You assumed that he shot his sister intentionally and declared so with sarcasm. You assumed the step father hadn't done anything merriting the reaction from the boy with sarcasm as well.
No; I was using sarcasm, but the message went completely over your head. My problem isn't that "I think the kid shot his sister on purpose and his father was an angel and that's the only option I'm willing to consider." My problem is that you people don't even consider it as a possibility at all. Seriously, give me a break; you already think you know exactly what happened in this case. So does the OP, as is obvious by his title trumpeting the "blowing away" of an "abuser", and so do other people who are willing to believe at the drop of a hat that because this idiot liked to yell at his wife and kids a lot, he was likely molesting them too.
You did not hold back and wait for any evidence. I simply posited to you some possible explanation for things you seem to think there is only one explanation for.
No; it's just precisely the opposite of what you're saying.
Where is your compassion for the boy and belief in his report of abuse? You don't need details his granny clearly is someone who still has a sense of propriety and is shielding the boy from bullying and other abuses by not disclosing full detail.
One person is dead; another is maimed for life. We know
those things happened. Until something else a little more solid comes up, my compassion will reside with them. The boy didn't get shot. I believe that many forms of acting out as a result of emotional abuse are excusable or at least understandable, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Maybe each man draws his own line on that accord. Murder is on the wrong side of the line I choose to draw, and so is the kind of depraved indifference that leads to young children getting accidentally
shot. If he, being 12 and "too young to understand" anything, was playing
with the gun and shot these people accidentally, that'd be different.
You don't seem to understand that this boy is a boy. You probably never held a gun or you'd realize its heavy for a boy to wield one and that would explain the shot in his sisters leg, as I previously mentioned the gun may have gone off as he lifted it. Secondly a boy of that age wouldn't be able to properly understand that he was killing the man. And probably didn't expect to kill him anyway. That is why laws treat children differently.
What does any of this change for the dead guy? Or the 5-year-old girl with a hole in her leg? We're talking about a 12-year-old, not a seven-year-old. When I was 12, I was pretty damned sure that guns can kill people and death is forever, and that's after
my mind was twisted by my particular abuse. I'm not willing to blithely assume that any 12 year old is stupider than I was at the same age. And speaking of evidence, how on earth do you go about saying he "probably didn't expect to kill him"? Based on what?
I did not see anything about his being charged with attempting to murder his mother.
The link is still there; read the article again.
And this is the most omportant part of this tragedy which doesn't seem top be sinking in with you;
The granmother reporting the abuse, thats good enough for me and most any child protective agency and they seem to have taken it seriously enough to come to her home to interview the kid as much as a year previous to this shooting.
They also never took the kid away from the family, or charged the parents with abuse after their investigation. Maybe they didn't find anything at all? Is that even possible?
I expect we'll learn that the caseworker decided the Granny had it in for the stepdad/daughter and was trying to gain custody instead of taking the kid seriously.
As I said, you and the other psychics here are perfectly free to Sylvia-Browne it up all day about what this guy was truly like or what was or was not covered up. Personally, I'm going to refrain from this bloodthirstiness. There is an argument to be made for believing kids when they come forward with stories of abuse; that goes without saying. But I think it reflects badly on us as a community to take that notion as such absolute gospel that after something terrible like this shooting happens, all it takes for us to completely disregard the suffering of the dead or nearly-dead is for the suspect to claim that at some point in his life he was abused. Suddenly that becomes the "real tragedy".
5-year-old girl with a hole in her leg? It was an accident. Whoops. *shrug* Maybe next time she'll know better than to get in the way when someone's trying to shoot her bigmouthed stepfather.
In this country, there's the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. If you want to presume this boy is innocent before you go calling him a murderer, you're supposed to make arguments like "maybe the gun accidentally went off (two times in a row)", or "maybe the boy didn't actually pull the trigger at all, but it was his mother (etc)". In my book, "the boy was abused and therefore justified in shooting these people" doesn't count as a presumption of innocence, it's an attempt to justify presumed guilt.