GUILTY CA - Leila Fowler, 8, murdered, 12yo charged, Valley Springs, 27 Apr 2013 - #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shwalt00

New Member
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
17
Reaction score
1
The other thread will be closed and this one will be used instead, is that correct??
 
MsFacetious said:
This is a good case to look at... Eric is still incarcerated and he is 33 years old. He killed at 13 years old.
Obviously this varies from state to state... but Eric got 9 years to LIFE.

It's odd to think that in California he could only be in until age 25.
Click to expand...

In California they are still of the mind that a 12 or 13 year old is not really an adult. 18 is an adult. If 13 were an adult, they could be drafted, drive a car and not be required to go to school.

I have to admit, I don't understand why a 13 year old is not considered brain developed enough to drive a car, but is considered brain developed enough to be tried as an adult.

ETA: California's line is 14 years old for being tried as an adult for serious crimes.

Interesting article, if anyone is interested:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/09/23/brain-wiring-continues-into-young-adulthood/29719.html
 
The same question applies as to why you can charge a 15 year old girl for killing her baby...
Yet ALSO charge the 18 year old guy who impregnated her because she is underage?
If you can form the intent to KILL... certainly you can content to SEX? :waitasec:

A lot of our laws are contradictory and confusing.
This case will certainly bring them out.

I think it should be largely a case by case basis.
If a 13 year old babysitter shakes a baby in frustration (this has happened in my own family)...
That is much different than torturing a toddler to death.

Some kids who kill at 13, I'd have no problem with them being released at 25.
Others... even their own parents don't want them out at 25. Scary.

I'm not sure yet which kind of kid we are dealing with in this case... if he's guilty at all.

Ghostwheel said:
In California they are still of the mind that a 12 or 13 year old is not really an adult. 18 is an adult. If 13 were an adult, they could be drafted, drive a car and not be required to go to school.

I have to admit, I don't understand why a 13 year old is not considered brain developed enough to drive a car, but is considered brain developed enough to be tried as an adult.

ETA: California's line is 14 years old for being tried as an adult for serious crimes.

Interesting article, if anyone is interested:
http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/09/23/brain-wiring-continues-into-young-adulthood/29719.html
Click to expand...
 
scorekeeper said:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...rder-plot?lite

10 years old????

What is going on with our young children today?

sorry if this has previously been posted.
Click to expand...
From the article:
"The boy told investigators he and his friend had planned to kill a former fifth-grade girlfriend because she was "rude" and "always made fun" of him and friends, according to court documents."

What in the world has happened when the retaliation for someone being rude and making fun of someone is to kill them? What is with the over-reaction to slights?
 
MsFacetious said:
The same question applies as to why you can charge a 15 year old girl for killing her baby...
Yet ALSO charge the 18 year old guy who impregnated her because she is underage?
If you can form the intent to KILL... certainly you can content to SEX? :waitasec:

A lot of our laws are contradictory and confusing.
This case will certainly bring them out.

I think it should be largely a case by case basis.
If a 13 year old babysitter shakes a baby in frustration (this has happened in my own family)...
That is much different than torturing a toddler to death.

Some kids who kill at 13, I'd have no problem with them being released at 25.
Others... even their own parents don't want them out at 25. Scary.

I'm not sure yet which kind of kid we are dealing with in this case... if he's guilty at all.
Click to expand...
Don't get me started on the statutory rape thing.

I agree our laws are contradictory and confusing (you can be drafted at 18, but you can't go get an alcoholic drink if you want one, or legally bet on whether you will make it back or not).

I'd sure like it if the accused are either an adult or they aren't. Go ahead and make the penalties the same for juveniles or adults depending on the crime, on a case by case basis. If intent and understanding of consequences can be proven and they use X type of weapon in the commission of the crime, then sentence the 9, 10, 14, whatever year old as you would anyone else. But, as in California, if a child is 14 then they are magically capable of behaving as an adult if they commit a crime, but not magically capable of behaving as an adult enough to drive, or drink, or become emancipated, or work full time...how does that make sense?

Sorry, general frustration with the lack of consistency and arbitrary rules.
 
A thought...

The, by many, observed "blank" demeanor of 13-year old IF, IMO could have been caused by medication.
Wheter the boy commited the murder or not, he was probably given tranquilizers, starting right after the murder, to calm him down/pacify him, either because he was seriously traumatized or/and because he was considered possibly dangerous if he indeed was the killer (until they had enough evidence to arrest him)
 
IF is 12 right? Did he just have his birthday or why is he now said to be 13?

I want to come back to the question of the boat for a second, because I was the one who brought it up.

I live in India. Someone who has the means to buy a boat is considered very well off. Not filthy rich, but certainly very well off. If that family experienced a tragedy it would be expected by the community that they sell their boat to get through the hardship, certainly donations would not be collected and offered, charity is reserved for poor and underprivileged people. I assumed it is similar in the US. Apparently I was wrong and in the US owning a boat is not considered a sign of being well off.

And as others have said, BF's work has to do with boats, so maybe it isn't even theirs.

However if the boat does belong to the family I would have expected them to sell it and other possible valuables (such as multiple cars, for example), and dig into savings to pay for the funeral, period of no or less income, and whatever legal costs they face. I would find it morally wrong not to do that but instead take money from the community, including people who have less and are facing their own hardship, whether the boy is the culprit or not. That's just how I feel. moo
 
Elainera said:
IF is 12 right? Did he just have his birthday or why is he now said to be 13?

I want to come back to the question of the boat for a second, because I was the one who brought it up.

I live in India. Someone who has the means to buy a boat is considered very well off. Not filthy rich, but certainly very well off. If that family experienced a tragedy it would be expected by the community that they sell their boat to get through the hardship, certainly donations would not be collected and offered, charity is reserved for poor and underprivileged people. I assumed it is similar in the US. Apparently I was wrong and in the US owning a boat is not considered a sign of being well off.

And as others have said, BF's work has to do with boats, so maybe it isn't even theirs.

However if the boat does belong to the family I would have expected them to sell it and other possible valuables (such as multiple cars, for example), and dig into savings to pay for the funeral, period of no or less income, and whatever legal costs they face. I would find it morally wrong not to do that but instead take money from the community, including people who have less and are facing their own hardship, whether the boy is the culprit or not. That's just how I feel. moo
Click to expand...

I as well thought he was 12.
I live in the US and I agree with you on the boat or other valuable non-essential items. I don't know when it changed but it does seem weird that collections have to be made when someones child unexpectedly dies. My family had insurance on us kids, not a million dollars but enough to bury us. jmo

btw funeral homes do have monthly payment plans.
 
Elainera said:
IF is 12 right? Did he just have his birthday or why is he now said to be 13?

I want to come back to the question of the boat for a second, because I was the one who brought it up.

I live in India. Someone who has the means to buy a boat is considered very well off. Not filthy rich, but certainly very well off. If that family experienced a tragedy it would be expected by the community that they sell their boat to get through the hardship, certainly donations would not be collected and offered, charity is reserved for poor and underprivileged people. I assumed it is similar in the US. Apparently I was wrong and in the US owning a boat is not considered a sign of being well off.

And as others have said, BF's work has to do with boats, so maybe it isn't even theirs.

However if the boat does belong to the family I would have expected them to sell it and other possible valuables (such as multiple cars, for example), and dig into savings to pay for the funeral, period of no or less income, and whatever legal costs they face. I would find it morally wrong not to do that but instead take money from the community, including people who have less and are facing their own hardship, whether the boy is the culprit or not. That's just how I feel. moo
Click to expand...

The family is nowhere near well-off. I would say that they probably live paycheck-to-paycheck. They are a family with eight children living in a three-bedroom home that they rent in one of the most expensive states in the country.

If I am seeing the correct boat on Google Maps, it honestly doesn't even look like it has a motor. It looks like a rowboat, which you definitely don't have to be well-off to own.
 
eileenhawkeye said:
The family is nowhere near well-off. I would say that they probably live paycheck-to-paycheck. They are a family with eight children living in a three-bedroom home that they rent in one of the most expensive states in the country.

If I am seeing the correct boat on Google Maps, it honestly doesn't even look like it has a motor. It looks like a rowboat, which you definitely don't have to be well-off to own.
Click to expand...

6 children, not 8? (well now 5 children :( )

You may be right that they're not well off.
 
eileenhawkeye, you might be spot on with your impression, according to this article (bolded parts by me):



Fowler family's troubles detailed in court papers

Although the adults in the Fowler family have said little publicly, court records show it was a household that struggled financially and combined five children born to at least three different mothers.

<modsnip>


http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130517/A_NEWS/305170322
 
Nothing in this article suggests he was well-off in any sense of the word. They can make money for their defense like Casey Anthony and sell pictures. Even an interview with ABC, CBS, NBC or cable news can bring a significant amount of money. I would think the donated money did go to her funeral as they are not cheap and I bet they got a really nice headstone to memorialize her. I would have.

Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2
 
Shwalt00 said:
The other thread will be closed and this one will be used instead, is that correct??
Click to expand...

You automatically go to the new thread and don't have to do a thing !
Our MODS have mad magic skills ! :)
 
Theforeigner said:
A thought...

The, by many, observed "blank" demeanor of 12-year old IF, IMO could have been caused by medication.
Wheter the boy commited the murder or not, he was probably given tranquilizers, starting right after the murder, to calm him down/pacify him, either because he was seriously traumatized or/and because he was considered possibly dangerous if he indeed was the killer (until they had enough evidence to arrest him)
Click to expand...

Sorry the above age of IF was an error, IF is 12-years old.
It´s too late to change it in my previous post, but I have changed in this above quote.
Thanks for correcting me:)
 
Snipped and BBM for space
Elainera said:
However if the boat does belong to the family I would have expected them to sell it and other possible valuables (such as multiple cars, for example), and dig into savings to pay for the funeral, period of no or less income, and whatever legal costs they face. I would find it morally wrong not to do that but instead take money from the community, including people who have less and are facing their own hardship, whether the boy is the culprit or not. That's just how I feel. moo
Click to expand...
I agree!

Elley Mae said:
btw funeral homes do have monthly payment plans.
Click to expand...
Usually in my area when a child passes one of our long time funeral homes donates the service and the headstone. It's always nicely done. Our family has been long time friends with this family and the owner is good people that don't mind giving back to the community. I imagine that any service and headstone would be donated for Leila, too.

Davereid said:
Nothing in this article suggests he was well-off in any sense of the word. They can make money for their defense like Casey Anthony and sell pictures. Even an interview with ABC, CBS, NBC or cable news can bring a significant amount of money. I would think the donated money did go to her funeral as they are not cheap and I bet they got a really nice headstone to memorialize her. I would have.
Sent from my GT-N8013 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Read above about my thoughts of the funeral and headstone.
I hate to say it but wondered from the beginning if the pictures of Leila and the stories would be sold to the highest bidder. I don't like that and hope not. To me it cheapens the relationship they supposedly had with the deceased child as it shows it's all about the money. Some things shouldn't be sold.

ETA When this family asked from the beginning that negative things not be said about their family at this time, it screamed out to me that there must be plenty to say.

MOO
 
Elainera said:
eileenhawkeye, you might be spot on with your impression, according to this article (bolded parts by me):



Fowler family's troubles detailed in court papers

Although the adults in the Fowler family have said little publicly, court records show it was a household that struggled financially and combined five children born to at least three different mothers.

<modsnip>


http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130517/A_NEWS/305170322
Click to expand...

I know the article was put here, to show financial need. It really got me thinking of other things. If IF is guilty (and I personally think he is) I don't think his family situation should really matter. I know since he is a juvenile, it likely will in court.

I see a lot of instability and conflict in those kid's lives. Seems like one bad choice after another, especially on custodial parent's part. (BF.) Just what I take away from the article, at least. I can certainly see that coming into play for the defense of IF.

The thing that REALLY bothers me about that, is people have worse. My own childhood was very traumatic and awful. I never thought of murdering. I never accidentally stabbed someone once, let alone nearly two dozen times. Did I explode and break sometimes? Sure! So did my siblings. So do MOST teenagers who have any amount of angst in their lives. I keep thinking of the millions of kids who go through abuse, neglect, abandonment, torture, poverty, gang life, drug life, and worse. All of the ones that don't stab their innocent younger sister and systematically lie about it. If he did this, there is something broken inside of him. My opinion, is that he killed HER. Not just anyone. I think if another sibling were home that day, it wouldn't have happened. Can we ever trust that can be fixed inside of him? I still think crimes like this, at this age are rare, because PEOPLE like him are rare. I do fear for the public after he gets out.

Of course, my opinion only.
 
eileenhawkeye said:
The family is nowhere near well-off. I would say that they probably live paycheck-to-paycheck. They are a family with eight children living in a three-bedroom home that they rent in one of the most expensive states in the country.

If I am seeing the correct boat on Google Maps, it honestly doesn't even look like it has a motor. It looks like a rowboat, which you definitely don't have to be well-off to own.
Click to expand...

We don't know their financial situation.

We don't know if they're section 8 or if they receive food stamps.

Btw I have a neighbor who pays $ 48 a month in rent on her section 8 rental home. Has a live in boyfriend on SSI who works full time under the table, food stamps... New vehicles in the drive in relatives names. They throw huge parties all summer long complete with a moon bounce, steaks and ribs! They also breed labs ... Pups go for 1200 each and both of her dogs knock out 9-10 pups a litter.

It's more common then ya think.

It infuriates my husband,




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
wow great article....7 kids by 4 different women.

It is a crime that he will be out by the age of 25. I hope that he does not harm again.
 
Interesting that folks find BF being ordered to pay child support for the child he does not have custody telling but are much more forgiving about the mothers who are not paying support to him for children he does have in his custody.

MOO if you do not have custody of your kids you should be paying child support to the person who does. Period. Male female whatever. Not a fan of the double standard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 2,119 (members: 200, guests: 1,919)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
1,919
Total visitors
2,119
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,536
Messages
17,954,218
Members
228,527
Latest member
rxpb
Back
Top