Irtnog sorry to hear about your friend, I totally agree with you by the way. I mean in a society where you can sue your employer for accidently causing you to become hurt on the job because of their negligance. I think it’d be criminal in it self not to have every individual answer for their actions in some way, if in deed due to them being negligent and not paying attention another person’s life is cut short, because of that negligent person’s actions that brought an end to that life.

dj-defkawn - 12 August 2008 05:47 PM

Regardless of many people on this forum having walked this earth quite a bit longer then myself, my responses were based on fact.

No, dj, your comments were based on your own emotions, not fact.  Case in point:  “[if] anyone thinks the posibility of this kid spending 9months in juvenile detention isn’t a warranted punishment, then something is wrong with you.”

Where in that statement do you see a “fact”?  A fact is something for which you can provide a piece of information that is looked at objectively.  You gave an opinion based upon what *you* think.

dj-defkawn - 12 August 2008 05:47 PM

So those are some of the many reasons I said what I did.

Fine.  But you shouldn’t call your own subjective comments “fact”, because they aren’t.

dj-defkawn - 12 August 2008 05:47 PM

Now my counseling response was in regards to titletown’s remark about counseling for this young man. Now I told agree kid in this incident needs counseling, but I just think they’re needs to be just as much attentiong counseling wise paid to the family and loved ones of the victim.

No one’s denying that the Almli family and their friends will likely need extensive counseling.  By continuing to bring this up you’re kind of banging on over a non-issue (in this forum, anyway) and just building a strawman argument.  As far as counseling for the shooter, you should understand that counseling takes on several different forms, and not just the emotional kind.  He will certainly need the support of emotional counseling (probably for the rest of his life - he did kill someone, after all), but he also needs counseling regarding his reasoning skills and understanding that he *isn’t* a victim in all of this.

dj-defkawn - 12 August 2008 05:47 PM

But so many people go on about the poor kid on these forums

Have they?  I don’t recall seeing that attitude at all.  I have seen people talk about how they are able to sympathize with what the kid must be feeling, but as far as “go[ing] on about the poor kid”?  I think you’re reading into people’s comments something that isn’t there.

dj-defkawn - 12 August 2008 05:47 PM

and not about her family and loved ones

Well, that’s just not true, either.  There have been several comments over the last week that have expressed sadness for Mrs. Almli’s family and friends.  You might want to go over the posts from last weekend on and see if you get a different perspective.

Manerva - 12 August 2008 05:49 PM

To all of you who say charges were filed because of uproar that a bunch of CRAP.  The sherrif investigated, the prosecutor reviewed and apparently there was enough evidence to support the charges.

I don’t often agree with you, Manerva, but on this I certainly do.  Seeing a conspiracy around every corner seems to have become a bad habit in this day and age…

Manerva - 12 August 2008 05:49 PM

I would imagine the juvenile’s family doesn’t want him to go through a jury trial (or even a trial by Judge) and I’d bet a plea deal is in the works.

I’m gonna go the other way on this.  I think the family will want to go to trial to tell their side of the story.  Just a hunch (but, I could be wrong).

<snipped a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff>

You know, Frisbee, if you have a problem with the definition of “accident”, don’t take it up with me, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

[quote author="Frisbee" date="1218593345]
I don’t understand why y’all have such a problem with the boy owning up to his actions. People are falling all over themselves making excuses for him. Do you not believe in personal responsibility? Do you not believe in being accountable for your actions and decisions, whether they be right or wrong?

Wow. Go off on tangents much?

Other than a couple of, shall we say, woefully ignorant posts, I don’t see anyone making excuses or saying they don’t believe in personal responsibility. In fact, over the last week, I’ve seen the majority of posters in here say that first and foremost, the kid is most definitely responsible and was negligent.

Pointing out the same facts that even a defense attorney would (should this go to trial) is not the same as making excuses. Life is not black-and-white. Laws have to be black-and-white, but courts of law exist to exact justice on a human, not robotic, level. Defense attorneys act as advocates for defendants so that the law remains a living thing, not a static, black and white, unbending and machinated set of rules. IMO, legalism does nothing to promote healthy civilization, it just creates more law-breakers and/or broken people.

I’m gonna go the other way on this.  I think the family will want to go to trial to tell their side of the story.  Just a hunch (but, I could be wrong).

Really?  I guess where I’m coming from is if he’s found guilty then his punishment could be longer, but I say that without seeing the sentencing guidelines.  Maybe the 9 months referenced IS the maximum sentence under WA law.

As far as their side of the story goes....I don’t know about that.  If they reinact the situation (or even worse take the jurors up to see the spot) it may point towards guilt even more.  My husband and tested out the 100 yards theory...and just like the other poster who tested the same theory, we found you can STILL tell the difference between an animal and a human.  Hopefully, for clarifications sake, the Affidavit of PRobable Cause will be published (minus the minor’s name) and that will settle alot of questions...like the report that a scope was used.  I just can’t imagine what “their side of the story” would be other than the mistaken-identity argument which could easily be disproven.

Responding to a few earlier posts.  Rehabilitation does not take place in Juvenile Detention anymore than it would a local Jail.  They are both strictly punitive.  However, youth in detention do have access to counselors etc while in detention and attend school.  Rehabilitation takes place at the State level if this youth happens to be sentenced to one of their facilities.  While rehabilitation does not take place in detention services are offered and required through the community supervision portion of the sentence.  Depending on the sentence handed down this is where rehabilitation would occur.  Not in detention.

Hey dj-defkawn, don’t worry about the self-appointed “classroom monitor” on here, cause I’d venture to say that many on this forum appreciate your youthful opinion and have no problem with your wording, at all. Obviously, the Herald has some respect for your take on this incident or they wouldn’t have quoted you this past Sat.

I just wish more of our young people were as wise as you.

watch dog - 12 August 2008 07:03 PM

Responding to a few earlier posts.  Rehabilitation does not take place in Juvenile Detention anymore than it would a local Jail.  They are both strictly punitive.  However, youth in detention do have access to counselors etc while in detention and attend school.

Having access to counselors and receiving schooling is part of rehabilitation, is it not?

Rehabilitation:  to restore to good repute; to restore to a former state; to restore or bring to a condition of useful and constructive activity

So LivinUp River,

“You don’t find it a fact that an individual would perhaps be slightly lacking in the intelect and integrity if they felt after reading the below facts I cited from the goskagit.com article which you can find the link to as the very first post in this forum topic:

“The kid shot a woman from a distance of at least 120 yards, and according to the link I posted to the goskagit.com story about the kid’s being brought up on manslaughter charges, the maximum distance of clear visibility that day on the mountain ranged from 20ft.to 100 yrds. Plus also in the story the Skagit County Prosecuter(who has considerably more life experience then my 23yrs) a number of contributing factors on the part of the kid (relying simply on rifle sites in poor visibility, failing to properly identify a target and what lies beyond it in a bullets path for a few examples).”

Not to mention seeing how according to the same article that Ms. Almi’s friend was wearing grey and standing about two feet away from her, and the kid still ended up shooting Ms. Almi, and it’s against Washington State law to fire your hunting weapon across a known hiking trail without knowing what your shooting at,(again according to the same goskagit.com article) and again might I ad according to the Skagit County Prosecuter the kid acted negligently when Ms. Almi lost her life, what part of my statement about one would have to be stupid not to think this boy should at least answer for what he did with 9 months in juvenille detention isn’t fact? Yes indeed I did offer a personal opinion, but formulated from facts from this very website.

Behavior in which you make a stupid decision knowingly, and somebody loses their life warrants you not only getting various forms of help on many levels, esspecially a 14 yr old. But also one being made to answer for their mistakes.

I guess you haven’t been reading a few of the posts from individuals like “simply put.” Who had made a number of posts initially placing blame on the hiker for the type of clothing she wore. Also perhaps you should read into a few of my posts over the past week, and perhaps you’ll see the sympathy i’ve had for what this kid must be going through. “Are you reading into something in my comments that isn’t there perhaps?” Like for instance I don’t recall ever staing that it was only the victims that required counseling and rehabilitation as you stated below:

LivinUpriver - 12 August 2008 05:24 PM

it’s not only victims that need and deserve counseling, you know.

So in closing, again, I agree this kid is going to need a great deal of help in many different ways to overcome this incident. But that doesn’t change the fact that a woman lost her life because he made a critical error in judgement, and broke rules that any certified hunter is taught before they’re allowed to hunt, and even the Skagit County Prosecuter & the Skagit County Sheriff agree that his negligent behavior warrants him being made to answer with at least 9 months of his life for the poor decisions he made that ultimately cost Ms. Almi her’s.

Is this why so many of our Juveniles that go into these facilities come out and continue with crime?  Because they get rehabilitated inside these facilities?  This kid does not have any criminal records.  They do no justice for the youth. The results are proven.

Thanks alot MoeSkagit!

Once again, misreading information.  The 14 year old could face up to 9 months.  Not a minimum of 9 Months.  That means he will probably get less than 9 months if any at all. 

Once again, do research on Man-Slaughter cases and see what the sentences are.  See what the victims family could do to change it.

moeSkagit - 12 August 2008 07:06 PM

Hey dj-defkawn, don’t worry about the self-appointed “classroom monitor” on here,

I was wondering how long it would take you to get to name calling today, moe.  At least you didn’t disappoint.

moeSkagit - 12 August 2008 07:06 PM

cause I’d venture to say that many on this forum appreciate your youthful opinion and have no problem with your wording, at all. Obviously, the Herald has some respect for your take on this incident or they wouldn’t have quoted you this past Sat.

I just wish more of our young people were as wise as you.

You’re going to base someone’s overall wisdom and discernment based on a few posts in an online forum and the fact that the SVH published a quote from him?

One is certainly forced to question the “wisdom” of *that* logic…

Livn up River,

I know you love to challenge every posting that appears, so let me clarify.  The counseling received while in Detention is more Crisis based dealing with feelings while in detention.  The school portion is mandated by Federal Law.  They do attend school during the normal school year.  THE COUNSELING RECEIVED IN DETENTION IS NOT REHABILITATIVE AS TO THE CRIME.  That occurs under community supervision.  Local Jails & Detention centers are punitive, which I’m not saying should not be a part of the sentence if found guilty.

Is this why so many of our Juveniles that go into these facilities come out and continue with crime?  Because they get rehabilitated inside these facilities?  This kid does not have any criminal records.  They do no justice for the youth. The results are proven

.

Local facilities do not rehabilitate based on it being short term stays.  The rehabilitation takes place at State institutions and community supervision.  As for why the kids re-offend..I would blame it on “learned behavior” and rehabilitation stint will not undo years of that learning.  When youth is returned to the environment from where they came they re-learn their anti-social behaviors then the government gets the blame for bad parenting.  Now..this appears to be a kid that made a tragic error.  I do see rehabilitation working for him.

To LivinUpriver,

I could think of other words to describe how you’ve picked apart so many other posters here this week, but I won’t. Using good “netiquette” appears to be your problem, not mine.

(edited to add)

Nowhere on this forum have I called anyone “a name”, previous to my pointing out your apparent hobby.

Teenagers should not be hunting w/o an adult actually with them/supervising them.

moeSkagit - 12 August 2008 07:06 PM

cause I’d venture to say that many on this forum appreciate your youthful opinion and have no problem with your wording, at all. Obviously, the Herald has some respect for your take on this incident or they wouldn’t have quoted you this past Sat.

I just wish more of our young people were as wise as you…

LivinUpRiver - 12 August 2008 07:06 PM

You’re going to base someone’s overall wisdom and discernment based on a few posts in an online forum and the fact that the SVH published a quote from him?

One is certainly forced to question the “wisdom” of *that* logic…

Seeing how you are attempting quite a battle of wits with a number of posters on here, and are challenging many of the things said in this forum in an effort to prove your own intellect. Perhaps you should keep a respectful dialouge about this topic going with those individuals you are challenging, rather then attempting to question the wisdom of individuals who are attempting to offer solice to a forum poster who is probably one of the youngest on this website, because of your attempt to challenge my view points.

watch dog - 12 August 2008 07:15 PM

I know you love to challenge every posting that appears

You know no such thing, Watch Dog - why be presumptive and so immediately off-putting?

watch dog - 12 August 2008 07:15 PM

so let me clarify.

I appreciate you wanting to clarify, but did you have to include an insult at the beginning of your post?  I mean, really...let a few posts pass between us before bringing out your insult-laser so early in the game ;-)

watch dog - 12 August 2008 07:15 PM

The counseling received while in Detention is more Crisis based dealing with feelings while in detention.  The school portion is mandated by Federal Law.  They do attend school during the normal school year.  THE COUNSELING RECEIVED IN DETENTION IS THE REHABILITATIVE AS TO THE CRIME.  That occurs under community supervision.  Local Jails & Detention centers are punitive, which I’m not saying should not be a part of the sentence if found guilty.

It seems reasonable to me that unless the counseling is being provided by a programmed computer, there are likely to be all sorts of things discussed between a counselor and the counselee.  My point being that it is up to the individual counselor to make a judgement about what will be discussed with the client - not just the law, correct?  Moreover, it would be irresponsible for a licensed counselor to see a need and ignore that need just because regulation A says not to counsel about something outside of the scope of regulation A.

Moving on...I have to ask you to clarify a little more clearly regarding your so-called clarification: “THE COUNSELING RECEIVED IN DETENTION IS THE REHABILITATIVE AS TO THE CRIME”.  Is it just me, or does that not really make sense?

titletown - 12 August 2008 07:14 PM

Once again, misreading information.  The 14 year old could face up to 9 months.  Not a minimum of 9 Months.  That means he will probably get less than 9 months if any at all. 

Once again, do research on Man-Slaughter cases and see what the sentences are.  See what the victims family could do to change it.

Hey, title - it would really be helpful if you would click the little button that says “quote” at the bottom of the post you are responding to so that we will know exactly which post you are responding to.

Otherwise, it just looks like you are respondning to everyone and everything and no one in particular.

Thanks.