>>Virginia law prevents six-year-olds being tried as adults. And the child would also be too young to be committed to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice if found guilty.
>
>Correct, and also (like you said), state law prohibits anyone under the age of 11 from being sent away to Juvenile Hall.
>(The parental rights can be taken away from the parents at pretty much any age)
>
>There's a general argument that minimum age of 11 is because, in effect, 5-6 year old kids never do anything that rises to the level of a criminal offense....in layman's terms, no need to have laws saying you can arrest and charge a 5-6 year old with crime, because....5-6 year old kids usually don't do anything that serious.....and in the rare cases, where it happens, it's an accident. Well, this case might wind being unprecedented in multiple ways.

Over here there is a similar border: under 14y there is no culpa- or liability for the offender (parents might be liable). Also over here there is a tendency to charge 18 - 21y old under youth laws, even repeat offenders - which is stooopid at nth level.

Main critique from my side are too steep or rigid border steps. The 14y rule here leads in a few times in repeat offenders abusing that "freedom" (often later unable to break the habit) or at least testing such borders. I remember 13y olds circumventing the no alcohol sold under 16 rule by simple theft to impress creatures having grown bulges on upper body...

Start "unpleasant consequences" at 10 or 11 (involving or separating from parents as necessary) and make those consequences "easier to remember" as kid gets older. At such young age "Juvenile Justice" should not enter the picture, but unwanted activities each weekend might dampen future enthusiasm for repeats. Which is probably beside the point here, I realize.

IMO sub 16y should never be tried as adult, 16+ only in extreme cases (correlated with repeat offense and planning/foresight needed) but do not start to teach that under certain circumstances there will be no bad consequence.

The US "3 strikes" laws IMO have a correct idea, but might have bad/too early or too strict implementation, as guesstimated from here purely on reading about it - codifying such steps to enter risc/reward calculation IMO a good idea, but with more, less drastic steps. Also simple behavior science.

>(I'm not saying kids that young should be charged....they shouldn't....but I won't be at all shocked if some relevant aspects of this case are put under a microscope while other relevant aspects of this case are swept under the rug. I say that as a parent of a kid in the public school system).

Look at parents / home situation first (and expect minimal truth be offered). Next - How easy it was to get a loaded gun IMO most relevant: Ammunition stored separate ? Weapon unloaded and locked away ? Or a loaded gun "found" after the owner wanted to distance himself from it ? And yes, I expect microscope attention missing some rug bulges in media coverage at least...

IMO both our countries (coming from different sides) would be better off if targeting Swiss attitude: train respect for and use of weapons in the army, later give weapons to lock inside homes under strict rules. Yes, some of these guns will be used in suicides or misused otherwise. And yes, there will be a delta of avoidable (aka stupid impulse) suicides as those guns (mostly long ones) are easier to reach.

More important to prevent a mindset in a ground school kid that it is normal or ok to use a gun and to identify those furthering ideas or means which resulted in that shooting.

my 0.22
thomas

P.S. happy to see you here again - visit more often...