The other thread will be closed and this one will be used instead, is that correct??
MsFacetious said:This is a good case to look at... Eric is still incarcerated and he is 33 years old. He killed at 13 years old.
Obviously this varies from state to state... but Eric got 9 years to LIFE.
It's odd to think that in California he could only be in until age 25.
In California they are still of the mind that a 12 or 13 year old is not really an adult. 18 is an adult. If 13 were an adult, they could be drafted, drive a car and not be required to go to school.
I have to admit, I don't understand why a 13 year old is not considered brain developed enough to drive a car, but is considered brain developed enough to be tried as an adult.
ETA: California's line is 14 years old for being tried as an adult for serious crimes.
Interesting article, if anyone is interested:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/09/23/brain-wiring-continues-into-young-adulthood/29719.html
From the article:scorekeeper said:http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...rder-plot?lite
10 years old????
What is going on with our young children today?
sorry if this has previously been posted.
Don't get me started on the statutory rape thing.The same question applies as to why you can charge a 15 year old girl for killing her baby...
Yet ALSO charge the 18 year old guy who impregnated her because she is underage?
If you can form the intent to KILL... certainly you can content to SEX? :waitasec:
A lot of our laws are contradictory and confusing.
This case will certainly bring them out.
I think it should be largely a case by case basis.
If a 13 year old babysitter shakes a baby in frustration (this has happened in my own family)...
That is much different than torturing a toddler to death.
Some kids who kill at 13, I'd have no problem with them being released at 25.
Others... even their own parents don't want them out at 25. Scary.
I'm not sure yet which kind of kid we are dealing with in this case... if he's guilty at all.
IF is 12 right? Did he just have his birthday or why is he now said to be 13?
I want to come back to the question of the boat for a second, because I was the one who brought it up.
I live in India. Someone who has the means to buy a boat is considered very well off. Not filthy rich, but certainly very well off. If that family experienced a tragedy it would be expected by the community that they sell their boat to get through the hardship, certainly donations would not be collected and offered, charity is reserved for poor and underprivileged people. I assumed it is similar in the US. Apparently I was wrong and in the US owning a boat is not considered a sign of being well off.
And as others have said, BF's work has to do with boats, so maybe it isn't even theirs.
However if the boat does belong to the family I would have expected them to sell it and other possible valuables (such as multiple cars, for example), and dig into savings to pay for the funeral, period of no or less income, and whatever legal costs they face. I would find it morally wrong not to do that but instead take money from the community, including people who have less and are facing their own hardship, whether the boy is the culprit or not. That's just how I feel. moo
IF is 12 right? Did he just have his birthday or why is he now said to be 13?
I want to come back to the question of the boat for a second, because I was the one who brought it up.
I live in India. Someone who has the means to buy a boat is considered very well off. Not filthy rich, but certainly very well off. If that family experienced a tragedy it would be expected by the community that they sell their boat to get through the hardship, certainly donations would not be collected and offered, charity is reserved for poor and underprivileged people. I assumed it is similar in the US. Apparently I was wrong and in the US owning a boat is not considered a sign of being well off.
And as others have said, BF's work has to do with boats, so maybe it isn't even theirs.
However if the boat does belong to the family I would have expected them to sell it and other possible valuables (such as multiple cars, for example), and dig into savings to pay for the funeral, period of no or less income, and whatever legal costs they face. I would find it morally wrong not to do that but instead take money from the community, including people who have less and are facing their own hardship, whether the boy is the culprit or not. That's just how I feel. moo
The family is nowhere near well-off. I would say that they probably live paycheck-to-paycheck. They are a family with eight children living in a three-bedroom home that they rent in one of the most expensive states in the country.
If I am seeing the correct boat on Google Maps, it honestly doesn't even look like it has a motor. It looks like a rowboat, which you definitely don't have to be well-off to own.
The other thread will be closed and this one will be used instead, is that correct??
A thought...
The, by many, observed "blank" demeanor of 12-year old IF, IMO could have been caused by medication.
Wheter the boy commited the murder or not, he was probably given tranquilizers, starting right after the murder, to calm him down/pacify him, either because he was seriously traumatized or/and because he was considered possibly dangerous if he indeed was the killer (until they had enough evidence to arrest him)
I agree!However if the boat does belong to the family I would have expected them to sell it and other possible valuables (such as multiple cars, for example), and dig into savings to pay for the funeral, period of no or less income, and whatever legal costs they face. I would find it morally wrong not to do that but instead take money from the community, including people who have less and are facing their own hardship, whether the boy is the culprit or not. That's just how I feel. moo
Usually in my area when a child passes one of our long time funeral homes donates the service and the headstone. It's always nicely done. Our family has been long time friends with this family and the owner is good people that don't mind giving back to the community. I imagine that any service and headstone would be donated for Leila, too.btw funeral homes do have monthly payment plans.
Read above about my thoughts of the funeral and headstone.Nothing in this article suggests he was well-off in any sense of the word. They can make money for their defense like Casey Anthony and sell pictures. Even an interview with ABC, CBS, NBC or cable news can bring a significant amount of money. I would think the donated money did go to her funeral as they are not cheap and I bet they got a really nice headstone to memorialize her. I would have.
Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2
eileenhawkeye, you might be spot on with your impression, according to this article (bolded parts by me):
Fowler family's troubles detailed in court papers
Although the adults in the Fowler family have said little publicly, court records show it was a household that struggled financially and combined five children born to at least three different mothers.
<modsnip>
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130517/A_NEWS/305170322
The family is nowhere near well-off. I would say that they probably live paycheck-to-paycheck. They are a family with eight children living in a three-bedroom home that they rent in one of the most expensive states in the country.
If I am seeing the correct boat on Google Maps, it honestly doesn't even look like it has a motor. It looks like a rowboat, which you definitely don't have to be well-off to own.