Shooting in Reston

[Anonymous]

Why was the daughter upstairs with the killer and her parents were downstairs dying. This is from the 911 dispatcher.

That's really odd.

[Anonymous]

Maybe she ran upstairs to call 911? She is the one who called 911.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the deceased woman's actions in the weeks prior to the shooting were a catalyst for what ultimately occurred. The fault is entirely the boy's, of course, since he fired the gun but it is entirely probable that a different, less antagonistic approach by the mother with the daughter and her boyfriend would have meant that both of the deceased would be alive now.

As time goes on and this case moves to prosecution we will learn more background. I will be interested in learning more about the dynamic between the two children. Most of the posts assume that the boy was the dominant figure in the relationship and that could be because he has exhibited these preferences that are so horrible, which makes him an easy target. But I wonder what compelled him to be in the house when she could just as easily have left the house?

All around it is a tragic incident and my heart breaks for the little boy who lost his parents in such a senseless act. That poor child.

+1. My thought as well.

The boy was unstable. I think if you are dealing with someone who is unstable and may have a propensity for violence, you don't act the way she did. You handle the situation quietly, maybe send your kid out of town for a while to get daughter away from the boy. You don't embarrass and humiliate the unstable person.

+1 As another poster said much further back in the thread, common sense dictates that you don't stick a stick into a hornets nest and start shaking it around. The entire situation escalated rapidly when it should have been de-escalating. When I read the paper the first day with the statement by the mom's mother about the "intervention" they staged and the letter to the school I thought "uh oh". Those usually are not the best tactics to use when working with TWO (both the boy and girl) unstable and high risk children. And, yes, I work with unstable and high risk children.

I hear what you are saying and might even agree, but the neighbors took a gentle approach already with the kid. Mom didn't know this, but I am sure the neighbors now regret not making a bigger deal. Maybe he would have killed their daughter. There is no gentle way to tip toe away from someone highly emotionally unstable. When people have say personality disorders let alone other severe mental illness any rejection hits them crazy hard. The breakup alone could have set this off. Then what? Mom justs tip toes around Nazi stuff like the neighbors. She had to alert the family the boy snuck into their home many times already. The only thing I can think of to do differently is to get an alarm system installed that day and board up the house. I certainly would have alerted the inlaws we have some drama in the house if they prefer I could pay for them to be in a hotel. Even if they were just going to hear sex sounds or yelling, no grandparents need to hear that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why was the daughter upstairs with the killer and her parents were downstairs dying. This is from the 911 dispatcher.

That's really odd.

It was 5 a.m when he broke in. She was upstairs asleep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the daughter upstairs with the killer and her parents were downstairs dying. This is from the 911 dispatcher.

That's really odd.

It was 5 a.m when he broke in. She was upstairs asleep

I read that the boy had been with the girl for an hour when the parents overheard them and confronted him. That's when he shot them. I don't know which room they were in or what level of the house they were on when this happened. The girl then called 911 from (possibly?) another bedroom. I would imagine that the noise woke everyone in the house up and that things were pretty chaotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the deceased woman's actions in the weeks prior to the shooting were a catalyst for what ultimately occurred. The fault is entirely the boy's, of course, since he fired the gun but it is entirely probable that a different, less antagonistic approach by the mother with the daughter and her boyfriend would have meant that both of the deceased would be alive now.

As time goes on and this case moves to prosecution we will learn more background. I will be interested in learning more about the dynamic between the two children. Most of the posts assume that the boy was the dominant figure in the relationship and that could be because he has exhibited these preferences that are so horrible, which makes him an easy target. But I wonder what compelled him to be in the house when she could just as easily have left the house?

All around it is a tragic incident and my heart breaks for the little boy who lost his parents in such a senseless act. That poor child.

+1. My thought as well.

The boy was unstable. I think if you are dealing with someone who is unstable and may have a propensity for violence, you don't act the way she did. You handle the situation quietly, maybe send your kid out of town for a while to get daughter away from the boy. You don't embarrass and humiliate the unstable person.

+1 As another poster said much further back in the thread, common sense dictates that you don't stick a stick into a hornets nest and start shaking it around. The entire situation escalated rapidly when it should have been de-escalating. When I read the paper the first day with the statement by the mom's mother about the "intervention" they staged and the letter to the school I thought "uh oh". Those usually are not the best tactics to use when working with TWO (both the boy and girl) unstable and high risk children. And, yes, I work with unstable and high risk children.

Disgusting. You don't blame the mother for PROTECTING her daughter, you blame the shooter and his parents for giving him access to a GUN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the deceased woman's actions in the weeks prior to the shooting were a catalyst for what ultimately occurred. The fault is entirely the boy's, of course, since he fired the gun but it is entirely probable that a different, less antagonistic approach by the mother with the daughter and her boyfriend would have meant that both of the deceased would be alive now.

As time goes on and this case moves to prosecution we will learn more background. I will be interested in learning more about the dynamic between the two children. Most of the posts assume that the boy was the dominant figure in the relationship and that could be because he has exhibited these preferences that are so horrible, which makes him an easy target. But I wonder what compelled him to be in the house when she could just as easily have left the house?

All around it is a tragic incident and my heart breaks for the little boy who lost his parents in such a senseless act. That poor child.

+1. My thought as well.

The boy was unstable. I think if you are dealing with someone who is unstable and may have a propensity for violence, you don't act the way she did. You handle the situation quietly, maybe send your kid out of town for a while to get daughter away from the boy. You don't embarrass and humiliate the unstable person.

+1 As another poster said much further back in the thread, common sense dictates that you don't stick a stick into a hornets nest and start shaking it around. The entire situation escalated rapidly when it should have been de-escalating. When I read the paper the first day with the statement by the mom's mother about the "intervention" they staged and the letter to the school I thought "uh oh". Those usually are not the best tactics to use when working with TWO (both the boy and girl) unstable and high risk children. And, yes, I work with unstable and high risk children.

Disgusting. You don't blame the mother for PROTECTING her daughter, you blame the shooter and his parents for giving him access to a GUN.

I don't think anyone is blaming the mother for protecting her daughter. All the poster is saying is that given this kids mental issues (apparently, everyone knew this) and his parents' inability to take responsibility for him, maybe she should have used another approach that was subtle rather than harsh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the deceased woman's actions in the weeks prior to the shooting were a catalyst for what ultimately occurred. The fault is entirely the boy's, of course, since he fired the gun but it is entirely probable that a different, less antagonistic approach by the mother with the daughter and her boyfriend would have meant that both of the deceased would be alive now.

As time goes on and this case moves to prosecution we will learn more background. I will be interested in learning more about the dynamic between the two children. Most of the posts assume that the boy was the dominant figure in the relationship and that could be because he has exhibited these preferences that are so horrible, which makes him an easy target. But I wonder what compelled him to be in the house when she could just as easily have left the house?

All around it is a tragic incident and my heart breaks for the little boy who lost his parents in such a senseless act. That poor child.

+1. My thought as well.

The boy was unstable. I think if you are dealing with someone who is unstable and may have a propensity for violence, you don't act the way she did. You handle the situation quietly, maybe send your kid out of town for a while to get daughter away from the boy. You don't embarrass and humiliate the unstable person.

+1 As another poster said much further back in the thread, common sense dictates that you don't stick a stick into a hornets nest and start shaking it around. The entire situation escalated rapidly when it should have been de-escalating. When I read the paper the first day with the statement by the mom's mother about the "intervention" they staged and the letter to the school I thought "uh oh". Those usually are not the best tactics to use when working with TWO (both the boy and girl) unstable and high risk children. And, yes, I work with unstable and high risk children.

Disgusting. You don't blame the mother for PROTECTING her daughter, you blame the shooter and his parents for giving him access to a GUN.

I don't think anyone is blaming the mother for protecting her daughter. All the poster is saying is that given this kids mental issues (apparently, everyone knew this) and his parents' inability to take responsibility for him, maybe she should have used another approach that was subtle rather than harsh.

What approach would that be? They went to school together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the deceased woman's actions in the weeks prior to the shooting were a catalyst for what ultimately occurred. The fault is entirely the boy's, of course, since he fired the gun but it is entirely probable that a different, less antagonistic approach by the mother with the daughter and her boyfriend would have meant that both of the deceased would be alive now.

As time goes on and this case moves to prosecution we will learn more background. I will be interested in learning more about the dynamic between the two children. Most of the posts assume that the boy was the dominant figure in the relationship and that could be because he has exhibited these preferences that are so horrible, which makes him an easy target. But I wonder what compelled him to be in the house when she could just as easily have left the house?

All around it is a tragic incident and my heart breaks for the little boy who lost his parents in such a senseless act. That poor child.

+1. My thought as well.

The boy was unstable. I think if you are dealing with someone who is unstable and may have a propensity for violence, you don't act the way she did. You handle the situation quietly, maybe send your kid out of town for a while to get daughter away from the boy. You don't embarrass and humiliate the unstable person.

+1 As another poster said much further back in the thread, common sense dictates that you don't stick a stick into a hornets nest and start shaking it around. The entire situation escalated rapidly when it should have been de-escalating. When I read the paper the first day with the statement by the mom's mother about the "intervention" they staged and the letter to the school I thought "uh oh". Those usually are not the best tactics to use when working with TWO (both the boy and girl) unstable and high risk children. And, yes, I work with unstable and high risk children.

Yes, I had a similar *facepalm* moment when I read how the mother handled the situation. Like others have said, that doesn't absolve the murderer of his guilt in committing the crime. DCUM wants to canonize Buckley as a noble warrior for her intolerance of Nazism (a good thing), and is quick to say that she isn't responsible for how any actions of the murderer (also true). Yet, on the other hand, DCUM wants to burn the parents of the murder at stake for not knowing exactly how to handle their murderous, unstable child, and possibly owning a gun (which we don't even know to be true).

Naturally, the murder must be their fault of the murderer's parents because they are Republicans! DCUM at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen!

Meanwhile, it seems that the victim mother raised a child who was unstable enough to get involved with a murderous Nazi. Yet, none of my Republican friends have kids who are dating a Nazi who mows swastikas into lawns for sport. And it seems the mother also took multiple actions to enrage the murderer in the weeks leading up to her death.

This all leads us to the us to the only reasonable conclusion, which is that it is Trump's fault. Right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the deceased woman's actions in the weeks prior to the shooting were a catalyst for what ultimately occurred. The fault is entirely the boy's, of course, since he fired the gun but it is entirely probable that a different, less antagonistic approach by the mother with the daughter and her boyfriend would have meant that both of the deceased would be alive now.

As time goes on and this case moves to prosecution we will learn more background. I will be interested in learning more about the dynamic between the two children. Most of the posts assume that the boy was the dominant figure in the relationship and that could be because he has exhibited these preferences that are so horrible, which makes him an easy target. But I wonder what compelled him to be in the house when she could just as easily have left the house?

All around it is a tragic incident and my heart breaks for the little boy who lost his parents in such a senseless act. That poor child.

+1. My thought as well.

The boy was unstable. I think if you are dealing with someone who is unstable and may have a propensity for violence, you don't act the way she did. You handle the situation quietly, maybe send your kid out of town for a while to get daughter away from the boy. You don't embarrass and humiliate the unstable person.

+1 As another poster said much further back in the thread, common sense dictates that you don't stick a stick into a hornets nest and start shaking it around. The entire situation escalated rapidly when it should have been de-escalating. When I read the paper the first day with the statement by the mom's mother about the "intervention" they staged and the letter to the school I thought "uh oh". Those usually are not the best tactics to use when working with TWO (both the boy and girl) unstable and high risk children. And, yes, I work with unstable and high risk children.

Disgusting. You don't blame the mother for PROTECTING her daughter, you blame the shooter and his parents for giving him access to a GUN.

You don't know that. No one knows whether the mother was protecting the daughter or grandstanding, and it will take months before law enforcement can confirm whether the daughter helped plan the murder.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure bodily harm is the sign of love, and the right reasons for organizing a hate group totally exonerates the organizers. What an interesting world you live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Naturally, the murder must be their fault of the murderer's parents because they are Republicans! DCUM at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen!

How many times have we read that it is the fault of every muslim on the planet for allowing the radicalization of those who become Islamic Terrorists? "why don't moderate muslims ......."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You don't know that. No one knows whether the mother was protecting the daughter or grandstanding, and it will take months before law enforcement can confirm whether the daughter helped plan the murder.

What has happened to us that taking a stand against NeoNazism, against hatred, is "grandstanding"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Naturally, the murder must be their fault of the murderer's parents because they are Republicans! DCUM at it's finest, ladies and gentlemen!

How many times have we read that it is the fault of every muslim on the planet for allowing the radicalization of those who become Islamic Terrorists? "why don't moderate muslims ......."

So you think that Islamic terrorism is the fault of moderate Muslims? Wow, you are terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was the daughter upstairs with the killer and her parents were downstairs dying. This is from the 911 dispatcher.

That's really odd.

It was 5 a.m when he broke in. She was upstairs asleep

News stories all say the parents went to check on the girl and found the boy in the bedroom with her (clearly indicating she let him in). Do you have a more up to date source that says otherwise?