Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that lawsuit said the shooter had the gun in the school for four days before he actually shot the victim.

Yikes. Why isn’t he charged for 1st degree attempted murder?

Good point. I don't know. The media has stated the defendant has a 79 IQ which is almost a developmental disability. Maybe it would be harder to prove 1st degree? Maybe the police or state's attorney didn't have that evidence at the time. Although Stephen admitted bringing the gun to school in self defense.

IMO, as a fellow parent at the school, I don't feel like anyone involved is taking this shooting very seriously. There was a teacher (who is also a parent) at the forum this week who said they just all want to forget it. And they said that in front of Dre's mom. I bet she'd love to forget it too, but will never be able to. Nobody from MCPS reached out to the mom in over 10 months. Nobody warned her ahead of time this forum was coming up. Where is their trauma-informed approach to victims? They keep touting how great they are about mental health support. It was so difficult watching how the school and some of the other parents minimized her son's experience (and her own). I am CERTAIN they didn't mean to. Just nobody seemed to know better.

It's just so sad.

Sounds like taking a gun to school is seen as normal. Is MCPS like a saloon where kids sit around with holstered guns or something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that lawsuit said the shooter had the gun in the school for four days before he actually shot the victim.

Yikes. Why isn’t he charged for 1st degree attempted murder?

Good point. I don't know. The media has stated the defendant has a 79 IQ which is almost a developmental disability. Maybe it would be harder to prove 1st degree? Maybe the police or state's attorney didn't have that evidence at the time. Although Stephen admitted bringing the gun to school in self defense.

IMO, as a fellow parent at the school, I don't feel like anyone involved is taking this shooting very seriously. There was a teacher (who is also a parent) at the forum this week who said they just all want to forget it. And they said that in front of Dre's mom. I bet she'd love to forget it too, but will never be able to. Nobody from MCPS reached out to the mom in over 10 months. Nobody warned her ahead of time this forum was coming up. Where is their trauma-informed approach to victims? They keep touting how great they are about mental health support. It was so difficult watching how the school and some of the other parents minimized her son's experience (and her own). I am CERTAIN they didn't mean to. Just nobody seemed to know better.

It's just so sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So that lawsuit said the shooter had the gun in the school for four days before he actually shot the victim.

Yikes. Why isn’t he charged for 1st degree attempted murder?

Anonymous wrote:So that lawsuit said the shooter had the gun in the school for four days before he actually shot the victim.

Anonymous wrote:I am also a teacher at Magruder. I don’t think having an SRO would make a difference.

I once worked at a small specialized school where every kid was wanded and checked for weapons every day. We still had kids bring in huge hunting knives.

The more realistic issue is that their is no way fail classes at the moment. 50% rule and lack of failure due to attendance means that kids can just wander the school, skip classes and hang out in bathrooms. Happens at every middle school and high school I have taught at. Teachers cant really enforce rules anymore. Basically everything is optional from a student point of view.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was shot by a minor. He should be suing the parents of the kid who shot him.

It's not worth suing them, assuming they have very little assets.

The County and School District have huge budgets... and (more importantly) a lot of insurance.

That’s like suing Budweiser and Honda because you got run over by a drunk driver, because they have more money than the drunk who hit you. Ridiculous.

The bar/beer/grocery store who sold the beer/booze that the driver consumed has more insurance than the drunk driver.

I got hit by a drunk driver in 2013.

Should I sue you? You undoubtedly have more money than the loser who hit me. Why shouldn’t I sue you?

Does the PP have a logical nexus to your accident?