Reckless imprudence isn’t minor
When a policewoman teaches a child to shoot, does the child see danger, or does he see authority approving danger?
Daily TribuneWhen a policewoman teaches a child to shoot, does the child see danger, or does he see authority approving danger?
The matchbox understood Tacloban before Tacloban happened.
It said: Keep out of reach of children.
Very smart matchbox. Nobody gives it a badge or a law degree, but maybe we should. Little cardboard thing. Very low IQ object supposedly.
But the matchbox understood what some adults forgot: foresight.
The matchbox did not wait for a school fire to develop wisdom. Did not say, “I did not know the child’s mood, the child’s plan, the child’s bad intent,” but simply looked at fire plus childhood and said no.
If a matchbox can foresee a child misusing fire, surely a policewoman is capable of foreseeing a child misusing a gun. Especially if reports are true that the aunt brought him to a shooting range.
Now, if the argument is that he is too immature for adult punishment, then why introduce immature judgment to a lethal skill? If a child cannot be trusted with adult consequences, why was he introduced to adult power?
A gun needs two keys. One is access. We may still ask how he got it.
Maybe someone handed it to him. Maybe the aunt left it close enough for the child to find. Wonderful distinction. Very comforting. The child did not need permission if negligence already opened the door.
The other is who taught him what a gun could do?
When a policewoman teaches a child to shoot, does the child see danger, or does he see authority approving danger?
The policewoman smuggled the gun into the child’s imagination before the child allegedly smuggled the gun into school.
They say it’s just like a kitchen knife. Cute. Does your kitchen train kids to stab accurately? Does the government license your spoon, register your chopping board, issue permits for forks? No. A gun is hard to own for a reason.
That is where tragedy begins to look like reckless imprudence trying to hide behind the minor.
Is the gun a minor? Can the gun say, “I’m only 14?” Invoke juvenile justice? Be rehabbed? Can the gun blame bullying, GoreBox, trauma, hormones, bad friends?
No. The gun has no age to protect but a custody to trace.
When the child is “too young” to carry full blame, then the adults around him are too old to carry none.
But let us be reasonable and defend the aunt, give her every excuse. “Maybe he stole it.” From you. “Maybe he sneaked it.” Past you. “Perhaps he had a plan.” With your gun.
Maybe the aunt did not know what was inside his head.
But you were supposed to know the gun, officer. That was your duty, burden, the thing the state trusted you to keep away from exactly the kind of disaster that now has everybody acting shocked.
Surprise is not innocence.
Surprise is what happens after duty fails.
If minors need protection, then protect them from guns before protecting them from jail. If kids are just kids, then adults must be adults. This is like saying, “The tiger was out of its cage.” That is why we are talking to the zookeeper.
So stop calling it a mystery or an Act of God.
Call it what it is when custody fails, foresight dies, and the bodies are of children: reckless imprudence.
