2 Ind. boys accused of killing stepdad to run away

[cory777]

Source: AP

WARSAW, Ind. (AP) - Two young friends from a quiet, middle-class neighborhood in northern Indiana wanted to run away to Arizona so badly, prosecutors say, that they gunned down a stepfather who stood in the way of their plans.

The two alleged triggerman - ages 15 and 12 - hadn't shown any signs of violence before the older boy's 49-year-old stepfather, Phillip Danner, was shot to death in his home last week, according to neighbors and family members who testified at a hearing Thursday in which a judge ruled the boys would be tried for murder as adults.

But sheriff's Detective Jonathan Tyler testified that the boys and two of their friends, who didn't take part in the actual slaying, plotted for at least a month to kill Danner, so they could run off to Arizona.

On the day of the slaying, the boys met at a park before going to the older boy's home near Lake Wawasee, between Fort Wayne and South Bend, where he had gathered two of Danner's handguns, Tyler said. The two defendants waited in the living room until Danner appeared in a kitchen doorway, Tyler said, then shot him four times - once in the eye, once in the wrist, and twice in the chest.

Read more: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100430/D9FD8BD80.html

[No Elephants]

1. Is every minor who murders going to be tried as an adult? If so, why don't laws just say that?

I thought the idea of trying some as minors was the lack of development in the brain regarding both what you were doing and the consequences of what you were doing. If the brains of 12 year olds are sufficiently developed, let's just change the age of criminal responsiblity for murder. As it is, laws are leaving too much discretion in the hands of a single prosecutor and a single judge, neither of whom is, in reality, all that responsible to voters.

Please understand: I don't have a position on this case. I just think there should be more congruence between what our laws say and what goes on around our laws in real life. If you have a beef about a bad law, you know what to do. If you have a beef about a judge trying your 12 year old or your neighbor's 12 year old as an adult, too bad. the only thing you can do is try to get the law changed for the benefit of some other kid.

[UpInArms]

2. well, as I understand it, only Henry Hyde and George W Bush can have

youthful indescretions at 40 years of age. All others are adults at birth.

[Swagman]

6. yeh well Bush still isn't an adult

[meow2u3]

8. Bush had to have lied about his age to have gotten elected 10 years ago

Yeah, his parents also had his appearance altered to make him look middle-aged :evilgrin:

[TheMadMonk]

3. It's the considerable degree of premeditation that makes the difference.

Any kid can fly into a rage and kill someone. However, it's a rare kid that plans a murder over an extended period and carries through with it.

[harmonicon]

7. that argument doesn't hold much water for me

Just from the few sentences I've read about this, it's very clear that the reasoning is far from being that of someone with a fully functioning adult brain. I'm with the person who said that laws have to be changed about this. Personally, I think if people are to be treated as adults by the law in some cases, they should be treated as adults in all cases, not having it judged whether or not they're adult after the fact. This would be like a bar decided who is and isn't of drinking age after they're drunk; the armed forces deciding who is old enough to serve after they've done a tour of duty; etc.

[sendero]

10. Frankly..

... I don't know many 15 year olds that don't understand the concept of murder.

Frankly, I think it used to be easy to have rules about at what age you are considered responsible for your actions because 15 years olds didn't used to do this kind of shit very often. Now it is an every week occurrence.

The idea that these kids should go to juvy until they are 18 is ludicrous. They may not be adults, but there is something SERIOUSLY WRONG with them, and they need to be locked up for longer than a few years.

[harmonicon]

13. being tried as a juvenile doesn't mean they'd be out by 18 no matter what

That's just not how it works. Understanding what murder is and seriously understanding the consequences are different things. This case seems like an example. Yes, a 15 year old knows that if they kill a person that person will be dead, however, they also somehow in their mind think that will help them run away to Arizona. That is not the work of someone who can fully reason through their decisions. Whether or not that's because this person is a child and also has serious problems, or just because they're crazy, I don't know. I do know that in no way whatsoever is the brain of that child fully developed. An 18 year old may also not be fully mature (hell, I was still growing during my first year of college), but our society has decided that at that age they will be treated as an adult. Doing so is meaningless if someone can be judged to be an adult at any time. Also, don't forget that this wasn't just a 15 year old - the other kid was 12. Trying a 12 year old as an adult?! That's only 2/3 of the way to legally being an adult. If the government will do that they better also start giving social security cheques to 43 year olds, because they're 2/3 of the way there anyway. For fuck's sake, if these kids were victims of crimes instead of perpetrators would you have the same attitude, or would you see them as defenseless children?

[TheMadMonk]

15. People, including children, are as adult as they need to be.

We often see human interest stories of children who have become primary carer for an invalid parent.

Conversely, they will remain children for as long as we and their neural development (or ossification if you look at it from another direction) allow them to be.

Responsibility is learned behaviour. How we behave when drunk is learned.

That's the whole point of a brain that is as maleable as ours are up until age twenty five. To learn. To learn behaviour that gives us the greatest benefit and enhances our long term survival.

To use it to excuse (or otherwise lessen culpability for) morally reprehensible behaviour is in my not so humble opinion wrong. Leniency simply gives the message that x is successful, but with caveats. ie. try harder next time.

What if the crime had been the violent rape of a younger child? How many who could forgive a capacity for casual muder, bay for blood when the crime is sexual in nature?


What is it about a society so fucked up, that it trivialises death to the point where kids think it's a good way to remove obstacles between them and a childish goal often enough that it's just another dinner time talking point? And that there is more horror expressed at the proposal they be tried as adults, than there is at the crime they committed?


I might also point out, that "tried as adult" does not automatically equate to being sentenced as an adult. Tried as an adult for the most part, means that the rules of adult trial procedure are used.

[harmonicon]

16. your comments get to the heart of the matter here though

These children were not responsible for their own up-bringing - they had care givers. Parents have a responsibility to teach children these things, and it seems like there was a massive failure there. I just don't think it's appropriate to punish children because their parents have failed them.

"What is it about a society so fucked up, that it trivialises death to the point where kids think it's a good way to remove obstacles between them and a childish goal often enough that it's just another dinner time talking point?" I don't know, but I don't think the children are the ones to blame for that.

And while murder is horrific, we know that it happens. Many people like myself express horror at what we see as a betrayal of our society (the trial of children as adults) because we think we ought to have a hand in it - that it shouldn't happen. When it's "The People" vs. the accused, we, as the people, feel like we ought to have some say in what is being done in our name. These two boys accused of murder supposedly did that for themselves. When they're tried as adults, that's supposedly being done for me and in my name, and I don't want that to happen.

[TheMadMonk]

18. Adults may well be ultimately responsible for the failure to instill proper...

...impulse control in kids, but the sad thing is, that it's the kids that do the actions. If/when they cross the line, they must be held accountable and made to take responsibility for their actions. Anything else is a free pass to a repeat performance by them, or some other kid holding onto reality by a thread.

The boffins with their fMRI scan, "proving" that the kids are not really responsible for their actions because their brains are still developing are not doing those kids any service at all.

Unless they are held responsible for their actions, the only message they get from an apologetic system is "Not my fault." The same message they are getting from "the latest theory of mind" condensed into a thirty second soundbite on Faux, or even one of the semi-reputable channels.

"A child's mind is an empty vessel." (probably not word perfect) This is what the boffins' findings mean. That we can put in there anything we so choose, not that we should excuse bad behaviour because it isn't full yet, and that a sense of responsibility might fall in before it overflows. And meh, if it doesn't, NOW, we can feed them to the prison system.

Kids should get cracks across the backs of the legs (figurative or real) when caught in the act. Once upon a time the local plod, or simply responsible citizen, would kick your arse all the way home, and the whole time you'd beg them not to tell your dad. That was your warning/official caution. Today, what is it? "Touch me and my dad will sue you."


One of the worst cases I'm aware of is a kid who was only ten at the time, with a one hundred plus count record going back at least two years. Theft, burglary, criminal damage, joyriding, anything that sprung into his mind to do at the time. After he'd had his fun, he'd generally sit there and wait for the police to arrive and give him his ride home. "I'm not eleven yet. You can't do anything to me. And you can't leave me out here where it's dangerous. Gimme a ride home." Two hours later he'd be off in someone else's car.

And we are seeing more and more often kids being used to commit armed robbery because they are legally untouchable.


Society is sick. Society is breaking our kids, but unfortunately that doesn't mean we can overlook their behaviour or let it go unchallenged. That's at least half of what's gotten us to where we are today.

Actions must have consequences. Serious actions, should lead to equally serious consequnces.

[harmonicon]

19. should we do away with the idea of children then?

Yes, actions have consequences, but should they be the same for a child as for an adult? What if parents decided to throw their children into the street with the logic that "they are responsible for what they do"? I feel that if we're going to treat children as adults in one instance, we must treat them as adults in all instances. The problem of course is that that would have horrible consequences. This is why we have things like legal ages of consent. Should it be ok for an adult to have a sexual relationship with a nine year old if the child is ok with it? That seems to be where your argument takes us.

I don't think anyone would suggest that these kids shouldn't be rehabilitated, or if that should prove to be impossible, kept from harming others. However, treating them as adults only contributes to poisoning the society that you see as already cruelly damaged. If we don't accept that any child can grow up to be a functioning member of a healthy society, we have already given up, and at least one possibility for the betterment of our society is abandoned.

One can go on and on about "society", but society isn't some sort of all-powerful entity out of our control. It is made up of individuals including you and I. For my part, I would rather not have this society give up on children (and the idea of childhood), because I feel that only makes matters worse. Instead of mourning for or railing against "society", I'm happy to say "this is MY society, and I'm going to have a say in how it's run".

[harmonicon]

17. deleting double-post ... arrgh, stupid crappy connection (nt)

[whereaminow]

4. Since we closed the asylums

We no longer have any other place for incurable sociopaths. On the other hand, I'd also check for lead/chemical poisoning. http://www.sph.sc.edu/news/leadstudy.htm Not much we can do for them there either. We're pretty much stuck.. But we should reopen the hospitals. It will be easier to keep them off the streets at least.

[Kokonoe]

9. Yes, if 12 year olds could more accurately impute the consequences of their action

It would save lives.
But our enamored government is of corporations and money.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

5. Warsaw and Lake Wawasee caught my attention.

My brother and his family live in the area and both taught in the local school system.

It's such a small town, everyone knows everyone else rural atmosphere that I'm surprised that their plans were kept secret.

[mitchum]

11. Too bad that "children's" trigger fingers aren't "fully developed yet"

too too bad

[madmom]

12. This part bothers me....

"15-year-old was put under juvenile court supervision for four months after he shot a BB gun at a neighbor riding a lawn mower"
Any person, being adult or juvenile who is familiar with guns (any gun) knows or should know you DO NOT point a gun at something/someone you don't intend to harm. This just has my dander up, something does not "smell" right.:shrug:

[mitchum]

14. He smells like a sociopath to me

[Duer 157099]

20. Arizona? WTF? To sell pot?

Not that murder wasn't my first clue, but these two boys are CRAZY.