10 Year Old Boy Convicted of Attempted Murder

[Senator Pleasury]

I was bullied as a kid and never thought about killing them, but I do understand where Ultimatehero is coming from. The girl most likely had a hand in driving them to try and do what they did. Not saying it's her fault at all because kids are kids and don't generally think about the consequences of their actions.

What does "most likely" means here? That whenever a girl gets harmed she "most likely" had done something to get it, that is very probable that she had it coming? And all of this out of PURE speculation.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It is a far cry, but you have to understand that their minds don't work like ours do. We get off the bus, we feel bad - we don't think about grabbing a gun. Others get off the bus, they either want to kill themselves or they want to kill the person who did it to them. There's nothing saying they're right - everything saying the problem rests in society rather than on the kids themselves (which is the easy, simplistic answer).

Justification would be me saying "they were right in what they did," to me what I'm saying is - "most likely they were all not right in what they did."

What does "most likely" means here? That whenever a girl gets harmed she "most likely" had done something to get it, that is very probable that she had it coming? And all of this out of PURE speculation.

Because crime stats show that typically - there is a trigger. Somebody snapping out of the blue is the RARE case not the common one which it seems like you want to believe it is. In most cases, even with adult cases, it comes from who you know rather than a stranger.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

It is a far cry, but you have to understand that their minds don't work like ours do. We get off the bus, we feel bad - we don't think about grabbing a gun. Others get off the bus, they either want to kill themselves or they want to kill the person who did it to them. There's nothing saying they're right - everything saying the problem rests in society rather than on the kids themselves (which is the easy, simplistic answer).

Justification would be me saying "they were right in what they did," to me what I'm saying is - "most likely they were all not right in what they did."

No, Justification can perfectly be "That was wrong, BUT someone else provoked them."

Justification doesn't mean to find something right, just that the action had a cause that's more important. In this case, the girl did something to get killed.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Because crime stats show that typically - there is a trigger. Somebody snapping out of the blue is the RARE case not the common one which it seems like you want to believe it is. In most cases, even with adult cases, it comes from who you know rather than a stranger.

There's always a cause for actions. What's worrying is how you go and invent bullying and whatnot to make it look like she was the one asking to be harmed.

 

[Ultimatehero]

What I'm purely stating, which it seems I have to put in very lamen terms for you is:

1) Most crimes aren't random by total strangers, stats show that most are motivated by a perceived wrong done to the killer.
2) Finding the motive and the cause is very important because it can help to prevent similar cases in the future, so of course I'm going to look for the motives rather than just turning my head and ignoring everything to feel easy about it.
3) The girl most likely did do something, that doesn't mean that what happened was right - it just means that there is probably more to this picture that can be analyzed to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

[Ultimatehero]

There's always a cause for actions. What's worrying is how you go and invent bullying and whatnot to make it look like she was the one asking to be harmed.

Because in 80% of these cases - THAT is what it comes from. A perceived wrong-doing or humiliation, not a random act.

So, why go there and why have others gone there? Because the stats show that most likely? That is where it began because that's where it typically does begin.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

What does "most likely" means here? That whenever a girl gets harmed she "most likely" had done something to get it, that is very probable that she had it coming? And all of this out of PURE speculation.

Apparently I was wrong, looked into it a little more and found an article that had a bit more about this.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/1...icted-in-murder-plot.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&

COLVILLE, Wash. — An 11-year-old boy was convicted on Friday of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in a fifth-grade plot against a female classmate.

Judge Allen Nielsen of Stevens County Superior Court said on Friday that “simple anger” had fueled the plot, which the boy devised this year with a 10-year-old classmate at Fort Colville Elementary School in northeast Washington.

Staff members seized a handgun and a knife that the boys took to school on Feb. 7.

The judge, who called the trial “the most serious of my career,” rejected defense efforts to portray the boy as unable to separate fact from fiction.

After the verdict, the 11-year-old defendant was led from the courtroom in tears. He is due back in court on Nov. 8 for a sentencing hearing.

A defense lawyer said an appeal was planned.

“There is no joy in a conviction,” said the Stevens County prosecutor, Tim Rasmussen.

A school counselor, Debbie Rogers, testified on Friday about her interview with the boy on the day the weapons were discovered. The boy said that he was planning to stab the girl to death because she was “really annoying” and that the second boy was to point the gun at anyone who tried to intervene, Ms. Rogers said.

She said she saw no evidence that the 11-year-old boy was experiencing delusions that day.

The younger boy pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and other charges. He was sentenced to three to five years in juvenile detention.

The authorities discovered the plan when a fourth grader saw one of the boys playing with a knife aboard a school bus and told a school employee. A search of the 10-year-old’s backpack yielded a knife, a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol and a full ammunition magazine, court records showed.

So according to that they were going to do it because she "annoyed" them. Now that's not very specific but I imagine if it had anything to do with bullying it would say so. I think the main boy was the leader and probably suffers from some serious mental issues and was able to get the other kid to follow along with the plan. That is just my speculation though

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

In the case of James Bulger, there as premeditation but no cause whatsoever. Bulger (aged 2) did nothing to make those children kill him. They just did it.

are yous sure it wasn't the evil chucky who forced them to watch childs play 3 and then they strike out in they're own fear at what they thought was chucky

now thats sarcasm

 

[Senator Pleasury]

What I'm purely stating, which it seems I have to put in very lamen terms for you is:

1) Most crimes aren't random by total strangers, stats show that most are motivated by a perceived wrong done to the killer.

Which I already have said and which doesn't make this any less terrible, justifiable or understandable.

2) Finding the motive and the cause is very important because it can help to prevent similar cases in the future, so of course I'm going to look for the motives rather than just turning my head and ignoring everything to feel easy about it.

Finding the motive might be good. So far you have been inventing motives and the girl's actions.

3) The girl most likely did do something, that doesn't mean that what happened was right - it just means that there is probably more to this picture that can be analyzed to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Sure something can be done. Put those little murderers away. That will prevent any more killing from them.


*******************************

Because in 80% of these cases - THAT is what it comes from. A perceived wrong-doing or humiliation, not a random act.

So, why go there and why have others gone there? Because the stats show that most likely? That is where it began because that's where it typically does begin.

Sure, let's skip trials and stuff. When someone kills someone else let's just go to the statistics about murders and let's find out what is the "most probable" thing that motivated the crime. Goo enough for you, is it not?


***************************

Apparently I was wrong, looked into it a little more and found an article that had a bit more about this.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/10/1...icted-in-murder-plot.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&



So according to that they were going to do it because she "annoyed" them. Now that's not very specific but I imagine if it had anything to do with bullying it would say so. I think the main boy was the leader and probably suffers from some serious mental issues and was able to get the other kid to follow along with the plan. That is just my speculation though

First of all, thanks for informing first and stop the speculation.

Okay, so according to Ultimatehero, 10 year old girls should stop annoying 10 year old boys, that's how you prevent 10 year old girls' murders. Me? I'll stick to punishing the criminals.

 

[Ultimatehero]

You're the only one saying that it wasn't terrible, that it was justifiable. I'd say that if that was the case it would be understandable to a degree - because that would mean that their brains clearly have more than faulty wiring. They don't think like regular kids or insane killers. Not understandable to "yes, I agree." But, understandable to the point that you can start analyzing.

No, I went to what 80% of the time it is - rather than turn away and close my eyes which it seems you love to do or saying that every time it happens it's that 1% of being just random spree killing.

That would prevent killing from them - but not the DOZENS of possible kids out there like them. Or is it just that you only care about one incident rather than world-wide? To me, it seems like you only care about it after the fact, rather than caring enough to try to prevent crimes at all.

When no notion is available, yes I will go to asking the first questions. And here the first question for any criminal profiler would be what the girl possibly did because 80% of the time it is the case in these kinds of incidents and can help to arrive at a possible motive.

Now that more data has come to light, it doesn't apply. However, I am deeply, deeply worried about your very narrow perspective. Evidently, you're a guy who only cares after somebody is killed or almost killed rather than caring enough to try to prevent other people from being killed - who thinks that way, really? You'd think most people would care about trying to prevent crime, rather than just sitting back, letting it happen, and only feeling bad after-the-fact like you do.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

You're the only one saying that it wasn't terrible, that it was justifiable. I'd say that if that was the case it would be understandable to a degree - because that mean that their brains have faulty wiring. They don't think like regular kids. Not understandable to "yes, I agree." But, understandable to the point that you can start analyzing.

No, I went to what 80% of the time it is - rather than turn away and close my eyes which it seems you love to do. Or say that every time it happens it's that 1% of being just random spree killing.

That would prevent killing from them - but not the DOZENS of possible kids out there like them. Or is it just that you only care about one incident rather than world-wide? To me, it seems like you only care about it after the fact, you don't care to try to prevent crimes at all.

When no notion is available, yes I will go to asking the first questions. And here the first question for any criminal profiler would be what the girl possibly did because 80% of the time it is the case.

Now that more data has come to light, it doesn't apply. However, I am deeply worried about your very narrow perspective. Evidently, you're a guy who only cares after somebody is killed or almost killed rather than caring to try to prevent other people from being killed. Who thinks that way, really?

That's because you cannot prevent mentally ill people from murdering. You can prevent them to keep doing it though. By locking them away.

If you want to go and feel for them, looking for causes that make them kill, then you will have to do things like, in this case, forbid 10 year old girls to "annoy" them. That's what motivated them, they felt annoyed by her, so according to you, not annoying these perverse boys is the solution. Or did you have something else in mind?

But it's a good thing you got that inventing the girls' action in itself or in order to justify the murder was wrong.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The scary thing is you're acting like the possible scenario (80% of the time it does come from bullying or some form of harassment) should just be handled after somebody gets killed rather than trying to find the root causes to make sure that nobody or a visibly decreased number gets killed. It's almost like you don't care unless there's a corpse or something close-to a corpse. And to me, I can't put into words how wrong that is to me. I care about trying to find causes to try to prevent things, not just caring after it happens then ignoring it again until there's another bodybag.

 

[Nathan]

I can't count how many times I wanted to murder someone just because they annoyed me. If I ever went through with any of my murderous impulses, I would have probably murdered half a country by now.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I can't count how many times I wanted to murder someone just because they annoyed me. If I ever went through with any of my murderous impulses, I would have probably murdered half a country by now.

This is what separates them. You can't look at these people as thinking like 'regular people.' You have a barrier. They don't. Whereas somebody pushes you into thinking that way, they don't. Thus, there's always a push. Just in this case, I'd say it's something that can not be controlled or stopped - they actually sound like they could be on the opposite end of the bullying spectrum. In other cases, it can.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

The scary thing is you're acting like the possible scenario (80% of the time it does come from bullying or some form of harassment) should just be handled after somebody gets killed rather than trying to find the root causes to make sure that nobody or a visibly decreased number gets killed. It's almost like you don't care unless there's a corpse or something close-to a corpse.

Yes, I tend to value innocent people' lives over cold-blooded murderers'.

But now we know their motivations - they felt annoyed by her - please feel free to suggest your solution to that problem, so they won't kill again.

********************

I can't count how many times I wanted to murder someone just because they annoyed me. If I ever went through with any of my murderous impulses, I would have probably murdered half a country by now.

Exactly. We can't go and think that stopping the cause of your anger can prevent any potential murdering action. You felt annoyed but it wasn't them stopping from being annoying what stopped you from killing them. It was yourself.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

This is what separates them. You can't look at these people as thinking like 'regular people.' You have a barrier. They don't. Whereas somebody pushes you into thinking that way, they don't. Thus, there's always a push. Just in this case, I'd say it's something that can not be controlled or stopped - they actually sound like they could be on the opposite end of the bullying spectrum. In other cases, it can.

At least you get that what pushes them is not the problem, but the fact that they have no barriers. That's why it is absurd to suggest that we should prevent them to kill by suppressing what pushes them to kill.

 

[Ultimatehero]

When they are pushed - I tend to value everyone since they're kids and typically it is society or harassment (the kind that would be criminalized if not for their age) that pushes them to that area. Also, typically it is someone who was harassing them as well as others that becomes the victim - so I can't see that person as being hollier than holy, which it sounds like you do.

If a kid is being pushed around by another kid, and is just one of that kid's victims, and in retaliation kills that kid. No, I do not see the victim solely as innocent but both parties. Why, because that same kid could have pushed someone else into taking their own life - who's the killer there? The 'victim' with just a different ending to that story.

In all honesty, answer this question:

If the girl was found to be making fun of other kids and maybe pushed one into considering suicide.

That didn't happen, but saying if it did - would you still say innocent?

So, if it was like 80% of the time with these cases - harassment - quite obviously by finding other means in reducing that, you would "prevent them to kill by suppressing what pushes them to kill." Especially since most were broken down to that level over time, not overnight. And that most of these cases act like suicides (and usually includes suicide as well - last ditch attempts). These kids are the creation, the frankenstein monster, of society which is what needs to be changed.

 

[Incredible Hans]

My main question, what did the GIRL do to them? Willing to bet she wasn't all that innocent in this. Kids typically don't just snap and kill for fun, they're pushed into survival mode - suicide and murder usually go hand in hand at this age with these cases. Not saying they were in the right - they were in the wrong. But I do strongly believe she was in the wrong most likely too.

Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act are held entirely or partially responsible for the transgressions committed against them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

 

[Ultimatehero]

In the cases of bullying, the victim would be partially to blame (80% of the time it does stem from that, here it didn't - but that is the norm). I wouldn't say entirely because it is just one aspect of it - parents that don't notice or do and don't do anything, a school system which sees leakage and ignores it (many times these killers talk about it prior to doing it and it's just shrugged off - a student could draw a bomb and a school on a piece of paper hand it in and the teacher does nothing), and the school system which allowed it to happen by not caring about what motivated both criminalized acts (forcing the perp to basically believe only he or she could stop it), also society for instilling certain beliefs - eye for an eye, it is okay to mock someone if they are different from you, it is okay to get back at someone for doing you wrong (these are things that kids see from adults all around them and copy off of). To me it's like Frankenstein's monster, society created many of these kids.

Personally, if bullies were criminally charged for their offenses just like adults are - I see a whole bunch of reduced suicide and murder rates among the youth because that is the usual shove. Also, it should count as a form of murder or attempted murder and be charged as such if one pushes a kid to commit or attempt to commit suicide. This may sound harsh, but a HUGE part of the problem is that they get off scott-free most of the time with just a slap on the wrist while the other kid kills himself or brings a gun to school. To me, there's something obviously wrong with that equation which can easily be fixed.

 

[Teelie]

Whose ass did you pull 80% of bullying victims are to be blamed for their own bullying? I've rarely seen anyone who has been responsible for being bullied.

Being different is enough for most bullies to be "justified" in their actions. Does this also extend to people of different ethnicities or races, rapes and murders? Are they partially responsible for the crimes committed against them?

What kind of ******** are you reading to think it's somehow the victim's responsibility to not be a victim of someone else's actions?

 

[Ultimatehero]

I never stated that. I stated 80% of kids killing kids is because of bullying. 80% of them are bullied kids looking for escape and wanting revenge on the person who got them to that area. Most of these are basically a strand from suicide incidents.

Oh, see your confusion. - I mean. the bully that gets killed. Not the victim of being bullied, their victim.

 

[Teelie]

In the cases of bullying, the victim would be partially to blame (80% of the time it does stem from that, here it didn't - but that is the norm).

I read that and misinterpeted it. My mistake.

 

[Incredible Hans]

In the cases of bullying, the victim would be partially to blame (80% of the time it does stem from that, here it didn't - but that is the norm). I wouldn't say entirely because it is just one aspect of it - parents that don't notice or do and don't do anything, a school system which sees leakage and ignores it (many times these killers talk about it prior to doing it and it's just shrugged off - a student could draw a bomb and a school on a piece of paper hand it in and the teacher does nothing), and the school system which allowed it to happen by not caring about what motivated both criminalized acts (forcing the perp to basically believe only he or she could stop it), also society for instilling certain beliefs - eye for an eye, it is okay to mock someone if they are different from you, it is okay to get back at someone for doing you wrong (these are things that kids see from adults all around them and copy off of). To me it's like Frankenstein's monster, society created many of these kids.

Personally, if bullies were criminally charged for their offenses just like adults are - I see a whole bunch of reduced suicide and murder rates among the youth because that is the usual shove. Also, it should count as a form of murder or attempted murder and be charged as such if one pushes a kid to commit or attempt to commit suicide. This may sound harsh, but a HUGE part of the problem is that they get off scott-free most of the time with just a slap on the wrist while the other kid kills himself or brings a gun to school. To me, there's something obviously wrong with that equation which can easily be fixed.

Please sir, what you originally said was: "Willing to bet she wasn't all that innocent in this."

Do you know this girl personally?

If not, I think this is a very strange thing to say. Without knowing any of the people involved, you are nevertheless convinced to know exactly who's responsible.

I'm sorry, but this is definitely victim blaming and victim ridiculing.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Which is odd considering its ultimatehero saying it.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Stats say that she was most likely, but this is one of the rare incidents in which that wasn't the case. But 8 times out of 10 it is. Most teenage and kid shootings/killings work a lot like a murder suicide and they usually do end in suicide without both sides of that equation ever being taken into account.