11 Year Old Charged With Killing Pregnant Woman

[B.N.Real]

If this kid really killed this woman and her child and it was not an accident,he needs to never be free in society again.

I have no need to read or here why,if it was no accident.

Personally,if the kid did it on purpose,he should forfeit his life.

[johnbt]

"An 11-year-old boy has been charged in the shotgun death of his father's pregnant girlfriend"

[flippycat]

I have no idea who this 11 year old kid is, though I will put him in with the rest of the 10 to 18 year old punk kids of today with a total lack of respect for authority and parents and even themselves for that matter.

Who here can raise a hand like I can and think of your child hood and remember that if you crossed a line with your parents odd's are the belt or a good cuff to the head was dished out...not to mention maybe even a little soap to the mouth depending on who was dishing out the punishment. Even if it was not you I am willing to bet anyone over 30 had a friend that got that kind of punishment.

And the funny thing is I can only remember about 4 instances it happened until I walked the line.

I am giving the benefit of the doubt that one or both were decent parents though what sort of tools as a parent do they have?

Hrmm...none.

Lets see you could ground the child..hardly effective considering most kids all have every peice of technology in their bedrooms and lets be honest in the practicality of removing it all. Yell at a kid and he goes to school and family services are at your house that afternoon.

So the little recourse you have is praying that they are well rounded enough by genetics to listen to reason ..and when they are not..you wind up with an 11 year old acting out in however he wants to and basically doing whatever he wants to.

The problem is kids are way to empowered these days and yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

That is where you need regulations because it is molding the mentality of today's youth.

[MatBananas717]

yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

That's just as dumb as blaming weapons. I have been an internet surfer and a fan of many "violent video games" for as long as I can remember, yet I've never killed anybody or done anything else wrong.

Not to mention that you sound like a curmudgeon going on about "kids these days" as if we're all out killing pregnant women. Get off your soapbox.

[flippycat]

Lets go in reverse ...

Not to mention that you sound like a curmudgeon going on about "kids these days" as if <b>we're </b>all out killing pregnant women. Get off your soapbox.

I assume by your statement and the use of "we're" you fall into the category I mentioned. I also am going to assume you do not have any kids of your own to speak from experience on if you do fall into the category you put yourself into.

What I said about today's youth is no different then saying it was the guns fault the tragedy happened. Though there have been a lot more studies on guns, then the impact of the internet freedoms to minors to ALL and ANY information out there as well as the effects of desensitization a realistic violent video game has on a minor.

I applaud your efforts for being an internet surfer and not killing anyone...I also applaud your being a fan of violent video games and not killing anyone ...you must be of the higher genetic makeup I stated.

Though you do seem a little touchy on the subject.

I was not on a soapbox, I was only stating the obvious that anyone with a child in that age range and or deals with kids in that age range can attest to.



here a little reading so I don't seem to soapbox ...seems to be a growing trend ...




ELYRIA, Ohio (Jan. 13) - Although a teenager's obsession with a violent video game may have warped his sense of reality, the boy is guilty of murdering his mother and wounding his father after they took "Halo 3" away from him, a judge ruled Monday.
"I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever," Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge said.
Nonetheless, Burge rejected the defense attorneys' argument that Petric, 17, was not guilty by reason of insanity.
The defense didn't contest that Petric shot his parents in October 2007 after they took the game away from him, but insisted that the teen's youth and addiction made him less responsible.
Petric may have been addicted, but the evidence also showed he planned the crime for weeks, said Burge, who found the teenager guilty of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and other charges.
Tried as an adult, Petric faces a maximum possible penalty of life in prison without parole. The judge didn't set a sentencing date.
The teen's mother, Susan Petric, 43, died of a gunshot wound to the head. Her husband, Mark Petric, a minister at New Life Assembly of God in Wellington, also was shot in the head but survived.
After the verdict was announced, Petric turned to look at his father seated behind him in the courtroom. Mark Petric, who previously said he has forgiven his son, gave an encouraging nod.
Mark Petric and other relatives left the court without comment.
Prosecutors said Petric planned to kill his parents because he was angry that his father would not allow him to play the video game, in which players shoot alien monsters that have taken over the Earth.
On the night of the shooting, Petric used his father's key to open a lockbox and remove a 9 mm handgun and the game.
Mark Petric testified that his son came into the room and asked: "Would you guys close your eyes? I have a surprise for you." He testified that he expected a pleasant surprise. Then his head went numb from the gunshot.
Deputy prosecuting attorney Anthony Cillo argued during the trial that the teenager had planned to make it appear to be a murder-suicide by putting the gun in his father's hand.
Defense Attorney James Kersey said that when the teenager fled the grisly scene, he only took one item with him: the "Halo 3" game.
Bungie LLC, once part of Microsoft, developed the Xbox 360-exclusive Halo 3, and Microsoft owns the game's intellectual property. Microsoft declined to comment beyond a statement: "We are aware of the situation and it is a tragic case."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. Active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.


I think there are truly to many variables to point blame in one direction or another...but I do believe technology has grown faster then the impacts can be evaluated for the long term effects.

I mean hell we are just now acknowledging on a serious basis the wide range of the effects of war and post traumatic stress disorder. So I am not out of my realm to point the finger at something understudied.

[johnbt]

From the Pittsburgchannel

"Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said that Houk was shot in the back of the head as she lay in bed Friday morning.

Police said the weapon was a .20-gauge "youth model" shotgun, which investigators found in the boy's bedroom."

No statement on a possible motive.

And yes, that's a .20-gauge.

[B.N.Real]

This not about video games and not about how someone was raised.

A innocent woman and unborn child have apparently been murdered here.

The murderer,if that is the case,must pay for the crime with his life.

Either by being sent away for the rest of it or forfieting it.

This nonsense of putting ourselves in the mind of a killer to 'understand' why he did the horrible crime he did has to stop.

People murder people because they DECIDE to do that.

No gun ever got off a counter or out of a gun case and on it's own,floated down the street and killed anyone.

A human being decided that they did not care what happened after the fact,they were going to kill another human being.

For that decision,they need to pay the most severe price they can be convicted of.

I have other opinions to what the penalty should be if it was my wife and child this bizarre human being destroyed but I am not the one burying my wife and unborn child so I will not post those opinions.

[curt.45]

the story so far.

WAMPUM, Pa. – Fifth-grader Jordan Brown boarded the bus and headed to school like he does most other mornings in this rural western Pennsylvania community.

But Friday was no typical morning. Before he left his rented farmhouse, authorities say, the 11-year-old fatally shot his father's pregnant fiancee in the back of the head as she lay in bed. He then put his youth model 20-gauge shotgun back in his room and went out to catch his bus, police say.

Brown was charged Saturday as an adult in the death of 26-year-old Kenzie Marie Houk, who was eight months pregnant, Lawrence County District Attorney John Bongivengo said. Houk's fetus died within minutes due to a lack of oxygen, Lawrence County Coroner Russell Noga said.

The death and charges against Brown caught family and friends by surprise and left Wampum, about 45 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, to ponder what would possess a boy to allegedly shoot someone.

Houk's family and friends, who gathered at her parents' house Saturday night, told The Associated Press that there had been past problems with the boy.

"He actually told my son that he wanted to do that to her," Houk's brother-in-law, Jason Kraner said. "There was an issue with jealousy."

Pennsylvania State Police found Houk's body after her 4-year-old daughter told tree cutters on the property she thought her mother was dead, Bongivengo said.

The boy told police there was a black truck on the property that morning — possibly the man who feeds the cows — sending investigators to follow a false lead for about five hours, Bongivengo said. Inconsistencies in Brown's description of the truck led police to re-interview Houk's 7-year-old daughter, who implicated the boy in the killing, Bongivengo said. State troopers came to get the boy at school.

"She didn't actually eyewitness the shooting. She saw him with what she believed to be a shotgun and heard a loud bang," Bongivengo said. The gun was found in a "location we believe to be in the defendant's bedroom."

Brown has been arraigned and was being held in the Lawrence County Jail, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for Thursday.

"An 11-year-old kid — what would give him the motive to shoot someone?" Houk's father Jack said. "Maybe he was just jealous of my daughter and the baby and thought he would be overpowered."

Defense attorney Dennis Elisco said he plans to ask Monday for the boy to be released on bail and for the case to moved to juvenile court. Elisco and police said they had no clear motive for the shooting.

Elisco said he is waiting to see physical evidence that ties his young client to the killing.

"I don't think he knows what's going on," he said. "I walked out of there thinking he was innocent. I believe Jordan did not do this."

The boy's father, Christopher Brown, is "a mess" and had no prior indication his son had a problem with Houk, Elisco said.

"He's in a state of actual shock and disbelief," he said.

The shotgun used is designed for children and has a shorter arm and such weapons do not have to be registered, Bongivengo said. Jack Houk, 57, said the boy and his father used to practice shooting behind their farmhouse, and the two enjoyed going hunting together

[44 AMP]

was shot in the back of the head as she lay in bed Friday morning

based solely on the information I have so far (which may change, but I doubt it), I would say this is a deliberate act.

As far as the law should be concerned, that's all that matters. It won't be, they will take the age, and mental state of the shooter into account, but in the end, the poor woman and her unborn child will still be dead.

I may be getting cold and callous in my old age, but I simply don't care about why the kid did it. At all. I don't even care if he knew it was wrong. He did it (assuming the courts so rule), and therefore should be removed from society, permanently.

I don't care if he eventually grows into someone who understands and regrets what he did. He did it, and has proven himself to be a danger to humanity. Period.

Give me the curmudgeon badge, I will wear it proudly. I feel the same way about insanity defenses. I don't care if the 11year old or the 40 year old didn't know or understand what they did was wrong, they did it, and so are a danger to the rest of us. They should be removed from society, and personally I feel they should be removed for good.

There is only one way to be absolutely certain they will never be able to do it again. And we, as a society, don't do enough of it.

[stephen426]

Originally Posted by Mike Irwin

"If Cho had used an assault rifle in Virginia Tech instead of two handguns, the death toll would have been astronomically higher."

Your proof of that statement is... what?

That's called a supposition. There's no basis in fact for making that claim, only your supposition of what might have happened.

Also, Cho would not have had an "assault rifle." He would have had a semi-automatic rifle. True assault rifles are military hardware capable of firing fully automatic or in bursts. To date, only one legally owned automatic weapon has been used in the commission of a crime since 1934.

Hi Mike,

I just want to reiterate that I am just using arguements I have heard from anti-gun people. I am NOT one of them. I think I should have started another thread... One to deal talking to anti-gun people and another covering the 11 year old shooting the pregnant woman. I will probably have to do that so we don't blur this thread.

I do find it difficult to believe that you would argue that a "assault-style rifle" (semi-automatic) would not be more lethal than a hand gun. First of all, the rounds are much nigher powered. If you take the energy of a .223 vs. the 9mm and .22 LR, the .223 has more than twice the power. The 7.62 x 39 typically fired from an AK-47 is also much more powerful than a 9mm or a .22 lr. There are high capacity magazines readily available for both military style weapons, which reduces the need for reloads. More frequent reloads means more opportunities to attack the shooter.

I'm going to start a new thread for ways to "reason" with an anti-gun person and let this thread focus on the 11 year old shooting the pregnant woman.

[Double Naught Spy]

Where's the outrage and the lobby for banning the automobile?

In the year 2000, almost 4800 pedestrians were killed by automobiles

There were nearly 42000 deaths on US highways that year

In 2007, there were less than 1000 fatal shootings in the USA

The facts are clear:

Firearms are much safer than the US highway system. Ban Automobiles Now.

This arguments are always pretty stupid. Cars are much safer than guns if you look at the amount of time of operation of each and presence in households...if you consider the number of deaths as an indication of safety. People many hundreds and often thousands of hours per year in their automobiles, driving on highways and surface streets. Few shooters ever operate their guns as much.

[Kleinzeit]

The facts are clear:

Firearms are much safer than the US highway system. Ban Automobiles Now.

This arguments are always pretty stupid. Cars are much safer than guns if you look at the amount of time of operation of each and presence in households...

Umm... Is this meant be an argument in DEFENSE of guns?

[Kleinzeit]

I don't know whether it's cars or guns that are most dangerous. But there is a fair comparison to be made between them: both have risks attached, but on balance we are better off with them than without.

So, to go back to the OP: It is my considered opinion that the best way to respond to anti-gun people when they seize upon these tragic incidents as proof that guns should be banned is to be REASONABLE. Cite statistics and present coherent arguments, but above all, do NOT be a pigheaded fool who wants to pretend that the exact same incident would have occurred if there had been no gun in the room, or that deaths only occur when Evil People have Evil intentions to do Evil, or when Good People act Righteously against Evil People who Deserve it, or When Very Stupid People who are not Us are criminally negligent. It is a simple fact that having guns around means that certain things ARE going to happen that might not have happened otherwise. But it ALSO means that some very bad things may be prevented. On balance, it's better to have them. Just like with cars. Trying to insist that guns contribute nothing to the situation is NOT going to win you any arguments. And besides, it's hypocritical: If you want to say that guns themselves do not make situations more dangerous, then you can't very well argue that guns themselves can make a situation safer.

[MatBananas717]

on balance we are better off with them than without.

In the case of guns, I think a legitimate case can be made to support the other side. Especially given the way that too many pro-gunners argue.

[dragonfire]

Hmmmm I dont know.Who's to blame,the 11 year old boy,the parents,society. I mean obviously we can't blame the gun.So we blame the boy for committing such a heiness crime,the parents for not locking the gun up,and society for permitting such fantasy violence to be seen and portrayed on tv and in video games.That should pretty much some it up.

Really everyone involved is to blame.As far as trying an 11 yr.boy as an adult,thats where I have trouble.Did he know what he was doing I would think so.It said in the article he and his father practiced regularly and went hunting,so he knew the gun was capable of killing.On the other hand was he put up to it,and does an 11 year old child understand fully what happens when you murder someone,as in legally.

[chemgirlie]

I know this sounds awful, but I really hope that there is something wrong with him (as in a clinically recognized mental illness). I think that would be a lot easier for the family to deal with than realizing that the kid did it out of hatred with full mental capabilities.

[Double Naught Spy]

Umm... Is this meant be an argument in DEFENSE of guns?

Nope.

When folks strive to make a comparison that doesn't make any sense and do so in defense of guns, it make gun folks look like idiots. The "facts" as presented were done so in an inequitable manner. The "facts" are not clear as claimed. Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

As pro gun folks with the Constitution on our side, we should not have to skew or bias the presentation of data to try to make our arguments appear stronger. Yes, the opposition does it and we think very little of them for doing so, eh? Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

[Kleinzeit]

In the case of guns, I think a legitimate case can be made to support the other side [that we are better off without them]. Especially given the way that too many pro-gunners argue.

Interesting. Well, yes - I might agree. So long as no one had guns.

What kind of pro-gun argument bothers you?

[Kleinzeit]

Administrator at the Internet Movie Firearms Database (IMFDB).

PS - Love your website.

[Kleinzeit]

Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

Yes, but I thought we were meant to see it that way. I thought the post was being satirical. I.e., Banning cars is ridiculous, and for the same reason, banning guns is ridiculous. A similar parallel could be made with many dangerous things in our society.

Personally, when pro-gunners try to argue in defense of guns by refusing to concede that the lawful keeping and bearing of arms could ever actually have a down side, then that's when we look like idiots. Because that really is idiotic. It's just as idiotic as anti-gunners refusing to concede that the lawful keeping and bearing of arms could ever actually have an up side. As you say,

Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

The presence of guns - like the presence of cars, chainsaws, pharmaceuticals, household chemicals, heaters, irons, stoves, candles, incense burners, etc. etc. etc. - does contribute to tragic situations. But we don't ban all that other stuff, because on balance, we think it's worth the risk.

[Brian Pfleuger]

yep I blame the internet and violent video games not the weapons that have been around for 100's of years.

Yep, I've been playing violent video games since I was probably 6 or 7. Oddly, I not only have no inclination to act out those games but the very idea of taking a human life makes me ill.

What gives? All that violence and I'm not a cold blooded killer? I wonder why? Ohhhhh.... yep, moral values, now I remember. I was taught that hurting people is bad and then when I tried it out, liking kicking my sister, I got my a$$ beat and I found out what it meant. Today, no more a$$ beatings and lots of violent kids. Odd isn't it?

Who would have ever thought? Oh wait...

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him." (Proverbs 13:24)

"Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)

[MatBananas717]

Nope.

When folks strive to make a comparison that doesn't make any sense and do so in defense of guns, it make gun folks look like idiots. The "facts" as presented were done so in an inequitable manner. The "facts" are not clear as claimed. Calling for the banning of automobiles is ridiculous.

As pro gun folks with the Constitution on our side, we should not have to skew or bias the presentation of data to try to make our arguments appear stronger. Yes, the opposition does it and we think very little of them for doing so, eh? Why would we want to commit the same fallacies?

Thank you! It is really nice to see another pro-gunner (and yes, I consider myself a pro-gunner) who thinks the way I do.

I have never understood how so many pro-gunners can repeat silly arguments with extremely flawed logic and then accuse the antis of being the same way.

[MatBananas717]

Interesting. Well, yes - I might agree. So long as no one had guns.

I don't think nobody should be allowed to own guns. I want to keep my own guns, obviously.

But I do understand why many people are proponents of gun control in some form or another, and why they don't see the intrinsic value of either guns or the 2nd Amendment. There is a case worthy of debate on their side. They aren't simply freedom-hating "socialists" or "communists", nor are they people whose reactions are based on "emotion". I am willing to take their arguments at face value and acknowledge some of their grievances do have merit, while still not agreeing with them.

It's something that, much to my disappointment, the broader pro-gun community has not shown itself to be capable of doing.

What kind of pro-gun argument bothers you?

The automobiles argument is one of them. I've also been an opponent for many years now of the argument that "assault weapons are no different than hunting rifles". (and again, please note that I was also against the AWB, since I own a Poly Tech AK)

PS - Love your website.

Thank you, sir.

[Kleinzeit]

I do understand why many people are proponents of gun control in some form or another. ... There is a case worthy of debate on their side. They aren't simply freedom-hating "socialists" or "communists", nor are they people whose reactions are based on "emotion".

Yes; so true. It's important that we be able to understand this. (Though sometimes some of them are reacting emotionally...) And I entirely agree that we should make sure our pro-gun arguments are genuinely sound and reasonable. The anti-gun lobby already tends to see us as idiots.

But I think that the automobile comparison does have some utility. It helps to counter the view of guns as something set off completely from the rest of material reality (a view which is often held by anti-gun people).

Like guns, automobiles are necessary. They are more than necessary; they can even be things of beauty. We wouldn't want to have to manage without them. Neither would we want to be denied our choice of car; they have an attraction and a function that goes far beyond someone else's idea of what we "need." They are a symbol of our liberty and, more than that, they are an actual means of expressing and maintaining our liberty. Not everyone should be allowed to drive one, but we have to be very careful about denying that right. Accidents sometimes happen with automobiles. Sometimes people use them carelessly. Sometimes people allow them to become mechanically unsafe. Sometimes their use results in the killing or maiming of innocent bystanders. Sometimes they are used by people to take their own lives. But automobiles do not "cause" these tragedies, and it would be absurd to attack them, and absurd to suggest that the ordinary people who drive them are evil, or deluded, or paranoid, or reckless.

The difference between a gun and an automobile is that, in some people's minds, the former has become a symbol for everything that is twisted and dark in our society, and they think that by banning the symbol, they can abolish the reality they have taken it to symbolize.

Comparisons between guns and other things will always have their limits. But up to a point, they help to overcome the ridiculous burdening of guns (and their owners) with all this heavy weight of symbolism. It situates guns and their owners within a bigger social picture.

[BillCA]

I have to disagree with a couple of posts here...

Originally Posted by B.N.Real

This nonsense of putting ourselves in the mind of a killer to 'understand' why he did the horrible crime he did has to stop.

People murder people because they DECIDE to do that.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I may be getting cold and callous in my old age, but I simply don't care about why the kid did it. At all. I don't even care if he knew it was wrong. He did it (assuming the courts so rule), and therefore should be removed from society, permanently.

Isn't this like saying we should toss out self-defense as a justification for homicide? Or defense of another person? Re-read your statements in light of it being an act of self-defense (which we know it was not, but humor me).

Based on what we know from public media sources, it would appear that the kid had emotional problems with his father and the woman over the arrival of a step-sister. And at 11 years old, some kids think this means a parent will no longer love them anymore.

But stepping away from the particulars of this case, there are situations where such a homicide might be defensible.

There have been cases where an abused child or spouse finally strikes back, sometimes with fatal consequences. Years of abuse mount until something triggers the victim to lash out.

We saw it here in the bay area not long ago. A 10 year old boy living in an upscale neighborhood and a lavish house whacked his step-mom five times with a fireplace poker and she nearly died. Why? Because she destroyed his first-place school art project -- a relaistic & detailed pencil drawing of a space station -- by throwing it into the fireplace and calling it "worthless, stupid trash". Mind you when police investigated they called the house "luxuriously lavish" -- except for the boy's room which was labeled monastic. The parent's room boasted a canopy bed, deep pile carpeting, 3 phones, a large TV, stereo system and even a small fridge. The bathroom had a jacuzzi spa tub, heated toilet seat and towel rack, dressing table, marble counters and gold-toned faucets. But the boy's room held a single pine bed, with white sheets and a thin blanket, a pine dresser, a small used second-hand lamp table sitting on a bare wood floor. He had six sets of clothing (nothing more or less), two pair of shoes and a pullover sweatshirt. No books, no rugs, not even curtains. They also noticed there were no toys, no pictures or posters on the walls, no comic books, no baseball cards, no sports equipment, nothing. Nothing said a young boy lived in that house.

Some parents don't deserve children. Some that have them deserve what they get.