# An ethics question - a 15 yo boy is killed by his friend - who is culpable?



## Warrigal (Jul 25, 2015)

Is it the victim, his friend, the parents who weren't vigilant or video games. No-one or everyone?

Discuss



> *AP Exclusive: Teen's killing by friend goes to special jury*
> 
> *July 25, 2015*
> 
> ...


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 25, 2015)

Who is culpable? My gosh, what a case! In the end, it was the shooter who did not use judgement before firing. It seems he panicked.

 The incident also makes me question the sanity of his parents. Taught to hunt? With a hand gun? What on earth did the boy need a handgun in his bedroom for? Enrolled him in hunter's saftey course but didn't know it was illegal for the underage teen to have a gun?

Took away TV as punishment for taking the gun outside the home? That's fit for a child. They treat him as the child he technically is, but let him have a handgun. That's just crazy in my opinion.

I don't see any blame on the victim.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 25, 2015)

A life has been lost. What is the ethical response to this fact?
What should happen now?


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 25, 2015)

Probably everyone.

It was an accident I get that but if the 15 year shot his friend while OUTSIDE the window and not entering the house right off the bat that could be an issue. I've always heard the intruder must be in the house leaving you with no where to retreat but a bedroom isn't exactly filled with exits.Then the issue of a gun in a 15 year old's bedroom even though an older 38. A hunting course isn't a self defense/home defense course.

 But what was his 17 year old friend doing at his house unannounced at 2:30 in the morning, you are still a kid until 18 in most states. Kids do a lot of stupid things. I've seen stories of teens wrestling near railroad tracks getting run over or 4 teen girls huffing computer cleaner air cans for a high getting into an accident that killed all. One can always ponder the could haves, should haves or would haves 24/7 but the real world result will never change.


----------



## oakapple (Jul 25, 2015)

RadishRose said:


> Who is culpable? My gosh, what a case! In the end, it was the shooter who did not use judgement before firing. It seems he panicked.
> 
> The incident also makes me question the sanity of his parents. Taught to hunt? With a hand gun? What on earth did the boy need a handgun in his bedroom for? Enrolled him in hunter's saftey course but didn't know it was illegal for the underage teen to have a gun?
> 
> ...


I  agree with your post. what a tragic but stupid thing to happen.Surely anyone, even a teenager would check first if they knew who was outside, or shout to them?I don't think that any sentence with detention in it would do anybody any good though, but perhaps attending a series of courses/lectures about guns, and gun death, would ?in fact, how about all schools in the U.S. Doing this as a matter of course? In view of the fact that there seem to be so many gun related accidental deaths.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 25, 2015)

oakapple said:


> I  agree with your post. what a tragic but stupid thing to happen.Surely anyone, even a teenager would check first if they knew who was outside, or shout to them?I don't think that any sentence with detention in it would do anybody any good though, but perhaps attending a series of courses/lectures about guns, and gun death, would ?in fact, how about all schools in the U.S. Doing this as a matter of course? In view of the fact that there seem to be so many gun related accidental deaths.



A lot of areas actually want to teach gun safety but many don't want them for several reasons including safety, desensitization or an admission that guns are a reality and not just a political choice. There needs to be more scared straight type courses especially in cities like Chicago where gang violence is prevalent. We can't even get schools to teach basic tool safety because they dropped general shop/repair courses. It's not just guns that are omitted from the basic courses everyone should take. Many schools are dropping gym at a time when the population is more out of shape than ever.

But in the end there is still the responsibility of the parents to recommend and motivate their kids to take these course or find that information on their own if they don't want to teach it themselves.


----------



## RadishRose (Jul 25, 2015)

Oakapple, I like that idea of a school sponsored courses/lectures you mentioned. 

WhatinThe, I agree it would be difficult seeing as how so much has been stopped in the schools already.


----------



## Falcon (Jul 25, 2015)

Too bad it happened.  But why were those kids out at 2:30 AM trying to wake him up?


----------



## AZ Jim (Jul 25, 2015)

So much wrong here.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 25, 2015)

There are 5 principles of ethics

*Ethical principles include:
*


Beneficence - to do good.
Non-maleficence - to do no harm.
Respect for Autonomy.
Fairness.
Truthfulness.
Justice.

Considering the real, not hypothetical, situation in the OP, how could we apply these principles.

How is justice to be served while doing no harm to the shooter? What does the law say, and is it fair to all parties concerned? Can good come from this tragedy?


I raise these questions purely from a non religious perspective because there is general agreement that religion has no part to play in matters of the law. However wrestling with ethics is not as easy as some would have us believe.


I'm going to focus first on truthfulness. I think that a very full and thorough forensic investigation should be carried out to establish all the facts relating to this tragedy. The findings of this investigation should be examined in a court of law in fairness to all involved: the dead boy, the shooter, the parents of both boys and in the public interest.


----------



## oldman (Jul 26, 2015)

WOW! Such a tragic story. I think the parents of the shooter has to bear some responsibility here. The 15 year-old, I'm not so sure. I''m discounting the desensitizing by the video games. Although they do have some influence on kids, I believe in this situation, a video game did not come into play. Montana is known for their hunting of wild game and having guns is probably fairly common and abundant among the citizens and I would imagine many kids Seth's age has a gun of his own. 

At the end of the day, someone has to be held accountable and make amends for this *loss of life*. I'm just glad it's not me that has to make that decision. One thing is for sure, the kid, Seth Culver, will carry this event with him every day of his life.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jul 26, 2015)

How can justice be served when there has been no injustice? It appears to have been an accidental shooting - no premeditation, no motive, just unplanned opportunity. If anything, the parents of the kids roaming round at 2:30 in the morning ought to be held partially responsible.


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 26, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> How can justice be served when there has been no injustice? It appears to have been an accidental shooting - no premeditation, no motive, just unplanned opportunity. If anything, the parents of the kids roaming round at 2:30 in the morning ought to be held partially responsible.



Sometimes it is what it is-an accident in this case. In retrospect one can analyze anything just like they do on sporting event coverage and analyze and commentate the outcome to death but the outcome will not change.

And YES what was the other kid doing roaming around at 2:30 in the morning. It seems obvious at this point that his friend did not expect him.


----------



## oakapple (Jul 26, 2015)

Kids do unpredictable and random things ( like waking other friends at 2. 30 a.am) A tragic accident.Possibly having killed a friend is punishment enough.


----------



## oldman (Jul 26, 2015)

I don't think tapping on a window at any hour is reason to shoot and kill someone. I am a gun owner of a few handguns and two rifles. I would always want to identify my target before shooting, just like hunting. Just because I hear a rustle in the bushes does not mean that I should expect a deer to be there. So, if I shoot and kill a fellow hunter, I should blame the hunter for rustling the bushes? 

OTOH, parents should have enough good sense not to allow a 15 year-old boy a loaded handgun. If he feels threatened while in the house, I am sure that all he would have to do is yell for Mom or Dad and surely someone would be there in an instant. 

Here it is summertime and the kids are out of school and maybe they shouldn't be out on the streets at 2:30 in the morning, but they were. I can remember myself being of that age and also being out at that time. I may not have been tapping on anyone's window, but if I was going to rob them or try to kidnap them, I would not be tapping on the window and giving myself away. 

I don't apologize for thinking that I am right about this, but I believe the parents have a shared responsibility here, both for the boys and the shooter. I just don't see it as an accident. An accident, IMO, is driving down the street and while looking into the sun, I hit a car in front of me. This was no accident. The shooter "meant" to do what he did. 

I am a responsible gun owner with locks on my triggers. When I go to bed, I have a gun by the bed that I remove the lock from, so that it is ready just in case. In the morning when I get out of bed in the a.m., the lock is put back in and the key is returned to its hiding place. (It's simpler to do than removing the clip and emptying the chamber.) All of the other weapons are kept in a safe with a combination lock. I also have an ADT security system and two outside cameras w/infrared technology that are wired to their own hard drive. (Not paranoid. I just did this as a project for something to do and to find out if I could do it. Now that I have it, I hate to get ride of it because I see all kinds of critters that come roaming around at night that I never knew where in our neighborhood.)


----------



## WhatInThe (Jul 26, 2015)

...tapping on the window...

This is the major legal area/question. Did the boy respond to a legitimate threat or over react. What kind of castle doctrine is there in Montana. Many states require the intruder to be IN your house and not at an entrance or on the property. Also was there an option to retreat or escape. But would they take into consideration he was asleep so he didn't have the time to think about the situation. Were the lights even turned on. All that turns into after the fact analysis which can argued and debated over and over again. 

The 15 year old is a juvenile and probably would be treated as such without a first degree murder charge. He'll have to live with that the rest of his life. It is sad.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jul 26, 2015)

Oldman, you're obviously a seasoned gun owner - remember we're talking about a kid here whose only training was rudimentary hunter safety. His reflexes are faster than his thought processes at this age. 

And in some places (not sure where you were) you DO shoot first and ask questions later, especially in your own home at that time of night. Hunting is a different mindset - your home isn't being invaded by an unknown perp - you're the one setting the time and place of pulling that trigger, you KNOW that there's going to be a shooting.

I don't believe that Mom or Dad would have been there "in an instant" - getting organized and fully awake during an emergency at 2:30am takes some moments. Had this been a murder attempt the child would be dead. Had it been a robbery it might have turned into something worse.


----------



## oakapple (Jul 26, 2015)

Oldman, out of curiosity, what critters do you have in your neighbourhood? we just have the odd fox pottering about or a badger.


----------



## Underock1 (Jul 26, 2015)

What the Devil is any 15 year old doing with a hand gun in their room, and a loaded one at that?
No doubt in my mind that the parents are completely at fault here. If they wanted to give their son the gun experience,
so be it, but keep the cursed thing locked up and _unloaded. _He shouldn't even have unsupervised access to bullets. Are they going to give the gun _back _to him??


----------



## Ina (Jul 26, 2015)

The boy will be dealing with his actions for the rest of his life, and most of us judge ourselves harsher than any court can, and it will be a life sentence.

The parents are the most culpable, both sets were being careless.  But for anything positive to come from this happening something educational needs to develope from it.  All four parents should have to take several courses in gun uses and safety, then have to teach it for at least several years. 

Maybe our schools can't address these issues due to political reasons, but maybe our churches could step in.  Church goers hunt too.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 26, 2015)

To me, there seems to be an awful lot of stupid going on in both families, and collectively it led to terrible and tragic consequences.


----------



## oldman (Jul 27, 2015)

oakapple said:


> Oldman, out of curiosity, what critters do you have in your neighbourhood? we just have the odd fox pottering about or a badger.



I live in a development of many houses and in a typical suburbia setting outside of a medium size city. We are surrounded by mountains and forests, and even though we have never seen any of those critters around the neighborhood, my camera has picked them up at night, like deer, skunks, possums and I once even had some kind of animal that I could never identify. (I thought it may have been a coyote.) Most people know that deer are skittish and very few people can approach them without having them run off. I see herds and herds of deer as I travel outside the community, but never in a development, so it was nice to see that we do get a deer every so often that sneaks around at night. We put a variety of food out for the birds in the winter, so it's no wonder that other animals pick up the scent and come seeking the treats. 

I used to hunt deer, never small game. I never killed a deer, so I always referred to hunting as "taking my rifle for a walk." I would get a shot now and then, but seldom took it. I enjoy nature too much to kill anything, but I do love the taste of venison, so I have plenty of friends that are willing to share their meat. My wife won't eat it, but will make it for me. I especially like the tenderloins and a good roast, plus steaks as well. Burger made with venison is OK, but only if it is mixed with beef and the same for bologna.


----------



## oldman (Jul 27, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> Oldman, you're obviously a seasoned gun owner - remember we're talking about a kid here whose only training was rudimentary hunter safety. His reflexes are faster than his thought processes at this age.
> 
> And in some places (not sure where you were) you DO shoot first and ask questions later, especially in your own home at that time of night. Hunting is a different mindset - your home isn't being invaded by an unknown perp - you're the one setting the time and place of pulling that trigger, you KNOW that there's going to be a shooting.
> 
> I don't believe that Mom or Dad would have been there "in an instant" - getting organized and fully awake during an emergency at 2:30am takes some moments. Had this been a murder attempt the child would be dead. Had it been a robbery it might have turned into something worse.




Again, I disagree. If my kid would have yelled at any time of day or night, I would have checked it out immediately, especially at 2:30 a.m. Parents know when their kids are distressed and just howling for the heck of it. I just don't see tapping on a window as a major threat. Why didn't he run and get Mom and/or Dad, instead of spending the time to grab his gun? There was an option here. Escape! I don't think he should be charged with first degree murder, after all, how can anyone prove that it was planned or premeditated? I do think a lesser charge would be in order and perhaps a charge for the parents, as well. 

*A life has been taken.* It was no accident. The shooter did what he intended to do. I do not know the laws, but I don't think this is something that anyone should turn their backs on. Time will tell what the authorities will do and then this will be put to rest. I just feel really bad for the parents of the dead boys. IMO, this was preventable.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jul 27, 2015)

I agree that it was preventable. The kids shouldn't have been roaming around knocking on windows at 2:30 in the morning.

I still disagree that the parents of the shooter would have been able to respond fast enough in a real situation. I taught self-defense for over 35 years, I know what response times are for a variety of scenarios. If the intruders had guns they would have shot the boy a second after he screamed - no parent is THAT fast.

I agree that both parents share responsibility. I believe it was an accident - had he known who the intruders were would he have pulled the trigger?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 27, 2015)

In my son's shooting.. it was an accidental situation of two young boys finding a parent's unlocked gun and playing with it while the mother was not at home and her son left unattended.(unknown to my mother who was watching my son while I was at work)     I did not choose to press legal charges against the boy.  DCFS was involved with the mother.   I did however pursue civil action against the mother and my son was awarded a large settlement.. SO... there is legal culpability on the parents for harm to others done by their minor children.. whether it was an accident or intentional.


----------



## chic (Jul 28, 2015)

Having grown up around guns and people who used them responsibly, I'd have to say the burden of guilt must lie with the shooter's parents. They should not have allowed their 15 yr old son to have a loaded gun in his bedroom since it was against the law to do so. They broke a law to there. 
Fifteen year olds are not known for making the best decisions which is why we need responsible involved parents to help avert such tragedies. IMHO. It's a terrible tragedy no matter how you look at it. It's important to prevent such things from happening - period. Of course they're going to, but education might help to diminish the number of such cases.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 28, 2015)

The shooter was seventeen but the dead boy was only fifteen.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> In my son's shooting.. it was an accidental situation of two young boys finding a parent's unlocked gun and playing with it while the mother was not at home and her son left unattended.(unknown to my mother who was watching my son while I was at work)     I did not choose to press legal charges against the boy.  DCFS was involved with the mother.   I did however pursue civil action against the mother and my son was awarded a large settlement.. SO... there is legal culpability on the parents for harm to others done by their minor children.. whether it was an accident or intentional.



That's civil liability, as opposed to criminal culpability -- a different colored  horse.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jul 28, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> That's civil liability, as opposed to criminal culpability -- a different colored  horse.



I'm not so sure...  I was asked by the police if I wanted to file criminal charges... so I believe there is both.


----------



## oldman (Jul 28, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> I agree that it was preventable. The kids shouldn't have been roaming around knocking on windows at 2:30 in the morning.
> 
> I still disagree that the parents of the shooter would have been able to respond fast enough in a real situation. I taught self-defense for over 35 years, I know what response times are for a variety of scenarios. If the intruders had guns they would have shot the boy a second after he screamed - no parent is THAT fast.
> 
> I agree that both parents share responsibility. I believe it was an accident - had he known who the intruders were would he have pulled the trigger?




Phil---You are creating a situation that may or may not have happened. Why even scream? Why not just run into your parent's room and yell, "Someone's tapping at my window?" Heck, it may have even been a small animal. This is why we always identify our target before we start blasting away. What if his Dad was out there checking on a loose storm window? There, I created a situation that may or may not happen, as well. I don't see this as an accident. Accidents are events that have happened without forethought. This was an 'intentional' event. He heard a noise, grabbed the gun and started blasting. He accomplished what he intended to do; to destroy the target. If I would start blasting every time that I heard a noise or a sound at my window, my house would be full of holes. And, BTW, when was the last time that you heard of a 17 year old boy being shot to death while in his bed sleeping and by a person outside his window? I am sure that it may have happened at some point in history, but doubtful that it is a recurring event. 

While in Vietnam, I heard plenty of noises and I also was a young scared kid, but I didn't shoot at each and every noise that I heard. If I had, I would have been out of ammo by morning on some nights. I thought every time that I heard a rustle in the rice fields or high grass that Charlie was sneaking up on me, especially when I was on watch at 3:00 a.m. 

Here's a story about a young man in a nearby town from where I live that killed a family of three one night. Different scenario, but I would agree that this is when the kid should have had a gun, although it may not have done him any good since he was attacked while sleeping.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Devon_Kreider also http://murderpedia.org/male.K/k/kreider-alec-devon.htm


----------



## SifuPhil (Jul 28, 2015)

Yeah, you're right, Oldman. Looked at that way, you're right. Still, I think our definitions of "accident" may be a little different - I guess that's where a jury comes in.

My student and I discussed this incident yesterday and he took the same view as you - that you have to identify the target first.

Thanks for your service.


----------



## oldman (Jul 28, 2015)

Seriously, Phil, it's not about being right. All too often we hear and read (even here on SF) about the bad gun owners killing people. Then, along comes a case like this that just adds to the mess about guns and gun owners. I am a gun owner and I include myself as being a responsible gun owner. Always having them locked or put away and out of anyone's intended reach. OK, so here you are a martial arts master and at any time could take a life without warning. But, how many times have you read in a newspaper about an expert marshal arts person killing someone in a movie theater or school? None that I can recall. You see where I'm going with this? As many bad guys that are out there with guns, there is probably tens of thousands of 'responsible' gun owners. It's like the old saying goes, "A few bad apples can spoil the whole bunch." We shouldn't just up and ban guns from society because then "only the bad guys will have guns." What we do need are more stringent laws, including laws that hold parents accountable for when their kid gets a hold of or is given a gun and then takes it upon himself to shoot someone because he heard a noise. 

When I flew for United, I made a lot of non stop coast to coast flights and was asked if I wanted to have a gun in the cockpit. Knowing that I had air marshals on-board from time to time, plus an armored cockpit door gave me comfort and I was good with just keeping it that way. I didn't see any need to turn an airplane into the OK Coral. Besides, if I had answered yes, I would have had a lot of paperwork to fill out, some serious therapy time, background checks and answering oodles of questions and then the weapons training as well. It just wasn't necessary in my book. In fact, I think having air marshals on-board is going to be going away at some time. 

It's my hope that someone proposes more stringent laws and if it means putting metal detectors at doors to movie theaters and restaurants, etc., then so be it.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 28, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I'm not so sure...  I was asked by the police if I wanted to file criminal charges... so I believe there is both.



Not denying that at all.


----------



## chic (Jul 29, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> The shooter was seventeen but the dead boy was only fifteen.



But the legal age for gun ownership in the state is 18 so there's still a violation of the law there. He shouldn't have had the gun.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 29, 2015)

Exactly, but some posters were confused about his age, thinking him just 15.


----------

