School Shooting in Michigan. 3 Teens DEAD. 1 15-yr old suspect in custody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article about Shannon Smith, one of the lawyers for the parents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/who-shannon-smith-larry-nassars-attorney-reps-alleged-oxford-shooters-parents-1655983%3famp=1

Another one. Wonder if she took the case pro bono, apparently she does periodically:

https://www.mlive.com/news/2017/11/attorney_shannon_smith.html

This makes her sound like she has some kind of intellectual interest, which she does not. She's a braggart with a rich social media presence and those posts are clear that she's in it for money and that's about it.

Here's a Tweet compiling the posts: https://twitter.com/R_Denhollander/status/1467205226252107776?s=20

Wow. She seems like a piece of work. But that was obvious from her trying to pretend her clients weren’t fleeing when they obvious were.

But isn’t that her job? Everyone gets and deserve legal representation and it is the lawyers job to spin things in their clients’ favor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article about Shannon Smith, one of the lawyers for the parents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/who-shannon-smith-larry-nassars-attorney-reps-alleged-oxford-shooters-parents-1655983%3famp=1

Another one. Wonder if she took the case pro bono, apparently she does periodically:

https://www.mlive.com/news/2017/11/attorney_shannon_smith.html

This makes her sound like she has some kind of intellectual interest, which she does not. She's a braggart with a rich social media presence and those posts are clear that she's in it for money and that's about it.

Here's a Tweet compiling the posts: https://twitter.com/R_Denhollander/status/1467205226252107776?s=20

Wow. She seems like a piece of work. But that was obvious from her trying to pretend her clients weren’t fleeing when they obvious were.

But isn’t that her job? Everyone gets and deserve legal representation and it is the lawyers job to spin things in their clients’ favor

You think she’s billing for her petty Facebook replies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article about Shannon Smith, one of the lawyers for the parents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/who-shannon-smith-larry-nassars-attorney-reps-alleged-oxford-shooters-parents-1655983%3famp=1

Another one. Wonder if she took the case pro bono, apparently she does periodically:

https://www.mlive.com/news/2017/11/attorney_shannon_smith.html

This makes her sound like she has some kind of intellectual interest, which she does not. She's a braggart with a rich social media presence and those posts are clear that she's in it for money and that's about it.

Here's a Tweet compiling the posts: https://twitter.com/R_Denhollander/status/1467205226252107776?s=20

Wow. She seems like a piece of work. But that was obvious from her trying to pretend her clients weren’t fleeing when they obvious were.

But isn’t that her job? Everyone gets and deserve legal representation and it is the lawyers job to spin things in their clients’ favor

You think she’s billing for her petty Facebook replies?

Yes. My lawyer would be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about discipline. The child was in mental health crisis.

He should have been sent to a hospital as would have happened if it was a life threatening physical illness.

You don’t leave the welfare of a kid who is talking the way he was in the hands of the questionable adults who raised him to be that way!

Schools can’t override parents when it comes to institutionalization and seeking treatment for a student. The school is a government agency, but it doesn’t have the force of policing or forcing health care decisions onto families.

What don’t people get about that? And do you really want school administrators to have that kind of power over your families? Schools really can’t act when there’s uncooperative parents and no signs of physical/sexual abuse.

I don't think of it as control "over my family."

I think of it as responsible adults stepping in to protect a child with very limited power.

Parents do not own their children.

This is from the PA dept of education's Model Suicide Prevention Policy:

<<Procedures for Parental Involvement

Parents or guardians of a student identified as being at risk of suicide must be immediately notified by the school and must be involved in consequent actions and provided with crisis and community resources. If any mandated reporter suspects that a student’s risk status is the result of abuse or neglect, that individual must comply with the reporting requirements of the Child Protective Services Law.

If the parents or guardians refuse to cooperate and there is any doubt regarding the child’s safety, the school personnel who directly witnessed the expressed suicide thought or intention will pursue a 302 involuntary behavioral health assessment by calling County Emergency Services at [provide number] and ask for a delegate. >>

The bar for actually sending someone to a hospital after county emergency service assessment is so high. My husband threatened suicide, had the means to do so and was missing for a time. When I called the police, they did the right thing and brought in the county mental health group. They asked him a few questions, spoke to him for less than 5 minutes and left. He was not in imminent danger according to them. I don’t know how much more proof someone is suicidal than a text outlining that he is going to do it.
If you haven’t been through this scenario, please don’t assume that the county or any mental health group is going to swoop in and save the day. They just don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article about Shannon Smith, one of the lawyers for the parents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/who-shannon-smith-larry-nassars-attorney-reps-alleged-oxford-shooters-parents-1655983%3famp=1

Another one. Wonder if she took the case pro bono, apparently she does periodically:

https://www.mlive.com/news/2017/11/attorney_shannon_smith.html

This makes her sound like she has some kind of intellectual interest, which she does not. She's a braggart with a rich social media presence and those posts are clear that she's in it for money and that's about it.

Here's a Tweet compiling the posts: https://twitter.com/R_Denhollander/status/1467205226252107776?s=20

Wow. She seems like a piece of work. But that was obvious from her trying to pretend her clients weren’t fleeing when they obvious were.

But isn’t that her job? Everyone gets and deserve legal representation and it is the lawyers job to spin things in their clients’ favor

Everyone deserves legal representation and it's a lawyer's job to defend, but they're not allowed to lie to the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not about discipline. The child was in mental health crisis.

He should have been sent to a hospital as would have happened if it was a life threatening physical illness.

You don’t leave the welfare of a kid who is talking the way he was in the hands of the questionable adults who raised him to be that way!

Schools can’t override parents when it comes to institutionalization and seeking treatment for a student. The school is a government agency, but it doesn’t have the force of policing or forcing health care decisions onto families.

What don’t people get about that? And do you really want school administrators to have that kind of power over your families? Schools really can’t act when there’s uncooperative parents and no signs of physical/sexual abuse.

I don't think of it as control "over my family."

I think of it as responsible adults stepping in to protect a child with very limited power.

Parents do not own their children.

This is from the PA dept of education's Model Suicide Prevention Policy:

<<Procedures for Parental Involvement

Parents or guardians of a student identified as being at risk of suicide must be immediately notified by the school and must be involved in consequent actions and provided with crisis and community resources. If any mandated reporter suspects that a student’s risk status is the result of abuse or neglect, that individual must comply with the reporting requirements of the Child Protective Services Law.

If the parents or guardians refuse to cooperate and there is any doubt regarding the child’s safety, the school personnel who directly witnessed the expressed suicide thought or intention will pursue a 302 involuntary behavioral health assessment by calling County Emergency Services at [provide number] and ask for a delegate. >>

The bar for actually sending someone to a hospital after county emergency service assessment is so high. My husband threatened suicide, had the means to do so and was missing for a time. When I called the police, they did the right thing and brought in the county mental health group. They asked him a few questions, spoke to him for less than 5 minutes and left. He was not in imminent danger according to them. I don’t know how much more proof someone is suicidal than a text outlining that he is going to do it.
If you haven’t been through this scenario, please don’t assume that the county or any mental health group is going to swoop in and save the day. They just don’t.

That’s ok. Calling the police and then them looping in mental health may not have gotten him committed to an institution but it likely would have stopped this particular shooting incident. We can speculate on what would have happened next. Maybe police or mental health professionals would have asked parents about guns at home. Maybe he would have talked to someone along the way in the evaluation that would have helped him through whatever crisis was going on in his head. I don’t know. I do know teens can be very impulsive. If this one event could have been stopped and some intervention made he may not have tried to do it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Narrowing the timeline to Monday and Tuesday is misleading. There was a "dark cloud" hanging over the school for weeks and months leading up to this. The district wrote letters about the "rumors", see: https://oxfordhigh.oxfordschools.org/parents___students/building_communications/november_12__concerns_and_rumors

The district's administrative brass is a mile long list of six-figure salary highly credentialed "experts". Sorry, I'm not buying it that two uneducated low-life parents persuaded or successfully pushed back against the brass. The professionals failed the community, there is no other way to put it.

The superintendent was a deer in headlights at the very first press conference on Tuesday afternoon; he looked very "off". I suspected then he was fully aware he and his colleagues screwed up.

This is a weird assertion, for a school district that has all of 5 ES, 2 MS, and 1 HS. I very much doubt they have a "mile long list of six-figure salary highly credentialed experts" and I don't know what benefit you derive from lying about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, every rationale possible is being used by the PPs in this thread to excuse the gun owners and their kid (the shooter) passing the blame to anyone else.

Not true. I blame:

The kid
The parents (maybe even more than the kid)
The school admin (for not calling police/searching the bag/sending the kid home)
The laws for giving this kid more rights than his fellow students.

I can blame many things at once. An absolutely tragedy that could have been prevented so many ways.

Tell me what rights this kid has that other kids do not. Name one.

You can't because this kid has no more rights than anyone else.

This kid has no more rights than any other kid. You sound like one of those insane anti-public school LCPS haters nutjobs. You are ignorant and don't understand the laws related to education. BTW if you are the same poster blaming IDEA and FAPE, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. FAPE AND IDEA have nothing to do with what happened with this kid and would not stop the school from sending the kid home.

So much ignorance posted here.

The push for the rights of troubled kids absolutely are the reason this kid was not told to go home with his parents. It’s the reason they were allowed to “decline” to take him home. And why the school didn’t search him. Schools searched lockers and bags all the time when we were kids. All they needed was an anonymous tip.

NP. How, precisely, is a school administrator supposed to force a parent to take a child home if that parent declines. Please explain with precision how that works both legally and logistically.

Suspend him for the safety of the student body and if they leave without him, he’s trespassing. Call. The. Police.

Are you really this simple?

What bizarre fantasy world are you living in? This never happened, not even in whatever imaginary world you think used to exist.

Stick to reality, please.

There was a different power dynamic. The school had the power and authority. Principals in the 70s did not play. If the parents wouldn’t take the kid. They would have had them escorted from campus. The litigious nature of our society and changes in law have made is such that schools are wary about exercising authority in situations such as this which is what got us here. It is my hope that this will help bring more balance back to the schools and recognize that kids that aren’t troubled have rights and need protection and care as well.

x100000

EXACTLY THIS.

PP is either obtuse or one of those parents (who wants to see how much the other parents know).

My kids have never been called to the principal's office, and are teens about to go to good colleges. But I think you are imagining an idealized 70s that didn't exist. Or you are just okay with the rampant discrimination that existed.

Do you really think a white boy who wasn't poor would have been treated the way you are imagining? Yes, they'd just escort the Black teens off (even if they'd done nothing wrong), but I flat-out don't believe your fantasies with respect to kids like Crumbley.

Given that I was there in the 70s and 80s I can assure you there was no playing. No nonsense and No coddling. Of course there was discrimination but there were also fewer kids hurt by peers at school. How about we fix the discrimination instead of “fixing” it by just doing away with discipline which hurts all the kids including the kids who need discipline. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was a report that the disturbing drawing was “updated” after the teacher saw it and reported it, prior to the meeting with the parents. The school did many things right. Probably more things than most large HS’s in this country would’ve done. Teacher reported the note and the school admin called for urgent, immediate meeting with parents. But the drawing changed before the meeting and the enabling/head-in-the sand parents pushed back on taking kid home. He had no prior disciplinary issues.Where the school failed IMHO 1.) didn’t ask whether they had guns in their home that were currently accounted for and 2.) didn’t insist on searching kids backpack and locker before sending back to class.

I agree the families that lost their children should be compensated through the civil suits that will likely follow.I hope that monies will be found to outfit every HS with metal detectors to avoid future gun violence in schools. This HS did many things right but it still wasn’t enough to prevent this tragedy.

How do you deal with non-metal, 3D printed weapons and the like?

Nice red herring. Remind the class how many multiple person school shootings have been carried out with 3D printed weapons again?

Ha! Just a matter of time. -our local high school made national news for mass shooting in the 80s before Columbine, metal detectors won’t help and now we have new ways to produce stuff at home; don’t be naive

Well, tell you what. We'll install metal detectors at every school, enact stricter gun laws and then, when we actually get the real problem under control, we can start worrying about "3D printed guns" in schools, mmkay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxford High School has a full-time school resource officer, who is a sworn Oakland County sheriff's deputy. There was no need to "call the police," the resource officer literally has an office in the school, presumably mere feet from the principal's office where these meetings took place. The high school brass, for whatever reason, did not loop the deputy into any of this. That is pure negligence.

"Like many schools across the country, Oxford High School has a police officer assigned to patrol its halls and campus. On Tuesday, according to a law enforcement official, that deputy and a responding deputy disarmed and arrested a 15-year-old student."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/11/30/oxford-high-shooting-police-school-liaison-officer/8813723002/

Why wasn't this deputy looped into the documented violent psych issues of the kid, calls to the parents, and the two meetings with the kid and the other with his parents? The deputy was INTENTIONALLY not looped in and not included in the meetings. The district is so screwed in a civil suit.

For the record, one usually can not locate the resource officer. Not saying this is an excuse, just saying it is an issue.

And it is really, really, really, really difficult to remove a kid when you have aggressive parents who don't care right in front of you. The school was worried about a law suit, and I am sure these people threatened the school with a law suit more than once.

Awww, they were worried? Poor babies. Well, they've got their lawsuit now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oxford High School has a full-time school resource officer, who is a sworn Oakland County sheriff's deputy. There was no need to "call the police," the resource officer literally has an office in the school, presumably mere feet from the principal's office where these meetings took place. The high school brass, for whatever reason, did not loop the deputy into any of this. That is pure negligence.

"Like many schools across the country, Oxford High School has a police officer assigned to patrol its halls and campus. On Tuesday, according to a law enforcement official, that deputy and a responding deputy disarmed and arrested a 15-year-old student."

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2021/11/30/oxford-high-shooting-police-school-liaison-officer/8813723002/

Why wasn't this deputy looped into the documented violent psych issues of the kid, calls to the parents, and the two meetings with the kid and the other with his parents? The deputy was INTENTIONALLY not looped in and not included in the meetings. The district is so screwed in a civil suit.

For the record, one usually can not locate the resource officer. Not saying this is an excuse, just saying it is an issue.

And it is really, really, really, really difficult to remove a kid when you have aggressive parents who don't care right in front of you. The school was worried about a law suit, and I am sure these people threatened the school with a law suit more than once.

Why the hell not? Why does the resource officer not have a radio for the office to call them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the reason the parents have such high profile, expensive lawyers, is that the defense is being funded by someone with deep pockets. Maybe the NRA? Would the attorneys have to disclose that?

No idea but the lawyers defended Larry Nassar. 🤢

Well, hopefully thus defense will go about as well as that one did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo now reporting the letter sent by the superintendent yesterday to parents outlining the chronology of events with this kid at the school. Apparently, the report by the teacher and meeting with parents that day all stayed at the guidance counselor level. The principal and VP were never looped in. Wow.

So the principal and AP claim.

How convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Narrowing the timeline to Monday and Tuesday is misleading. There was a "dark cloud" hanging over the school for weeks and months leading up to this. The district wrote letters about the "rumors", see: https://oxfordhigh.oxfordschools.org/parents___students/building_communications/november_12__concerns_and_rumors

The district's administrative brass is a mile long list of six-figure salary highly credentialed "experts". Sorry, I'm not buying it that two uneducated low-life parents persuaded or successfully pushed back against the brass. The professionals failed the community, there is no other way to put it.

The superintendent was a deer in headlights at the very first press conference on Tuesday afternoon; he looked very "off". I suspected then he was fully aware he and his colleagues screwed up.

This is a weird assertion, for a school district that has all of 5 ES, 2 MS, and 1 HS. I very much doubt they have a "mile long list of six-figure salary highly credentialed experts" and I don't know what benefit you derive from lying about that.

In addition to the district, Oxford, having their own bureaucracy, there's also Oakland (County) Intermediate School District (ISD) above it with a massive bureaucracy. Yes, we are talking about a mile long list of six-figure edu experts. Plus this is the wealthiest county in Michigan, so you have another mile long list of mental and juvenile health experts at the county health department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo now reporting the letter sent by the superintendent yesterday to parents outlining the chronology of events with this kid at the school. Apparently, the report by the teacher and meeting with parents that day all stayed at the guidance counselor level. The principal and VP were never looped in. Wow.

So the principal and AP claim.

How convenient.

+1. I've never heard of a teacher sending a disturbed kid to "the office" and they end up in a guidance counselor's office? Baloney. Who was calling the parents? Who met with the kid on Monday? Who met with the parents on Tuesday?