« A Night On The Town With A Newsmaker | Main | Paved With Good Intentions »

A minor matter of murder

In New Bedford, Massachusetts, three teenage boys had a disagreement with a local family. After the family noticed several hundred dollars of rent money had disappeared while the boys were visiting their daughter, they banned them from their home and bad-mouthed them to the neighbors.

So, naturally, the boys did what comes naturally in such circumstances. They got a gun and shot the father.

But they were smart. One of them was 18, so he supplied the gun and stayed outside, as lookout. A second was also 18, so he just tagged along with his brother, who was 17. It was the 17-year-old who put the gun to the 61-year-old man's head and pulled the trigger. And when his wife heard her husband being murdered, he asked her if she wanted to die, too.

She passed on his kind offer, and the three left.

Massachusetts has no death penalty, so they aren't covered by the recent Supreme Court's idiotic ruling outlawing capital punishment for crimes committed before one turns 18. But I have to wonder if they heard that "minors can't be executed" and decided the youngest of the trio would be the designated hitter.

J.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A minor matter of murder:

» Grapevine's Ramblings linked with Juvenile Murder in Massachusetts

Comments (41)

Well now I know why Teddy i... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

Well now I know why Teddy is still living.

There's no doubt that they ... (Below threshold)
Steve L.:

There's no doubt that they picked the youngest because of the ruling. Criminals may be stupid, but they aren't dumb.

I suspect they picked the y... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

I suspect they picked the youngest because of the ruling, but in this case it still wouldn't have mattered who was the triggerman, the 18 year olds will be held equally accountable (or at least they would in the South).

The story linked to mention... (Below threshold)
julie:

The story linked to mentions nothing about the victim begging or threatening the wife after shooting the husband. Broad daylight, neighbors all around, wife a witness -- these guys aren't very smart. I think the 17 year old wanted to prove he had cojones and took the lead or is the leader of the three. Not sure whether he had the intent to kill the man or only threaten him. (Need to take a look at that gun.) But, as with all felonious behavior, things can go bad really fast. It's more likely they were aware that MA has no dp then the recent USSC case.

Do they try juveniles as adults in MA?

Ramon Geliga's attorney, Da... (Below threshold)
EndlessEcho:

Ramon Geliga's attorney, Daniel Bennett, said the shooting was in self-defense.

I wonder if the attorney really believes that nonsense. A 17 year old walks into the man's house with a .22 and ends up shooting a 61 year old man in self-defense. Amazing what lawyers will say these days. Truly pathetic, just as these kids were for killing someone over something so small.

This is the land of teddy a... (Below threshold)
rob:

This is the land of teddy and fairy kerry . kerry will go visit him in prison just like he went to go visit the toops in Iraq that were from Massofshit.

I saw the same thing happen... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

I saw the same thing happen in 1984 after the Supreme Court ruled against shooting suspects fleeing after the commission of non-violent crimes or crimes against property. Basically, they ruled against shooting at car thieves. It did not take long before supects knew they could bale out of a car and run without any risk of getting shot. Car thefts in Oklahoma City jumped 50% after the ruling.

I don't suppose it's occure... (Below threshold)

I don't suppose it's occured to anyone here that common-sense gun control laws might have prevented these assholes from getting a gun in the first place, and perhaps avoiding this senseless bloodshed?

I don't suppose it occured ... (Below threshold)
julie:

I don't suppose it occured to you that they could have beat him or stab him to death? I also don't suppose it occured to you that if the guy or his wife had a gun, maybe the husband would still be alive, and at the worse, one of the perpertrators dead?

Don:It hadn't occurr... (Below threshold)
Addison:

Don:
It hadn't occurred to me. Could you please tell me what "common sense gun laws" could have prevented this? (Without the benefit of the wayback machine, or a bill of attainer)

Don't know about these kids... (Below threshold)
rita:

Don't know about these kids, but many teenagers have the mistaken impression that the worst that will happen to them is they will spend a few years in juvvie.

I don't suppose it occu... (Below threshold)

I don't suppose it occured to you that they could have beat him or stab him to death? I also don't suppose it occured to you that if the guy or his wife had a gun, maybe the husband would still be alive, and at the worse, one of the perpertrators dead?

What Julie said.

I think after banning guns, we should ban steak knives. Because Don, those could be used as weapons, too.

I don't suppose it occurred... (Below threshold)

I don't suppose it occurred to Don that in Massachusetts it IS illegal for minors (under 21) to purchase or posess firearms. Furthermore, MA requires anyone buying or owning a firearm to obtain a license from law enforcement. Handgun buyers must also take a safety course and provide fingerprints. The license is also required for anyone who wishes to be "loaned" a handgun outside of the presence of the owner.

In other words, MA has some very strict gun laws on the books, but that didn't seem to stop these guys did it?

I would also like to pose the question if the perps were not intimidated by the consequences of murdering someone, what makes you think they would be intimidated by the consequences of illegally obtaining a firearm?

What -- you guys aren't ser... (Below threshold)

What -- you guys aren't seriously suggesting that a band of murderers would disobey a common-sense gun law!?

Look on the bright side...t... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Look on the bright side...these boys are on the fasttrack to becoming Senators...heh heh

Chris:I would a... (Below threshold)

Chris:

I would also like to pose the question , what makes you think they would be intimidated by the consequences of illegally obtaining a firearm?

You've made a good case for legalizing murder here. "If the perps were not intimidated by the consequences of murdering someone," then why should MA have strong anti-murder laws on the books?

I'm not suggesting that common-sense gun control is the be-all-and-end-all, but that it might play a role in reducing gun deaths.

I'm assuming---with the possible exception of julie and sky---that we're all in favor of reducing gun deaths. Am I right?

Well, Washington, DC has gu... (Below threshold)
Battsman:

Well, Washington, DC has gun laws ... and leads the nation in murders per capita.

England and Australia have gun laws ... and still see civilians murdered by gun-carrying thugs.

Common sense would be recognizing Evil when we see it in cold-blooded murderers (versus crimes of passion) and executing said Evil thugs. ASAP.

I believe we are all in fav... (Below threshold)
julie:

I believe we are all in favor of reducing violent deaths except for --- Don!

Don wants to decrease gun deaths only by increasing the number of deaths by stabbing, assaults, strangulation, etc., Don obviously wants to increase sexual assualts, too. :)

They weren't that smart, Ja... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

They weren't that smart, Jay - they'll all be charged with murder, conspire to murder and whatever else, be tried as adults and spend the rest of their lives in prison. But knowing the way court works, because they're young, they might be 50-60 yrs old before they are released from prison. Hopefully the jury will give them life without the possibiity of parole. You'll probably also see a change in the Supreme Court ruling as well because you can't put a timeline on those who kill for they'll kill again.

Cindy

DonYou've made ... (Below threshold)

Don

You've made a good case for legalizing murder here. "If the perps were not intimidated by the consequences of murdering someone," then why should MA have strong anti-murder laws on the books?

I have done no such thing, though I am not at all surprised that this is the conclusion you have come to.

The purposes of having anti-murder laws in place are quite obviously to establish what constitutes murder and what the acceptable punishment is for breaking that law. Whether or not one chooses to obey that law and take his/her chances at getting caught, convicted and punished is up to the individual. The same applies to gun laws, traffic laws, etc.

The point I was making (the one that flew right over your pointy head) was that more or stricter gun laws aren't the answer to reducing violent crime commited with guns. The strict gun laws in MA didn't stop these guys. Why not? The reasoning is quite simple (and I'm hoping this is a concept you are capable of grasping). In all cases the laws and punishments associated with the actual violent crimes (murder, robbery, assault, etc) are more severe than the laws associated with illegaly obtaining or posessing a firearm. So it stands to reason that if the laws regarding murder, assault, robbery and the like don't dissuade someone from commiting those crimes, neither will more "common sense" gun laws.

I'm assuming---with the possible exception of julie and sky---that we're all in favor of reducing gun deaths. Am I right?

What I am in favor of is reducing the gun deaths of law abiding citizens at the hands of criminals and increasing the number of gun deaths of criminals at the hands of law abiding citizens who have chosen to arm themselves for protection.

Chris:I wouldn't c... (Below threshold)

Chris:

I wouldn't call the gun laws in MA---or anywhere in the USA---"strict." I'd call them "toothless and ineffectual," as evidenced by the fact that any jerkoff who wants to can have virtually unlimited firepower, nice and legal.

I'm sadded to discover that you think blasting a hole in another human being is a good idea, as long as you get to decide which human beings get to be on the recieving end. You'll forgive me if I find no comfort in that---I tend to take a more literal view of the Sixth Commandment than you do.

I tend to take a more li... (Below threshold)
julie:

I tend to take a more literal view of the Sixth Commandment than you do.

Then you seem to be confused as to its literal translation which is Thou shalt not murder, not Thou shalt not kill. Blasting a hole in someone is indeed a better solution than forfeiting one's own life to someone who breaks into your house and tries to kill you.

I wouldn't call the gun ... (Below threshold)

I wouldn't call the gun laws in MA---or anywhere in the USA---"strict." I'd call them "toothless and ineffectual,"

Well Don, it looks like you are finally beginning to get it. When it comes to "reducing crime" gun laws are "tootless and ineffectual", no matter how you write them up.

I'm sadded to discover that you think blasting a hole in another human being is a good idea, as long as you get to decide which human beings get to be on the recieving end.

Awwwwww. Are you going to go cry now? Unlike you, I have no sympathy for criminals who prey on others and I feel they deserve nothing less than having a hole blasted in them.

I tend to take a more literal view of the Sixth Commandment than you do.

Seeing as that I am not a religious person, you are probably right.

I don't suppose it's occ... (Below threshold)

I don't suppose it's occured to anyone here that common-sense gun control laws might have prevented these assholes from getting a gun in the first place, and perhaps avoiding this senseless bloodshed?

Certainly. Had the elderly couple been armed, they could have at least put up a fight. Heck, I doubt the murdering little thugs would have risked their lives in a fair fight. They probably would have stayed home and talked trash instead.

Chris:I have no... (Below threshold)

Chris:

I have no sympathy for criminals who prey on others and I feel they deserve nothing less than having a hole blasted in them.

The problem with that statement is the fact that the phrase "criminals who prey on others" also applies to...oh, let's say, the board of directors of Enron and their unindicted co-conspirators, including POTUS and VPOTUS. Therefore, you're advocating blowing a hole...

Uh...I don't think the Secret Service would feel comfortable with where that line of reasoning is going. I know that I'm don't.

How a pro-abortion liberal ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

How a pro-abortion liberal gay activist can cite the 6th commandment as the basis for needing stricter laws of any kind is beyond laughable. Not only is he obviously cherry picking, I'd be willing to bet he's voiced his opinion against anyone forcing their religious beliefs on him, you know, like displaying them on pubic property. Just a quick glance at all 10 of them will prove what he really thinks applying them to his lifestyle.

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy G_d in vain.


IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.


V. Honour thy father and thy mother.

I bet they both are doing cartwheels with glee about your lifestyle choice.

VI. Thou shalt not kill.

There's no qualifier here, it doesn't exclude the unborn.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

That includes sex outside of marriage and you can't possibly be legally married, Don.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Honesty isn't exactly one of your strong points, we've all seen that too many times in here in your comments, just like the one I'm replying to now.


X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

That's ANYTHING, including you neighbor's husband cuz he's so goshdarn cute.

The problem with that st... (Below threshold)

The problem with that statement is the fact that the phrase "criminals who prey on others" also applies to...oh, let's say, the board of directors of Enron and their unindicted co-conspirators, including POTUS and VPOTUS. Therefore, you're advocating blowing a hole...

Uh...I don't think the Secret Service would feel comfortable with where that line of reasoning is going. I know that I'm don't.


It really wasn't neccessary for you to rack your brain trying to come up with such a "witty" retort. All you had to do was say, "you're right Chris, after considering the points you put forth exposing my idiocy I concede the point that more "common sense" gun laws would have no impact on violent crime".

bull:I never said ... (Below threshold)

bull:

I never said I bought ALL 10 Commandments---the first three are classic narcicism---but number six rocks my world.

BTW, what is it with you and the gay thing? You're OBSESSED, dude...

Chris:

Well, I could have said that...but it would be wrong.

Since you're the one who wants to blow holes in "criminals," I asked you to define your terms. ALL criminals? SOME criminals? Where do you draw the line?

Ok Don, why aren't babies p... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Ok Don, why aren't babies protected in your twisted version of the 6th commandment? It doesn't say thou shouldn't kill adults, it doesn't exclude anyone. Babies don't rock you world? Is that how justify the value of one human life over another, the "rocks Don's world" test? If that's the case you believe we should base our laws on whatever "rocks your world" instead of the ten commandments, excepting of course, number 6, which passes the test. Now tell me who is narcissistic.

Let’s consider a state that... (Below threshold)
John S.:

Let’s consider a state that has almost no regulation of guns -- Cow Hampshire. The 17 year old puke wouldn’t walk into a home with a 22 there, because he could find himself on the wrong end of a double barrel shotgun. Actually he probably wouldn’t, but he still wouldn’t go in because he MIGHT. Citizens in Mass. have been disarmed, and the criminals know this.

Since you're the one who... (Below threshold)

Since you're the one who wants to blow holes in "criminals," I asked you to define your terms. ALL criminals? SOME criminals? Where do you draw the line?

Quite obviously, you dimwit, the discussion is about gun deaths/violent crime, not white collar stuff. Try and stay focused.

Since Don wishes to enact "... (Below threshold)
Dave P.:

Since Don wishes to enact "common-sense gun laws", perhaps he should start by telling us all about a few gun laws he considers NON-common sense and that he wishes to see repealed?

Alternatively, he can explain to the class how the EXISTANCE of Massachusetts' "common-sense gun laws" might have contributed to this tragedy by reassuring the murderers that they would face unarmed and helpless victims.

Or, if he REALLY is serious, he can give us a rundown on Massachusetts' EXISTING gun laws and tell us where they (among the most draconian in the nation) are so weak as to need upgrading.

Or- and far more likely- he can simply continue to display his ignorance.

Bets?

How about: I want to kill a... (Below threshold)
julie:

How about: I want to kill all criminals who are trying to kill me or others or who have committed first degree murder with special circumstances and where the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating one.

And who are you to call others obsessed about the "gay thing"? What do you call your website? And especially after the Gannon nonsense, Clive Tolson.

Well perhaps I'm the only c... (Below threshold)

Well perhaps I'm the only conservative resident of Massachusetts participating in this thread, but I think Don is getting legitimately pounded in this debate -- show me any gun law that deters street gang punks from getting or using guns in their criminal enterprises. "Common Sense Gun Laws" only deter people with common sense and an inclination to obey laws. I'm not a 6th Amendment Yahoo by any stretch --- but violent people are always going to create a means to inflict their harm, Guns are just more efficient.

Street thugs are smart enough to send in peewee, here and in every other urban jungle, because they know kids are more likely to be coddled by the juvie justice system. In defense of our criminal justice system here, however, I would say that juvies committing seriously violent crimes are being tried as adults more often than not, regardless of the liberal democratic persuasion of almost all of the district attorneys -- it's not a liberal-conservative issue, it's a "cumminty" issue, as they say.

And Chris, please try harde... (Below threshold)
wave maker:

And Chris, please try harder not to be such a dickhead -- gratuitous insults do not demonstrate intellect.

uh, Don?I tend ... (Below threshold)

uh, Don?

I tend to take a more literal view of the Sixth Commandment than you do.

Then I suppose you really ought to read it in its original Hebrew - the wod being "ratsakh" which translates as "murder"


typo "wod" = "word"... (Below threshold)

typo "wod" = "word"

And how is it that these de... (Below threshold)
C.Garbin:

And how is it that these debates always become about gun control, but seldom about child control. That is the real issue. We are miserably failing our chidren. WE have taught our children that ANY of our actions can be justified. WE have failed to teach our children values.WE have lost our moral core.
WE as a society have passed on raising our children and left that to
Movies, Music, Video Games, The Gap!!
And all of those things above, and so many more are not to blame for raising our children badly. WE ARE. Us, the ones that work harder and longer and spend less time with our children and more time buying them $120 shoes. WE teach our children, but somehow we forgot to teach then well.

And Chris, please try ha... (Below threshold)

And Chris, please try harder not to be such a dickhead -- gratuitous insults do not demonstrate intellect.

irony

I wonder if the folks over at dictionary.com would be interested in using your above quote as an example.

Chris, I don't know about a... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

Chris, I don't know about all states but in New England, after filling out an application, it takes several weeks to get a permit for a gun and on that permit, it says what kind of gun - including a rifle if you're a hunter. Julie, they will try all three as adults in Massachusetts. The new law has nothing to do with it. Hell 14 year olds have been tried as adults. The only difference right at the moment is that those under 18 cannot be put to death in any state but all states can reverse that ruling and the Supreme Court can also reverse that new ruling and it would not surprise me if they do so. Rod, Ted Kennedy is still alive not because of some kid or some adult but because he had two brothers who ran for president and one who was president and the family has had enough pain and anguish. As long as he doesn't go further than the Senate, and he could have when he was younger, he'll never be assassinated but will die of natural causes.
We have the death penalty in NH - it was hanging - so that goes to show you how long ago a death penalty case was ever fulfilled here. Rob, calling MA "massofshit" isn't very nice; there are worst states than MA. Skybird, we all pay for the room and board of all convicts in prison. We also all pay for all the years and years people are on death row which isn't carried out for at least 10-15 years either. So it's not just bleeding hearts in Mass. Don, I think we're all aware that common sense gun control rules would make situations like this one much less but thank the NRA for making sure common sense rules not getting passed. And yes, I agree that common sense gun rules would indeed reduce gun deaths but I think I already said that.Having or not having the death penalty would not have changed this situation in MA anymore than it would have changed the same situation in any other state. Moseby - not funny. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry have nothing to do with this - your state reps do - so stay on track people. FOCUS. Good job, wave maker; Don is getting blasted here and he's the only one thinking straight. Even in NH, it takes weeks and a background check to get a gun even if it's just for hunting so the person who said that someone might come in and be faced with a double ot shotgun is wrong. It is not our right to bear arms, despite the constitution per amendment. You all think the law comes from the joint sessions of Congress - that's Federal. The LAW regarding guns per state is made by the STATE REPRESENTATIVES - state issue, not Federal issue. Too many of you are showing your ignorance.

Cindy

See what you started Jay? H... (Below threshold)
firstbrokenangel:

See what you started Jay? How about picking on another state with the same kind of example and you'll find it's no different.

Cindy




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy