Minor nit: "BB" gun. "Bebe", I think is a clothing brand emblazoned across on the shirts of women.

And yeah, us used to walk though the neighborhood with our BB guns, back in the day, with not SWAT team being called.

Shame they can not move to a "rural" environment where they would be more at home and safer.

Get it. The "sticks" are where you are safer from random crime(assuming not drug-related due to your buddies believing you've got stuff) BUT if it happens you are expected to take care of yourself if possible.

Austin, Houston, Dallas need not apply.

Because...the cops would prefer they were looking at 2 dead kids? I mean really, what was their preferred scenario here? There were only 2 ways it was going to play out-I think the way it did was the preferred way.

One of the side effects of our nanny society has been too many bright line age tests for various responsibilities.

In truth there are a lot of 11 year olds who are responsible enough to handle a gun, and to stay home alone.

There are also a lot of 20 year olds, who are not.

This is why the parents should be making these decisions and not the gubmint.

But Nannies gotta nanny. That is what they get paid for. The government employees benefit from the creeping socialism.

It's a nice story, but it may or may not be true.

One of the neighbors claims to have seen the 11yo and the 16yo on the porch, arguing, before the 11yo got the gun and shot the other kid.

This may just be a case of two young thugs working together to improve the gene pool.

"one of the neighbors claims to have seen the 11yo and the 16yo on the porch, arguing, before the 11yo got the gun and shot the other kid."

There is a world of difference in physical strength between a 16 year old, and an 11 year old.

Whatever the circumstances, property rights and self defense law, in this country, give the benefit of the doubt to the person who is in their own house, in these situations.

Another bone to pick, with socialist welfare culture, it blurs the lines between public property and private property, leaving young thugs with the impression, that anywhere they are, is where they are entitled to be...

Single shot to the head, intruder died at the scene. Nice shootin', kid! When the zombie apocalypse comes, I want him on my team.

Yep, all I could think is nice shootin', kid!, too. I see no problem here. Give the kid a medal and a night out letting him decide the movie and restaurant.

Impressive marksmanship! Ithink the police need to stop meddling into why he was babysitting or was able to access a weapon. It was likely good that he could.

My mom left me home alone at age 8, I was babysitting at 10. My dad taught me how to shoot a .22 rifle when I was 5. I grew up in "the sticks" where this was normal. I was also born in 1981, when people still possessed at least some level of common sense.

It's a nice story, but it may or may not be true.

One of the neighbors claims to have seen the 11yo and the 16yo on the porch, arguing, before the 11yo got the gun and shot the other kid.

This may just be a case of two young thugs working together to improve the gene pool.

Posted by: a_random_guy at September 4, 2015 6:01 AM
_______________________________________

Whichever story turns out to be true...somehow, I can't imagine a parent WANTING a kid that age to be prepared to kill an intruder. What kid is really going to be happy about having done that, in the long run? Or be well-adjusted?

In other words, since 11-year-olds are often not even considered old enough to be baby-sitters (for one thing, they typically don't know CPR and/or can't be trusted not to panic in case of fire) maybe this kid simply shouldn't have been left without an adult to do the dirty work instead.

other words, since 11-year-olds are often not even considered old enough to be baby-sitters (for one thing, they typically don't know CPR and/or can't be trusted not to panic in case of fire) maybe this kid simply shouldn't have been left without an adult to do the dirty work instead.

Posted by: lenona at September 5, 2015 11:22 AM

We don't live in an ideal world. Sometimes single mothers and even two parent families face unaffordable choices in our less than ideal world.

The people most likely to be victimized by crime, are those who are forced into bad neighborhoods by economic circumstances.

Whether the kid will be scarred for life, depends a lot on his mental fortitude ( and how the adults around him react to the event). If they insist that he is traumatized, he more than likely will be.

Do you think if he had been sitting behind his mother while she shot the intruder in the head, that scenario would have been substantially better psychologically?

I am well acquainted with a number of people who have witnessed some very traumatic things in their lives, and for the most part, become better adults for it.

(Try seeing your older sister self imolate or you mother decapitated in the car seat in front of you.)

Death from a gunshot is actually kind of on the clean side of things.

I bet there is hardly a kid living on the south side of Chicago who hasn't seen someone shot in the head before.

If someone is looking for an excuse to be a basket case, they are extremely likely to find one.

"Whichever story turns out to be true...somehow, I can't imagine a parent WANTING a kid that age to be prepared to kill an intruder."

Wonder no more Lenona. I am a parent and I hope my children will be capable of defending themselves and others. I don't want them to be in a situation where they have to use lethal force. But that isn't something under my control. So being capable and prepared is the next best option.

Also, CPR is not that useful of a skill. Especially trying to perform it on a very young child. If it wasn't glorified so much on TV we probably would stop teaching it.

But that isn't something under my control.
______________________________________

My point was that people shouldn't be bringing kids into the world in the first place if they have to leave them alone at very young ages - and/or live in dangerous neighborhoods. It's not fair to the kids. So that would be something that is certainly "under their control."
______________________________________

Also, CPR is not that useful of a skill. Especially trying to perform it on a very young child. If it wasn't glorified so much on TV we probably would stop teaching it.

Posted by: Ben at September 5, 2015 6:29 PM
________________________________

Er...explain, please? Why is it "not that useful," aside from the fact that plenty of babysitters never have to use it unless they become full-time nannies or healthcare workers, maybe?

Besides, as I understand it, child CPR is different from the regular kind, so of course you wouldn't hire a nanny who didn't know child CPR. There was a TV ad some years ago, aimed at parents, urging THEM to learn infant/child CPR - if that campaign has stopped, why?

Welp Lenona, I guess no one should ever have had kids. Wars break out. Robbers break into houses. Or is it just poor people we should sterilize? Since you have made clear you don't want kids and have none of your own I say keep your imperialist genitalia police to your self.

And you need to read up on your CPR. Mouth to mouth has some efficacy but chest compressions are usually worse than doing nothing. And that's just the adult variety. You are more likely to kill a kid than save his life with CPR even with proper training. Call 911. Paramedics have much better tools and training.

I don't know if there is still a push for child CPR training. Doesn't really matter. I expect it is demand driven just like adult CPR training. If TV didn't make CPR look so good we would have discontinued it ages ago. The actual medical outcomes are not good.

Haven't "read up" just yet, but I do remember seeing something on CBS about how it's occasionally possible to revive a patient after an HOUR of CPR!

I'm guessing you'd need at least two EMTs for that, to avoid either one's getting exhausted. But even if you aren't one, you could still get the process going while you're waiting for them to arrive.