Motive a mystery in case of 10-year-old accused of killing neo-Nazi father [Video]

 

A 10-year-old Riverside boy charged with fatally shooting his father, a local neo-Nazi leader, is scheduled to appear before a Riverside County Juvenile Court judge Wednesday morning for a detention hearing as questions remain about the motive for the crime.

Investigators said the boy apparently retrieved a family handgun and shot his father, Jeffrey R. Hall, about 4 a.m. Sunday on a living room couch. Police declined to say whether Hall was asleep at the time.

"We believe it was an intentional act," Riverside police Lt. Ed Blevins said, "and we believe the 10-year-old was responsible."

Detectives "received some statements" about a possible motive, Blevins said, but declined to elaborate because the attack is still under investigation.

There were no reports of an argument or other incident preceding the shooting, and police have never responded to any domestic disturbance calls at the Hall residence, Blevins said.

"Motive is the big question," he added.

Little is known about the boy. But in court papers involved in a custody fight over him, Hall said the 10-year-old "was removed from several schools for his wild and sometimes violent actions."

Continue reading: "Boy charged in father's death had problems with violence and aggression"

ALSO:

Another warm day in store for Southern California

Crime alerts for Vermont Square and 12 other L.A. neighborhoods

Metro's record-setting $4.2-billion budget heavy on L.A. rail projects

-- Phil Willon in Riverside

Comments

[Jim]

It's shocking that a white supremacist leader could have a kid who was "removed from several schools for his wild and sometimes violent actions."

Some people just should not reproduce. If the Republicans have their way, there will be no advise from Planned Parenthood.

[Alex]

A minor cannot consent to enter into a contract because of his mental state, or lack of it. A minor cannot engage in certain conduct like drink alcohol or smoke because of their mental immaturity. A teen cannot consent to consensual sex with another teen. A minor cannot represent himself in court.

But when that minor is asked to give up his right against self-incrimination, he can consent to give up that right and spill his guts to a police officer. Nothing is wrong with this. This is ok as a matter of public policy? No, it is not justified because it is in the best interest of the public - this policy is in effect because it is in the best interest of Government to more easily prosecute minors and exploit the very vulnerabilities used to prevent them from consenting in other situations.

This is an exploitation of children. Shameful conduct! Shameful policy! Unconstitutional in every sense and a violation of equal protection (you treat them differently because of their age - on the basis of public policy, then do a 360 and claim you are treating them equally)

[victor]

Totally agreed with Alex. They way this kid is treated is simply shameful.
The boy is what his father preached: hate. How can we now blame the kid?
America, this is another low in the way we treat our kids. Now is shown shacked and wearing a bright orange suit, to denigrate him even more.