All third grades are not equal. There is more advanced curriculum for more advanced students and less advanced work for those less capable. We don't know where among the third grade group this boy fell.
AZ - Timothy Romans, 39, & Vincent Romero, 29, slain, St Johns, 5 Nov 2008 - #4
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
All third grades are not equal. There is more advanced curriculum for more advanced students and less advanced work for those less capable. We don't know where among the third grade group this boy fell.
Very true.
But I would venture to guess 99.9 % of 3rd graders know and understand pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger is not only wrong but would likely cause death.
There is absolutely no reason to believe THIS boy didn't know. Matter of fact...this kid was experienced and had MORE knowledge of guns & the consequences of pulling the trigger than the average 3rd grader.
It chills me to the bone how cold and methodical this boy was...........IMO
OrdinaryLife
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,675
- Reaction score
- 36
Please. Don't tell me we are now going to debate third grade classes. Advanced or not. How did we get here? Really??? Good grief.
imo
imo
:waitasec: I see no debate of 3 grade classes
OrdinaryLife
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,675
- Reaction score
- 36
Okay. So why was it brought then? I don't get the point. If I am missing something, then please enlighten me. TIA
imo
imo
This was my point, I thought I made it the first time I posted it.
I would venture to guess 99.9 % of 3rd graders know and understand pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger is not only wrong but would likely cause death.
There is absolutely no reason to believe THIS boy didn't know. Matter of fact...this kid was experienced and had MORE knowledge of guns & the consequences of pulling the trigger than the average 3rd grader.
It chills me to the bone how cold and methodical this boy was
OrdinaryLife
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 5,675
- Reaction score
- 36
A majority of 3rd graders would not know how to shoot a gun. That is in your opinion only. I am not aware as to how you came to that opinion nor what strong references you would have to back it up. Do you have a link? It would help me to understand where you are coming from.
There is absolutely nothing to show that this child was as experienced as you have shared. If there is, please share that he did. TIA
As far as you sharing your opinion earlier in a post concerning this, I guess I missed it. Life happens....
imo
There is absolutely nothing to show that this child was as experienced as you have shared. If there is, please share that he did. TIA
As far as you sharing your opinion earlier in a post concerning this, I guess I missed it. Life happens....
imo
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Hey, OL. Perhaps I am not following this particular line of debate closely enough, but I think it is common knowledge in this case that this boy knew a lot about shooting and had been doing it since he was 5. He had shot and killed prairie dogs, went shooting regularly with his father, had his own gun. So guns were a part of his life and he knew how to handle them.
I certainly can't speak for "most" 3rd graders, but I believe that many children who grow up in more rural communities are pretty savvy about guns by grade 3.
SoobsinMI
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 1
Thank you, yes, that was my point. That, and the incorrect "facts" in the "confessions" and the plea agreement (showing that not ALL people who plea, are actually guilty. Other factors come into play.)
This is from Minnesota. The age to learn to shoot is GRADE 3, preferably GRADE 4. I don't know that a MAJORITY of 3rd grade Minnesotans would fit your statement.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/novdec00/guns.html
I taught third grade for six years. No matter how well a child acquires information, that does not mean they understand information on the same level as an adult. Repeating imformation is not understanding information. Children can be told about dangers, but that does not mean they comprehend the factual consquences of those dangers. Heck, many kids this age still believe in Santa Claus. Being intellectually gifted does not mean a child has a matching emotional IQ. Children of all intellects are implusive and reactionary. That is part of what makes them children and why adults must be ever diligent to watch over them and protect them not only from external dangers, but from harming themselves.
Fairy1
If I can't make a court appearance, my CASA supervisor attends for me. Every case I have ever known, the child was the victim and not the accused. I don't know if that makes a difference for this case since it is criminal court and the child is the assused. He, nonetheless, has rights and unique needs based on his age.
My point was...8...alomst 9 year olds...ALL of them know a gun can kill and pointing one at another human being and pulling the trigger is WRONG and would likely result in DEATH. Actual knowledge of loading and handling the gun is not necessary.
If they didn't there would be MOUNTAINS of dead bodies.
There's much to back up what I said about this boy being experienced. There are links all over the board to back it up and they've been posted many times. If you can access the reports ...witness statements say the kid could hit a prairie dog from 40 YARDS away!
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
I will jump in and say I am surprised this boy's GAL was not involved in this decision. I know that happens - I have a few friends that are GALs - but it does surprise me. It does not shock me into thinking something nefarious was afoot and that the GAL was pushed to the side so they could get a harmful plea passed.
Why wasn't the GAL at the hearing? Everyone else including me knew when it was..................
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
Good point - I don't know.
southcitymom
Well-Known Member
fran
Former Member
Contrary to case observers claims, the fact is, this is a now 9 yo child who had a right to a competency hearing, but the adults in charge of the courts, found a way to side-step the competency hearing and allowed or persuaded, or whatever you want to call it, this child to sign documents that will follow him through his entire life.
TWO EXPERT psychologists, from both sides of the aisle, have stated the boy is incompetent to stand trial.
What to do?
JMHO
fran
Criminal Justice Magazine
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/12-3gris.html
An essential part of meaningful decision making is the ability to foresee the consequences of a decision. Defendants must be able to imagine hypothetical situations, envisioning conditions that do not now exist and that they have never experienced, but which may result based on the choices they make. They must then evaluate these potential outcomes, comparing them with what they know or imagine to be more or less desirable or painful in life.
Several studies have found that pre-adolescents are significantly less capable of imagining risky consequences of decisions and are more likely to consider a constricted number and range of consequences. One recent study (with non-delinquent youths) found that pre-adolescents were less likely than older adolescents to think "strategically" about pleading decisions. (Michele Peterson-Badali & Rona Abramovitch, Grade Related Changes in Youth People's Reasoning about Plea Bargains, 17 L. & Hum. Behav. 537 (1993).) Youths begin to develop the ability to think in terms of hypothetical conditions some time in early adolescence, but it takes several more years for them to achieve their adult potential to do this, especially to use this ability in unusual and emotionally charged circumstances, such as their own legal proceedings. The time line for this process varies from one adolescent to another.
In general, child developmental researchers are beginning to identify ways in which adolescents differ from adults in making decisions. (For reviews, see Elizabeth Scott, Judgment and Reasoning in Adolescent Decision Making, 37 Vill. L. Rev. 1607 (1992); Elizabeth Scott et al., Evaluating Adolescent Decision Making in Legal Contexts, 19 L. & Hum. Behav. 221 (1995); Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Cauffman, Maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Psychosocial Factors in Adolescent Decision Making, 20 L. & Hum. Behav. 249 (1996).) For example, until late adolescence, youths more often minimize perceived risks. (Laurence Cohn et al., Risk-Perception: Differences Between Adolescents and Adults, 14 Health Psychology 217 (1995).) Time perspective continues to develop through adolescence, such that younger adolescents are less likely to focus on longer-range consequences. (Elizabeth Cauffman & Laurence Steinberg, Age Differences in Decision-Making Are Due to Differences in Maturity of Judgment (manuscript in review, 1997).) Moreover, their decisions may be related to certain values, such as the importance of peer approval, which may result in choices they would not make when their values and sense of personal identity have matured.
One might expect such differences to be reflected in youths' judgments about the value of accepting plea bargains and of waiving important rights in the legal process. For example, in the Miranda study of more than 400 detained youths described earlier, juveniles were asked to imagine the consequences of waiving or asserting rights to silence when questioned by police. The consequence mentioned most frequently, especially by younger adolescents, was the immediate response of the police ("They might send me home tonight if I say I did it"), rather than the impact of the decision on later events in court. (Thomas Grisso, Juveniles' Waiver of Rights (1981).)
Much more scientific evidence is needed, however, before we know whether and how youths' immature judgment influences their decisions in their criminal and juvenile court trials, and some child development researchers are examining those questions. If they find that younger adolescents are greatly at risk of making decisions at trial that they might not make if they were adults, this will be of considerable importance in a time of juvenile justice reform that increases the likelihood that youths will suffer the consequences of their immature decisions well into their adult years.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG ARTICLE AT LINK>>>>>>>>>>>
TWO EXPERT psychologists, from both sides of the aisle, have stated the boy is incompetent to stand trial.
What to do?
JMHO
fran
Criminal Justice Magazine
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/12-3gris.html
An essential part of meaningful decision making is the ability to foresee the consequences of a decision. Defendants must be able to imagine hypothetical situations, envisioning conditions that do not now exist and that they have never experienced, but which may result based on the choices they make. They must then evaluate these potential outcomes, comparing them with what they know or imagine to be more or less desirable or painful in life.
Several studies have found that pre-adolescents are significantly less capable of imagining risky consequences of decisions and are more likely to consider a constricted number and range of consequences. One recent study (with non-delinquent youths) found that pre-adolescents were less likely than older adolescents to think "strategically" about pleading decisions. (Michele Peterson-Badali & Rona Abramovitch, Grade Related Changes in Youth People's Reasoning about Plea Bargains, 17 L. & Hum. Behav. 537 (1993).) Youths begin to develop the ability to think in terms of hypothetical conditions some time in early adolescence, but it takes several more years for them to achieve their adult potential to do this, especially to use this ability in unusual and emotionally charged circumstances, such as their own legal proceedings. The time line for this process varies from one adolescent to another.
In general, child developmental researchers are beginning to identify ways in which adolescents differ from adults in making decisions. (For reviews, see Elizabeth Scott, Judgment and Reasoning in Adolescent Decision Making, 37 Vill. L. Rev. 1607 (1992); Elizabeth Scott et al., Evaluating Adolescent Decision Making in Legal Contexts, 19 L. & Hum. Behav. 221 (1995); Laurence Steinberg & Elizabeth Cauffman, Maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Psychosocial Factors in Adolescent Decision Making, 20 L. & Hum. Behav. 249 (1996).) For example, until late adolescence, youths more often minimize perceived risks. (Laurence Cohn et al., Risk-Perception: Differences Between Adolescents and Adults, 14 Health Psychology 217 (1995).) Time perspective continues to develop through adolescence, such that younger adolescents are less likely to focus on longer-range consequences. (Elizabeth Cauffman & Laurence Steinberg, Age Differences in Decision-Making Are Due to Differences in Maturity of Judgment (manuscript in review, 1997).) Moreover, their decisions may be related to certain values, such as the importance of peer approval, which may result in choices they would not make when their values and sense of personal identity have matured.
One might expect such differences to be reflected in youths' judgments about the value of accepting plea bargains and of waiving important rights in the legal process. For example, in the Miranda study of more than 400 detained youths described earlier, juveniles were asked to imagine the consequences of waiving or asserting rights to silence when questioned by police. The consequence mentioned most frequently, especially by younger adolescents, was the immediate response of the police ("They might send me home tonight if I say I did it"), rather than the impact of the decision on later events in court. (Thomas Grisso, Juveniles' Waiver of Rights (1981).)
Much more scientific evidence is needed, however, before we know whether and how youths' immature judgment influences their decisions in their criminal and juvenile court trials, and some child development researchers are examining those questions. If they find that younger adolescents are greatly at risk of making decisions at trial that they might not make if they were adults, this will be of considerable importance in a time of juvenile justice reform that increases the likelihood that youths will suffer the consequences of their immature decisions well into their adult years.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGG ARTICLE AT LINK>>>>>>>>>>>
Well this is certainly true. And here we have people worrying about the effects of video games! Jeez.
I'd like a link to the prosecution's expert deemed the boy incompetent.
So far, I've only heard it from the GAL...that didn't even bother to show up for the hearing.
Sorry, but I don't consider the GAL a reputable source. Had he any objections, his butt should have been at court that day, not running his mouth to the media.
So far, I've only heard it from the GAL...that didn't even bother to show up for the hearing.
Sorry, but I don't consider the GAL a reputable source. Had he any objections, his butt should have been at court that day, not running his mouth to the media.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 55
- Guests online
- 3,931
- Total visitors
- 3,986