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.
So Drunk Nazi Judge Pirro said the Michigan Shooting is the fault of Liberal School People because they didn't know he had a gun and never asked if he had a gun. That is definitely one way to go...
 
Drew S. said:
Yeah, I think you kind of have to go one way or another. Either he is old/mature enough to be responsible or he isn’t.
Click to expand...

It is the same premise as charging the drunk driver who crashed his car into another one and killed its occupants AND charging the bar owner who willingly and knowingly served a drunk even more drinks and then let him drive home from his bar. They are two different crimes, and although related, independent charges can and often are filed. It isn't really that hard to understand, is it?
 
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.
 
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...

Seems like it would have been pretty easy to ask the kid, or the parents when they were in, whether the kid had a gun on him, in his backpack, or whether the kid had access to guns at home.
 
SJHovey said:
Seems like it would have been pretty easy to ask the kid, or the parents when they were in, whether the kid had a gun on him, in his backpack, or whether the kid had access to guns at home.
Click to expand...

I'm with MichVandal on this one. Forgetting to ask is nowhere near as bad as declining to tell.

Stunned that you want to shift the blame away from the irresponsible gun-humping Trumpers. Just stunned.
 
Again, I'm not trying to weigh or equate the school's liability with that of the parents or the kid or anyone else.

It just seems to me that when presented with the facts that the administrators apparently had from the teachers, the steps I think a reasonable administrator would take would be these when I sat down with the kid and parents:

Ask the kid to explain the drawings and the ammo search
Ask the parents if the kid has a gun, or access to a gun, and why the ammo search
Ask the kid if he has a gun with him
Ask the parents if the kid has a gun with him
Ask the kid and the parents if they mind if they search his backpack
If the kid refuses, seems like it would be a red flag, and I'd send the kid home until you could decide on the next steps
 
SJHovey said:
Seems like it would have been pretty easy to ask the kid, or the parents when they were in, whether the kid had a gun on him, in his backpack, or whether the kid had access to guns at home.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe they did, too. Other than the outcome of the meeting, we don't know what was said.

But at the same time, why would they have? The parents agreed to get counseling within 48 hours, so it seemed that the issue was mostly solved. What indications were there other than the picture and the ammo search that the shooter was an immediate threat?
 
SJHovey said:
Again, I'm not trying to weigh or equate the school's liability with that of the parents or the kid or anyone else.

It just seems to me that when presented with the facts that the administrators apparently had from the teachers, the steps I think a reasonable administrator would take would be these when I sat down with the kid and parents:

Ask the kid to explain the drawings and the ammo search
Ask the parents if the kid has a gun, or access to a gun, and why the ammo search
Ask the kid if he has a gun with him
Ask the parents if the kid has a gun with him
Ask the kid and the parents if they mind if they search his backpack
If the kid refuses, seems like it would be a red flag, and I'd send the kid home until you could decide on the next steps
Click to expand...

Again, that path of discussion may have been run down until the parents got upset with the questioning. We don't know that did or didn't happen. We know the parents refused to take him out of school, though.

But we also have to remember this is a school that does not have metal detectors- which is kind of a reflection of the conservative area that it's in. Parents would be pretty upset that the school would assume that kids are armed like that- at least they would have been.

This isn't suggesting that the school isn't responsible, it's that the parents are far more.
 
MichVandal said:
Maybe. Maybe they did, too. Other than the outcome of the meeting, we don't know what was said.

But at the same time, why would they have? The parents agreed to get counseling within 48 hours, so it seemed that the issue was mostly solved. What indications were there other than the picture and the ammo search that the shooter was an immediate threat?
Click to expand...

As I posted early on, to me the key is what was specifically said during the meeting. I don't think we know exactly what the administrators said or asked, and how the kid or parents responded.

The school can't bring the kid in, tie him up, strip search him and his backpack, then decide what to do. But the school can go to the full extent they are permitted to go.

Why would the school do that? Probably because of the pretty disturbing signs. In most cases, the kid isn't armed, just confused and troubled. But again, if I'm an administrator I want to go to the full extent the law would allow me, which includes asking direct questions and asking for permission to search. If permission is denied, then you can't search. But you can decide whether that's a red flag or not (for me it would be).
 
MichVandal said:
Again, that path of discussion may have been run down until the parents got upset with the questioning. We don't know that did or didn't happen. We know the parents refused to take him out of school, though.

But we also have to remember this is a school that does not have metal detectors- which is kind of a reflection of the conservative area that it's in. Parents would be pretty upset that the school would assume that kids are armed like that- at least they would have been.

This isn't suggesting that the school isn't responsible, it's that the parents are far more.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that in a Republican anti-government district that anyone in that POV would find any fault with the school at all. The school deferred to the parents in this situation which is what every fucking Republican Conservative whiner has been whining about for decades. And now 4 kids are dead and more injured. Can't blame the school for that. They did exactly what the Republican anti-government people wanted them to do. The School Board should not find fault either.
 
SJHovey said:
As I posted early on, to me the key is what was specifically said during the meeting. I don't think we know exactly what the administrators said or asked, and how the kid or parents responded.

The school can't bring the kid in, tie him up, strip search him and his backpack, then decide what to do. But the school can go to the full extent they are permitted to go.

Why would the school do that? Probably because of the pretty disturbing signs. In most cases, the kid isn't armed, just confused and troubled. But again, if I'm an administrator I want to go to the full extent the law would allow me, which includes asking direct questions and asking for permission to search. If permission is denied, then you can't search. But you can decide whether that's a red flag or not (for me it would be).
Click to expand...

The school has every right to search his bag as long as there is reasonable suspicion. (they could search his locker any time) I would say the ammo search and the picture qualify. (I also asked an administrator I know and they agree)

The problem here is likely that the parents probably threatened to take action if their kid was sent home or searched. That happens quite a bit. Schools buckle under that all day long especially suburban schools. From what we know of the parents that is totally in line with them.

That said the school needed to do more and will pay for not doing more. My local district has suspended and expelled kids for posting images on SM with guns or making even vague threats.

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.
 
Handyman said:
The school has every right to search his bag as long as there is reasonable suspicion. (they could search his locker any time) I would say the ammo search and the picture qualify. (I also asked an administrator I know and they agree)

The problem here is likely that the parents probably threatened to take action if their kid was sent home or searched. That happens quite a bit. Schools buckle under that all day long especially suburban schools. From what we know of the parents that is totally in line with them.

That said the school needed to do more and will pay for not doing more. My local district has suspended and expelled kids for posting images on SM with guns or making even vague threats.

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...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top