Updated 7:15 p.m.
A 14-year-old police say shot his 9-year-old brother to death this morning will be arraigned on charges of involuntary manslaughter and illegal weapons possession next week, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office reports.
Police responded around 11:40 a.m. to 617 Morton St., where they found the 9-year-old seriously wounded. He was rushed to Boston Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.
Police say they found the older brother wandering nearby. According to the DA's office:
Based on evidence at the scene and statements by individuals including the juvenile, investigators believe the boy was handling the firearm recklessly when it discharged, striking his younger brother. The evidence at this stage does not suggest that any other person in the juvenile’s home knew he possessed the firearm.
In a statement, DA Dan Conley said:
Part of our investigation in the days to come will be determining how this weapon got into the hands of a 14-year-old. In the meantime, I want to make something crystal clear: if you know about an illegal firearm in this city, help us prevent another tragedy like this one. Boston Police are doing a tremendous job of taking guns off the street, but they aren’t mind readers. They need tips and information about these weapons before they’re used.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
I just don't think a gun law
By Lmo
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 5:24pm
I just don't think a gun law would have prevented this one. The law already states that a legal fire arm should be locked up. So if the gun is legal and wasn't locked up, the onus is on the gun owner. If the 14 y/o had the gun illegally then a law would do nothing. The 14 y/o left the house after shooting his brother with the gun and was found a few blocks away, which would lead one to believe it may not have belonged to an adult in the house.
Regardless of how this all happened, there is a dead 9 year old and a 14 year old who will have to live with this reality. Such a tragedy, thoughts and prayers with the family.
Agreed
By TheNon
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 5:42pm
At the very least, MA safe storage laws were broken. Assuming none of the resident adults legally owned the gun, you are looking at several additional felonies. MA gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the country, but they're not magic. If someone is going to ignore the law, they're going to ignore the law.
The death of any child is a tragedy. There was another one reported today that is just as sad:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/201...
Doing nothing
By Kathode
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 7:09pm
Is no longer an option. 32,000 gun deaths in US every year. Lax gun laws in other states and lack of background checks lead to private sales that are undocumented. We need fewer guns in circulation. And limiting access is a beginning.
Let's talk about that number
By TheNon
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 8:26pm
According to the CDC, 59.8% of firearms related deaths were suicides in 2009. Some are tragic. Some end suffering. Either way, it's a personal choice.
Thus, we are talking about 12,800 gun related deaths that are non-suicide within a population of over 300 million people.
Then take into account that the vast majority of gun related homicides take place in very small portion of urban areas and are generally committed by people already known to police.
Take a look at here: http://www.universalhub.com/crime/murder/2013
We have a gun violence problem within a very small subset of the population, many of whom are career criminals. MA already has laws on the books that address any so called loopholes that would allow the law abiding to transfer guns to prohibited persons. New laws aren't going to fix the problem of urban gun violence.
So a more strict gun law in
By Lmo
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 8:31pm
So a more strict gun law in another state may have prevented today's tragedy? It's plausible.
Yes. We need
By Kathode
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 9:40pm
National gun laws and background checks.
OK
By TheNon
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 9:42am
For arguments sake, let's assume we have a federal law mandating all firearms transfers require a background check.
In addition, let's assume the urban gun violence problem remains unchanged. This is a sound assumption since there are approx. 300 million guns in circulation in the US and the vast majority of people committing gun crimes are breaking current laws as it is.
Are you going to come to terms with the fact that this is a societal problem within in tiny subset of the population?
Or
Are you going to continue to push for further restrictions on citizens that have nothing to do with urban gun crime?
If the past is any indication, the answer is the second. That is why gun owners and civil libertarians are going to oppose additional laws. The law abiding citizen is tired of being harassed over the behavior of criminals that represent a tiny amount of the population and a minuscule amount of people that legally own guns. Vermont and NH have relaxed gun laws in comparison to MA and have a lower crime rate (for whatever reason). You are going to have a hard time convincing the residents of those states that they should change their laws because guys in Roxbury are shooting each other.
Reducing murder is a laudable goal, but I have yet to see people pushing for additional gun laws accept that there is much bigger issue in these communities than access to guns. No one gets a gun that doesn't want one, much less use it.
"32,000 gun deaths"
By anon
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 9:07pm
"32,000 gun deaths"
More than half of which are suicides. And the number of death by firearms has been falling each year despite an increase in ownership.
Hate to break it to you, but if someone wants to off themselves they are going to find a way.
&
No LEGAL private sales are undocumented. The ATF requires forms from both the buyer and seller. Everyone's license is also their background check. No license no sale. You have to pass a background check to get a firearms license.
Do you know how many people have been prosecuted for interstate arms trafficking by our AG under the current laws? ZERO! If straw purchasing from out of state is a major problem then why haven't there been prosecutions?
Passing more laws does nothing when criminals ignore the current ones and will ignore any future ones.
Interstate Trafficking
By anon
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 9:52am
Why no prosecution for interstate gun trafficking? Your pals, the NRA, of course, who continue to tie cops' hands by making it harder to trace crime guns to their source. Thanks to the NRA, state and local authorities are restricted from using gun trace info to investigate corrupt gun dealers and traffickers.
The Tiahrt Amendments require the Justice Department to destroy the record of a buyer whose NICS background check was approved within 24 hours. This makes it harder to catch law-breaking gun dealers who falsify their records, and it makes it more difficult to identify and track straw purchasers who buy guns on behalf of criminals who wouldn't be able to pass a background check.
While dealers must notify ATF if they discover that guns from their inventories have been lost or stolen, the Tiahrt Amendments prevent ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct annual physical inventory checks to detect losses and thefts. ATF reported that in 2007 it found 30,000 guns missing from dealer inventories based on its inspection of just 9.3% of gun dealers.
Background check
By KellyJMF
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 1:05pm
You realize a one-time background check is not a magic spell that prevents people from committing crimes in the future right? That people can develop mental illness over time? That restraining orders are not checked by a claivoyant when you get your license?
What are you afraid of with more frequent checks?
What are you proposing?
By TheNon
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 2:18pm
Because you don't know what you're talking about.
In MA, you have to renew your firearms license every six years which requires another full background check.
Every time time a dealer transfers a firearm in MA, there is an additional Federal check.
Any transfer in MA between individuals must be reported to the state within seven days.
If in fact you are under a restraining order in MA, you will not be given a license and if you become the subject of a restraining order, the police will confiscate your license and firearms. In addition, the Chief of Police in each town has the "discretion" to refuse a permit to someone they deem unfit, such as someone with a history of restraining orders.
Nothing is magic. Maybe you could go crazy and kill people with a knife, so perhaps we should have the state come root around your life every so often to make sure. You can't be too careful, right?
We already have the laws in
By UnNonymous
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 7:42am
We already have the laws in place. In fact, MA is famous for having more than it's share of gun laws. When the laws don't get enforced you say they don't work, you demand more laws. You want to join an organization to further oppress the law abiding citizens. Go after the judges, demand they start doing their jobs!!
1. Why not in School?
By Vercendek
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 5:17pm
1. Why not in School?
2. FOTG -Finger On the Trigger Guard
3.
1.Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Keep weapon on safe until you intend to fire.
Post updated around 7:15 p.m.
By adamg
Fri, 02/07/2014 - 7:30pm
With latest from the DA's office.
Its also a homicide
By juss
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 7:35am
Its also a homicide
Went down as 10th
By juss
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 7:36am
Went down as 10th
There's 5 different kinds of
By juss
Sat, 02/08/2014 - 7:40am
There's 5 different kinds of homicides murder 1, murder 2, Manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, Vehicular homicide.
Pages