Where does a 10 year old get acid?
Printable View
Where does a 10 year old get acid?
"apparently came from a parent."
"Summers’ family said the 12-year-old girl’s mother handed her a bottle filled with liquid."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.act...outputType=amp
In case anyone's wondering what they're talking about.
New low or just another low on the spectrum of lows across the board of lowness.
Will the parents in this case be prosecuted? Giving a weapon to a minor is subject to that kind of action by the court if we deduce from the Crumley parents case.
Acid an inanimate object? Is there any reason to implicate the parents in providing this or any other means of causing harm?
Subject to debate.
If a firearm is deemed an inalienable right, and no more offensive than a car or phone, then any potentially aggravating substance or object can be dismissed as a weapon since it does not point to its original intent in manufacture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
You are confused between a constitutional right and an inalienable right described as such.
- Inalienable rights supersede governmental laws and cultural norms. These natural rights include the right to think for oneself, the right to life, and the right to self-defense, and they remain through every human’s lifetime. Legal rights, on the other hand, are those created, acknowledged, and protected by a government.
- Your ability to own a firearm can be revoked so it would not be considered an inalienable right.
Remember this is America where we still have rights.
- Other countries for a long time have had problems with people putting acid in squirt guns and randomly attacking people.
- They do not list what was used,first it was a liquid then it was acid.
- Do women carry acid around in their purse for self protection or was it some other product that has acid in it ?
I would not consider its new low,more so the new normal and children are expected and subjected to adult things so much anymore,where do you draw the line on what is really offensive or should not happen in front of children?
They are not children any more,just people that identify as little short underdeveloped citizens.
So what we used to find appalling is just normal behavior.
It was 10-12 yo that were throwing fire bombs in the recent riots in France.
3 yo is the new 20 yo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard
Can’t find fault with my interpretation when all I get from you is a constant argument about it being a fundamental right according to your constitution.
The Crumley parents gifted the gun to their mentally instable son, and yet the weapon was deemed an inanimate object despite its intended use in manufacture. The school staff was deemed responsible by you for not controlling the situation, not the parents. Anything to protect and enhance the rights of gun users, providers and abetters.
I wonder what you think of when faced with the parent facilitator in a case like the acid girl. What, beyond the platitudes about the "new" age of consent/maturity in your view constitutes criminal behaviour on the parent’s part?
You are twisting everything around in order to fit your rebuttal.Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
Because you do not understand our constitution AND the fundamental rights provided under it you are trying to place that defect on me.
We do not have a constitutional right to have freedom of thought,we have a fundamental right to freedom of thought,it’s a sub section under the constitution that is the bases of all rights.
Your playing word Semantics does not change anything.
Crumleys were not professionals that can determine that their child is mentally unstable and they broke no laws in the safe storage of the weapon,the courts will decide to what extent they are liable or responsible.
The school staff was listed as professionals,so yes they were in a better position to determine the state of mind of the child,it was their job,that’s what they get paid for.
The school policy of failure to report to the police,if they had the police could have seized the weapon and it would have never happened.
The parents did not physically hand that gun to their kid and tell him to go shoot up a school.
In this case the parent physically handed the liquid whatever it was directly to the child with the sole intent to do harm to another child in that exact moment in time.
If you cannot understand that then why even bring everything else into the discussion?
My interpretation and your interpretation does not mean a thing,so need need to be stamping your feet when you are bringing up guns when they or their use had zero to do with anything.
I clarified your lack of knowledge of or understanding what a fundamental right is.
The two cases have zero similarities but you are trying to loop them together for what ever reason?
What my interpretation is in this case is what any other rational adult that was not agenda driven would surmise.
The parent was there,the parent handed their child the tool used to inflict harm to another in the heat of the moment to specifically do that. The intention was to commit harm against another person,of course she would be or should be liable.
Based solely on the information provided.
Can you prove that the crumleys purchased that gun with the sole intent on giving it to their son so he could shoot up a school?
In U.S. law INTENT is the base of every charge levied,suggested penalties are based on that INTENT and the amount of punishment is adjudged accordingly.
Prosecutors have to prove intent according to established law and not what they feel happened or be able to create new laws in order create a new crime.
You are trying to interlope two cases that have zero to do with each other,so purposely injecting an agenda into a discussion that had zero relevance.
But you knew that. You should stick to low level jabs like calling out spelling errors or punctuation or sentence structures,because responses like that do not actually require any thought.
Not for nothing,if you are going to oppose something,you should at the very least learn how it was established and why it exists,otherwise you are taking a half baked approach.
In United States v. Cruikshank [[1876), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution and in that case and in Presser v. Illinois [[1886) recognized that the Second Amendment protected the right from being infringed by Congress.
Another DYes thread ending up in the mud... :eek:
Right. The takeaway is that 3 year olds are the new twenty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Depends how narrow minded one is.Quote:
Originally Posted by canuck
When you force children to make adult decisions when they do not have the mental capability to process it,it creates a pattern of not recognizing the difference between right or wrong or where and when to set boundaries.
This 12 year old did an act that everybody is shocked about,that 12 year old made a decision to create harm against somebody else,everybody is shocked because if it was a 20 yo that did it it would be looked at in a totally different light.
It would have never made national news.
The amount of crimes and the severity of them with children under the age of 12 has skyrocketed,but keep doing the same thing and keep the same mindset because it is working so well.
You and Mr Lego man are like mischievous school children that like to start stuff then step aside and yell - teacher look at what they are doing.
I do have to give you credit because at least you were able to squeeze something actually related to the topic in between the agenda,so that is progress,something that the other one who could only contribute a stolen meme that was not even related to the subject.
This is truly a chemical attack! And it should be a federal charges against the mother and child who had the acid.
Her ass needs to be prosecuted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimaz
What chance does her kids have? The cycle continues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid
and do serious jail time. No slap on the wrist BS for this oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid
So now kids need to start carrying baking soda in their bulletproof backpacks?
How far do we need to continue going down this same road before we recognize we've been following the wrong road all along?
We need to find the way that kids don't need to defend themselves in schools and playgrounds. It's not that difficult. It was that way once before.
And encouraged her to use it. Her mother knew no other way to handle the bullying? Failure on the part of parenting, and failure on the part of the school system that allowed the bullying to continue unchecked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid
I don't know what schools can do about bullying when parents won't even try to help. Teachers can't discipline kids with detention, extra homework, yelling at them or anything else without the parents throwing a fit and suing the schools and getting the teachers fired. Their hands are tied. Administration is afraid of being sued by parents, so they do nothing and the parents are blind to their children's faults or they approve of what their own kids do to other kids because they are doing the same things to other adults.
Involve the police and then you have the parents complaining that their little angels are being targeted. Arrest the parents and take their kids away. I don't see any solution until parents start acting like REAL parents, not baby mommies and daddies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcole
All excellent points. I have no solutions to offer. I feel bad for parents and kids who are actually trying to do something with their kids, education, and future. It's a terrible environment to be stuck in.
Actually, that would be all the parents that I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
My husband taught school for over thirty years back in the days when things were good. Around 1990 it got to the point where it was nearly impossible to discipline kids or get them to do anything you asked them to. He went from loving his job to retiring in 1995 and going to work in a grocery store because he could not take it anymore. I had a friend who was a teacher who called a junior high kid into his classroom after school for a disciplinary talk and the kid took a swing at him with a baseball bat. He ducked it and grabbed the kid and threw him out of the classroom. Parents turned around and called the principal and threated to sue. So the teacher threatened to sue for assault and that got their attention. This was 25 yrs ago in a small town. I too know a lot of good parents but go talk to some teachers, or former teachers, who just can't take it any more. They will tell you stories that would curl your hair. hell, I work in a library and we have to call the cops about once a month on some kid. And most of the parents won't believe little Johnnie or Sue did anything wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by softailrider
The only way to stop a bad child with acid is a good child with acid.