Community Chat

[Mj12]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@gertrudecloset wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

Well since we are wildly speculating - how do we know the kids weren't in a gang and were provided the gun illegally - and that shooting someone was their initiation.

This happens - and probably more often than kids taking a gun from their home and just deciding to shoot someone on a whim.

---

Here you come with the nonsensical questions.  Eight year olds and nine year olds typically are not good to gangs.  Think about that for a minute @Isobel Archer .

---

I think you need to do some research about gangs - and the ages of kids in them.

---

When dealing with gangs, yes they can be very young.  However gangs in the country do not exist.  

---

Of course they do.  Absolutely do exist - how do you think massive amounts of illegal drugs get sold in every state?  (all sorts of gangs - drugs, human trafficking, etc.)

Do I think this poor man in the OP was shot by a gang initiation?  No - they wouldn't have used a rifle. JMO.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Mersha wrote:

@CrazyDaisy   The following is info from the National Institute of Justice on the definition of a gang per the Federal government:

Federal definition. The federal definition of gang as used by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is [1]:

1. An association of three or more individuals;
2. Whose members collectively identify themselves by adopting a group identity, which they use to create an atmosphere of fear or intimidation, frequently by employing one or more of the following: a common name, slogan, identifying sign, symbol, tattoo or other physical marking, style or color of clothing, hairstyle, hand sign or graffiti;
3. Whose purpose in part is to engage in criminal activity and which uses violence or intimidation to further its criminal objectives.
4. Whose members engage in criminal activity or acts of juvenile delinquency that if committed by an adult would be crimes with the intent to enhance or preserve the association's power, reputation or economic resources.
5. The association may also possess some of the following characteristics:
   1. The members may employ rules for joining and operating within the association.
   2. The members may meet on a recurring basis.
   3. The association may provide physical protection of its members from others.
   4. The association may seek to exercise control over a particular geographic location or region, or it may simply defend its perceived interests against rivals.
   5. The association may have an identifiable structure.

---

Hate groups are not the same as gangs.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Mj12 wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@gertrudecloset wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

Well since we are wildly speculating - how do we know the kids weren't in a gang and were provided the gun illegally - and that shooting someone was their initiation.

This happens - and probably more often than kids taking a gun from their home and just deciding to shoot someone on a whim.

---

Here you come with the nonsensical questions.  Eight year olds and nine year olds typically are not good to gangs.  Think about that for a minute @Isobel Archer .

---

I think you need to do some research about gangs - and the ages of kids in them.

---

When dealing with gangs, yes they can be very young.  However gangs in the country do not exist.  

---

Of course they do.  Absolutely do exist - how do you think massive amounts of illegal drugs get sold in every state?  (all sorts of gangs - drugs, human trafficking, etc.)

Do I think this poor man in the OP was shot by a gang initiation?  No - they wouldn't have used a rifle. JMO.

---

Illegal drugs are not distributed exclusively by gangs.

[NicksmomESQ]

 Guns, guns & more guns!! 

[decaf]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@gertrudecloset wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

Well since we are wildly speculating - how do we know the kids weren't in a gang and were provided the gun illegally - and that shooting someone was their initiation.

This happens - and probably more often than kids taking a gun from their home and just deciding to shoot someone on a whim.

---

Here you come with the nonsensical questions.  Eight year olds and nine year olds typically are not good to gangs.  Think about that for a minute @Isobel Archer .

---

I think you need to do some research about gangs - and the ages of kids in them.

---

When dealing with gangs, yes they can be very young.  However gangs in the country do not exist.  

---

 For a while, at least. The FBI's annual National Gang Threat Assessment in 2011 was blunt in its appraisal of gangs' interest in these untapped areas.

"Gang members are migrating from urban areas to suburban and rural communities to recruit new members, expand their drug distribution territories, form new alliances, and collaborate with rival gangs and criminal organizations for profit and influence," the report said.

---

@Isobel Archer  In this murder case, the sheriff is quoted as saying  "We don't think there was any malice".  If that is true, your whole gang theory goes out the door.  Along with your always popular theory that certain people have "an agenda" or are "furthering their narrative".

[Cakers3]

---

@gertrudecloset wrote:

---

@Cakers3 wrote:

---

@occasionalrain wrote:

The undisputed fact is that two boys had a rifle and used it to kill a 62 year old man while he was on his tractor.

It doesn't matter where they got the gun. What matters is that he's dead and their parents are responsible for failing to supervise, control, and protect the public from their children.

Returning the boys to their parents is irresponsible.

---

@occasionalrainNobody is disputing this man was shot and died on his tractor.  Obviously.

The issue is where did the gun come from-who owned it and how did the boys obtain the gun.  It is important because the gun didn't belong to both parents; they just didn't know AT THE TIME who owned the gun and how the boys obtained it.

For all we know the gun was locked up and the boys broke in to steal it.

So many speculations, so little time.

We don't know the family dynamics and we don't know just how dangerous these boys are. 

The task right now is to determine who owns the rifle, how it was obtained, what the boys were thinking because they obviously have not been running around shooting people all over the place.

They are not adults yet with differend mind sets; I'm not excusing them but the variables in this case are many.

Justice will be served for this man; and justice will also include what will be best for these boys and their families.  This is not going to go away without constructive solutions, hopefully.

So, @Cakers3 where did you read that the rifle didn't belong to the parents?  From what I understand they don't know where it came from.  If you have a source which states this, why not give us the link?  I sure would appreciate it.

They were only given back to their parents because it is a State Law that children under age 15 must remanded by to the parents (that much I read). 

---

---

@gertrudecloset   You really have difficulty with comprehension with my posts.

I didn't say the gun didn't belong to parents.  I said nothing at all that I read that "fact" anyplace.

I said at the time it is unknown WHICH parent owns the gun and how the boys obtained it.

I said it was important to know because BOTH parents (meaning the parents of each boy) could not own the rifle.   Only one set of parents or parent owned the rifle. 

Go back and read again because in your haste to make your point out of  - where I don't know - you have once again asked a question about my post that makes absolutely no sense.

Again:

The. Rifle. Didn't. Belong. To. Both. Parents

Translation:

Both. Parents. = 2. Parents. 2 Boys. 

They (meaning investigators). Did. Not. Know. At. The. Time. Who. Owned. The. Gun. And. How. The. Boys. Obtained. It.

Translation:

Which. Parent(s). Owned. The Rifle.

Boy #1  Parent #1

Boy #2 Parent #2

Which parent owned the gun - Parent #1 or Parent #2

I don't know how else I can say this.

[Mersha]

In every news article they are referred to as the "boys."

It is possible that they could be brothers and the authorities do not want to release that info at this time.

This, of course, is wild speculation on my part.

[decaf]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

Absolutely agree that we don't know the details of what or why or how this incident happened.

My point - along with avoiding wild speculation designed to further a narrative, is that while people are so concerned about guns, many of the same people are clueless about actual crime and who is committing it and how it's being committed.

To claim that kids that young are never in gangs, or that gangs "don't exist" in the "country." etc etc. just. proves my point.

Even after all the publicity about the opioid explosion, many are cluless about the drug trafficking that is still ongoing - and flourishing.

And then there is sex trafficking as well.

And while this man's death was certainly a tragedy - look at what is happening - every day - in the larger cities in terms of shootings and deaths.  And it's getting worse.  Look also at knifings, rapes,  and other assaults.  It's not safe out there.

---

There is a distinction between criminal activity and gang actitity.

---

Well I realize that many people don't consider selling drugs, or burglary or looting actual crimes - but what other distinctions do you want us to understand?

---

@Isobel Archer  It's completely unfair that you twist people's words, all the time.

[Porcelain]

Let me get this straight. You guys' working theory right now is that these young children were probably outside members of a rural meth or opioid-distributing prison gang? I agree that such things exist and are a serious problem in some small towns. But I don't see how it applies to the specifics of the story in the original post.

In other words, okaaaay...But Occam's Razor says no.

[Free2be]

I won't speculate on this particular case although I look forward to the facts of it.  I am intrested in why so many cases equal to this horror come out of the Carolinas, nearby states, and some other states that repeatedly produce similar horrors, consistently.  I don' believe it really is inbreeding but there seems to be a lax in care, in reasoning, in logic, in common sense.  Is it really so simple as being emotionally stunted and poorly educated or some combination?  Or throw in drug addled?  I'm seriously asking because the repetitiveness can't be swept under any rug.  And it's not like other states don't have problems but there are some real serious hot spots that can't be denied.