The child was hospitalized after he was shot while trying to pick up his younger twin brothers from a friend’s house. Police said he went to the wrong house and was shot there.
Here are the other reported facts of this disturbing case:
1. He was meant to pick up his brothers from a friend’s house on 115th Terrace. He ended up ringing the doorbell at a home on 115th Street and a man opened the door, saw the cbild and shot him in the head. When he fell to the ground, the man shot him again.
2. He got up and ran from the property, but he had to ask at three different homes before someone helped him.
3. The alleged shooter is identified as Andrew D. Lester, an 84-year-old white man is currently facing criminal charges of first-degree assault and armed criminal action.
SENSES (Child Safeguarding and Protection Principle):
Gun violence against unarmed Black individuals is of the rise in the United States of America.
Our precious children who have a right to feel safe and secured are scared for their lives, particularly if as reported in this case they do not constitute direct or indirect threat. And even where a child constitute a threat our responses must be all times be measured with child-friendly standards.
There is speculation that the alleged shooter might be using the Missouri’s ‘Stand your Ground’ law as a defense. The law is said to allow people to respond to threats or force without fear of criminal prosecution in any place where a person has the right to be.
However from the facts within the public domain, how does ringing a bell from an unarmed teenager contitute threat to life and property.
STONE (Call to Action):
We call on all relevant stakeholders to quickly investigate this crime with full transparency and ensure that the alleged shooter is tried in accordance with the extant law and justice allowed to take its full course without any racial or other considerations.
The widespread allegations that the shooting is racially motivated and that the same has become the experiences of many children(including teenagers) must be keenly and impartially interrogated by all stakeholders.
The lives of our precious children should not be under any form of threat because of the color of their skin.
Are the advocates fighting for the rights of this child right to have exposed his identity?
Is exposing the identity of the child part of the trauma the affected child may be exposed to for a lifetime?
It is our submission that the identity of the child should have been protected as much as possible. Apart from the trauma that this kind of exposure brings, the child is robbed of his privacy and exposed to likely racial attacks.