Of course, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that time and place regulations are not “infringements,” but you already know that.
No, I’m saying that what school officials actually knew, which alarmed them enough to require that the kid have immediate psychological counseling, was itself more than sufficient to suspend him and remove him from school. Specifically this drawing:
The illustration showed a “semiautomatic handgun pointing at the words ‘the thoughts won’t stop help me,’” and it included a drawing of a bullet with the words “blood everywhere” written above it, she said. The words “my life is useless” and “the world is dead” were also written on the drawing.
“Hindsight” would be saying that the school should have been more aggressive in uncovering other evidence that existed at the time, not just the presence of the gun in his backpack, but things like this:
In two videos on Crumbley’s phone that were recorded that night, he talked about shooting and killing students at the high school, said Lt. Tim Willis of the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office.
Another piece of evidence is a journal found in Crumbley’s backpack that details his “desire to shoot up the school to include murdering students,” Willis said at the arraignment.
I’m not blaming the school for not being more aggressive about searching for this kind of evidence, or his comments on social media, although perhaps some would. I’m blaming the school for not acting with appropriate prudence based on what they actually knew. As I said, I know that schools around here are hypersensitive to any sort of red flag, however minor it might be, that suggests a propensity for violence.
Uh, that is nice, but I was talking about the administration knowing about if the gun was present. Or knowing about those videos. I do agree with @bobot
I can all but guarantee that those four words will be the title of a book.
I will have to mention that this case could have another factor on why he was allowed back to class with only a warning.
You remeber The Clash’ “Know Your Rights”?
Know your rights all three of them
Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
That remains a relevant record, I still like listening to it.
Cash advances on a cc will limit you to a percentage of your credit limit. Fees are exorbitant as is the apr they makes lots of money on cash advances and allowing a user to go for it is in their own best interest to allow large withdrawals of cash at the atm.
It is very safe to assume the administration didn’t know the child had a gun.
IANAL but it seems to me to be guilty of “fleeing” the person(s) need to be aware that they are being sought by law enforcement.
Certainly these people guessed things were not going to go well for them but were they issued a summons (or something else like that) and then ran? If not, they were just two people on a drive. I read they did not show for an arraignment but I have no idea how the state notifies people to show for such a thing.
Make no mistake, I am not sympathetic to this couple at all. FAR from it.
How many more of these are we going to have as a society before we decide we’ve had enough, and start passing stricter gun laws? If I had a child, I’d live with an ever-present low level of terror that they’ll be next.
I don’t think that any number of these incidents will be enough.
I thought that twenty dead first graders would have been enough but some responded by denying the existence of those children.
The pro-death side is strong. They have a lot of money and a lot of influence. And they’ve been steering this ship, so to speak, for decades and decades now.
Exactly. However many children are sacrificed to the cult of the second amendment is an acceptable number.
According to certain posters on these very boards, an order of magnitude more deaths still wouldn’t be worth spending one second per year of thought on. So I’m not optimistic about our hopes for positive change.
I agree. I am curious if the administration asked the parents if there was a gun in the house, and if so, what the response was.
At my school, a counselor would have done a “violence risk asessment” for the student. It is basically a questionnaire. I know that seems really silly, but kids will often be pretty honest about things, shockingly so, if someone asks.
If Ethan “passed” the violence risk assessment and his parents denied they had a gun at home, I don’t think the school would have had any legal ground to suspend him.
Also, wise school administrators use out-of-school suspensions only very sparingly. If they suspend a kid for disturbing drawings, that sends a message to the other students that you can get out of school for a few days by drawing disturbing pictures. A lot of students, especially the ones inclined towards discipline problems to begin with, view suspension as a reward, not a punishment.
And he might well have passed, if his parents had been coaching him on “how not to get caught” after the searching-for-ammo incident.
That could be part of the manslaughter charge, I would think.
Sandy Hook ended any and all debate on that. If Sandy Hook wasn’t enough, then nothing ever will be. There is no limit to the amount of blood that can be spilled in the defense of gun ownership.
I would actually be really interested in anybody on the pro-gun side maybe answer this. What is the limit? How much blood is too much blood? Would you sacrifice every man, woman and child in the USA for the right to own guns? If not, then that implies a limit. So how much is too much?
Avoiding the gun-control hijack, and going back to the actual OP -
I absolutely believe that the charges against the parents are fully justified. As others have pointed out, the shooter (I’ll leave out the alleged, as I’m probably not going to get sued) did not have a legal right to own a handgun, and the parents are responsible for securing it from unlawful and/or improper use.
In fact, I strongly suspect that the shooter always had access to the firearm, in that if secured, he had a copy of the key / combination / knew where it was stored so get could get access to it at any time. Considering the comments about ‘Christmas present’, the parents certainly considered it ‘his’. The rest of their actions seemed clear in that the safety of others was not a concern, while ‘owning the libs’ certainly was.
So yes, I find all charges appropriate, and I say this as an owner of multiple firearms, although not an NRA member (racist thieving bastards that they are), and certainly one of the many posters on the board that talk about the how/why/where of reasonable gun control.