Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Mass Shooting in Michigan High School

Page 15 of 21 [ 332 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 21  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

06 Dec 2021, 4:09 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
"Given the fact that the child had no prior disciplinary infractions, the decision was made he would be returned to the classroom rather than sent home to an empty house,” Throne said in the written statement.
https://www.axios.com/michigan-suspect- ... 7ffbb.html


I imagine the school adminstrators would be reviewing that policy. Seems somewhat lax given school shootings are a national problem. If you express a desire to shoot up people on a airplane when you board do you think their airline staff would say "oh let's give this nice man one chance"....no....the police would immediately board the plane and remove the passenger.



Last edited by cyberdad on 06 Dec 2021, 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,422
Location: Chez Quis

06 Dec 2021, 4:09 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
They blew the school off after they had been warned their kid seriously needed counseling. That is negligence in it's entirety. Added to that, they refused to take the kid home after the meeting.

You continually post inaccurate information.

The school refused to send the child home, because the child had no disciplinary infractions and his parents would not be at home (because they would be at work).

The school superintendent ...

"Given the fact that the child had no prior disciplinary infractions, the decision was made he would be returned to the classroom rather than sent home to an empty house,” Throne said in the written statement.
https://www.axios.com/michigan-suspect- ... 7ffbb.html


It wasn't a disciplinary problem. It was a mental health problem. They were told to get help for their child, and that the school believed he was in distress. They did nothing about that -- didn't take him home to talk, didn't take the afternoon off work, didn't inquire to him about the gun, didn't call any doctors, didn't even go home to make sure the gun was safe after he was daydreaming about ammunition and drawing murders. The whole point is he shouldn't have been sent home to an empty house. He should have gone with one of his responsible caregivers who put him on this planet, and who are responsible for his wellbeing every day of their lives.


_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

06 Dec 2021, 4:19 pm

At the very least the boy should have been put in detention at lunch/recess and assessed by the school psychologist if he was a risk to other students or himself. No brainer.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

06 Dec 2021, 4:28 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
It also says children are not allowed to possess guns in Michigan. And since the dad bought it for him, it would seem that was not legal.

Children can possess guns in Michigan for gun ranges and hunting.


ONLY while they are AT the range or hunting area, AND under parent supervision. For such a stickler to "The Rules" it's interesting how you keep leaving out extremely relevant parts of the rules.

Michigan LAW clearly states that minors are ONLY allowed to be in possession of a firearm WHILE AT a shooting range or hunting spot, AND WHILE ACTIVELY UNDER the supervision of a parent or guardian. It is illegal for them to have the firearm other than while actively at those locations, in those situations. So while you may not be LEGALLY required to LOCK your firearm, it IS illegal for a kid to have a gun when NOT involved in those two specific situations.

If a kid DOES get a hold of a gun, UNLAWFULLY, such as being in possession of it while NOT at a shooting range, or commits a crime with it, like killing four people, how the gun was stored and cared for IS a relevant factor. "I kept it unloaded and locked in my closet" is not the same as "I keep it loaded floating in a sock drawer".

Which is WHY they warn you that a minor getting access to your firearm could open YOU up to liability, even though there is no law that requires that guns be locked - there IS still a requirement to keep guns out of kids hands, when not at a shooting range. However you do that is up to you, since there is no law as to HOW you do it - but you still have to do it, cos THAT part IS a law.

The parent's lawyers will argue, no law = no negligence.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,422
Location: Chez Quis

06 Dec 2021, 4:30 pm

cyberdad wrote:
At the very least the boy should have been put in detention at lunch/recess and assessed by the school psychologist if he was a risk to other students or himself. No brainer.


I don't think detention is the right word. He hadn't done anything wrong other than using his phone in class, and making a depressed drawing which said he needed help. I get your point though. If the parents were refusing to take him out of the school he shouldn't have been left alone through the lunch break.

My boyfriend is a retired high school Guidance counsellor who wrote curriculum and worked in inner-city schools with troubled teens. A child in this circumstance should be monitored closely and emergency contacts should be notified if the parents aren't available for his care. I'm not blaming the school. I believe they did offer a counselling opportunity for him, but it was still incumbent on the parents to follow the professionals' advice and help their son immediately, when this was brought to their attention.


_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

06 Dec 2021, 4:33 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
They blew the school off after they had been warned their kid seriously needed counseling. That is negligence in it's entirety. Added to that, they refused to take the kid home after the meeting.

You continually post inaccurate information.

The school refused to send the child home, because the child had no disciplinary infractions and his parents would not be at home (because they would be at work).

The school superintendent ...

"Given the fact that the child had no prior disciplinary infractions, the decision was made he would be returned to the classroom rather than sent home to an empty house,” Throne said in the written statement.
https://www.axios.com/michigan-suspect- ... 7ffbb.html


It wasn't a disciplinary problem. It was a mental health problem. They were told to get help for their child, and that the school believed he was in distress. They did nothing about that -- didn't take him home to talk, didn't take the afternoon off work, didn't inquire to him about the gun, didn't call any doctors, didn't even go home to make sure the gun was safe after he was daydreaming about ammunition and drawing murders. The whole point is he shouldn't have been sent home to an empty house. He should have gone with one of his responsible caregivers who put him on this planet, and who are responsible for his wellbeing every day of their lives.

In the second meeting, the child said he drew the bloody picture because he was into video games.

He fooled trained counselors, who judged him to be well-behaved, and OKed his return to class.

He has no prior disciplinary infractions.

There appeared to be no problem.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,811
Location: Stendec

06 Dec 2021, 4:37 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
It wasn't a disciplinary problem.  It was a mental health problem.  They were told to get help for their child, and that the school believed he was in distress.  They did nothing about that -- didn't take him home to talk, didn't take the afternoon off work, didn't inquire to him about the gun, didn't call any doctors, didn't even go home to make sure the gun was safe after he was daydreaming about ammunition and drawing murders.  The whole point is he shouldn't have been sent home to an empty house.  He should have gone with one of his responsible caregivers who put him on this planet, and who are responsible for his wellbeing every day of their lives.
Sad, but true.

A homicidal child, irresponsible parents, impersonal bureaucrats ... and now four people are dead.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 724

06 Dec 2021, 4:55 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
It also says children are not allowed to possess guns in Michigan. And since the dad bought it for him, it would seem that was not legal.

Children can possess guns in Michigan for gun ranges and hunting.


ONLY while they are AT the range or hunting area, AND under parent supervision. For such a stickler to "The Rules" it's interesting how you keep leaving out extremely relevant parts of the rules.

Michigan LAW clearly states that minors are ONLY allowed to be in possession of a firearm WHILE AT a shooting range or hunting spot, AND WHILE ACTIVELY UNDER the supervision of a parent or guardian. It is illegal for them to have the firearm other than while actively at those locations, in those situations. So while you may not be LEGALLY required to LOCK your firearm, it IS illegal for a kid to have a gun when NOT involved in those two specific situations.

If a kid DOES get a hold of a gun, UNLAWFULLY, such as being in possession of it while NOT at a shooting range, or commits a crime with it, like killing four people, how the gun was stored and cared for IS a relevant factor. "I kept it unloaded and locked in my closet" is not the same as "I keep it loaded floating in a sock drawer".

Which is WHY they warn you that a minor getting access to your firearm could open YOU up to liability, even though there is no law that requires that guns be locked - there IS still a requirement to keep guns out of kids hands, when not at a shooting range. However you do that is up to you, since there is no law as to HOW you do it - but you still have to do it, cos THAT part IS a law.

The parent's lawyers will argue, no law = no negligence.


There are a ton of things that there is no law against but you can be held liable for criminally and/or civilly. For example, if your teen looks drunk and you hand the teen the keys to your car and the teen kills another motorist, you certainly can be charged with involuntary manslaughter even though there is no law against giving your licensed teen the keys to your car. That is why I say it is the totality of the situation that makes the parents criminally liable, not any one action in and of itself.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,470
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Dec 2021, 4:57 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
They blew the school off after they had been warned their kid seriously needed counseling. That is negligence in it's entirety. Added to that, they refused to take the kid home after the meeting.

You continually post inaccurate information.

The school refused to send the child home, because the child had no disciplinary infractions and his parents would not be at home (because they would be at work).

The school superintendent ...

"Given the fact that the child had no prior disciplinary infractions, the decision was made he would be returned to the classroom rather than sent home to an empty house,” Throne said in the written statement.
https://www.axios.com/michigan-suspect- ... 7ffbb.html


As you've been told by another WP member, the parents were supposed to be parents FIRST! Then business people. I can't imagine a court showing the so called parents sympathy on that point.
Incidentally, I am a parent, as well. When my daughter - who is autistic - had a meltdown in school, we'd drop everything and go get her. At one point, she actually hit a teacher - a much more severe action than merely looking up the price of ammo.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

06 Dec 2021, 5:04 pm

So did the suspect ever tell them what was his motivation anyway?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,811
Location: Stendec

06 Dec 2021, 5:10 pm

QFT wrote:
So did the suspect ever tell them what was his motivation anyway?
Not yet.  Even Wikipedia shows only "Motive: Under investigation".



Last edited by Fnord on 06 Dec 2021, 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

06 Dec 2021, 5:11 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
So did the suspect ever tell them what was his motivation anyway?
Not yet.  Even Wikipedia has no motive listed.


Why didn't they ask him?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Dec 2021, 5:13 pm

I’m sure they asked him.

He has been advised by his attorneys not to talk to anyone about this case.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,811
Location: Stendec

06 Dec 2021, 5:13 pm

QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
So did the suspect ever tell them what was his motivation anyway?
Not yet.  Even Wikipedia shows only "Motive: Under investigation".
Why didn't they ask him?
1) He is exercising his right to remain silent, and 2) He has "lawyered up".



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

06 Dec 2021, 5:29 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
They blew the school off after they had been warned their kid seriously needed counseling. That is negligence in it's entirety. Added to that, they refused to take the kid home after the meeting.

You continually post inaccurate information.

The school refused to send the child home, because the child had no disciplinary infractions and his parents would not be at home (because they would be at work).

The school superintendent ...

"Given the fact that the child had no prior disciplinary infractions, the decision was made he would be returned to the classroom rather than sent home to an empty house,” Throne said in the written statement.
https://www.axios.com/michigan-suspect- ... 7ffbb.html


As you've been told by another WP member, the parents were supposed to be parents FIRST! Then business people. I can't imagine a court showing the so called parents sympathy on that point.
Incidentally, I am a parent, as well. When my daughter - who is autistic - had a meltdown in school, we'd drop everything and go get her. At one point, she actually hit a teacher - a much more severe action than merely looking up the price of ammo.

The kid said he drew a picture of a video game.

So, you expect the parents to ...

1. take off work immediately
2. run out to an expensive doctor, which they may not be able to afford
3. show said picture to said doctor and ask, "Help my child, he draws pictures of video games"?


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

06 Dec 2021, 5:31 pm

I hope the trial is soon.......