Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Andrew Jackson, Nov 30, 2021.
Nope, and that's exactly how it should be.
Go Fund me ???
Probably the same donors (who some people were delusionally claiming, in an absolute dream world) would raise the money for the Waukesha guy.
According to this article, the parents declined to remove their son from school that day but he already had the gun in his possession. School officials apparently didn't check his backpack or locker which seems strange given the magnitude of their concerns.
Here are my looming questions.
1. His parents' reaction seems very strange. I would argue that most reasonable parents would be SHOCKED to get called to school for an emergency meeting with school officials and more shocked to hear these concerns. Their seemingly nonchalant attitude means they must have had *some* awareness of his <off center> state of mind.
That might be a good thing for their day in court as it screams negligence.
2. At some point AFTER the meeting with school officials, his mother texted him that they "weren't mad. You just have to learn not to get caught. LOL" (or something close to that. I'm too tired to go look it up right now) and then "Don't do it." (presumably they realized the weapon was missing).
* How much time was there between that first text and the second?
* Did either of the parents attempt to notify the police and/or school when they realized the weapon was gone?
* Did either of the parents return to the school in an effort to reach their son to stop him?
* Did either of the parents tell him they were leaving town (or whatever they did that constituted "fleeing")?
* Were they planning to come back for him or keep running with no plan to face this?
3. As far as I know, most schools have been having "active shooter drills" for more than a decade, if not longer. Did this school have them? If so, how did it come about that he shot 11 people (4 killed, 7 injured (6 students, 1 teacher)? It would not have prevented some of them because he didn't breach the building as he was already inside.
4. Unless there are some weird laws in Michigan prohibiting it, school officials have the authority to search lockers, backpacks and desks if they have reasonable suspicions of anything that would break the rules (ie. drugs, alcohol, weapons, etc.). Why didn't that happen especially because it had already been reported he was searching for ammunition online the day before.
When was that reported? If she (the teacher that said she witnessed him doing a search on his phone) reported it that day, why was he allowed to return to school before they could have a meeting with his parents?
5. I am finding it hard to conceptualize there are seemingly no policies and procedures in place to address these types of situations if the child's parent(s) aren't cooperative in addressing the school's concerns.
My parents got called to school when I was in 3rd grade because my evil, witch teacher returned my homework by throwing it in my direction and I didn't catch it in time. It got wet and dirty because it was rainy and muddy outside that day. I picked it up and threw it away which she considered disrespectful. She sent me into the hall and came out a few minutes later and slapped me so hard, I almost fell. I was taken to the Principal's office and suspended for two days for throwing away a wet, muddy piece of paper and getting slapped. I also got beat at home several times over it as my parents never cared what anybody did to hurt me. They were mad they were put in that embarrassing situation versus any concerns about my teacher being a lunatic.
Granted, I wasn't in a public school but I can't imagine any Principal and maybe the school counselor NOT having the authority to suspend him the moment his parents refused to take him home. Some schools even have youth liaisons within their local police department. I can't even imagine them NOT suspending him when the teacher reported seeing him doing that search on is phone. The articles I read said they had no records of him reporting bullying and he didn't target those specific kids and teacher. He is that disturbed and is not on anybody's radar?
There's a big gap in here. It doesn't make sense the way it stands right now.
P.S. @Bowerbird, this case is a perfect example of what I was talking about in your thread about who should be permitted to have weapons. As I stated in that thread, every single shooter was once "not a shooter" so they wouldn't hit anybody's radar until they actually commit a crime.
Would you give money to "parents" (loosely) that not only ignored their son's mental decline, but ignored school officials' concerns and knew their gun was missing and decided to flee (instead of doing everything they could to get back there, find him and try to stop this)?
No reasonable person or parent or police officer or decent human being wants them out on bail.
Consider all those adults in the room the morning of the shooting, with the 15-year-old Crumbley sitting there, his scribbled cry for help on the paper, and no one thought to open his backpack? No one thought to search for something with which this clearly disturbed child might do harm? Instead they sent him back to class?
That can’t happen. The norm must be to assume the worst. Complete and immediate investigation. If that means challenging kids’ privacy rights, challenge them. If it means metal detectors and locked doors at every one of the more than 110,000 high schools and elementary in this country, well, perhaps that time has come — whatever the cost. We’re spending trillions now for what some politicians claim is a fairer future. How can such a future not include assuring kids return home alive from high school?
AJ, we're on the same team here. Quite frankly, I'm still gutted over Sandy Hook. It's WAY past time to really fix this.
But bottom line - none of that is currently required in other countries
This incident shows the importance of having life insurance on your kids. It is heart-wrenching to ever imagine one's child dying from any cause but such things happen far too often. In today's world you can get a reasonable amount policy for almost nothing per month. And the good thing is that the insurance com pay will periodically offer additional riders for just a couple bucks each so that the total benefit amount continues to grow. That is very important when the child reaches adulthood because he will then have a life insurance policy that is not dependent upon his current medical condition.
IMO, it is absolutely the worse thing to do is to have to take up a collection to bury a loved one, especially a child.
So, if anyone has a child or grandchild it is a good thing to get a policy on them when they are young, the younger the better, because that is the cheapest rate. And, as time passes and you add on more of the offered riders, the benefit amount increases and it isn't expensive.
If there any of the faculty that knew about the shooter's intentions, They should have apprehended him beforehand. Since they did absolutely nothing about it and let go ahead with the shooting that killed the four. Should have been apprehended or perhaps been discharged from their teaching jobs. There are those that should pay for this and I mean it. Simple as that.
And, so it begins...
. The suit seeks damages in excess of $100,000,000 and requests a jury trial.
We'll never know the answer to any of these questions. I just hope most of the school staff and some students feel guilty all their lives. I would if I ever so much as said an unkind word to him.
The faculty should have been investigated. They should have investigated the boy before entering the school grounds in the first place. If the school did what they were supposed to do in the first place, none of the violence would happened. The high school staff and administration should be responsible for this as well.
I am sure the lawsuits will take that into account.
Indeed they will.
If any of the teachers are sued, all of the teachers in the school district should immediately quit.
Separate names with a comma.