Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we can set aside the shooter vs. shootout discussion for a hot second, the question of whether the gun came to school is one I suspect parents would love an answer to.

As to whether the kids are in school today, the OP says they are in the custody of juvenile services. Since they were 13+, that's where they will stay at least for now.

The shooter could have lived in one of the apartments there and gotten the gun after school. We have no idea.

Right, but I don't think parents would be out of line to ask the question, either to MCPS or MPD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we can set aside the shooter vs. shootout discussion for a hot second, the question of whether the gun came to school is one I suspect parents would love an answer to.

As to whether the kids are in school today, the OP says they are in the custody of juvenile services. Since they were 13+, that's where they will stay at least for now.

The shooter could have lived in one of the apartments there and gotten the gun after school. We have no idea.

I suspect gun toting people stay strapped, you know?

I would think so as well, but without knowing it as a fact, is why the schools haven’t officially put out a word or made a comment.

It is also entirely possible that they are going home and picking up a weapon and meeting up at the shopping center. It’s hard to know what goes on in the mind of those kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we can set aside the shooter vs. shootout discussion for a hot second, the question of whether the gun came to school is one I suspect parents would love an answer to.

As to whether the kids are in school today, the OP says they are in the custody of juvenile services. Since they were 13+, that's where they will stay at least for now.

The shooter could have lived in one of the apartments there and gotten the gun after school. We have no idea.

I suspect gun toting people stay strapped, you know?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I agree that OP's title is a bit over-the-top. Also, this shooting was on Glenmont Circle, a street surrounding the apartments directly behind the police station, and was not at the shopping center.

Title says "near Glenmont shopping center."

OK, but seems unnecessary to put the shopping center in the thread title when it had no relevance to the story.

The context is that it's a frequent meeting spot for numerous conflicts between Kennedy and Wheaton HS students as it's a central meeting point, as was described in the post. It's a known hot spot for criminal and violent activity from MCPS students. The McDonald's, Starbucks and CVS have been complaining and dealing with it for years.

Neither the police statement nor the principals' letter referenced the shopping center.

Clearly, I was providing community-specific context for those outside of Wheaton-Kennedy HSes so they would understand how a conflict like the shooting in that area fits into the broader pattern of criminal and problematic behavior around the shopping center and the 4th District precinct.

How is this a sticking point for you? I don't get it.

Your fixation with the shopping center in your title and post is bizarre as is insisting this was a "shootout" and then pretending it doesn't matter what you call it

What is bizarre about this "fixation," as you call it, with the shopping center?

Because you reference the shopping center once in your title and twice in your post and the incident did not occur at the shopping center.

It occurred near the shopping center, which has been the site of conflicts between students at the school in the past. Kids will scuffle or rob and run to the surrounding apartments near the shopping center. You don't think that context and information might be relevant? If not, why?

Do you own real estate in the shopping center and you don't want its reputation denigrated or something?

What would be even more relevant is the actual location where the shooting occurred, which you don't mention in your post or title at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I agree that OP's title is a bit over-the-top. Also, this shooting was on Glenmont Circle, a street surrounding the apartments directly behind the police station, and was not at the shopping center.

Title says "near Glenmont shopping center."

OK, but seems unnecessary to put the shopping center in the thread title when it had no relevance to the story.

The context is that it's a frequent meeting spot for numerous conflicts between Kennedy and Wheaton HS students as it's a central meeting point, as was described in the post. It's a known hot spot for criminal and violent activity from MCPS students. The McDonald's, Starbucks and CVS have been complaining and dealing with it for years.

Neither the police statement nor the principals' letter referenced the shopping center.

Clearly, I was providing community-specific context for those outside of Wheaton-Kennedy HSes so they would understand how a conflict like the shooting in that area fits into the broader pattern of criminal and problematic behavior around the shopping center and the 4th District precinct.

How is this a sticking point for you? I don't get it.

Your fixation with the shopping center in your title and post is bizarre as is insisting this was a "shootout" and then pretending it doesn't matter what you call it

What is bizarre about this "fixation," as you call it, with the shopping center?

Because you reference the shopping center once in your title and twice in your post and the incident did not occur at the shopping center.

It occurred near the shopping center, which has been the site of conflicts between students at the school in the past. Kids will scuffle or rob and run to the surrounding apartments near the shopping center. You don't think that context and information might be relevant? If not, why?

Do you own real estate in the shopping center and you don't want its reputation denigrated or something?