts master and at any time could take a life without warning. But, how many times have you read in a newspaper about an expert marshal arts person killing someone in a movie theater or school? None that I can recall. You see where I'm going with this? As many bad guys that are out there with guns, there is probably tens of thousands of 'responsible' gun owners. It's like the old saying goes, "A few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch." We shouldn't just up and ban guns from society because then "only the bad guys will have guns." What we do need are more stringent laws, including laws that hold parents accountable for when their kid gets a hold of or is given a gun and then takes it upon himself to shoot someone because he heard a noise.

When I flew for United, I made a lot of non stop coast to coast flights and was asked if I wanted to have a gun in the cockpit. Knowing that I had air marshals on-board from time to time, plus an armored cockpit door gave me comfort and I was good with just keeping it that way. I didn't see any need to turn an airplane into the OK Coral. Besides, if I had answered yes, I would have had a lot of paperwork to fill out, some serious therapy time, background checks and answering oodles of questions and then the weapons training as well. It just wasn't necessary in my book. In fact, I think having air marshals on-board is going to be going away at some time.

It's my hope that someone proposes more stringent laws and if it means putting metal detectors at doors to movie theaters and restaurants, etc., then so be it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top