Sure. The H.S. I went to had (and still has) a required speech giving class. We were (and still are) allowed to bring in our hunting guns and give a speech on the gun, hunting, hunting safety, etc… This of course was done under the supervision of parents and school staff.
The same school still has a trap club. Meets are done on school grounds and students do have loaded shotguns.
These things are perfectly legit, supervised, and safe and have nothing in common with illegally giving your nut job kid a handgun.
These parents are plainly naive and irresponsible. It’s reasonable to believe that somebody
is proud to own guns, and passes those values to their kids; or
just likes shooting as a hobby, and has bonded with the kid over the activity,
While also being
dismissive of signs of depression (“it’s just a phase!”), or
overly protective/indulgent of their kid (a sign of bad parenting to be sure, but hardly atypical)
This could explain why these people knew their kid had access to a gun, was drawing disturbing pictures, and yet they didn’t react as they should have.
I guess I’m just having a hard time making the leap to think that they were actually psychotic.
Of course, it’s entirely possible, and it may indeed come to pass that these people had no qualms about sending their angry and depressed son, who was expressing homicidal ideation, out and about with a loaded gun. I just find it utterly shocking, and assume dumb/naive instead.
ETA: This isn’t to say that they may not be legally culpable, but I just doubt they knew what their son was going to do.
I would think that it changes, as all schools don’t do the same. Of course, being precise is one quality rules have, if not for the ones enforcing the rules, it comes handy for the ones that look for loopholes. For example, in your picture there was no requirement of searching backpacks that one is carrying, the warning refers to all containers that are in or over a vehicle.
Sure, neither is a penis but that doesn’t mean you can’t say you can bring your penis into a room with a bunch of naked people with vaginas. Guns can and should be subjected to time and place laws.
The signs may be there, but the unwritten agreement is that such searches won’t happen too often. We had such signs at the business I recently retired from, but I was told that I had better have damn good evidence that such a search was absolutely necessary before attempting it.
Apparently, some banks will let you take out that amount in a day:
And …
I considered that they might each have multiple accounts at different banks, and/or could have taken money out right before and right after midnight (I’m just presuming the limit resets at midnight. Not sure).
Couple of additional points to add to what I said earlier …
I’ve just been listening to the prosecutor in this case detailing the sequence of events, which clarifies a few things. The “searching for ammo” on his phone occurred back in November. The drawing of a shooting with the very disturbing comments was found on the day of the shooting, and a teacher was sufficiently alarmed that she took a picture of it with her phone. The kid subsequently altered the drawing and scratched out the comments, and it was apparently the picture that showed conclusively what he had originally drawn and written. The drawing is what prompted school officials to call the parents for the meeting, and to demand that he be taken for psychological counseling within 48 hours.
The part that was new to me was the prosecutor’s statement that the parents “resisted” taking the kid out of school, and that he was subsequently “released back into class”. Her words.
So, to be clear, in suggesting that the school bears some responsibility here, neither I nor anyone else is denying that the parents are not just overwhelmingly liable for what happened, but criminally liable. They are, by all accounts, criminally irresponsible low-life scum whose actions also suggest that they’re ineffably stupid as well. But I’m astounded at the revelation that because the parents “resisted” taking the kid out of school, he was released back into class. The school has every right to suspend a student regardless of what the parents think, and to do whatever is necessary to remove him from the premises. The fact that the parents were resisting this should have in itself been another red flag. Those school officials had a whole building full of other people’s children whose safety and well-being was their solemn responsibility, and they failed to act in accordance with that duty.
ETA: This is the video of the prosecutor’s comments:
As I pointed out, nowadays, those type of parents are the ones demanding and winning board elections with the goal of forcing the school to mind what their parents think.
What is important here IMHO is to establish if there was knowledge that a gun was already present. I will say that so far as what is known is that the admin did not know. So returning the kid to class was a likely outcome, you bet that if there was knowledge that a gun was present that he would have been sent home with a suspension.
Oh, yes, I forgot that other more likely outcome. And my former principal liked to tell the students that she knew police guys that would come to take them to jail if a thing like that took place, I was thinking more about the school the incident the OP is talking about, but you are right, it is more likely that he would have been arrested. His return to class points more to the admin not knowing that a gun was there indeed.
So the school saw the drawing, recognized it as a warning sign, and called the kid’s parents in for a sit down. And recommended immediate counselling. That’s good. At this point, it was the parents alone who had any clue that the kid may actually have been armed, and they apparently said absolutely nothing about that. It’s easy to say in retrospect that the school should have searched the kid and his belongings, but mom and pop psycho sure didn’t suggest it.
You seem to be saying that the school neglected to take the necessary precaution of suspending the kid because they were worried about the politics of it, even though they recognized that it was the right thing to do. If that’s really the case, I’d say the school officials actually have at least a civil if not criminal liability, not just a moral failing.
I strongly disagree that this should be the threshold for a suspension. As already noted, that would have resulted in the kid’s immediate arrest. The drawing and the comments on it alone should have been more than sufficient basis for a suspension, not as punishment, but for the protection of the other children and the staff. The comments were absolutely consistent with someone who might be suicidal or homicidal, or both. In my view, to let someone like that back into the student population is unconscionable. I have kids and I know how schools around here make those kinds of judgments, and kids have been suspended for far less disturbing things than that. Yet another reason we don’t have school shootings here.
There’s a piece in the Detroit Free Press (behind a paywall) that mentions how most parents rushed to the high school to check on their kids as soon as they heard there was a shooting, but Papa 2A raced home to check on the handgun. These people absolutely KNEW their kid was a loaded mess
Without any additional context (and probably despite any context that I can conceive of), the text from “Mom” to “Ethan” that said, “Ethan, don’t do it” is profoundly dispositive.
It tells me that they either knew what he was going to do or “simply” believed him capable of it.
It’s four words that send a shiver down my spine … midst an unmitigable and preventable tragedy.