Anonymous wrote:The police are probably waiting until they have a strong case to charge the shooter's parents. His parent's were negligent and he should not have had access to an uber/lyft account, a car, and should not have unsupervised time.

This was a two-parent home with financial capital. They were well-aware of his state of mind.

Why? How do you know that it was obvious to the parents that their son was such a danger? Things like this happen all the time that come as a shock to people who know the killer? Yes, they knew he was unstable and probably racist, but that does not necessarily mean he is suicidal or planning to kill anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the mom approached it wrong and derserved to be murdered?!?

Certainly no one deserves to be murdered. However, based on what we've read in the paper about her actions, it is safe to say that as time goes on we will all see that the mom made some significant errors in the way she handled the situation and that, in turn, caused the children to make their own bad choices.

Oh my goodness. So the mom made the boy kill her. Wow.

Consider how desperate the kid felt, given he turned the gun on himself. That is the point all you social justice warriors are missing.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did the parents know that their son was dangerous? It's very possible they didn't. Many parents of 17 year old boys wouldn't stand guard over their sons to prevent them from seeing their girlfriends simply because the girl's parents didn't like them.

I hope that was photo shopped in. If it is real, I do not see how any gun supporters could endorse this killer.

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.

+1

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

Uh, because his parents' owned a gun?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly, his presumably being a neo-nazi is basically irrelevant in his decision to shoot the girl's parents.

Anonymous wrote:The shooting range photo of the mentally ill killer is with a long gun, at least a semi-automatic, aimed at a target of a police officer. A police officer.

Why was he aiming a gun at a police officer as a target? This is very anti-police state stuff and very scary.

So, all those that think this kid just picked this stuff up on his own are delusional.

Aiming a gun at a police officer target? Please, can someone justify shooting a police officer target on here?

Oh, good lord, I did not see the target. What kind of range has a target like that? Was it possibly photo shopped in?

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.

I seriously doubt his parents knew he was in his girlfriend's bedroom. Geesh, didn't any of you people ever sneak your boyfriend into your bedroom?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The police are probably waiting until they have a strong case to charge the shooter's parents. His parent's were negligent and he should not have had access to an uber/lyft account, a car, and should not have unsupervised time.

This was a two-parent home with financial capital. They were well-aware of his state of mind.

So mentally ill people should not have access to Uber? They will argue that he was supervised; they thought he was in the house. They are not required to have a 24 hour guard posted, watching him.

I agree that his parents should be charged, but the only thing, legally, I think they can get them on is that he had access to their guns.

He should not have access to Uber/Lyft. Stop quoting things that are not there. The parents are responsible for their son. The killer posted a picture with a weapon at a shooting range. Can you access a shooting range and be under age? Why would you take your mentally ill son to a shooting range to teach him to shoot a gun, a long gun at that. They are very responsible for this outcome.

For Uber and the like, you need a cell phone, credit card and an account. I think most people know how Uber works, you request a car from your phone via the app, out in destination, agree on price, etc. then you get text after text re your car, your driver and your experience.

The shooters parents had been told prior to the shooting that the son was sneaking into their house in the middle of the night. The parents were on notice. How was he getting there? Does he have a secret smart phone and secret credit card to have his own secret Uber account? In all likelihood, his parents had not taken his phone away, at least not at night. I know the shooter worked at a pizza delivery place so he did have a part time job but my guess is his parents bought him a phone and it was their under account he used.

1) parents kept that gun In Their house
2) parents had notice of his issues via neighborhood grass cutting problem, his shirts, and his remakrs fro. School
3) shooter already attending a super small school with much support for children with mental and learning issues
4) Frickers has already contacted the parents.
5) complete silence from the parents (but they’re probably keeping vigil at the hospital for their son)

It makes me want to scream all the warning signs.

Also, if the kid was working a PT job he had to get to work somehow. The parents were probably encouraging him to work because at the age of 17 his days in HS were coming to an end (Junior? Senior?). Maybe they hoped that he could lead an independent life at some point if he started to get a work history under his belt.

The shooting range photo of the mentally ill killer is with a long gun, at least a semi-automatic, aimed at a target of a police officer. A police officer.

Why was he aiming a gun at a police officer as a target? This is very anti-police state stuff and very scary.

So, all those that think this kid just picked this stuff up on his own are delusional.

Aiming a gun at a police officer target? Please, can someone justify shooting a police officer target on here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The police are probably waiting until they have a strong case to charge the shooter's parents. His parent's were negligent and he should not have had access to an uber/lyft account, a car, and should not have unsupervised time.

This was a two-parent home with financial capital. They were well-aware of his state of mind.

So mentally ill people should not have access to Uber? They will argue that he was supervised; they thought he was in the house. They are not required to have a 24 hour guard posted, watching him.

I agree that his parents should be charged, but the only thing, legally, I think they can get them on is that he had access to their guns.

He should not have access to Uber/Lyft. Stop quoting things that are not there. The parents are responsible for their son. The killer posted a picture with a weapon at a shooting range. Can you access a shooting range and be under age? Why would you take your mentally ill son to a shooting range to teach him to shoot a gun, a long gun at that. They are very responsible for this outcome.

Taking a kid to the shooting range to do some target shooting does not = giving the kid a gun.

The police may still be trying to figure out where that gun came from. It is possible that this kid obtained it from an outside source.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The police are probably waiting until they have a strong case to charge the shooter's parents. His parent's were negligent and he should not have had access to an uber/lyft account, a car, and should not have unsupervised time.

This was a two-parent home with financial capital. They were well-aware of his state of mind.

So mentally ill people should not have access to Uber? They will argue that he was supervised; they thought he was in the house. They are not required to have a 24 hour guard posted, watching him.

I agree that his parents should be charged, but the only thing, legally, I think they can get them on is that he had access to their guns.

He should not have access to Uber/Lyft. Stop quoting things that are not there. The parents are responsible for their son. The killer posted a picture with a weapon at a shooting range. Can you access a shooting range and be under age? Why would you take your mentally ill son to a shooting range to teach him to shoot a gun, a long gun at that. They are very responsible for this outcome.

Anonymous wrote:The police are probably waiting until they have a strong case to charge the shooter's parents. His parent's were negligent and he should not have had access to an uber/lyft account, a car, and should not have unsupervised time.

This was a two-parent home with financial capital. They were well-aware of his state of mind.

That is not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, if this happened in NE or SE it would barely be mentioned on the news or DCUM. Looks like someone needs to check their white privilege and suburbanite card?

And if it were a white person killed in an armed robbery in DC, few would be going on about how the failure of the victim to quickly turn over their wallet led to the murder. People would be outraged at the crime, and some would be suggesting that those with choice move out.

Or imagine it was a Pakistani or Somali American, who had been influenced by ISIS.

I am white, Jewish, and live in NoVa. We can't expect parents to always make the best mental health diagnoses of their kid's friends or to figure out the best way to deal with it. We in Virginia DO need to find out how the gun was obtained, and if there was anything we can do as citizens to make gun acquisition by minors less likely. We also need to examine the extent and means of Neo Nazi radicalization of young people, and again, if there are policy levers to address it. Note, we already had a woman murdered in Charlottesville by a Neo Nazi.

I am also white, Jewish and live in NoVa. You are letting your political views get in the way of common sense.