So I wouldn't agree to this degree in most situations. But in this case, those parents were very much responsible to a large degree in what happened, especially since they bought him, their 15 year old son, who told them he had mental health problems and wanted to get help, but they laughed at him and told him to suck it up, the gun. Those were the biggest things that make them complicit in this event. Add on the other indicators that built up and their still lack of concern, easy verdict that was definitely correct.
Pretty sure they (he and his lawyers) knew he was screwed after her verdict. In fact, I think the reason they decided to do separate trials was because they probably thought the jury would have higher sympathy for a mother than a father, and it would have likely been about both of them, averaging out any sympathy held if they were tried together. I think they were looking to eke out an acquittal for the mother first, and then be able to use that in the defense for the father. Since they didn't get an acquittal for the mother, that defense is shot.
Heart rending. The boy cried for help, and they shamed him for that lonely act of strength?
That first one was NC, right here in my county.
www.wake.gov
This hit home because of how many times I've had to explain to people (including my parents) that my son having a therapist is normal, is fine, really very little different than having any other routine doctor. He asked me to get him into therapy, saying he had some issues he wanted help working out and he feels therapy should be something people set up/go to like they do normal routine checkups for their physical health. Far too many parents and other adults think a child in therapy means the child must be a mental case, so, as you described, the parents fight the stigma, put their pride above the health of their child.
A firearm can kill from a distance, is designed solely for killing (technically), and is usually concealable so your comparisons are false.
The parents simply raising him wasn't why they were convicted. It took a lot more specific circumstances involving neglect and complicity of the parents to get to the convictions.
Irrelevant
Only to you.
You'd probably be wrong, especially compared to parents of the past, who tended to be far more dismissive of problems their children had, hiding them far more often.
Guns are better for killing at a distance, but people are murdered by many other means as well.
I'd have to had sat and watched the trial to really form an opinion, which I didn't.
You must support the repeal of legislation which criminalizes child rape, one imagines, since the laws don't prevent all child rapes?
Making shit up isn't going to help you (you indicated in posts that it was simply parenting that led to the conviction). There is plenty of information available here and throughout the internet to be able to determine that these convictions were not based on anything near as simple as they are his parents, so they are responsible for the incident. That's not what happened, not what the facts of the case are.
When I grew up, nearly everyone 13 or older had a rifle, and we were taught how to use them safely.
And any children with mental health problems were hidden away and the parents were quick to either pretend they didn't exist or point out that they were locked away somewhere. Even things like autism were deemed mental health issues that required children to be hidden if recognized at all. Otherwise other stigma was put into place.
The lax regulations for commerce in firearms makes them easily available to those with criminal intent. How many deaths occur from fully automatic weapons yearly? Zero, because they are regulated adequately.
It is essentially retribution. It is cheaper to imprison for life than to execute, if $$ are your primary consideration.
ejusa.org
Nonsensical solution to a nonexistent problem.
Seems to work in Canada.
Canada doesn’t have a 2nd amendment.
2A can be credited with hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths over the past many decades.
An entirely disingenuous argument. 2A doesn’t give Americans the right to use firearms to murder each other anymore than 1A gives Americans the right of speech advocating illegal conduct, or the advocacy of illegal conduct,
I don't have a significant issue with a guilty verdict. The potential punishment seems excessive.
The privilege of owning firearms has created a sea of lethal weapons throughout the population. That prevalence has resulted, over the years, in hundreds of thousands of deaths (and many more injuries). Denying that 2A is responsible for that public health crisis is just not correct.