Shooting in Reston

[Anonymous]

It is pretty clear to me that a large number of Islamic suicide bombers, esp the "lone wolves" who have lately troubled us a lot in the US and Western Europe, are mentally ill young men who happen to have latched on to certain extremist brands of Islamic radicalism, which inspired hatred and violence. No one that I know of suggests that the best way to deal with them is to focus on improved mental health, better ways to deal with troubled young people, etc. Aside from the far lefties who want to focus on US foreign policy as responsible, everyone else agrees that we need to counter the radicalizing organizations, etc.

We have now in the last few months had two Americans killed by a neo nazi in Reston, and one in Charlottesville. Three in our little Commonwealth. Of course at least one of the killer was mentally ill - that is whom radical orgs take advantage of. Maybe he selected these individuals for personal reasons, but that does not mean the radicalization did not add to his belief in using violence, or his desire to own a gun. When will we take NeoNazi radicalization as seriously as we (rightly) take Islamic radicalization?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would he bring a gun to a house that he wasn't allowed to go to in the middle of the night? Who cares about the altercation? He knew he wasn't allowed there and so did the parents.

He was not mentally well. Maybe he brought the gun as a means to compel the girl to go with him ("If you don't talk to me, I'm going to shoot myself right here on your lawn", "If you don't leave with me, I'm going to shoot myself right here in your bedroom"). Then the parents walked in and all hell broke loose.

If a boy like that was still in my house at 4:00 AM, I'd be in an altercation as well. Why are you not blaming the parents and child who enabled all of this?

The boy snuck into the house with the help of his girlfriend roughly an hour before the shooting. I don't know why the girl let him into her room but clearly she felt conflicted over this parental initiated split up with him and she did let him in. The parents heard something in their daughter's bedroom, went to investigate and the boy shot them. Not blaming the parents for what happened, but that is, in fact, what did happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would he bring a gun to a house that he wasn't allowed to go to in the middle of the night? Who cares about the altercation? He knew he wasn't allowed there and so did the parents.

He was not mentally well. Maybe he brought the gun as a means to compel the girl to go with him ("If you don't talk to me, I'm going to shoot myself right here on your lawn", "If you don't leave with me, I'm going to shoot myself right here in your bedroom"). Then the parents walked in and all hell broke loose.

If a boy like that was still in my house at 4:00 AM, I'd be in an altercation as well. Why are you not blaming the parents and child who enabled all of this?

The boy snuck into the house with the help of his girlfriend roughly an hour before the shooting. I don't know why the girl let him into her room but clearly she felt conflicted over this parental initiated split up with him and she did let him in. The parents heard something in their daughter's bedroom, went to investigate and the boy shot them. Not blaming the parents for what happened, but that is, in fact, what did happen.

I don't see any of that being in conflict with what I said. The girl did not have rights to the house and she was known to be mentally unstable. She's slightly at fault for letting him in, but he knew he was not allowed. The Lorton parents knew he was not allowed there and knew what he had been up to. No excuse for them. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is pretty clear to me that a large number of Islamic suicide bombers, esp the "lone wolves" who have lately troubled us a lot in the US and Western Europe, are mentally ill young men who happen to have latched on to certain extremist brands of Islamic radicalism, which inspired hatred and violence. No one that I know of suggests that the best way to deal with them is to focus on improved mental health, better ways to deal with troubled young people, etc. Aside from the far lefties who want to focus on US foreign policy as responsible, everyone else agrees that we need to counter the radicalizing organizations, etc.

We have now in the last few months had two Americans killed by a neo nazi in Reston, and one in Charlottesville. Three in our little Commonwealth. Of course at least one of the killer was mentally ill - that is whom radical orgs take advantage of. Maybe he selected these individuals for personal reasons, but that does not mean the radicalization did not add to his belief in using violence, or his desire to own a gun. When will we take NeoNazi radicalization as seriously as we (rightly) take Islamic radicalization?

Again. The boy shot these parents because they were forbidding him to see their daughter.

This wasn't a politically motivated killing. This was domestic violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would he bring a gun to a house that he wasn't allowed to go to in the middle of the night? Who cares about the altercation? He knew he wasn't allowed there and so did the parents.

He was not mentally well. Maybe he brought the gun as a means to compel the girl to go with him ("If you don't talk to me, I'm going to shoot myself right here on your lawn", "If you don't leave with me, I'm going to shoot myself right here in your bedroom"). Then the parents walked in and all hell broke loose.

If a boy like that was still in my house at 4:00 AM, I'd be in an altercation as well. Why are you not blaming the parents and child who enabled all of this?

You mean the shooter's parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school with only 27 teens and 1:3 ratio?

Appears the diagnosis must have been pretty severe, we understand boy was mentally ill, but I wonder what was the daughter's condition to warrant this school?

If both had severe needs, I agree parents should have focussed more on mental stability rather than focus on the Nazi obsession.

+1

The buzzfeed article says that one Buckley’s concerns was how the excessive amount of time her daughter spent on the phone with her boyfriend made her forget her meds, etc.

Quoted PP here. Right, even if this boy was a liberal who loved Jews, he was still bad news. So the Nazi aspect was a red herring.

I also feel the matter should have been discussed privately between school and both sets of parents without involving unrelated friends like the 18 year old in the article or emailing the contents around. Regular discipline methods like curfew, social shaming and grounding probably did not work here.

Both sets of parents likely underestimated the criticality of the situation. It is a no win situation overall.

I would be very interested in knowing how he got the gun, since given that anything could have set off this boy, not having the gun seems to be the only way to have avoided this tragedy.

He didn't need a gun to get into that house. If it hadn't have been a gun it could have been a baseball bat, a knife, a brick or God only knows what else.

But chances are high that, had the weapon been a baseball bat, knife, a brick or God only knows what else, the parents would still be alive today.

The problem is ACCESS TO GUNS and the sheer number of guns that are floating around in seemingly "normal" homes and communities now.

And for that, the NRA and gun manufacturers have blood on their hands.

[Anonymous]

Are you saying the shooter deserves something less than murder just because of the altercation? Meaning it might not have been premeditated? Likely he'll die anyway, so I'm not sure whether the actual sentence will affect him. From how I view it though, the Lorton parents should also be held responsible in some way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would he bring a gun to a house that he wasn't allowed to go to in the middle of the night? Who cares about the altercation? He knew he wasn't allowed there and so did the parents.

He was not mentally well. Maybe he brought the gun as a means to compel the girl to go with him ("If you don't talk to me, I'm going to shoot myself right here on your lawn", "If you don't leave with me, I'm going to shoot myself right here in your bedroom"). Then the parents walked in and all hell broke loose.

If a boy like that was still in my house at 4:00 AM, I'd be in an altercation as well. Why are you not blaming the parents and child who enabled all of this?

You mean the shooter's parents?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school with only 27 teens and 1:3 ratio?

Appears the diagnosis must have been pretty severe, we understand boy was mentally ill, but I wonder what was the daughter's condition to warrant this school?

If both had severe needs, I agree parents should have focussed more on mental stability rather than focus on the Nazi obsession.

+1

The buzzfeed article says that one Buckley’s concerns was how the excessive amount of time her daughter spent on the phone with her boyfriend made her forget her meds, etc.

Quoted PP here. Right, even if this boy was a liberal who loved Jews, he was still bad news. So the Nazi aspect was a red herring.

I also feel the matter should have been discussed privately between school and both sets of parents without involving unrelated friends like the 18 year old in the article or emailing the contents around. Regular discipline methods like curfew, social shaming and grounding probably did not work here.

Both sets of parents likely underestimated the criticality of the situation. It is a no win situation overall.

I would be very interested in knowing how he got the gun, since given that anything could have set off this boy, not having the gun seems to be the only way to have avoided this tragedy.

He didn't need a gun to get into that house. If it hadn't have been a gun it could have been a baseball bat, a knife, a brick or God only knows what else.

But chances are high that, had the weapon been a baseball bat, knife, a brick or God only knows what else, the parents would still be alive today.

The problem is ACCESS TO GUNS and the sheer number of guns that are floating around in seemingly "normal" homes and communities now.

And for that, the NRA and gun manufacturers have blood on their hands.

+1

Why did this mentally ill kid have access to a gun?!

[Anonymous]

^ if the gun belonged to the shooter's parents they should be charged with negligent homicide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would he bring a gun to a house that he wasn't allowed to go to in the middle of the night? Who cares about the altercation? He knew he wasn't allowed there and so did the parents.

He was not mentally well. Maybe he brought the gun as a means to compel the girl to go with him ("If you don't talk to me, I'm going to shoot myself right here on your lawn", "If you don't leave with me, I'm going to shoot myself right here in your bedroom"). Then the parents walked in and all hell broke loose.

If a boy like that was still in my house at 4:00 AM, I'd be in an altercation as well. Why are you not blaming the parents and child who enabled all of this?

The boy snuck into the house with the help of his girlfriend roughly an hour before the shooting. I don't know why the girl let him into her room but clearly she felt conflicted over this parental initiated split up with him and she did let him in. The parents heard something in their daughter's bedroom, went to investigate and the boy shot them. Not blaming the parents for what happened, but that is, in fact, what did happen.

I don't see any of that being in conflict with what I said. The girl did not have rights to the house and she was known to be mentally unstable. She's slightly at fault for letting him in, but he knew he was not allowed. The Lorton parents knew he was not allowed there and knew what he had been up to. No excuse for them. Sorry.

The Lorton parents should have been standing guard over their son because they had reason to believe that he might sneak out to see his girlfriend (he had done so before) and they were aware that the girlfriend's parents didn't approve of that?

Maybe they did check on the kid at 2am and saw that he was in bed. They relaxed, went to bed and the next thing they knew the cops were telling them that he had been involved in a shooting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school with only 27 teens and 1:3 ratio?

Appears the diagnosis must have been pretty severe, we understand boy was mentally ill, but I wonder what was the daughter's condition to warrant this school?

If both had severe needs, I agree parents should have focussed more on mental stability rather than focus on the Nazi obsession.

+1

The buzzfeed article says that one Buckley’s concerns was how the excessive amount of time her daughter spent on the phone with her boyfriend made her forget her meds, etc.

Quoted PP here. Right, even if this boy was a liberal who loved Jews, he was still bad news. So the Nazi aspect was a red herring.

I also feel the matter should have been discussed privately between school and both sets of parents without involving unrelated friends like the 18 year old in the article or emailing the contents around. Regular discipline methods like curfew, social shaming and grounding probably did not work here.

Both sets of parents likely underestimated the criticality of the situation. It is a no win situation overall.

I would be very interested in knowing how he got the gun, since given that anything could have set off this boy, not having the gun seems to be the only way to have avoided this tragedy.

He didn't need a gun to get into that house. If it hadn't have been a gun it could have been a baseball bat, a knife, a brick or God only knows what else.

But chances are high that, had the weapon been a baseball bat, knife, a brick or God only knows what else, the parents would still be alive today.

The problem is ACCESS TO GUNS and the sheer number of guns that are floating around in seemingly "normal" homes and communities now.

And for that, the NRA and gun manufacturers have blood on their hands.

I dunno. The Manson family didn't need guns to carry out their horrors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why would he bring a gun to a house that he wasn't allowed to go to in the middle of the night? Who cares about the altercation? He knew he wasn't allowed there and so did the parents.

He was not mentally well. Maybe he brought the gun as a means to compel the girl to go with him ("If you don't talk to me, I'm going to shoot myself right here on your lawn", "If you don't leave with me, I'm going to shoot myself right here in your bedroom"). Then the parents walked in and all hell broke loose.

If a boy like that was still in my house at 4:00 AM, I'd be in an altercation as well. Why are you not blaming the parents and child who enabled all of this?

The boy snuck into the house with the help of his girlfriend roughly an hour before the shooting. I don't know why the girl let him into her room but clearly she felt conflicted over this parental initiated split up with him and she did let him in. The parents heard something in their daughter's bedroom, went to investigate and the boy shot them. Not blaming the parents for what happened, but that is, in fact, what did happen.

I don't see any of that being in conflict with what I said. The girl did not have rights to the house and she was known to be mentally unstable. She's slightly at fault for letting him in, but he knew he was not allowed. The Lorton parents knew he was not allowed there and knew what he had been up to. No excuse for them. Sorry.

The Lorton parents should have been standing guard over their son because they had reason to believe that he might sneak out to see his girlfriend (he had done so before) and they were aware that the girlfriend's parents didn't approve of that?

Maybe they did check on the kid at 2am and saw that he was in bed. They relaxed, went to bed and the next thing they knew the cops were telling them that he had been involved in a shooting.

Well more will come out on the parents as the story unfolds, however I don't think checking on a kid like that at 2:00 am even if that did happen would be enough and they should have known that. There was a car involved (likely starting from their house) and a gun. Could be wrong on this, but it appears to be negligence on their part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school with only 27 teens and 1:3 ratio?

Appears the diagnosis must have been pretty severe, we understand boy was mentally ill, but I wonder what was the daughter's condition to warrant this school?

If both had severe needs, I agree parents should have focussed more on mental stability rather than focus on the Nazi obsession.

+1

The buzzfeed article says that one Buckley’s concerns was how the excessive amount of time her daughter spent on the phone with her boyfriend made her forget her meds, etc.

Quoted PP here. Right, even if this boy was a liberal who loved Jews, he was still bad news. So the Nazi aspect was a red herring.

I also feel the matter should have been discussed privately between school and both sets of parents without involving unrelated friends like the 18 year old in the article or emailing the contents around. Regular discipline methods like curfew, social shaming and grounding probably did not work here.

Both sets of parents likely underestimated the criticality of the situation. It is a no win situation overall.

I would be very interested in knowing how he got the gun, since given that anything could have set off this boy, not having the gun seems to be the only way to have avoided this tragedy.

He didn't need a gun to get into that house. If it hadn't have been a gun it could have been a baseball bat, a knife, a brick or God only knows what else.

But chances are high that, had the weapon been a baseball bat, knife, a brick or God only knows what else, the parents would still be alive today.

The problem is ACCESS TO GUNS and the sheer number of guns that are floating around in seemingly "normal" homes and communities now.

And for that, the NRA and gun manufacturers have blood on their hands.

I dunno. The Manson family didn't need guns to carry out their horrors.

Oh please. The Manson family were professional killers, not some 17 year old idiot yahoo, going up against two adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A school with only 27 teens and 1:3 ratio?

Appears the diagnosis must have been pretty severe, we understand boy was mentally ill, but I wonder what was the daughter's condition to warrant this school?

If both had severe needs, I agree parents should have focussed more on mental stability rather than focus on the Nazi obsession.

+1

The buzzfeed article says that one Buckley’s concerns was how the excessive amount of time her daughter spent on the phone with her boyfriend made her forget her meds, etc.

Quoted PP here. Right, even if this boy was a liberal who loved Jews, he was still bad news. So the Nazi aspect was a red herring.

I also feel the matter should have been discussed privately between school and both sets of parents without involving unrelated friends like the 18 year old in the article or emailing the contents around. Regular discipline methods like curfew, social shaming and grounding probably did not work here.

Both sets of parents likely underestimated the criticality of the situation. It is a no win situation overall.

I would be very interested in knowing how he got the gun, since given that anything could have set off this boy, not having the gun seems to be the only way to have avoided this tragedy.

He didn't need a gun to get into that house. If it hadn't have been a gun it could have been a baseball bat, a knife, a brick or God only knows what else.

But chances are high that, had the weapon been a baseball bat, knife, a brick or God only knows what else, the parents would still be alive today.

The problem is ACCESS TO GUNS and the sheer number of guns that are floating around in seemingly "normal" homes and communities now.

And for that, the NRA and gun manufacturers have blood on their hands.

I dunno. The Manson family didn't need guns to carry out their horrors.

Oh please. The Manson family were professional killers, not some 17 year old idiot yahoo, going up against two adults.

Those parents expected to confront a mouthy kid. They did not expect a weapon. So I don't know that you can assume that another type of weapon wouldn't have yielded the same result. The boy was not mentally well.