But he was “unarmed”!
/ sarc
Good. He’s no child.
And whatever the source is ... it made a killer out of a child.
He didn’t use a gun, so it’s OK.
Bet he gets off.
Bad seed.
There are only two victim groups that teach their kids that anger and violence are appropriate responses for all disagreements. Which is this?
I went to the comments section on the ABC news site. All sorts of concern about the boy being 10 and being charged as an adult.
So far NOT one word about the elderly woman he killed by beating her to death. The concern is a bit skewed I believe. The victim gets none and the killer gets all... because of his age.
OK, I’m probably going to take some heat on this one, but what is the point in having two classes of crime, adult and juvenile, if we are just going to arbitrarily throw juvenile out when a judge decides a crime is “really bad”? If a 10 year old isn’t a juvenile for all things, then what age is? 9? 8?
Why not just have one charge, in this case murder, that covers both and go to trial? Then, after conviction, let the factor of the perps age be considered (or not considered) by the judge at sentencing. Better than going through this Kabuki dance of he’s a juvenile, but because what he did was really bad, were going to pretend he’s not a juvenile in this case
Not to diminish the severity of this heinous crime, but I don’t get the entire concept of charging a juvenile as an adult. Crimes committed by under-aged youths have been subject to lesser punishment, based on the fact that their reasoning skills have not yet been fully developed. The actual crime they commit, whether it be relatively innocuous, such as shoplifting, or incredibly serious, as murder most certainly is, should still fall under the framework of a crime committed by a juvenile. Or else, just do away with the whole notion, and charge a third-grader who steals a cookie from the cafeteria with felony burglary.
Old people die every day and it’s never Bill Klinton.
Fry the little bastard.
The article says the child reported the victim was injured, to the grandfather.
The article says the grandfather checked her twice and the SECOND time she was unresponsive. Sorry,,what about the first time,,was she clear as a bell?
Something is not adding up.
I knew before I went to kindergarten that it was wrong to kill someone, and what would happen to me if I did.
Gangs recruit juveniles specifically because they won’t be prosecuted as an adult if they get caught!!!
Yes,this kid can't get off "scot free".Yes,this kid may be a psychopath in the making...but we can't be sure of that.I'm not sure what should happen to this kid but I *am* sure that a criminal conviction *shouldn't* happen to him.
If he was 18...fry him.If he was 16...a *long* time in prison.But he's ***ten***!!!! He's far too young to declare to be worthless,irredeemable,etc.
If a 10 year old kills someone with a cane and his fists, because she yelled at him, it is likely that his aggressive behavior has shown up before. This kid needs to be locked up.
I’m always curious to hear about the family structure when I hear about such cases.
There are better stories surfacing from local sources.
Young perp quoted as telling police he wasn't trying to kill the older women, he was only trying to hurt her.
(Blank Stares)
The boy told his mother that "he got mad, lost his temper and grabbed a cane and put it around Novak's throat," police said. Advised of his rights and interviewed by a trooper, he said he "pulled Novak down on the bed and held the cane on her throat and then punched her numerous times," authorities said.
State police said the boy told them that he went to his grandfather and told him that the woman was "bleeding from her mouth" but denied he had harmed her, but later told him that he had punched the woman and put a cane around her neck.
Yikes.