<p><a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Boy%20With%20Gun[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Boy%20With%20Gun</a></p>
<p>JUdge says- he is making an example of a boy arrested on a firearms charge- who shot a gun into the air on a street corner.
the article says the boy has no prior arrests.</p>
<p>That judge is crazy. The kid’s 12 years old, with no prior offenses. Give him a break!</p>
<p>The bigger question is how did a 12- year old boy get his hands on a gun in the first place?</p>
<p>Recently in NYC: </p>
<p>A 12 year old girl was shot to death her 10 year old cousin at the cousin’s house by a gun that discharged.</p>
<p>A 10 year old was hot in the head (survived) by the 12 year old neighbor.</p>
<p>The purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant shows up to trial. The judge must think he’s a flight risk.</p>
<p>See tenisghs’s thread on this topic in this forum for my response to this.</p>
<p>By setting the bail 50 times as high, he has basically made the system unjust because the bail is unequal to other offenders’ bails.</p>
<p>Legally, judges cannot make bail more than the maximum penalty the defendant could suffer or it’s considered an abuse of discretion (but has to be appealed). Hopefully his attorneys will argue on his behalf for bail reduction & it will bear a closer resemblance to his maximum sentence. It is sad that he got his hands on a firearm, since it should not have been accessible.</p>
<p>Actually, though that sounds outrageous - here in California there is no right to bail whatsoever in juvenile offenses. A probation officer makes a decision early on whether or not the kid can be released to his parents – otherwise, its common for kids to be held in custody, either in juvenile hall or with a group home placement, until the case has been adjudicated. A kid with a gun probably would tend to be held in custody, at least until a preliminary determination was made as to where the gun came from.</p>
<p>I doubt if the kid would be immediately released to the parents…where were they and if they were culpable in some way there will need to be evaluations etc. Also…they may be keeping kid there with parent’s agreement such that nothing else goes awry prior to appearance.</p>
<p>The DAs office asked for $5,000 bail.
The boy is developmentally disabled and there so far hasn’t been any indication that this is anything other than a judge who has reached his limit after 23 years on the bench.</p>
<p>Old geezer with power…not a good combo.</p>
<p>I think this may reflect on the family more than the kid. People with children shouldn’t have accessible handguns or rifles, I hope they get charged for some crime. Reckless endangerment comes to mind.</p>
<p>My gut tells, me and I could be wrong is that is a possiblity of one of these scenarios:</p>
<p>The boy was dared, and being developmentaly disabled, he might not have realized the consequences. Some other kids may have wanted to mess with him, get the gun, the kid was trying to make friends by showing off that kind of thing</p>
<p>Or, the kid was being teased and bullied for being different and want to look tough or maybe thought of using the gun, maybe understanding the consequences, maybe not</p>
<p>Or he was just a bad kid</p>
<p>The judge, well, there was this adult man in another state who brought a pipe bomb to an airport, and was released to his parents. He was 24. He also liked setting the bombs off for “fun”.</p>
<p>When the term developmentally disabled is used I never am quite sure if they mean double digit IQ or mental illness/personality disorder. I find this term to have become a catch all for kids who have had poor parenting or other circumstances…fetal alcohol. Anyway if your opined curcumstances are indeed the facts…are you saying the kids was parented poorly or not diagnosed/treated which I also consider parented poorly. Just curious. Having a gun accessible to a child of these circumstances seems negligent to me.</p>
<p>He might not have gotten the gun from his parents. It could have belonged to a neighbor kid or something. He was just the one who shot it.</p>
<p><em>Whoever</em> he got it from is the one who should be in trouble, though. Here in Texas, we have a law that’s something like “allowing minors access to firearms”. Sadly, it’s seldom prosecuted, because it seems that often the kid who got access to the firearm ends up dead or one of his siblings does, so I guess the DA decides the family has suffered enough.</p>
<p>Well we know that the firearm manufacturer is not at fault and will not be sued. As to the source: one can be sure he didn’t find it in a trash can on the street.These child victims have usually seen the firearm before, now how to gain access to it and are successful.</p>
<p>whoseever “fault” it is- is besides the point.
I agree that parents need to be held more accountable- that guns need to be more difficult to obtain and that children as well as adults need to learn consequences of their actions.
However- this is a 12 yr old boy- who perhaps has a great deal of maturing to do- if possible- regarding understanding consequnces of his actions, and the judge by setting the bail way above what the prosecutors office reccommended has virtually guarenteed that he will remain in jail until released by the court.
If he truly is devlopmentally disabled he may not have much control over his impulses, particulary when goaded to do something by peers.
A friends daughter has an IEP and part of her IEP which is a legal document dealing with schooling is that her behavior may be much different than other students but they can not send her home for that. She has made threats to other students, and has made sexual comments that may be viewed as harrasment, but she really doesn’t have the thought processes that other students her age do. Yes the parents and adults responsible , need to be held accountable and must be much more involved than with other kids. However- when a situation like this occurs,it seems like you are punishing the child because his parents didn’t adaquately supervise him.</p>