Judge Motto said, as additional justification for the adult charge, that the woman "was totally defenseless at the time her life and the life of her unborn fetus was taken by a shotgun blast to the back of her head. There was no indication of any provocation by the victim that led to her killing. A more horrific crime is difficult to imagine." A psychiatrist for the prosecution said the boy is evasive, resentful and refuses to accept responsibility, and that, apparently, is more reason to charge the boy as an adult.
Do you see the same problem I see, here? It seems to me that the judge and prosecutor want the boy to see the crime the same way they do, a horrific crime. But, that there was "no provocation," and he is evasive, resentful and refuses to accept responsibility appears to be the very reasons that he should NOT be charged as an adult. The boy doesn't have a clue as to the seriousness of what he's done. And, so far, he's been treated like crap and he's angry about it. The prosecutor and judge are taking the easy way out. They don't want to go to the trouble of figuring out how this happened. They don't want to spend the time and the money for child psychologist and counselors and whatever else to figure this boy out.
And, there is that "child shotgun." Where did that come from? I had no idea this country sold child shotguns until I saw one. Was it only last October while I was visiting my niece and nephew in Johnson, Indiana? Or was it the year before? On that Saturday we were sitting outside talking when a man, perhaps in his late thirties or early forties, parked his pickup in the driveway. He and his son, no older than ten years old, were Deer hunting. The season had just opened, a month early, for "child" season. They were both dressed to the camouflage "t," except for the orange vest each wore. The boy carried a shorter shotgun - a child shotgun. It was nearly as long as he was tall.
They stopped to talk. The man said something along the lines of, "we had to do this today because we have to go to church tomorrow," as explanation of hunting on Saturday. He asked where a good spot was to wait for Deer. As I sat watching and hearing what the man said, I couldn't help thinking how bizarre the whole thing was. I remember thinking that I needed to SAY something to the man. I wanted to ask the man, "ARE YOU STUPID?" I remember the urge to ask that question was so strong that I was barely able to keep my mouth shut. I wanted to ask, "YOU ARE TEACHING YOUR SON TO USE A GUN AND YOU'RE GOING TO CHURCH TOMORROW?" "ARE YOU AN IDIOT?" "DO YOU NOT SEE ANY HYPOCRISY IN THAT?" I didn't. I should have.
So, here we are with young Jordan Brown killing his stepmother-to-be with a child shotgun his father bought for him, perhaps with the same bizarre ideas and thoughts in mind that were behind the hunter-father's reasons for buying his son a child shotgun. And, somehow, the judge and prosecutor turn reasoning on its head to charge the boy as an adult when, in fact, the father is the real idiot in the whole, sorry story. If I were the judge, I would be looking at the illogical logic behind buying the goddamned gun and what illogical logic the father planted in the boy's brain about using the gun (or did the father expect the boy to figure it out himself?) instead of thinking that the boy should be able to reason along the same lines as he, presumably an adult, does. It appears to be the boy's terrible fate that a lethal combination of idiots, his father, the prosecutor and judge, have aligned against him. In addition to the boy's defense attorney, where is the community that should be angry over the injustice in their court?