8 year old intentionally shoots/kills caregiver:No charges will be filed!?!?

Title pretty much sums it up. An eight year old boy intentionally (as concluded by police) shot and killed his elderly caregiver in the back of the head. At first, police believed it was an accident, however they later determined that the boy had done it intentionally right after playing the video game Grand theft auto. So I guess my question to you ATS, why would the police not charge him? Was it because of his age? Shouldnt they at least charge him with something, anything?
In my opinion, this is a tragic incident indeed, but should this boys age and the fact that he was subjected to a violent video game give him an excuse for doing this? I mean, there must be some kind of punishment right? Tell me I am being to hard on the lil guy, and I am crazy please! Oh wait, here is the official reason why:

However, authorities say they are unable to charge the boy with a crime because of a Louisiana law that protects children from criminal responsibility.

Excuse me?!? Does this mean children under the age of 18 are immune to criminal charges, and are free to kill at will in Louisiana? I may be overreacting but I have NEVER heard of this type of criminal immunity before!!!

www.theblaze.com...

I don't think the child should be charged criminally. He should get some heavy therapy and counseling though, and the parents should be charged with murder. Its time to start holding parents responsible for allowing children to get a hold of firearms. Its getting out of control. He shouldn't even have been able to play GTA, as its way too mature for someone at that age.

I totally agree the parents should be held accountable for putting the child in the position to be around a firearm without their supervision. And yes, perhaps some heavy counseling sessions would be a great idea as well! Nope, they just released him back to his family as though no big deal!?!

reply to post by thesmokingman


See it this way, when he grows older and realizes what he has done, he has to live with the knowing he did kill someone.

reply to post by thesmokingman

Excuse me?!? Does this mean children under the age of 18 are immune to criminal charges, and are free to kill at will in Louisiana? I may be overreacting but I have NEVER heard of this type of criminal immunity before!!!

Nope. I guess you just read the first line or two because you left this part out.

The state law states that “those who have not reached the age of 10 years are exempt from criminal responsibility.”

reply to post by Sharingan


Thanks for sharing, the link I posted is the only article I read, and what I read did not have that in it. Ok, so it looks like children under the age of 10 shall be allowed free reign to murder, rape and pillage at will.

This is absolutely terrible. This kid should be in therapy for a long time not that that will help the caregiver. Whoever let him get a hold of a firearm needs to be held responsible. Not charged with murder but negligent manslaughter and child endangerment.

well if the boy can not be charged why have the parents been charged? you know those people who are responsible for him. those parents who LET him play a game that was RATED MATURE 17+, without apparent parental guiding. not to mention that the parents let an 8 year old have access to a gun. while they were not there.

at the very LEAST the parents should be facing gun charges over a LOADED GUN being accessible to an 8 year old. and it would follow that they should ALSO be charged with something like manslaughter over the killing. due to the gun being accessible to the child, as well as letting him play violent games rated for someone over TWICE HIS AGE.

personally i feel the kid should be facing some charges as well, but since the law apparently does not allow for it, then he should be remanded into a proper mental care facility.

reply to post by thesmokingman


The link you posted is where I got the quote from.
I mean the entire article is about 5 lines and that quote is the last sentence

This is a very tough situation. On one hand, I don't think most would agree that an 8 year old should go to Jail or Juvee. On the other hand, taking no action is very irresponsible. This kid might have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality if a video game has that much influence on real life. I would agree with counselling/therapy, but in my opinion, that may not be enough. I don't know the answer but something should be done. This kid will likely kill again later in life, perhaps multiple times if something isn't done.

reply to post by generik

at the very LEAST the parents should be facing gun charges over a LOADED GUN being accessible to an 8 year old

Don't make assumptions.

The boy’s father told WAFB-TV that his son used the elderly woman’s .38-caliber pistol to commit the murder.

www.nydailynews.com...
Well that certainly complicates things. It seems the caregiver is the one who was irresponsible with the firearm.

Another source backing this claim;
www.freerepublic.com...

The Colt .38-caliber Detective Special revolver he used belonged to Smothers, who lived in the Country Breeze Mobile Home Park near Slaughter, but it's not clear where she kept it,

Everyone seems to think the parents were responsible for letting the kid play the game and have access to a firearm. I read nothing in the story that says this happened at the parent's home.

Has anyone stopped to consider that this may have happened at the elderly caregiver's home where the caregiver allowed the kid to play the game and the caregiver was the one with the improperly stored gun?

As far as we know, the parents would never let their child play such games and keep their guns stored properly. Until we have more information, people need to stop jumping to wild conclusions.

ETA: Looks like Tanda7 beat me to it.

First of all: how did this boy get the weapon?
This is the real problem that America tries to ignore...
btw: I dont think the boy realizes what he did. Damn he is 8! He should not be able to get a weapon!

I bet I could persuade a child to shoot someone!!!
Thats why this child was not found guilty.

HE'S A CHILD!!!

They need to look at what cause him to do it, luckily for the child, it seems they did.

reply to post by Sharingan

Police said the boy initially claimed he accidentally shot Smothers while playing with a firearm, but investigators later determined the act was intentional.

Some news reports have described Smothers as 90-years-old, while others have portrayed her as 87-years-old.

The 8-year-old boy was released to his family Thursday night. The Washington Post reports Smothers was a relative of the family.

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect that there are conflicting reports regarding Smothers’ age.

This is literally what I am reading. I did not click into any other pages.

It's a real life Damien Thorne but he wasn't quite old enough yet. That's the largest bunch of horse puckey I've ever heard.

Now I can almost hear the gangs getting lightbulbs over their heads to recruit 9 year olds for the nasty stuff. After all, they are above the law while under 10. WOW.

reply to post by FortAnthem


You make a great point. Unfortunately too many times it IS an unattended child finding a gun in the home, but as it appears, it was the caregivers, and, well, she will not be able to face charges. It does mean that she put the child in harms way in the first place. I still believe there should be some sort of sanctions at some level here. Just my opinion.

reply to post by thesmokingman


I agree, the kid should face some consequences besides being grounded by the parents and being forced to go to bed without ice cream.

This is the reason most states have a juvenile justice system which is more informal than the criminal justice system and takes the age of the child, the consequences of the crime and their family situation and such into consideration to come up with a suitable punishment that won't, in many cases, follow them into adulthood, after which time their record becomes sealed.

Just because he's too young to be charged criminally doesn't mean he should get off Scott-free. There needs to be some mechanism in the system to handle cases like this.

reply to post by FortAnthem

Just because he's too young to be charged criminally doesn't mean he should get off Scott-free.

I think at least SOME action will be taken,

Although the child dodged criminal charges, he still faces penalties under the juvenile system,

www.nydailynews.com...

reply to post by tanda7


As he should... As much as i love my kids, if he were mine, id never look at him the same way