3 ms·
These kids know exactly what they're doing, and they shouldn't be absolved because they're young or "boys will be boys". Frankly punishment should be directed a
by okprod 5y ago
These kids know exactly what they're doing, and they shouldn't be absolved because they're young or "boys will be boys". Frankly punishment should be directed at the minors involved and their parents. If I'm a young person I can go around murdering and committing crimes because I'm "young" and "didn't know any better"?
- clcaev 5y ago> and their parents How exactly do you suggest parents accomplish the surveillance necessary to avoid liability?
- rchaud 5y agoMaybe by not framing the issue as one of 'liability' and 'surveillance', and just teaching the kid right from wrong. As for how that's accomplished, that's the parents' responsibility. They failed here, so the state will be stepping in for the next few years.
- clcaev 5y agoWhat should the parents' punishment be? How do you evaluate that the parents have reasonably met their duty? Are both parents equally culpable? What about divorcees with alternative live views? Why should this parental failure liability end at 18, what about 19 year olds, or those in their 30's? What about kids previously diagnosed with mental illness?
- rchaud 5y agoThose questions will make up the bulk of the defense's case, I imagine.
- TheHypnotist 5y agoWell if you read the article you'd see one is being charged. The other is ambiguous but it appears authorities know who it is.
- okprod 5y agoI read the article, I was talking about all swatting situations in general.
- OrangeMusic 5y agoI understand you're angry. But an (somewhat arbitrary) age limit has to be set between what we consider children and adults, and once it's set there is no logical reason to make exceptions. Would you make the same argument if the kid involved was 16? 14? 12?