**Disclaimers: *Please note, this may be a difficult or disturbing read due to the content. Reader discretion is advised. *All those charged (or not charged) are considered innocent until proven guilty by their own admission in a court of law or a jury/judge.
Today's case is an update on the case shared last week on 7/14. Please go back to that post for the full story to better understand this update.
Recap:
B.W., a 13-year-old boy was charged with criminal homicide and aggravated assault after reports that he shot and killed his younger brother, J.S. During the investigation thus far, B.W admitted that he knew his father kept firearms in a couch "compartment", that was unlocked at the time of the incident. At this time of the post on 7/14, only B.W. was charged in relation to this incident. However, now there have been additional people charged, which is what brings us to this post today.
New info:
Both of B.W.'s parents, Mark Snyder and Stacey Wright-Snyder have now been charged in relation to their involvement with the case. Each Mark and Stacey have been charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of children (felonies of the second degree). Mr. Snyder is being held in the Franklin County Jail on $100,000 bail and Mrs. Wright-Snyder is being held in the same location on $75,000 bail. Both are due in court on July 27 for their preliminary hearings.
According to recent articles, siblings of B.W. and J.S. relayed to police during the investigation that B.W. would wield the weapons in the past and point them at them. These siblings indicated that the parents were aware of these occurrences, with one such event occurring the night prior to the incident.
According to an article in the Herald Mail Media, B.W is awaiting future court appearances in a juvenile detention facility as opposed to the Franklin County Jail.
The charge of endangering the welfare of children, as defined in the PA Title 18 Crimes Code, "a parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duty of care, protection, or support." The offense can be different "grades" or levels (Felony vs. Misdemeanor) based on the circumstances and the one that applies to this case is "if the actor's conduct under subsection 1a (the quoted section before this), created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury and was part of a course of conduct.."
New Analysis:
With his parents now being charged, the criminal justice system is recognizing and acknowledging that as the parents, with the reports available, that there was some duty to protect their children that was not met. The firearms were registered to Mark Snyder, therefore they were his responsibility to maintain and store.
As you read in the section above about the charge, parents have a "duty of care, protection, or support". By the parents leaving the weapons unlocked, and being aware that B.W. was holding the weapons and pointing at other children in the past, this duty is reported to have been violated. It becomes a "course of conduct" because it was reported that this occurred multiple times prior to the incident. You may ask why the bail amounts differ between the two parents despite them being charged with the same crimes. There are many factors that go into bail amounts, with the main focus being on a risk assessment of future harm or flight from the system. To my knowledge, neither of them has a public prior criminal record. There have been speculations that gender plays an unofficial role in the difference, but the research is unclear.
Psychologically, a question that may arise is, to what extent did the parents understand how their actions, or lack thereof, would result in such fatal outcomes. As you read in the prior post, there were reports that B.W. indicated that his father taught him not to point the weapons at others. Because the reports indicate a "course" or pattern of neglect, it becomes increasingly difficult to state that there was not a degree of recklessness to the parents' behaviors. With a course of behaviors, that means there are multiple opportunities for intervention that ultimately were either not done or unsuccessful. What are some possible psychological barriers to the parents not seeking help for B.W. previously when observing these behaviors? Fear of what would happen to B.W., embarrassment associated with his actions and how that reflects on their parenting, or denial or minimization of B.W.'s behaviors. These are possible barriers, not excuses.
I'll put it in this post as well, but resources for firearm owners, especially those that parents, include your local sheriff's office, police department, county district attorney's office, or Project ChildSafe . Some departments will provide free gun locks. Additionally, even if there are locking precautions in place, they are only effective if truly locked or secured.
*Please feel free to comment or message any thoughts, feelings, or questions below or direct message/email (neurolawgical@gmail.com)
(Sources: Herald Mail Media article by Amber South July 20, 2020; PA General Assembly Legis Title 18 site; PA Court Docket/UJS public docket portal)
Comments