View Full Version : 12 year girl kill sleeping mother
Showtime
10-11-2004, 09:52 AM
As with the latest craze sweeping america. We have another psycho pre teen girl.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/11/mother.shot.ap/index.html
Wtf?
-j
DarkFury
10-11-2004, 09:53 AM
Geezus... Are we gonna have to start sleepin' with one eye open? :eek:
What da hell is gettin' into these kids..... :2far:
Fas-ligand
10-11-2004, 03:39 PM
A picture is worth a thousand words....and a thousand words can be said about not having a picture! doh
...maybe it's just me...
gwilks98
10-11-2004, 03:52 PM
What da hell is gettin' into these kids..... :2far:
An older daughter, Thanica Derrick, said her mother had been having trouble with the girl. Walton had six children and lived in a converted garage used as the family home....
...."There's nothing that bad to make her do that to my mama. She had been breaking out of the house and not going to school."
Do I need to go into further detail? Sounds like a messed up family to begin with.
(What's a converted garage?)
Who's going to be the first person to say that this has been happening all throughout history... go on... someone...
While that may be true (and the 3 kids that raped granny), this is seemingly happening at a higher frequency in my viewing. Part of it has to do with media coverage, but I don't believe that is the entire reason. Guarantee that the numbers of these kind of incidents will increase in the future, due to careless parents (where'd she get the gun?) and overexposure to violence on TV. I'm not going to try to take a stab at why this particular case happened, but look at primetime TV today vs. 1960. Half of the dramas in primetime begin with a murder :2far: It may be related, that's all I am saying. And not that there's a big problem with that -- but I suspect many kids aren't being supervised too well, period. I believe that current day parenting is harder than in the past.
The important fact is that this is just plain sad that the mother was attempting to discipline her child, which is a step in the right direction, and it backfired... but still sounded like a troubled family to begin with.
bachviet
10-11-2004, 08:57 PM
Lock your doors!
Damn kids nowaday :disa:
ialsohaveadream
10-11-2004, 09:47 PM
Who's going to be the first person to say that this has been happening all throughout history... go on... someone...
Lizzie Borden, anyone?
Lizzie Borden, anyone?
Read the next line, then hopefully that will be all ;)
Also, while many many suspect she did it, it has never been proven (http://www.crimelibrary.com/lizzie/lizziemain.htm) :eek3:
welfareloser
10-12-2004, 06:26 AM
Who's going to be the first person to say that this has been happening all throughout history... go on... someone...
'kay. i'll say it ;)
While that may be true (and the 3 kids that raped granny), this is seemingly happening at a higher frequency in my viewing.
nope... actually, at a lower frequency than at damn near any other era you want to compare it to... remember, there are a lot more people around today... per capita, it's happening less. promise.
Part of it has to do with media coverage, but I don't believe that is the entire reason. Guarantee that the numbers of these kind of incidents will increase in the future, due to careless parents (where'd she get the gun?) and overexposure to violence on TV. I'm not going to try to take a stab at why this particular case happened, but look at primetime TV today vs. 1960. Half of the dramas in primetime begin with a murder :2far: It may be related, that's all I am saying. And not that there's a big problem with that -- but I suspect many kids aren't being supervised too well, period. I believe that current day parenting is harder than in the past.
kids were much less-well supervised in the 1930s... in the 1890s... and had much better access to guns.
but you're right that graphic violence in the media increases comfort level with violence. that's been proven over and over... but jsut remember, throughout most of history, you took kids to see public executions. you took kids to a picnic lunch to watch a civil war battle. etc. the utopia of the 1950s was short-lived and mostly an illusion, if that's the comparison that you have in the back of your mind...
The important fact is that this is just plain sad that the mother was attempting to discipline her child, which is a step in the right direction, and it backfired... but still sounded like a troubled family to begin with.
the child was probably mentally ill. and i doubt the mother had health insurance to cover treatment for it. even with insurance, it's really difficult to get children treated for mental illness, between societal stigmas, nationwide lack of child psychiatrists, and lack of psychiatrists willing to see children. and insurance not feeling obligated to cover it much, if at all.
not really trying to argue with you... but the picture is a lot more complex than "kids these days... society's going to hell... etc."
blueindian
10-12-2004, 01:30 PM
a kid that my wife was friends with as a child, and who i later met in my teens, killed his mom when he as 14. she abused him severly and he finally got fed up with it. blew her brains out while she slept.
ialsohaveadream
10-12-2004, 04:12 PM
Read the next line, then hopefully that will be all ;)
Also, while many many suspect she did it, it has never been proven (http://www.crimelibrary.com/lizzie/lizziemain.htm) :eek3:
Read MY next line, and hopefully that will be all...
OJ didn't get convicted either.
nope... actually, at a lower frequency than at damn near any other era you want to compare it to... remember, there are a lot more people around today... per capita, it's happening less. promise.
It's just a modern tendency to enjoy playing the victim and say that you've got it so hard. "It's never been this difficult to raise kids before! It's never been this hard to keep a marraige together! It's never been this hard to open a jar of pickles!"
Yeah, it's hard to raise kids the right way now. But we also don't have ridiculously high infant mortality, which is nice. And if ADHD and obesity are the biggest epidemics among kids (versus say....black plague and scarlet fever), we're actually not that bad off.
welfareloser
10-12-2004, 05:43 PM
It's just a modern tendency to enjoy playing the victim and say that you've got it so hard.
all well-said... and if you wanted to explore a few levels of irony, i could point out that you think that playing the victim is a modern development, when in fact, there are hundreds of quotes as far back as writing goes about "modern society is going to hell!" ;) (and if you google em up, they are actually fairly entertaining... people in the 1500s talking about how disrespectful today's youth are... people in the 1700s saying modern society is godless and going to hell... )
ialsohaveadream
10-12-2004, 06:07 PM
Good point. Will the court reporter please strike the word "modern" from the plaintiff's testimony?
ShawnLee
10-12-2004, 09:25 PM
Lizzie Borden took an axe,
and gave her mother forty whacks.
When she saw what she had done,
she gave her father forty-one. I wish I were that imaginative.
GracieBayb
10-12-2004, 09:31 PM
shooting your own mother in the face... :disa: makes me feel like what is the world coming to?
ApltnHkyMutt
10-12-2004, 10:48 PM
Lock your doors!
Damn kids nowaday :disa:
Dont you mean close the garage door.. lol :gle:
welfareloser
10-13-2004, 06:32 AM
shooting your own mother in the face... :disa: makes me feel like what is the world coming to?
it's "coming" to the same place it's always been... you had a nice childhood and thought everybody was inherently good and that there really weren't that many people out there that are permanently, grotesquely damaged. you grow up, you find out that it's ugly out there... you just need to realize that it has been all along.
heck, i took my kids to mcdonalds the other day, went out of my way to go to the nice, clean one... and this family of pure trash shows up with a 3 and a 4 year old boy who went out of their way to beat up on other kids. they push eg a few times, he just avoids them, which is fine... then they went after an 18 month old... like, took a detour to kick him. that's when i jumped up and yelled at the damned kid while his tatooed freak parents were busy making out. later, one of the brats goes over and tries to push another kid out of the way; that kid pushes back... and good ol dad yells "defend yourself, skyler!" umm, yeah. great. i stationed myself in the middle of the play place to give the kids dirty looks and keep them from beating up on anyone, which thankfully worked and didn't result in trailermommy trying to beat me up, which i was pretty much expecting... point being, that dad is permanently broken. he is breaking his kids into dysfunctional *******s who will do time in jail because of a permanent "f*** you" attitude. people like that have always existed and will continue to create mor of themselves... luckily, they tend to kill each other in higher numbers than they kill us good people... and really, there is a lower proportion of that kind of human trash around today than there was in, say, frontier times... or the 1930s... or medieval europe...
it's better now because of our mandatory education and higher standards of living for even the poorest of the poor...
and you can never fix everybody, but there could be even less of it if we would raise the minimum wage, make sure everyone had health insurance, and fixed our education system so that every child gets the same good services.
Read MY next line, and hopefully that will be all...
OJ didn't get convicted either.
Not to stray too far from topic, but by that you are implying that OJ was guilty, are you not? So how did he get away? I assume the notion is that money or fame bought his freedom, either that or a court system whose flaw is other than bribery. Either way, back in Lizzie's day, you might say that the townspeople would think, "A little girl could have never done this," but you'd be wrong, because if no one suspected her, it would go down as an unsolved mystery unrelated to her. Yet you'll find that in most history classes a modern "trial" is discussed over whether she did it or not. Also, she wouldn't have had Johnny Cochrane, fame, or money to let her get away with it :heh: Oh well. Back to the point.
I would be interested to see statistical summary of parental murders over time, per capita, not just speculation. Which makes me think, if what some of you are saying is true (mostly from the elderly woman rape thread) that there is the same amount of violent crimes committed by pre-teens (per capita... about the same fraction of teens in a group will exhibit this behavior) now compared with in earlier times, and population has risen, that would mean today's crimes are committed at a HIGHER frequency than prior times. You pick the time in history, it will most likely have lesser population. let's say 1/100 pre-teens will commit a violent crime within 1 year of the time you choose, and the current population is 10x greater now, 10/1000 pre-teens will commit a violent crime within 1 year. In the time you chose, there was 1 crime commited in 1 year. In our time, there would be 10 violent crimes commited in 1 year.
Does anyone follow my reasoning that it's happening more often? Anyone? Of course, it will change if you change your mind about kids being better or worse now versus then, which wlf says kids are better now, which could still be a higher frequency of occurance, the same, or worse. None of us know for sure.
GracieBayb
10-13-2004, 09:43 AM
I know you're right Welfare about this not being a new occurrence... but I don't think that this is a problem that stems from our standards of living or education
I know that this isn't the first case of a child murdering their parent(s)... I think that the Menendez Brothers are probably one of the more popular examples of this. One of my highschool neighbors brutally shot his mother and sister in their sleep when I was a sophomore... I don't really think that it had anything to do with standard of living because both the Menendez Brothers and my neighbor are from affluent backgrounds and had every opportunity handed down to them on a silver platter
I think the real issue here, is being a loving, responsible parent regardless of your economic circumstances and knowing how to control and discipline your child in a positive way
It seems like parental murder is being committed by kids that are younger than in the past. Might be written off as mentally instability, but humans don't have instinct to kill. From my education, the first murder occured with the invention of the scythe (hence the Grim Reaper carrying one). Is it too far off to say that she learned the violence SOMEWHERE, maybe through TV, a violent family member, etc.? I hope I am just stating the obvious, but just want to be clear.
I don't want to go off on how kids are growing up faster these days in this thread, but they are :P Puberty hits sooner for more girls now, mainstream exposure to violence and skankiness on TV with more media options. And if it has NOTHING to do with media, please comment on what it might makes 11 year olds want to dress sexy now whereas they didn't 10 years ago. Going off what welfare said about how Lizzie might have seen a public execution back in the day. Similar to homicide on TV in my mind. I'm just making an observation... not trying to get into right or wrong.
welfareloser
10-13-2004, 11:28 AM
I know you're right Welfare about this not being a new occurrence... but I don't think that this is a problem that stems from our standards of living or education...I think the real issue here, is being a loving, responsible parent regardless of your economic circumstances and knowing how to control and discipline your child in a positive way
i didn't say education/etc caused the problem. i'm saying improving education and healthcare can help reduce such occurences significantly, both by giving poor parents less of a reason to be assheads, and by giving the children of assheads a solid opportunity to transcend their parenting.
knowing how to control and discipline your child in a positive way can be taught. not to everyone, but there are plenty of receptive idiots out there. "never shake a baby" was a successful campaign, for example. there are underfunded programs out there that do make a difference, just not in as many lives as they could with more funding.
amply available birth control would prevent some of this. it's in our best interest as a society to fund, fund, fund the HECK out of any program that helps people to not have babies they don't want... because it costs us a lot more to deal with them in jail, welfare, etc when they grow up.
etc. anyway. you get the idea.
gwilks98
10-13-2004, 01:33 PM
From my education, the first murder occured with the invention of the scythe (hence the Grim Reaper carrying one).
I'm not sure I buy that. Got any supporting evidence? How old is the scythe? I thought the reaper carried it as a symbol for harvesting souls, not for murder.
ialsohaveadream
10-13-2004, 05:00 PM
Not to stray too far from topic, but by that you are implying that OJ was guilty, are you not? So how did he get away? I assume the notion is that money or fame bought his freedom, either that or a court system whose flaw is other than bribery.
No, my explanation is much simpler than that. OJ lucked out by getting away with murder before the word "DNA" was heard on any and every crime show on TV. If the murder had taken place last year, with the same trial, evidence, etc, I think he would've been found guilty. More people understand now how precise a DNA match is. At the time, it was like "What the hell is DNA?"
Either way, back in Lizzie's day, you might say that the townspeople would think, "A little girl could have never done this," but you'd be wrong, because if no one suspected her, it would go down as an unsolved mystery unrelated to her.
There is always speculation. Unlike OJ, I'm not implying that Lizzie actually did it. I was just pointing out that a parent being murdered by a child isn't a new phenomenon. If the prospect was so outlandish and unprecedented, why did people assume it was Lizzie that killed her parents? Because it wasn't unprecedented.
blueindian
10-13-2004, 05:01 PM
I'm not sure I buy that. Got any supporting evidence? How old is the scythe? I thought the reaper carried it as a symbol for harvesting souls, not for murder.
that's what i was thinking.
ialsohaveadream
10-13-2004, 05:12 PM
That is a weird claim, ski. Where did that come from?
DarkFury
10-13-2004, 07:08 PM
From my education, the first murder occured with the invention of the scythe (hence the Grim Reaper carrying one).
Not to get religious or anything...
Genesis 4:1-9; King James Revised Version
1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."
2 And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.
3 In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground,
4 and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering,
5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.
6 The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."
8 Cain said to Abel his brother, "Let us go out to the field." And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?"
I guess the "scythe" idea might have some merit... if that is what Cain used. But then again, he could've used a rock laying out in the field as well. :shrug:
gwilks98
10-13-2004, 07:32 PM
Not to get religious or anything...
I guess the "scythe" idea might have some merit... if that is what Cain used. But then again, he could've used a rock laying out in the field as well. :shrug:
Are you using the bible as historical fact ? ;)
molecularfire
10-13-2004, 07:53 PM
but humans don't have instinct to kill.
:heh: :heh: :heh: Humans? Are you seeing the same species I am? Of course we have the instinct to kill. Heck, that's the problem with societies in general. No matter what people have tried to curb human nature, eventually human nature shines through and society crumbles.
From my education, the first murder occured with the invention of the scythe (hence the Grim Reaper carrying one).
Actually, the first murder might have been this old fossil that they found in the tar pits. The oldest human skeleton has a bashed in skull which seems unlikely to have been acquired in a tar pit. She was probably killed and the corpse hidden in a tar pit to cover it up. :)
I don't want to go off on how kids are growing up faster these days in this thread, but they are Puberty hits sooner for more girls now, mainstream exposure to violence and skankiness on TV with more media options. And if it has NOTHING to do with media, please comment on what it might makes 11 year olds want to dress sexy now whereas they didn't 10 years ago. Going off what welfare said about how Lizzie might have seen a public execution back in the day. Similar to homicide on TV in my mind. I'm just making an observation... not trying to get into right or wrong.
A couple of observations... 1) sexual development (ex: menses) is partly based on a body fat percentage. It sounds more reasonable to me that the improved nutrition and increased percentage of obesity in children would have more to do with earlier development of children than what they see on TV. As for why 11 year olds want to dress sexy, IMO they did that 50 years ago also. It was just that the definition of semi-appropriate sexy was different then compared to now. If you went back in time and asked parents 50 years ago about this, my guess is that they would say the same thing parents today would say.
DarkFury
10-13-2004, 09:23 PM
Are you using the bible as historical fact ? ;)
Hey... it's the best records we got to support the original statement.
An affidavit of an eyewitness is better than nothing at all. ;)
:heh: :heh: :heh: Humans? Are you seeing the same species I am? Of course we have the instinct to kill. Heck, that's the problem with societies in general. No matter what people have tried to curb human nature, eventually human nature shines through and society crumbles.
...
A couple of observations... 1) sexual development (ex: menses) is partly based on a body fat percentage. It sounds more reasonable to me that the improved nutrition and increased percentage of obesity in children would have more to do with earlier development of children than what they see on TV. As for why 11 year olds want to dress sexy, IMO they did that 50 years ago also. It was just that the definition of semi-appropriate sexy was different then compared to now. If you went back in time and asked parents 50 years ago about this, my guess is that they would say the same thing parents today would say.
I still don't agree that we are born with killer instinct. Let's agree to disagree.
Does it go in cycles? I ought to pull out some pictures from 10 years ago, and compare what girls are wearing then to what they wear now. You're right that the definition has changed. When I was in middle school, 8th grade was the year girls started dressing sexier... 6th grade was still coordinating cute outfits that their mommy probably picked out for them. Now 6th graders are the old 8th graders. Of course, this is one public school in an upper-middle class community, so YMMV with comparing it to other communities.
Here's a new question: aside from Marilyn Monroe (who was more of a sexy WOMAN than a girl IMO), have there been any pop icons over 10+ years ago that push the envelope with the way they dress (any Britney Spears outfit, Christina Ag's camel toe in the Dirty video, etc.)? There were bada**es in the 80's like Joan Jett and Pat Benetar, but they were sexy women that would probably throw you around and didn't dress skanky. I've just observed in my life that when I was 11, girls in my classes liked Janet Jackson and Mariah Carey. They definitely dressed sexy, but in my opinion, when you can see a girl's private parts through her clothes, that's pushing the envelope further, and hopefully everyone will agree on that.
Going back 40 years ago, the song, "It's My Party" by Lesley Gore was a chart topper.
http://gapd.com/DesignPages/BentonGorePlatters/GoreCover.jpg
And now:
http://www.justinrossetti.com/albums/BritneySpears/Britney_Esquire_2.sized.jpg
Just seems to me like people should at least entertain at least a slight connection between pop culture (what young girls are being exposed to) and the way girls dress now. Might be stating the obvious (i'm hoping).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.