10-year-old boy confesses to fatally shooting a man in his sleep 2 years ago, Texas authorities say
10-year-old boy confesses to fatally shooting a man in his sleep 2 years ago, Texas authorities say
Authorities in Texas say a 10-year-old boy has confessed to an unsolved 2022 killing, telling investigators that he shot a man he did not know while the victim slept.
Brandon O’Quinn Rasberry, 32, was shot in the head in 2022 while he slept at an RV park in Nixon, Texas, about 60 miles (97 kilometers) east of San Antonio, investigators said. He had just moved in a few days before.
The boy’s possible connection to the case was uncovered after sheriff’s deputies were contacted on April 12 of this year about a student who threatened to assault and kill another student on a school bus. They learned the boy had made previous statements that he had killed someone two years ago.
The boy was taken to a child advocacy center, where he described for interviewers details of Rasberry’s death “consistent with first-hand knowledge” of the crime, investigators said.
You're viewing a single thread.
What do you even do for something like this? A literal child? Do you lock them up for life? Rehabilitate under close supervision and reassess? Can someone like this even be rehabilitated?
Don't know about US law, but where I live we have a "Preventative Detention Order" - the threshold for it is very high, but it essentially works as a sentence of "until rehabilitated", you are incarcerated until the court decides that you are no longer a threat to the community, even in cases where a life without parole sentence wouldn't be possible. In a world where I am supreme ruler, it'd automatically apply in cases where someone who has a conviction for a violent crime commits another violent crime.
Also, how the hell does an 8 year old get a gun? Surely whoever failed to secure it - or even worse gave it to a minor - would be looking at an accessory change?
Rehabilitation doesn't happen in the U.S. It's entirely about punishment.
If you're in prison here, you deserve it. Even if you're innocent.
Also, how the hell does an 8 year old get a gun? Surely whoever failed to secure it - or even worse gave it to a minor - would be looking at an accessory change?
Stole it from the glovebox of his grandfathers truck, it's in the article.
But even if the glovebox was locked, if you have the keys to get into the truck, you have the keys to open the glovebox.
I hope the grandfather faces consequences as well.
Kid shot the other dude while he was asleep, so it could be the kid got up in the middle of the night, took the keys to the truck, and unlocked the gun.
I can't see how you could hold grand dad accountable. Nobody could predict an 8 year old that psychopathic. :(
Yeah, literally no way this could have been prevented 🙄
Aren’t there any laws regarding safe gun storage?
In Texas?
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."
But then:
"(3) 'Secure' means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means."
So, placing the gun in a locked glovebox in a locked car would be securing it as far as Texas is concerned.
Further:
"(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this code; or"
So under c3 - The kid stealing the keys and getting the gun anyway would seem to exonerate grand dad.
If I put a gun in a safe and keep the key readily available to anyone, it's not safely stored.
"Take steps a resonable person would take."
That's a low bar.
Yeah, and a reasonable person would realize that putting it in a vehicle the kid can easily unlock isn't safe, if that's how they wanted to store their firearm they should have kept the key in their bedside table during the night, like they would if it had been stored in an actual gun safe.
'Reasonable' is decided by a jury, ultimately. You can argue all you want, but this happened in Texas. Good luck convincing a jury the grandfather was unreasonable when half of them likely don't even lock up their guns.
Yeah pretty sure c3 applies when the kid is trespassing on the property. He was staying there.
Sec. 46.13. (b) (2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.
There is no way that gramps can't be charged for doing exactly that.
According to 46.13. (e) it is only a class A misdemeanor however. IMO this should be treated as a felony.
"would gain access" not "could gain access".
Which of these apply to the situation needs to be decided by a court, right?
Let’s try a different situation: the loaded gun is locked up in a cupboard. The child knows about the gun and the key. The key is easily accessible to the child.
Do you think the law applies in this case?
Glovebox of a car is not a proper storage space for firearms
Texas' safe storage law only requires it be "secured", not the methodology for securing it.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13
(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable person would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
"locked container". So in this case, a locked glovebox in a locked car. Now if he failed to lock either, that's a problem.
Its Texas, depending on the races of the shooter and victim, its either death row or being elected to US or state representative.
Limit access to guns?
Hey hey hey that's enough. Guns are not the problem at all. We need guns to protect us from bad men.
/s
For sure. I bet the guy who was shot in his sleep would have been fine if keep a gun in his hand while sleeping - to scare away intruders. Maybe another gun under the pillow for extra safety. Nothing can stop gun violence except more guns.
(still /s ... Some people in the USA are really weird about guns, and I don't want to fall afoul of Poe's law.)
Akshuly, guns really aren't. At least most of the time. Canada has a high per capita (privately owned) gun ratio, yet next to no gun violence. Switzerland has a relatively high per capita gun ratio and lots of military guns (especially assault rifles and pistols) in peoples' homes due to their reservist system, yet, again, next to no gun violence. Could it be, that the real problem is criminality caused by poverty and dysfunctional social systems? Also, historically, the strictest gun laws were introduced by totalitarian regimes, most of the time. In an ideal world we wouldn't need guns at all, beyond sportive purposes. Would you say we live in an ideal world? I always wonder why especially liberal/left-leaning people (not implying/saying you are one) are so opposed to private gun ownership. Especially as a socialist/humanist I want to see as many military weapons as possible in private hands. If the AfD (NSDAP v2) comes to power in Germany I would love to have a vote made from high velocity pointy metal instead of useless paper to avert a 4th Reich or die trying.
I don't know man, I find it hard to believe that a child can just stumble upon a gun if they weren't that common and the discourse around it wasn't so brain-dead.
Such cases are pretty rare though. I'd argue two things:
- Had applicable law been followed, this would not have happened.
- The kid is the problem, not the gun. The kid taking the gun and shooting someone is a symptom. Something is horribly wrong with that kid, and gun control won't fix it.
There are problematic kids, teens and adults. We need to protect the guns from them by locking the guns up and not letting them be anywhere near problematic people by basically making them really, really hard to obtain. People need to be thoroughly investigated to ensure they don't end up giving guns the bad name. That way problematic people won't touch our precious guns.
I completely agree with that. But maybe, just maybe, we can try to help them with the problems instead of only restricting their access to guns. Again, fix the causes, not the symptoms. Fix poverty, establish proper welfare, provide affordable (universal) health care. It's really not rocket science. The debate for stricter gun control is a distraction from the actual problems/causes.
Why not both?
Edit: surely fixing poverty and uplifting mental health in this high anxiety pandemic is a much harder problem than, checks notes, gun control.
It's not not done because it is difficult. It's not done because it is not profitable for those in power.
Yeah ... blame the small child instead of the institution that allows millions of guns to be owned by almost anyone who wants one.
That's a really stupid take on what I said.
Could it be, that the real problem is criminality caused by poverty and dysfunctional social systems?
What a tortured take. A loaded gun in a fucking glovebox absolutely IS a problem.
A loaded gun in a fucking glovebox absolutely IS a problem.
Yes. I never said anything to the contrary.
Had applicable law been followed, this would not have happened.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.13
What a tortured take.
Feels like you're talking about your own comment.
In Switzerland's case, most of these "military guns" are not kept with ammo, so it's not like Timmy can go on a shooting spree with a glorified pipe section. There's also an actual license system for buying and owning weapons and ammo.
I always wonder why especially liberal/left-leaning people (not implying/saying you are one) are so opposed to private gun ownership
Well, there's a pretty good example of why virtually unrestricted gun ownership is a bad idea in the USA. Are poverty, healthcare the bigger issues? Of course. That doesn't mean you should compound them by making it easy for people to act with deadly force at the tip of their finger on impulse. Have a proper license system, make gun safes mandatory, don't give licenses without good reasons (self defense isn't one in 99.99% of cases), control ammunition sale.
Well, Timmy can't take the military issue ammunition home, but there are next to no restrictions for him to buy ammunition. All he needs is a passport (doesn't even need to be Swiss) and a clean criminal record that is no older than 3 months.
Well, there's a pretty good example of why virtually unrestricted gun ownership is a bad idea in the USA.
Only if you mistake symptoms for causes. The US is a great example though, because no other western nation has such an extreme wealth distribution, poverty, and dysfunctional welfare. And no other western nation has violence problems to that degree.
I'm no swiss law expert, but that's not what wikipedia says regarding buying ammunition. And even what you describe is already more than what is needed in the USA isn't it?
Add-on:
And even what you describe is already more than what is needed in the USA isn't it?
I'm no expert on US gun law, but what I do know, is that blanket statements on US gun law are almost always wrong. Gun legislation varies highly between states. There are places where it is rather lax, and then there are places where it is really strict. It's been a while (read decades) since I read about it more in depth. From the top of my head: a third to a half of the states has gun legislation comparable to that of Germany (comparable in "strictness", not wording). New York and one or two other places have even (much) stricter legislation than Germany.
No idea, if that comparison to Germany helps you, but it is the best reference I have.
Yeah I'm aware legislation can vary a lot between states, I suppose I'm more talking about what one might call a minimum federal standard? To take an example, legal drinking age is technically free to be set by states, but the federal government will stop paying for highways if it's below 21, or something along these lines.
I'm no swiss law expert, but that's not what wikipedia says regarding buying ammunition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland
In order to purchase ammunition, the buyer must fulfill the same legal rules that apply when buying guns (art. 15 WG/LArm). Foreigners with citizenship to the following countries are explicitly excluded from the right to buy and own ammunition: Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Algeria and Albania.
The buyer must provide the following information to the seller (art. 15, 16 WG/LArm; art. 24 WV/OArm):
- a passport or other valid official identification (the holder must be over 18 years of age) (art. 10a WG/LArm).
- a copy of their criminal record not older than 3 months, a weapons acquisition permit which isn't older than 2 years, or a valid European Firearms Pass, if asked by the seller (art. 24 § 3 WV/OArm).
I seem to have misread the license part as an additional requirement rather than an optional one with the criminal record, thanks for the correction
because no other western nation has such an extreme wealth distribution, poverty, and dysfunctional welfare. And no other western nation has violence problems to that degree
Do we define Brazil as western generally or no
Canada has a high per capita (privately owned) gun ratio, yet next to no gun violence. Switzerland has a relatively high per capita gun ratio
If those two nations are considered high, what would you consider the US which has 3x the amount of guns per capita than Canada does? Do we just label US gun ownership fucking absurd so gun nuts stop bringing up that ridiculous point?
The US has way more than 3x as many guns per capita than Canada. The official estimate are also almost certainly low by an absurd amount.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180508072254/http://weaponsman.com/?p=33875
The number I found was within that range (the low number) so the per capita numbers would be 3-5x. The main point is the same though that we have an absurd amount of guns.
That range was also based on 2016 number before NICS check and sales records were smashed over and over again. The numbers being presented now are at the bottom of the likely range from nearly a decade ago after millions and millions of guns have been sold over the past years. I would be very surprised if there were actually fewer than 750m in the us.
[...] the US which has 3x the amount of guns per capita than Canada does[.]
Has Canada one third the per capita gun violence of the US? Spoiler: it doesn't. People bring up that point because it clearly shows that gun ownership does not correlate with "gun crime". Guns do not cause crime. Guns are a means to an end. Do you want to treat symptoms? Then go ahead and regulate shit out of guns. Or, do you want to treat causes? Then prevent poverty, establish proper welfare and universal health care.
If you feel the need to label everyone who brings up that point a gun nut, I will have to call you a smooth brain for not understanding the difference between symptoms and causes. But, maybe we can do without the insults?
Has Canada one third the per capita gun violence of the US?
Nobody is claiming it is a 1:1 correlation. While guns themselves do not commit crime, they make it significantly easier to commit. Lowering the opportunity cost to commit crime is going to lead to a higher amount of crime plain and simple. Most gun violence is committed by gangs. If fewer of them had access to guns, it would be much harder for them to commit violent crimes since drive by stabbings are not as much of a thing and would not increase as a substitute for guns. We can look at the UK which has similar levels of wealth inequality to the US and has similar rates of knife related violent crime but significantly lower gun violence.
Should we treat poverty? Absolutely. But that has a hell of a lot more variables in it and is a much bigger task. We can also walk and chew gum at the same time and work on both of them. I'm not even one to ask for significant gun restrictions outside of those in Canada or Switzerland. But if you are looking to decrease gun violence, the most sure fire way is going to be to significantly decrease the number of guns.
But if you are looking to decrease gun violence, the most sure fire way is going to be to significantly decrease the number of guns.
The issue that we must face in the USA is that is not remotely possible. They are here to stay regardless of what anyone wants. They number in the hundreds of millions and can perpetually exist in silent, dark places that no one knows about. They don't announce their presence with beacons or signals, and could be hidden anywhere.
The way I face that issue is to not worry about it. I take comfort in knowing that violent crime is very rare, and my society is very safe overall, and I carry on doing whatever I want without fear of any of that.
This, yeah. The reason that gun laws vary so wildly on a state by state basis is because plenty of cities have implemented pretty strict gun laws at the behest of their citizens, but without overarching federal legislation which is pretty fuckin hard to get passed, nothing ever happens and you can just take in guns by the vanload from a state or two away.
You'd also probably see some level of civil disobedience or refusal to enforce whatever amount of gun regulation, by the police, by storefronts, by gun-owning citizens, whatever. I expect that would probably go up as you increased regulation. I dunno about federally requiring licensing in that context. The usual response to this is a delusional kind of "WELL THEN JUST ARREST THEM OR FIRE THEM ALL" kind of thing, but, I mean, if even a third of people decide not to conform, or actively oppose, your legislation, that's a pretty big problem that requires more careful consideration.
Anything so you don't have to give up your murder machines and act like a normal functioning person
STFU.
Solid argument.
At this point, any argument against gun control is in bad faith, full stop.
From my point of view, any argument for gun control is a distraction from the real problems: Poverty and dysfunctional social systems.
Edit: Also, it's pretty rich to allege bad faith, when you reply with nothing but STFU to a reasonable comment.
STFU.
Solid argument.
If that man had a gun connected to a booby trap to protect him while he was sleeping, he wouldn't be dead at the moment!
Well firstly interview all of the child's caregivers. Determine the living conditions the child has experienced for the past several years. Determine what failures of supervision happened that resulted in an 8 year old gaining access to a firearm.
Then remediate unsafe living conditions, provide therapy, and charge whatever people who were responsible for the kid with manslaughter.
ban gta duh
/s
Yep of course lol
Psychopathic behavior. Only thing to do would be lifetime commitment.
Sure you meant lifetime free mental services in response to something a 7 YEAR OLD did
Yup. Psychopaths can't really be cured.
Amazing that you know so much about this child's medical diagnoses. Where are you getting this information?
The fact that he straight up killed a guy he did not know and had no contact with. That's classic psychopathic behavior.
Follow that with threatening to kill another kid at school and bragging about how he already killed someone already.
what are the main elements of psychopathic behavior? surely it isn't about how much contact you have with the guy you kill. what in particular about that behavior is psychopathic?
https://www.healthline.com/health/psychopath
behavior that conflicts with social norms - Yes
disregarding or violating the rights of others - Yes
inability to distinguish between right and wrong - Yes
difficulty with showing remorse or empathy - Yes
tendency to lie often - Unknown, but likely.
manipulating and hurting others - Yes.
recurring problems with the law - Yes.
general disregard toward safety and responsibility - Yes.
expressing anger and arrogance on a regular basis - Yes.
So out of 7 categories, this kid hits 6 of them.
doesn't look like a list made for a 7 year old.
Psychopathy can present at any age.
didn't say it can't; this has nothing to do with my comment
Ah, so you're just full of shit and diagnosing someone you've never met with credentials you do not have.
what about idiocy?
Oh, man, if only there was a cure for idiocy...
LiFeTiMe
Right ...
I thought I was going crazy haha. Adults don't even always do life for murder.
For the grandfather, I assume you mean?
The grandfather is not the psychopath here.
He kept the murder weapon as a loaded pistol in his glovebox and then he sold it after the murder happened, so...
Means nothing. People in Texas keep loaded weapons and buy and sell them all the time. There's no evidence he knew what the kid did. In fact, there was very little contact between the kid and the victim, not surprising for psychopathic behavior.
If you keep loaded firearms where children can find them, with or without your knowing, then you deserve to be locked up for your psychopathic behavior.
Locked in a glovebox and locked in a car meets the safe storage guidelines in most states.
Yes I'm sure that's enough to keep it out of the hands of children. /s
arrest the parents for leaving weapons lying around. Bar him from gun ownership until 1,000 hours of community service are done.
He doesn't need a gun again, at all
You act like he killed someo…
Oh.
You make sure it can’t breed, and then you arrest the parents, do the same, and lock them all up.
I dont know if you are a troll or just an honest sociopath. And i honestly dont care. But to just impulsively call a child "it", and then continue going down such an unfeeling, inhuman line of thought, imo, is morally obtuse and offensive to society as a whole. Your response here is neither welcome nor encouraged. Sincerely, fuck you.
Troll
Hey, at least I don’t kill people. I’m the bad guy.
Well seig my heil, honey! Jong my Un, loooooord.