How terrible is this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6551154/Toddler-attacked-with-car-jack-by-three-year-old-boy.html

It really is beyond belief...

Can a 3 yr old comprehend what they are doing??   They may know right from wrong, but don't have as many boundries yet. What the hell provoked the attack is odd, but if you put a 3 yr old in a room with a gun another kid and annoyed him, he'd probably shoot the other one, they have no fear of consequenses. Kids are always fighting (terrible 2's) give them weapons and as humans they'll use them!

I think the attacker had a good idea what he was doing Jason as he hit the victim some eleven times apparently! Seems to me that the venom shown is probably 'built in' ie the genes already know the boundary. Be interesting to know what sort of background the attacker comes from, although I realise that won't happen. Shocking story without doubt.

I also think the victim deserves compensation.

Our grandchildren at three were clever enough to use the X-box and the Wii Jason so not convinced! They do know right from wrong!!

I agree he should not be held responsible, not the slightest blemish on his 'record' so to speak, but it was a criminal act and the victim in my opinion deserves compensation.

As for the jack being left in the car so what, isn't that where they are stored by the Manufacturer? (some vehicles anyhow). It could have been a saucepan amongst the shopping, a rolling pin, anything at all so perhaps the real question is why were the boys left alone, even for a few minutes?

My god, this is horrible!

My understanding of child development is that a three year old has very limited understanding of right and wrong. They are not capable of premeditating criminal action. However, they are quite capable of mimicking other peoples behavior.

It makes me wonder what kind of environment this child is growing up in; is one or both of his parents violent. Does daddy beat mommy in front of him; is he himself subject to brutality at the hands of an angry parent?

I do agree that the injured child should be compensated for his injuries as well as for any future care he may require such as ongoing care if he turns out to be brain damaged, and also psychological cancelling as he grows older.

He may not be able to voice his fears right now but make no mistake, this incident has been stored in his little mind and relegated to his subconscious, it will come up to haunt him as he grows older.

Exactly, Jason. Setting a young child in front of a TV screen and letting him watch it without strict supervision is in itself a form of child abuse, imho.

A child of three who has been fed on a steady diet of TV violence (even some cartoons are terribly violent) becomes desensitized to such behavior. He/she is simply not capable of reasoning out what they are seeing.

All the child knows is that Jerry picks up an axe and clobbers Tom over the head and except for seeing a few stars, Tom is fine. But my god, think about it!

My guess is that the child in Ron's article wasn't mimicking a cartoon but rather an adult's behavior. Never-the-less, I am alarmed by the nature of most children's TV programs these days.

No, my guess is that the child in question is already carrying around a lot of anger and his only avenue of expression is to mimic what he sees. How sad.

At three years of age, he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, his parents should. But he should be carefully monitored and given extensive age appropriate therapy over the next few years.