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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutors may go after school’s leaders, great. They could have inspected backpack and locker.

0% chance. This is political. Politicians — including the prosecutor — aren’t going to help civil attorneys win an even bigger lawsuit against local taxpayers by charging anyone at the school with negligence.

One question: Why are you so against the parents being responsible?

[Anonymous]

Holding the parents responsible for this is one of the best things that can happen in terms of deterring future gun violence of this type.

If we lived in a functional country that could actually pass laws, we should attach liability to anyone who facilitates getting a gun for someone who later commits a violent crime with that gun. We do it for bartenders who over-serve, hell - Texas is doing it for uber drivers who take a passenger to an abortion clinic.

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of violent psychopaths is to make the people who get them those guns think twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holding the parents responsible for this is one of the best things that can happen in terms of deterring future gun violence of this type.

If we lived in a functional country that could actually pass laws, we should attach liability to anyone who facilitates getting a gun for someone who later commits a violent crime with that gun. We do it for bartenders who over-serve, hell - Texas is doing it for uber drivers who take a passenger to an abortion clinic.

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of violent psychopaths is to make the people who get them those guns think twice.

+1

Exactly. I am a gun owner, and I have no problem with this. It is the irresponsible parents we (those of us with children in public schools) need to worry about. They are simply not tending to their children's basic needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at his old YouTube videos from a few years ago, he appears like a sweet, polite child talking about his boat collection and playing basketball with a group of friends; in one he his conscientious of the cost of a souvenir at a bear attraction.His parents can use these as evidence that they had no idea of his decline into a dark world.

Even the day of, while they had him locked in an office (?) for 2 hours -- waiting for his parents to arrive from work? -- he asked if he could do his science homework because he was worried about missing class work!

Is it possible the line of questioning from school officials to he and his parents is maybe what triggered something in him?

This ridiculous fan fiction ignores the fact that he had the gun and ammunition on his person.

Fan fiction? It's on the record fact he was asking if he could do science homework while in the office Tuesday morning, because he was worried about missing class assignments:
https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/12/superintendent-asks-for-third-party-review-on-events-that-led-up-to-oxford-high-school-shooting.html

The science thing is odd and it either is evidence that he was a sociopath calmly pretending it was all fine or (more likely) a kid with a significant cognitive disconnect. My own kid was in a police car being taken to an ER for suicidal threats and was making plans about buying tickets for something they wanted to do. I was thinking WTF do they not realize if they kill themselves we will not be attending that. Their brains can just run on two totally different tracks.

Also, if the kid denied suicidal ideation and told the counselor it was just for a video game he was designing, I’m really not sure most counselors would have done anything differently for a kid that has not disciplinary history and seemed to be otherwise engaged in school and responding appropriately to questions. I might not be understanding the totality of what they had, though.

My take is that the counselors were asking what might about to screening questions and may not have had the skill set for this level of immediate assessment the way someone experienced in psych assessment would. The note was an indicator of suicidal ideation and as such would have warranted a check of locker and backpack and maybe requiring parents to confirm guns were CURRENTLY secure to rule out access to weapons at the time.

I was thinking a little differently, that the counselors were focused on the kid's mental health, but erred on what they thought would keep him safe-- IOW, they thought he'd be safer at school than home alone where he could self-harm. If the principal and vice principals had been looped in, they would have brought the mindset of assuring the safety of everyone else from this kid as well. Counselors are geared toward helping the individuals in front of them, while principals are tasked with managing the entire school. The problem was that the kid was a danger to self and others, so there was a mismatch between the nature and scope of the problem and the responsibilities of the particular school personnel who were making the decisions that day. Same with the school resource officer, whose primary responsibility is to the school as a whole. His involvement would have almost surely made a difference.

Long way of saying that the principal would have probably insisted on checking his backpack.

Also, I bet the counselor sitting there with the kid for all that time, was falsely reassured watching the kid worry about his science homework and other normal behavior. A principal would have probably been coming in and out and would be less likely to let his skepticism down.

Just speculating here, obviously, but it's good to remember that these are all regular human beings acting as humans do-- They bring their own preconceived ideas, gut instincts, empathy, bias, naïveté, analytic skills, good intentions, flawed reasoning and just human imperfection to every situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parents are both employed and temp left work to come to the meeting. Why would they take him home if not ordered to do so? That’s even if we believe they were asked to take him home — which I personally question since this school is run by nitwits. This isn’t on them, however trashy and MAGA they are, this is on school officials. I predict the bogus charges against the parents by an attention craving first year county prosecutor will be dismissed and the district and its county ISD will be successful sued for a nine-figure settlement.

Seriously? It's extremely sh*tty parenting. Worse than that, even. If you were presented evidence that your child could be suicidal, you would just go back to the office?

Lots of people made mistakes. A lot of people failed to do what they should have. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the parents are the only ones who seemed to not give a damn about this kid at all.

[Anonymous]

The poor kid wrote “please help me” “blood everywhere” “the world is dead.”

BOTH school and parents knew this and did nothing.

BOTH are guilty. BOTH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feherty the heck is freep?

Detroit Free Press. Sorry. One of the article linked in this thread was from there, and their web address is freep.com.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What law was the kid breaking google searching bullets on his iPhone? Spoiler alert: None.

That factoid hurts the school district in the civil suit far more than the parents in the bogus criminal case.

You answered your own question, then proceeded to contradict yourself. Well done.

Oy vey. The point is it wasn’t illegal — but it mostly certainly should have triggered policies and procedures at the local and county school levels.

[Anonymous]

Massey's Holiday card and that message about bullets from Santa. ARE YOU KIDDING? And you're going to only go after the parents? If people like Congressman Massey get a pass, how can you even hope to hold his parents but not the school administrators on the hook? I mean, it's known they are bad parents by just not doing anything about getting their kid help when asked by school. But that people suggest only the parents are sick is pretty funny. This whole country is sick. For allowing this kind of behavior. For all those who say the parents should be better parents - well yeah. But there are a zillion other bad parents around and there's guns a plenty around them. Our society, culture and people are all sick. We should all be on the hook for what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are both employed and temp left work to come to the meeting. Why would they take him home if not ordered to do so? That’s even if we believe they were asked to take him home — which I personally question since this school is run by nitwits. This isn’t on them, however trashy and MAGA they are, this is on school officials. I predict the bogus charges against the parents by an attention craving first year county prosecutor will be dismissed and the district and its county ISD will be successful sued for a nine-figure settlement.

Seriously? It's extremely sh*tty parenting. Worse than that, even. If you were presented evidence that your child could be suicidal, you would just go back to the office?

Lots of people made mistakes. A lot of people failed to do what they should have. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the parents are the only ones who seemed to not give a damn about this kid at all.

x100000

AT. ALL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holding the parents responsible for this is one of the best things that can happen in terms of deterring future gun violence of this type.

If we lived in a functional country that could actually pass laws, we should attach liability to anyone who facilitates getting a gun for someone who later commits a violent crime with that gun. We do it for bartenders who over-serve, hell - Texas is doing it for uber drivers who take a passenger to an abortion clinic.

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of violent psychopaths is to make the people who get them those guns think twice.

+1

Exactly. I am a gun owner, and I have no problem with this. It is the irresponsible parents we (those of us with children in public schools) need to worry about. They are simply not tending to their children's basic needs.

The problem is that people like this claim that that they are "responsible gun owners" right up until the point they hand their violent 15 year-old a semiautomatic weapon and tell him to have a great Christmas. I grew up with guns and my parents would rather than cut their own leg off than leave a weapon unsecured around a child. They were, and are, truly responsible gun owners but the irresponsible whackjobs use the exact same words to describe wildly different procedures around guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you look at his old YouTube videos from a few years ago, he appears like a sweet, polite child talking about his boat collection and playing basketball with a group of friends; in one he his conscientious of the cost of a souvenir at a bear attraction.His parents can use these as evidence that they had no idea of his decline into a dark world.

Even the day of, while they had him locked in an office (?) for 2 hours -- waiting for his parents to arrive from work? -- he asked if he could do his science homework because he was worried about missing class work!

Is it possible the line of questioning from school officials to he and his parents is maybe what triggered something in him?

This ridiculous fan fiction ignores the fact that he had the gun and ammunition on his person.

Fan fiction? It's on the record fact he was asking if he could do science homework while in the office Tuesday morning, because he was worried about missing class assignments:
https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/12/superintendent-asks-for-third-party-review-on-events-that-led-up-to-oxford-high-school-shooting.html

The science thing is odd and it either is evidence that he was a sociopath calmly pretending it was all fine or (more likely) a kid with a significant cognitive disconnect. My own kid was in a police car being taken to an ER for suicidal threats and was making plans about buying tickets for something they wanted to do. I was thinking WTF do they not realize if they kill themselves we will not be attending that. Their brains can just run on two totally different tracks.

Also, if the kid denied suicidal ideation and told the counselor it was just for a video game he was designing, I’m really not sure most counselors would have done anything differently for a kid that has not disciplinary history and seemed to be otherwise engaged in school and responding appropriately to questions. I might not be understanding the totality of what they had, though.

My take is that the counselors were asking what might about to screening questions and may not have had the skill set for this level of immediate assessment the way someone experienced in psych assessment would. The note was an indicator of suicidal ideation and as such would have warranted a check of locker and backpack and maybe requiring parents to confirm guns were CURRENTLY secure to rule out access to weapons at the time.

I was thinking a little differently, that the counselors were focused on the kid's mental health, but erred on what they thought would keep him safe-- IOW, they thought he'd be safer at school than home alone where he could self-harm. If the principal and vice principals had been looped in, they would have brought the mindset of assuring the safety of everyone else from this kid as well. Counselors are geared toward helping the individuals in front of them, while principals are tasked with managing the entire school. The problem was that the kid was a danger to self and others, so there was a mismatch between the nature and scope of the problem and the responsibilities of the particular school personnel who were making the decisions that day. Same with the school resource officer, whose primary responsibility is to the school as a whole. His involvement would have almost surely made a difference.

Long way of saying that the principal would have probably insisted on checking his backpack.

Also, I bet the counselor sitting there with the kid for all that time, was falsely reassured watching the kid worry about his science homework and other normal behavior. A principal would have probably been coming in and out and would be less likely to let his skepticism down.

Just speculating here, obviously, but it's good to remember that these are all regular human beings acting as humans do-- They bring their own preconceived ideas, gut instincts, empathy, bias, naïveté, analytic skills, good intentions, flawed reasoning and just human imperfection to every situation.

Great post and perspective shared. Everyone has their blind spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holding the parents responsible for this is one of the best things that can happen in terms of deterring future gun violence of this type.

If we lived in a functional country that could actually pass laws, we should attach liability to anyone who facilitates getting a gun for someone who later commits a violent crime with that gun. We do it for bartenders who over-serve, hell - Texas is doing it for uber drivers who take a passenger to an abortion clinic.

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of violent psychopaths is to make the people who get them those guns think twice.

+1

Exactly. I am a gun owner, and I have no problem with this. It is the irresponsible parents we (those of us with children in public schools) need to worry about. They are simply not tending to their children's basic needs.

The problem is that people like this claim that that they are "responsible gun owners" right up until the point they hand their violent 15 year-old a semiautomatic weapon and tell him to have a great Christmas. I grew up with guns and my parents would rather than cut their own leg off than leave a weapon unsecured around a child. They were, and are, truly responsible gun owners but the irresponsible whackjobs use the exact same words to describe wildly different procedures around guns.

Right, and maybe for this special idiots nothing would have changed. But a lot of people who claim to be responsible gun owners might actually change their behavior - and tacitly admit they weren't being all that responsible before - if there were a real threat of personal liability for their negligent or enabling actions that lead to gun violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holding the parents responsible for this is one of the best things that can happen in terms of deterring future gun violence of this type.

If we lived in a functional country that could actually pass laws, we should attach liability to anyone who facilitates getting a gun for someone who later commits a violent crime with that gun. We do it for bartenders who over-serve, hell - Texas is doing it for uber drivers who take a passenger to an abortion clinic.

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of violent psychopaths is to make the people who get them those guns think twice.

+1

Exactly. I am a gun owner, and I have no problem with this. It is the irresponsible parents we (those of us with children in public schools) need to worry about. They are simply not tending to their children's basic needs.

The problem is that people like this claim that that they are "responsible gun owners" right up until the point they hand their violent 15 year-old a semiautomatic weapon and tell him to have a great Christmas. I grew up with guns and my parents would rather than cut their own leg off than leave a weapon unsecured around a child. They were, and are, truly responsible gun owners but the irresponsible whackjobs use the exact same words to describe wildly different procedures around guns.

+1

PP here. Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holding the parents responsible for this is one of the best things that can happen in terms of deterring future gun violence of this type.

If we lived in a functional country that could actually pass laws, we should attach liability to anyone who facilitates getting a gun for someone who later commits a violent crime with that gun. We do it for bartenders who over-serve, hell - Texas is doing it for uber drivers who take a passenger to an abortion clinic.

The best way to keep guns out of the hands of violent psychopaths is to make the people who get them those guns think twice.

+1

Exactly. I am a gun owner, and I have no problem with this. It is the irresponsible parents we (those of us with children in public schools) need to worry about. They are simply not tending to their children's basic needs.

The problem is that people like this claim that that they are "responsible gun owners" right up until the point they hand their violent 15 year-old a semiautomatic weapon and tell him to have a great Christmas. I grew up with guns and my parents would rather than cut their own leg off than leave a weapon unsecured around a child. They were, and are, truly responsible gun owners but the irresponsible whackjobs use the exact same words to describe wildly different procedures around guns.

No “responsible gun owner” should have any problems with laws about gun storage and keeping guns away from children.

And of course the parents don’t GAF about this kid. They abandoned him at school and then abandoned him in jail while they went on the lam.