What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Another Mass Shooting: It's Those Darn Video Games!

Status
Not open for further replies.
SJHovey said:
I don't even think you have to get into the "reasonable suspicion" issue. That's where you open yourself up to a dispute with the kid. Simply ask him to let you search. If they turn you down, get the kid out of there.

I just think it's a mistake to try to equate or compare the responsibility of the parents and that of the school. Two completely different responsibilities there, and when you do that you tend to minimize or reduce the culpability of the two parties. That sort of comparison of fault is best left to the civil case where there can only be 100% among all the parties.
Click to expand...

Except this exact discussion has been brought up on this board. That's why I posted the follow up. The school may have some responsibility, perhaps criminal- but that's far from clear. The parents are being charged criminally- so the authorities do see them as significantly responsible.

From a civil standpoint, both are very exposed. And the parents could be sued into oblivion (or at least to the point of not being able to get insurance) and Oakland County tax payers will be footing the bill for some time. The irony of them being toward the personal responsibility and lack of government oversight is pretty thick- since the former didn't happen whereas the latter did. Yet for the former, there's a cheering section for them....
 
Handyman said:
If we want to break it down though it is at best 80/20 parents to school. What the school did was negligent, what the parents did was likely criminal.
Click to expand...

That's not the way the math works here, it's not like the parents take responsibility over from the school or vice versa.

The school is about 50% negligent in its own duties. Probably because they feel the pressure from a guntard local and national population, but like Chief Brody in Jaws, that doesn't matter.

The parents aren't just 100% negligent of their duties. They are also 100% criminally complicit and they need to go to prison for long enough to leave their psychotic brat an orphan.

This is a murder committed by the Right. They created this climate and filled these creatures' heads with these ideas. They are the radio station in Rwanda. If we had good laws about fomenting violence, every elected Republican and half their voters would be in jail tonight.
 
SJHovey said:
I don't even think you have to get into the "reasonable suspicion" issue. That's where you open yourself up to a dispute with the kid. Simply ask him to let you search. If they turn you down, get the kid out of there.

I just think it's a mistake to try to equate or compare the responsibility of the parents and that of the school. Two completely different responsibilities there, and when you do that you tend to minimize or reduce the culpability of the two parties. That sort of comparison of fault is best left to the civil case where there can only be 100% among all the parties.
Click to expand...

Well I think part of that is where the school is located. If it was in a more urban area they likely do as you say. (when I taught in Minneapolis there was less leeway given than say in New Hope) Suburban schools worry too much about parents causing problems than they should.

Kep,

You are doing a different math problem than me. I am showing a pie graph you are talking about each part individually. Your breakdown is correct but is immaterial to the point I was making. (and was being discussed)
 
Handyman said:
Well I think part of that is where the school is located. If it was in a more urban area they likely do as you say. (when I taught in Minneapolis there was less leeway given than say in New Hope) Suburban schools worry too much about parents causing problems than they should.
Click to expand...

Particularly for a school district in a very conservative area.

And it must be said, as well, that school districts in Michigan are very much on edge due to COVID protocols. This is a school district that openly considered not following it's own county's masking requirements. And had a very contentious board meeting with parents (this was Nov 10- 20 days prior to the shooting). There's no way an individual school is going to try to overstep a parent.
 
MichVandal said:
Saw a perspective that I didn't really think about WRT the school vs the parents responsibility.

We all know that there was a meeting the morning of the shooting to discuss a picture that the shooter drew with a gun, shooter, victim, and blood. Clearly an issue. Apparently the resolution was to get counselling within 48 hours.

And then the parents didn't take the kid out of the school, and the rest is history.

It's been brought up that the school should have taken the kid out and suspended him or something like that. But at the time, the school had no idea or even indication that the shooter was armed. And based on history, I really don't see any reason they should have assumed he would be armed that day- that policy may be changing now, I would think.

So other than a picture threat, which was not directed at a person, the school had nothing really to go on. Maybe they could have connected the search on line for bullets, maybe?

On the other hand, the parents knew that they gave him a handgun, and they knew he was searching for ammunition the day before. And they did not inform the school that he *could* be armed. They suspected that, since dad went home to look for the gun. But they told nobody about that. And they didn't take the kid out of school. I wonder if they even fought the idea of taking him out of school.

To think the school is in worse trouble when you look at who knew what just before the shooting, well.... For sure, the parents had info they did not divulge that would have indicated the threat was much higher than the school thought. Let alone supplying the gun.

I do think the school is in big trouble, and the fact that they hired an outside company to do an investigation as opposed to the parents asking the Michigan AG to do that investigation is kind of telling. Lots of people are going to go down, and parents of the victims will be paid a lot of money by Oakland county land owners over time.
Click to expand...

So basically, a lot of ambulance chasers are about to get rich and none of the serious changes needed to prevent a repeat event in the future will be enacted as law. T&P!
 
Ottawa Hills HS, in a lily white neighborhood of Grand Rapids, had a basketball game called off due to shots fired. Around 30-40 shots heard at least.

I live about 10 minutes south in Kentwood. My work is in Cascade, about 7 minutes east.

Not confident about driving to work tonight.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
The first lawsuit against the Oxford school district has been filed by the parents of an injured student. First of many more, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I wonder if schools/towns are carrying more coverage because of the shootings. Lawyers are probably more against gun law changes than the NRA at this point.
 
Drew S. said:
I wonder if schools/towns are carrying more coverage because of the shootings. Lawyers are probably more against gun law changes than the NRA at this point.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that lawyers actually see more mass shootings as a personal windfall??? Seriously?

After so many years going to bat for the NRA, that's a pretty sad view of things. This is more up to people like you than lawyers. Take responsibility of your lobbying to reduce gun oversight.
 
MichVandal said:
Do you honestly think that lawyers actually see more mass shootings as a personal windfall??? Seriously?

After so many years going to bat for the NRA, that's a pretty sad view of things. This is more up to people like you than lawyers. Take responsibility of your lobbying to reduce gun oversight.
Click to expand...

Does Jeff Bezos feel bad about how he treats his employees? I don’t think lawyers want to see people shot but they don’t feel bad about cashing the check either.

I’d like to see some laws change, but Mike Bloomberg should not be able to buy legislation. No one should be able to do that.
 
Drew S. said:
Does Jeff Bezos feel bad about how he treats his employees? I don’t think lawyers want to see people shot but they don’t feel bad about cashing the check either.

I’d like to see some laws change, but Mike Bloomberg should not be able to buy legislation. No one should be able to do that.
Click to expand...

People buy it from Susan Collins every day. You don't think she was paid off for Kavanaugh?
 
Drew S. said:
Does Jeff Bezos feel bad about how he treats his employees? I don’t think lawyers want to see people shot but they don’t feel bad about cashing the check either.

I’d like to see some laws change, but Mike Bloomberg should not be able to buy legislation. No one should be able to do that.
Click to expand...

Your thought specifically thinks that lawyers are fighting gun laws. Which specifically means they are ok with people dying so that they make money. To compare that to Bezos is incredibly bad- this isn't underpaying your employees to make a billion dollars, this is making sure the laws will allow mass shootings to make money. How you equate those two situations is also sad.

Look, you've specifically voted for people to reduce the restrictions on the 2nd amendment, as you specifically posted that more than once on this board. And since legislators are there because of voters, then the fact that you vote for them is exactly the reason why there are so few laws.

Face it, YOUR specific efforts to undermine gun control is one major reasons we keep having schools shootings. Don't blame the lawyers for the success of your voting and lobbying.

It's pretty ironic that you call out Bloomberg for buying legislation when the NRA is very much paying for the lack of legislations. This has been a very one sided argument for decades in the NRA favor. Even the laws that were enacted after a President was shot has been overturned thanks to the NRA and people like you.
 
I'm torn on this.

On one hand, I hate this bullshit end-around the Constitution. It isn't acceptable in any circumstance. I don't want it anywhere.


At the same time, unilateral disarming is not a good policy, and showing the disingenous assholes that turnabout is fair play is very defensible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top