There's no serious discussion about whether the boy should be held accountable for the killing (though under Michigan law, if he were 7, he would stand trial as a juvenile), and he seems to have little concept that he's done anything very wrong. For the past three days, the world has focused on how living in a drug-and-gun-infested environment might have made a tragedy of this sort almost inevitable -- and of more immediate concern, how could this child get a gun?

That question was answered when 19-year-old Jamelle James told the police the boy had taken his gun, a gun that had been stolen in December and found its way into James's room -- and ultimately into Room 6 of Buell Elementary School. On Thursday, James was charged with involuntary manslaughter, for allowing the boy access to the gun.

(Although the gun was in James's own room, covered by several blankets, not at all in plain sight, he had showed it to the boy on a number of occasions; by the way, though the boy and James were not related, the boy did call James "uncle", which probably explains the early confusion about whether the "uncle" he lived was in fact an uncle: he lived with his mother's brother and a man he also called by that name)

Possibly because most of the witnesses are first-graders, many details remain sketchy: It's pretty much accepted now that he meant to aim the gun at Kayla -- but did he pull the trigger on purpose, or was it an accident? Did he make a comment to her, or not? And most importantly, did he place three bullets into the gun before the incident, or was the gun already loaded? You can find media reports this morning stating both versions as absolute fact.

And some news organizations are still saying Kayla was shot in the neck, when in fact the bullet passed through her arm and into her chest.

There are very few cases where a killer is truly as much a victim as the person he kills. Tuesday morning's killing is one of those cases.