Active Shooter Oxford Michigan High School

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood
a reply to: yuppa

Did your parents buy you a gun to murder the teacher?

I am sorry to hear about your experience though, NOBODY should have to experience what has been happening in American schools.

Including what happened to you.

The bullying or the killing.

No,and the parents of this freak didnt buy one for their kid to murder classmates either. Thank you for the kind words as well

Unfortunately, a distinction without much of a difference at this point.

Actions have consequences, and these consequences were horrible.

a reply to: yuppa

Charges are coming for the parents I heard. I did not see it but apparently there was a picture the mother took of the boy with the gun saying his parents bought it for him.

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: generik

So you are saying because they went on with their own lives that they should be executed by a 15 year old that wasn't the one being bullied ? If so that is insane and we are truly living in a clown world .

haven't seen anything suggesting he wasn't the one being bullied.

the thing is when a person is bullied by pretty much everyone in their class/school, even those not actively bullying them can still be seen as part of that bullying. the bullied person starts seeing everyone as an enemy. especially since they should be trying to help stop the bullying. there really is no "neutrality" in such a situation. and this is especially true when it comes to a person in authority such as a teacher. if a teacher or other person in authority does nothing to stop the bullying, they are just as guilty of that bullying themselves.

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: generik

So you are saying because they went on with their own lives that they should be executed by a 15 year old that wasn't the one being bullied ? If so that is insane and we are truly living in a clown world .

haven't seen anything suggesting he wasn't the one being bullied.

the thing is when a person is bullied by pretty much everyone in their class/school, even those not actively bullying them can still be seen as part of that bullying. the bullied person starts seeing everyone as an enemy. especially since they should be trying to help stop the bullying. there really is no "neutrality" in such a situation. and this is especially true when it comes to a person in authority such as a teacher. if a teacher or other person in authority does nothing to stop the bullying, they are just as guilty of that bullying themselves.

I agree 100%, and am known for standing up to those bullying others here.

But in no way does that mean killing people or giving a troubled kid access to a weapon is ok.

It is not ok.

The bullies did not cause this.

The bullies did not kill anyone.

1 kid and 2 irresponsible parents did.

a reply to: frogs453

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with charges for the parents. Of course, that's said with me not knowing any of the specifics... if they encouraged this horrible act, or if they had good reason to expect it could happen and still empowered it, then they would be as guilty as the 15-year-old.

The real onus is on the kid, though. He held the gun; he pointed the gun; he pulled the trigger. At age 15, unless he can be shown to be severely mentally challenged, he should have known better.

I just want to see all the facts of the case at this point. All I know so far is that a 15-year-old kid shot up a school, killing a teacher and several students. Does anyone have any additional solid information yet?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: frogs453
I hadn't posted the identification as he is 15 and was not sure about doxxing a juvenile online.

Id say that was the right call. Kinda wish I hadn't seen a picture. I don't like being sad for him. Instantly Im thinking..must have had no one to listen, who knows. School shootings are now planned for, like earthquakes or tornadoes. Tragic. How fast it has become part of our culture. Steppenwolf tune "Monster" comes to mind.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: frogs453

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with charges for the parents. Of course, that's said with me not knowing any of the specifics... if they encouraged this horrible act, or if they had good reason to expect it could happen and still empowered it, then they would be as guilty as the 15-year-old.

The real onus is on the kid, though. He held the gun; he pointed the gun; he pulled the trigger. At age 15, unless he can be shown to be severely mentally challenged, he should have known better.

I just want to see all the facts of the case at this point. All I know so far is that a 15-year-old kid shot up a school, killing a teacher and several students. Does anyone have any additional solid information yet?

TheRedneck

Good point.

I am not calling for the parents to be charged based on what we currently know.

But being worthy of charges is a whole lot different than calling it irresponsible parenting, and the results of this situation indicate that this was a troubled kid, that the parents knew he was troubled, and giving that kid unsupervised access to a weapon, any kind of weapon, was certainly irresponsible parenting.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I am not calling for the parents to be charged based on what we currently know.

But being worthy of charges is a whole lot different than calling it irresponsible parenting, and the results of this situation indicate that this was a troubled kid, that the parents knew he was troubled, and giving that kid unsupervised access to a weapon, any kind of weapon, was certainly irresponsible parenting.

It may well come down to a fine line here.

That phrase "based on what we currently know" is pretty important. A 15-year-old is legally responsible for their own actions; however, parents also have some responsibility for their minor offspring. It's rare to see criminal charges, but certainly civil charges happen quite regularly. As a matter of course, it is hard to get a conviction unless there is pretty damning evidence that the parents ignored obvious warning signs in reckless disregard of the consequences.

That may be the case here. My problem with what we know so far is it sounds at this point like mere rumor. I reserve the right to change my mind on this issue as more solid information is presented.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: yuppa

Charges are coming for the parents I heard. I did not see it but apparently there was a picture the mother took of the boy with the gun saying his parents bought it for him.

Unless the parents PLANNED THE ATTACK it does not matter. It was a present and apparently the parents did not think that this would happen. the most they chould get IF ANYTHING is neglect.

They have not released much information. They did state they plan to charge the parents, so far in reading his journal, phone, social media, they said there is no mention of any bullying. They stated this was planned and he intended on murdering his classmates, I think I read some targeted but others not.

He left the meeting with his parents/principal and at some point went into the bathroom, came out with a gun and started shooting up the hallway and into classrooms. He had 3 magazines.

I don't know of course for sure but if the parents bought the weapon for the minor I guess that's what they would be charged with. They might be basing that on the mother taking the picture of the son with the weapon and his post that they bought him the gun

a reply to: TheRedneck


I agree completely.

The only distinction I personally make is that the parents appear to have given unsupervised weapon access to a kid that now claims to have experienced serious bullying for a very long time. So much bullying that it justified killing people in his mind.

Either this kid has been severely bullied, is pathological liar, or both.

I call that troubled, whether or not it meets any type of clinical definition, and don't necessarily think that the parents are legally liable for anything. Yet.

I knew my kids. I knew which ones couldn't be trusted with potentially dangerous objects at certain points in their lives. I may have made the same mistake (never with a firearm though) many times without these tragic consequences, and it was just as irresponsible in my opinion.

Nobody's perfect.

But unsupervised firearms for a kid that claims to be this troubled seems a bit too far for me.

I can't call it any less than irresponsible parenting.

a reply to: generik

The information was his younger brother was the one being bullied . This kids parents were at the school 2 hours before the shooting . His journal and multiple media accounts show this was planned and that is why he is being charged as an adult with 4 counts of murder - 6 counts of assault with intent to murder and numerous other charges . He is going to spend the rest of his life in jail and 4 people are dead over bullying . Like I said clown world , the father may be charged as well but I am unsure with what .

a reply to: frogs453

He left the meeting with his parents/principal and at some point went into the bathroom, came out with a gun and started shooting up the hallway and into classrooms. He had 3 magazines.

That implies several troubling things:

• Apparently the kid had the gun concealed on his person or hidden on the premises. That then implies that either the parents were allowing him to carry a loaded firearm to school, or the kid was paying them no heed whatsoever. Either explanation is damning to the parents IMO.
  
• Yuppa above stated that the gun was a present (and I just saw that you did as well). So the parents apparently felt he was mature enough to have a weapon (obviously in error), or the parents did not care about the consequences. Again, both explanations are troubling at best.
  
• Three magazines? What parent buys three magazines for a child's gun? So either the negligence was literally frightening, or the child was buying his own magazines. That makes me question where he got the money. Magazines are not extremely expensive, but they're not pocket change either.
  
• It sounds like something in that conversation with the principal set him off. I wonder what it was they were discussing? It sounds like whatever it was, it involved some sort of punishment (in his mind at least).

Add all that up and I can see a case emerging for wanton neglect. Perhaps I spoke too soon.

In many states, it is legal to give a gun to a minor child. In some, that is restricted to immediate parents; in others to close relatives. I'm not sure that is a charge that would be applicable. I'll look it up.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I call that troubled, whether or not it meets any type of clinical definition, and don't necessarily think that the parents are legally liable for anything.

I am actually starting to back away from my initial response about the parents' culpability. If the child is "troubled" to such a degree that it would explain these horrendous actions, and the parents still gave him a gun, that is actually good for the prosecution if they are charged as accessories. Such charges may be rare and considered an uphill battle, but they can legally be presented.

Nobody's perfect.

And that is exactly why parents are not normally charged. It is also why I am loath to legally blame the parents (morally is another story for me). I remember raising my kids, and it is simply a fact that children misbehave and get into trouble... but this is starting to sound over the top. Not expecting perfection is one thing; a complete lack of supervision is quite another.

My concern is that a conviction on the parents would be legal precedent for prosecution even when there is no neglect.

TheRedneck

a reply to: generik

Sounds like best solution is to expel kids who are being bullied from the schools. It's a simple yet possibly effective solution and sends the meassage, be normal, or else!

a reply to: TheRedneck

What I find puzzling is the Terrorist charge. What's the basis for that? I fear it's because the shooter is white. The Democrat Left loves to portray whites as racist, supremacist terrorists. If that is the basis for the charge, then the DAs office has politicized the event.

a reply to: TheRedneck

OK, I looked it up. Man, Michigan has some seriously screwed up gun laws!

Everyone who receives a firearm in Michigan is required to obtain a permit to own the firearm (I find that quite anti-2nd-Amendment, but it is the law there). I found no exception for parent-child transfers, except under Section 28.422(8):

(8) This section does not prevent the transfer of ownership of pistols to an heir or devisee, whether by testamentary bequest or by the laws of intestacy regardless of whether the pistol is registered with this state. An individual who has inherited a pistol shall obtain a license as required in this section within 30 days of taking physical possession of the pistol. The license may be signed by a next of kin of the decedent or the person authorized to dispose of property under the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.1101 to 700.8206, including when the next of kin is the individual inheriting the pistol. If the heir or devisee is not qualified for a license under this section, the heir or devisee may direct the next of kin or person authorized to dispose of property under the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.1101 to 700.8206, to dispose of the pistol in any manner that is lawful and the heir or devisee considers appropriate. The person authorized to dispose of property under the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.1101 to 700.8206, is not required to obtain a license under this section if he or she takes temporary lawful possession of the pistol in the process of disposing of the pistol pursuant to the decedent's testamentary bequest or the laws of intestacy. A law enforcement agency may not seize or confiscate a pistol being transferred by testamentary bequest or the laws of intestacy unless the heir or devisee does not qualify for obtaining a license under this section and the next of kin or person authorized to dispose of property under the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.1101 to 700.8206, is unable to retain his or her temporary possession of the pistol or find alternative lawful storage. If a law enforcement agency seizes or confiscates a pistol under this subsection, the heir or devisee who is not qualified to obtain a license under this section retains ownership interest in the pistol and, within 30 days of being notified of the seizure or confiscation, may file with a court of competent jurisdiction to direct the law enforcement agency to lawfully transfer or otherwise dispose of the pistol. A pistol seized under this subsection shall not be destroyed, sold, or used while in possession of the seizing entity or its agents until 30 days have passed since the heir or devisee has been notified of the seizure and no legal action regarding the lawful possession or ownership of the seized pistol has been filed in any court and is pending. As used in this subsection:

(a) "Devisee" means that term as defined in section 1103 of the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.1103.

(b) "Heir" means that term as defined in section 1104 of the estates and protected individuals code, 1998 PA 386, MCL 700.1104.

The kid could possibly be considered an "heir" and thus exempt from the requirement to obtain a license; however, the exemption also means the heir in question may not actually possess the firearm! It must be held in trust or lawfully disposed of (sold to a legal buyer, etc.) until the heir is able to obtain a permit to own the gun.

So it appears the parents were either in violation of Michigan law for giving their 5-year-old child a gun, or they gave their gun to someone who then used it to commit a felony. Some choice; something about a "rock or a hard place."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TonyS

Have they actually charged the boy already? Or are we still at the "political blustering" stage?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Don't know yet. It was being considered yesterday.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

I call that troubled, whether or not it meets any type of clinical definition, and don't necessarily think that the parents are legally liable for anything.

I am actually starting to back away from my initial response about the parents' culpability. If the child is "troubled" to such a degree that it would explain these horrendous actions, and the parents still gave him a gun, that is actually good for the prosecution if they are charged as accessories. Such charges may be rare and considered an uphill battle, but they can legally be presented.

Nobody's perfect.

And that is exactly why parents are not normally charged. It is also why I am loath to legally blame the parents (morally is another story for me). I remember raising my kids, and it is simply a fact that children misbehave and get into trouble... but this is starting to sound over the top. Not expecting perfection is one thing; a complete lack of supervision is quite another.

My concern is that a conviction on the parents would be legal precedent for prosecution even when there is no neglect.

TheRedneck

I don't disagree with any of that. Not even a little bit.

I was intentionally trying to avoid considering anything related to legal definitions, mainly because I'm not qualified to comment on them.

Remove that distinction and I think we were always on the same page.