Saudi boy, 4, 'kills father over PlayStation'

[Evo]

Four years old? Was this an exceptionally spoiled child? Also, placing a loaded gun on the bed near a 4 year old?

According to the newspaper, the child had asked his father to buy him a PlayStation and the shooting took place after the man returned home without the desired object.

http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-boy-4-kills-father-over-playstation-151551564.html

 

[arildno]

There's no reason to believe that the 4-year old knew what will happen to a person you shoot at.
Perhaps he just wanted to annoy daddy with the "bang!"-sound from the gun?

The father must be held responsible for his own death.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I doubt very much a four year old could comprehend the consequences of what he did, so he went and did it.

That's really very depressing :(

 

[rootX]

I agree with arildno. It's still interesting how a 4 years old knew that guns can be used when you are angry even more that he knew what's a playstation.

 

[wuliheron]

Have you ever seen pictures of Palestinian toddlers dressed up as suicide bombers by their parents? Drug dealers in the US proudly displaying their automatic weapons on blankets in the living room along with their babies? It's the wild west for a lot of these people who expect to either be dead or incarcerated for life by their mid twenties. The only reason stories like this make the news is because they get your attention.

 

[dlgoff]

... how a 4 years old knew that guns can be used when you are angry ... that he knew what's a playstation.

You may have answered your own question?

 

[Evo]

I hate to say it, but at age 4 I fully understood right and wrong, death, bodily injury, the difference, the danger of guns, knives, that they kill. I think people underestimate what the normal small child understands. I don't think that I was unique.

Of course it depends what they've been taught. But they do have the ability to understand, IMO.

Quite possible the kid only intended to wound his dad.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I hate to say it, but at age 4 I fully understood right and wrong, death, bodily injury, the difference, the danger of guns, knives, that they kill. I think people underestimate what the normal small child understands. I don't think that I was unique.

Of course it depends what they've been taught. But they do have the ability to understand, IMO.

Quite possible the kid only intended to wound his dad.

I don't think that the kid didn't understand that shooting people is bad and it hurts them, and that it was possible that it would kill the person. I think that it is just that little children are not good at considering the consequences of their actions.

I only have anecdotal evidence, and not even very good personal evidence because I have a hard time remembering my younger days at the moment.

 

[lisab]

Even if a 4-year-old knows that a gun can hurt a person, that same 4-year-old doesn't know it while he's having a tantrum. I agree with arildno, the father is responsible (assuming he left the gun within reach of the kid).

Sad story.

 

[Evo]

Even if a 4-year-old knows that a gun can hurt a person, that same 4-year-old doesn't know it while he's having a tantrum. I agree with arildno, the father is responsible (assuming he left the gun within reach of the kid).

Sad story.

Oh I agree it's the father's fault for putting a LOADED gun in front of a 4 year old.

 

[Lisa!]

I hate to say it, but at age 4 I fully understood right and wrong, death, bodily injury, the difference, the danger of guns, knives, that they kill. I think people underestimate what the normal small child understands. I don't think that I was unique.

Of course it depends what they've been taught. But they do have the ability to understand, IMO.

Quite possible the kid only intended to wound his dad.

I think you're unique because it's hard to find a person who remembers any of his/her memories when s/he was 4, let alone remembering what s/he understood at that age and what not.

 

[NewtonianAlch]

I hate to say it, but at age 4 I fully understood right and wrong

Oh really? Many adults still struggle with this concept and there seems to be no universal absolute; judging by how societies run, on what is right and wrong.

It's therefore interesting at the age of 4 you managed to do this and much more!

There's no doubt that children have a grasp of what's right and wrong in a general sense at that age, but definitely not to the extent of what you claim. You hadn't lived or experienced enough at that point in time to be able to make such calls. Since children are extremely impressionable at that age, if you were kidnapped and were forced to live a different life, you would now likely be a totally different person with a different set of values. Contrast that with if you were kidnapped now and there was attempted brainwashing, that would be far less likely likely to happen, if at all.

 

[tiny-tim]

"According to the newspaper, the child had asked his father to buy him a PlayStation and the shooting took place after the man returned home without the desired object."

http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-boy-4-kills-father-over-playstation-151551564.html

we're scientists, let's treat this with scepticism …

the only witness appears to be the boy himself, so we have no idea what actually happened

 

[wukunlin]

what... how... actually i don't even... I give up

 

[I_am_learning]

Demanding PlayStation at age 4 means the child was a hardcore video gamer.
No wonder he mistook real life with video games, and shoot his father, perhaps hoping for a *%$^^% LEVEL COMPLETED %$^*%#
to be displayed somewhere.

 

[nitsuj]

I got to side with tiny-tim (although I am not a scientist, I still like to approach the extraordinary with skepticism)

It's laughable to equate this as 4 year old wants playstation (no they don't, most 4 year olds don't even know what it is they "want") so he/she shoots the father in anger. (I suppose a for year old can think, "you did this to me, so I'll do this to you")

I appreciate the tantrum, however the act of violence using a weapon is not a "genetic response". It is learned, clearly the fault of whoever allowed such exposure prior to development the front part of the brain.

This is one of the reasons/arguments for not prosecuting youngsters.

They literally do not have the physical make-up to comprehend right & wrong at the level the justice system can, young offenders are not treated as lost causes like adult criminals often are.That's an interesting comment Evo.

 

[Evo]

I think you're unique because it's hard to find a person who remembers any of his/her memories when s/he was 4, let alone remembering what s/he understood at that age and what not.

I do remember, I remember things from two and three also. I even have one distinct memory of my house that we moved out of when I was 18 months, there were no pictures. I described this memory to my mom years later, wondering what it was and she told me that was the kitchen at the old house. Over the sink, it had a louvered glass window and a crank opened and closed the glass slats. Apparently I had been fascinated with the window and the image stuck with me.

Look at that 4 year old girl genius that is self taught. I'll bet she knows.

Selfadjoint had clear memories from age 3. I could read when i was 4 and understood good and bad, right and wrong, and that death was permanent, and not to do anything, even playfully that could injure someone, this included throwing sand at someone, poking sticks, throwing hard objects, etc... I don't think it's that uncommon that small children can understand a lot more than they are given credit for. But maybe I'm wrong and it's not that common. Maybe it was because my mother spoke to me as an adult and explained things to me that a child that age might not normally be lectured on.

 

[nitsuj]

Selfadjoint had clear memories from age 3. I could read when i was 4 and understood good and bad, right and wrong, and that death was permanent, and not to do anything, even playfully that could injure someone, this included throwing sand at someone, poking sticks, throwing hard objects, etc... I don't think it's that uncommon that small children can understand a lot more than they are given credit for. But maybe I'm wrong and it's not that common. Maybe it was because my mother spoke to me as an adult and explained things to me that a child that age might not normally be lectured on.

Why don't you feel that these things were taught to you?

My understanding is that there is nearly no moral reasoning born into people.

It is not always right to refrain from hitting somebody.

I would guess it is difficult to teach a 4 year old these moral nuances, since they cannot be reasoned by a four year olds mind, with four years experience...in learning.

That memory story is pretty cool! It must've been accompany with some sense of familiarity. An odd sensation to remember something but not what it is.

I get that with smells sometimes, smell something, it reminds me of something, but just can't remember what lol.

Funny brains.

 

[Evo]

Why don't you feel that these things were taught to you?

Of course they were taught to me, I've said that twice.

A small child doesn't need to understand "why" it's wrong, just that it's bad and don't do it. Like you don't stick your hand in fire or drink poison, and in our house anything under the kitchen or bathroom sinks were "poison".

 

[nitsuj]

Opps I missed you mentioning it.


Makes a world of difference when raising your personal experience to contrast that of the 4 year old murderer. you were taught, they were not.

Sorry Evo, didn't mean to drag this on.

 

[Hobin]

A small child doesn't need to understand "why" it's wrong, just that it's bad and don't do it. Like you don't stick your hand in fire or drink poison, and in our house anything under the kitchen or bathroom sinks were "poison".

Of course. But, as we know, emotional stress (among other things, such as alcohol) lowers inhibition, which can make us do bad things if we've only been taught what we should and shouldn't do. This is much less likely to happen if we have actually learned how to make ethical decisions ourselves, but 4 year olds don't yet know this.

 

[AlephZero]

I think people underestimate what the normal small child understands. I don't think that I was unique.

I'm sure it's not unique, but it's not universal either.

A few years ago I was a juror in a trial where the accused were two young teenagers, and a key witness was another child (who was not directly involved in what had happened) aged 8. The police had obviously taken a lot of trouble to decide if the 8yo understood the difference between right and wrong, the implcations of making a witness statement, etc. Whether his evidence was reliable was a key point of the defence case. We were shown videotapes of the original police interviews etc. In the end, we concluded that we couldn't be reasonably sure the 8yo did understand the difference between real life and fantasy, so we had to disregard his "evidence". He came across as a typical "well brought up kid from a good home background", but he hadn't figured out ethics and morality yet.