AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #2

[Fairy1]

The ownership of the gun is irrelevant as well, as are the pasts of the victims. IMO, this child had a very close and loving relationship with his father, which was interrupted or interfered with by the new wife. It seems to me that new rules and new discplines were introduced after the marriage. I believe his bio mom played on these changes and incited this little boy to a level he may not have reached on his own. An 8 year old is not capable of articulating to his father what he was feeling - IMO. That allowed his feelings to escalate to what amounts to murder. I'm really not sure that he can possibly understand the consequences of his actions.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Az laws do not apply!

That absolutely makes no sense. If that were true and only the Feds law trumps then all states would change their laws to be just like theirs.

Again, in AZ long guns do not have to be registered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Arizona

 

[Shock]

Fairy1:
DAMN!

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
I think his father may have been too strick and rough with him.But I do not know this.

suzanne

 

[Shock]

Oceanblueeyes:
You are correct. But please believe me; should the issue of ownership of the murder weapon come into play (civil of criminal). The Romeros would lose!

 

[Fairy1]

Fairy1:
DAMN!

WTH does this mean???

 

[Shock]

It was a new purchase at some point in time.

 

[Shock]

Do local (or Federal) laws dictate parental resposibilty? Do we need a lawyer to tell us what is best for our children?

 

[Fairy1]

OBE - I don't believe we agree on what happened in this case. However, I am totally impressed with your standing by your position since day one. It's a complicated case to be sure, but you have remained unshaken. My hat is off to you! :blowkiss: I hear that the pros is offering a plea bargain, which will allow the case to be tried in juvenile court. Hope that is the case as I find it difficult to believe an 8-year-old child can be written off.

 

[Fairy1]

It was a new purchase at some point in time.

IIRC - the father's mother purchased the gun for HER son - NOT her grandson. The father went to his priest for guidance on whether to give the gun to his son or not.

 

[Shock]

Yes. An eight year old allowed to make decisions with a lethal weapon.

 

[Fairy1]

Yes. An eight year old allowed to make decisions with a lethal weapon.

In my experience, an 8-year-old isn't really equipped to make life and death decisions - on their own.

 

[colette]

If the belt or dog collar at the bottom of the stairs has any meaning that day, I doubt it. The dad was fully clothed and still had his coat on from what I understand. He didn't have his belt off to spank the kid if that's what you are getting at. (Plus wasn't it the step mom who gave the 5 swats?) In those pictures there are items all over the house, boots, socks clothes, ect. so I figure it's just more of the mess.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
Well,we do not know why the belt was there.Maybe we will find out.

suzanne

 

[Fairy1]

That house is a pig sty! I would be embarrased.....

 

[Trino]

I must not quite be "getting it," as to the deal offered to the boy's attorney. How long will the boy be in juvenile? Did I read 8 months? Then, what? Will the bio mother be given custody when she was not given custody in the divorce proceedings? Can she take the boy out of state? Who will monitor him if she does?

 

[MCDRAW]

I must not quite be "getting it," as to the deal offered to the boy's attorney. How long will the boy be in juvenile? Did I read 8 months? Then, what? Will the bio mother be given custody when she was not given custody in the divorce proceedings? Can she take the boy out of state? Who will monitor him if she does?

If they are offering him a deal for 8 months then there are things that went on that we know nothing about, IMO.

 

[Ms Suzanne]

Hi
I don't know if they are offering him a deal for 8 months.The newspaper article said this.
Quote
The court would be required to order efforts to restore the boy to competency, but if that couldn't be done within about eight months, the judge would be required by law to dismiss the criminal case and bar it from being refiled.

suzanne

 

[twinkiesmom]

Oceanblueeyes:
You are correct. But please believe me; should the issue of ownership of the murder weapon come into play (civil of criminal). The Romeros would lose!

It doesn't matter which Romero was the legal owner of the gun....allowing the boy unfettered access is negligent, and the Romero estate could be held civilly liable if the Roaman family decides to sue.

The gun laws of AZ don't matter....having an unsecured weapon in the home with a small child is a foreseeable hazard.

If they do sue, hope they get a change of venue to metropolitan Phoenix.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

OBE - I don't believe we agree on what happened in this case. However, I am totally impressed with your standing by your position since day one. It's a complicated case to be sure, but you have remained unshaken. My hat is off to you! :blowkiss: I hear that the pros is offering a plea bargain, which will allow the case to be tried in juvenile court. Hope that is the case as I find it difficult to believe an 8-year-old child can be written off.

Thank you, Fairy. :blowkiss:

I do think much of what you have said could have been the inciters concerning this case, so we may agree on some things more than you think.

I do think the biological mother's visit and the timing of these crimes does have a link.

Yes, I always thought the case would be tried in the juvenile justice system. The DA may have offered him juvey jail time along with mental health care treatment.

The only thing I don't quite understand is why the DA would want to dismiss the first count though if he intends to try both cases in the juvenile system. It is apparent in the DAs motion that he is very concerned about justice being given for the two victims who were heinously murdered. (According to him)

I did notice in Brewer's comment he seems to think the boy is guilty but he wants to make sure the DA has the evidence to prove that before he excepts the plea deal.

Ocean