Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP the parents will likely get off. Ultimately looking at the situation, everything v parents is circumstantial. They are terrible people and parents but legally, their judgement that day was in only not feeling inclined to take the kid home. That's consistent with their parenting isn't it? Would you expect bad parents to become good parents that day? Of course not. The school however is duty bound to provide as tight protection as possible to ensure safety of kids in school. Any whiff of danger calls for cautious action - over cautious even. They relied on the parents to be good parents but that's the wrong judgement there. The parents are gun loving freaks who are who they are. This kid was not going to make it - by his drawings he was pretty sick. The only thing to do was isolate him. The school failed to do so. To charge the parents is correct - they allowed the sickness and facilitated the opportunity for the events to unfold but only through access of firearm. The actual catalyst for setting the kid off doing this is something the school had power to shut down and did not. I think the parents are guilty in being really bad parents and people but legally I don't know that they are the ones to blame for the tragedy that day.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Sheriff is on 760 WRJ talk radio right now questioning if school and its county ISD policies and protocols were followed. Clearly insinuating they were not followed.

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the parents had to do was say “we did just buy him a gun…” to the school. I’m convinced that would have changed everything. That one sentence.

And it wasn't like the bought a hunting rifle for an avid hunter. They bought a 15 year old a gun created solely to kill a lot of people in a short time.

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.

Anonymous wrote:All the parents had to do was say “we did just buy him a gun…” to the school. I’m convinced that would have changed everything. That one sentence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP the parents will likely get off. Ultimately looking at the situation, everything v parents is circumstantial. They are terrible people and parents but legally, their judgement that day was in only not feeling inclined to take the kid home. That's consistent with their parenting isn't it? Would you expect bad parents to become good parents that day? Of course not. The school however is duty bound to provide as tight protection as possible to ensure safety of kids in school. Any whiff of danger calls for cautious action - over cautious even. They relied on the parents to be good parents but that's the wrong judgement there. The parents are gun loving freaks who are who they are. This kid was not going to make it - by his drawings he was pretty sick. The only thing to do was isolate him. The school failed to do so. To charge the parents is correct - they allowed the sickness and facilitated the opportunity for the events to unfold but only through access of firearm. The actual catalyst for setting the kid off doing this is something the school had power to shut down and did not. I think the parents are guilty in being really bad parents and people but legally I don't know that they are the ones to blame for the tragedy that day.

We'll see. They bought him that gun within a week of the shooting. I suspect prosecutors are going to turn up some evidence that could persuade a jury that these folks had a reasonable suspicion that the child was a danger to others, and they armed him anyway.

But if the parents can prove that they had the gun locked up, then the state really doesn't have a case. Just because a kid is sneaky enough to know the combination or where they hide the key doesn't make parents responsible. Also, can they really prove the gun was purchased for the kid? The social media posts don't prove anything other than the mom may have been joking about the Christmas present. Yes, they are horrible parents and as another poster said should be charged with child neglect, but not manslaughter. The school, however, has a big big issue...and I predict they are going to have some big problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP the parents will likely get off. Ultimately looking at the situation, everything v parents is circumstantial. They are terrible people and parents but legally, their judgement that day was in only not feeling inclined to take the kid home. That's consistent with their parenting isn't it? Would you expect bad parents to become good parents that day? Of course not. The school however is duty bound to provide as tight protection as possible to ensure safety of kids in school. Any whiff of danger calls for cautious action - over cautious even. They relied on the parents to be good parents but that's the wrong judgement there. The parents are gun loving freaks who are who they are. This kid was not going to make it - by his drawings he was pretty sick. The only thing to do was isolate him. The school failed to do so. To charge the parents is correct - they allowed the sickness and facilitated the opportunity for the events to unfold but only through access of firearm. The actual catalyst for setting the kid off doing this is something the school had power to shut down and did not. I think the parents are guilty in being really bad parents and people but legally I don't know that they are the ones to blame for the tragedy that day.

We'll see. They bought him that gun within a week of the shooting. I suspect prosecutors are going to turn up some evidence that could persuade a jury that these folks had a reasonable suspicion that the child was a danger to others, and they armed him anyway.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP the parents will likely get off. Ultimately looking at the situation, everything v parents is circumstantial. They are terrible people and parents but legally, their judgement that day was in only not feeling inclined to take the kid home. That's consistent with their parenting isn't it? Would you expect bad parents to become good parents that day? Of course not. The school however is duty bound to provide as tight protection as possible to ensure safety of kids in school. Any whiff of danger calls for cautious action - over cautious even. They relied on the parents to be good parents but that's the wrong judgement there. The parents are gun loving freaks who are who they are. This kid was not going to make it - by his drawings he was pretty sick. The only thing to do was isolate him. The school failed to do so. To charge the parents is correct - they allowed the sickness and facilitated the opportunity for the events to unfold but only through access of firearm. The actual catalyst for setting the kid off doing this is something the school had power to shut down and did not. I think the parents are guilty in being really bad parents and people but legally I don't know that they are the ones to blame for the tragedy that day.