The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread

[Pit Pony]

MartG said:

How long before some underpaid and overworked teacher snaps and blows away their class ?

My father in law had a breakdown in class, started throwing things at a bunch of ttty 10 year olds from Norris Green. Before having to be restrained by 3 other teachers. He had a year off with stress, and then took (was sentenced to) early retirement on ill health grounds.

You mention underpaid. He made more money from the stock market in the first 10 years of retirement than he'd made in 30 years of teaching.

I'd love to ask him what he would have done, if he'd had a gun, but after 35 five happy years of retirement he died peacefully in his sleep.

Anyway Norris Green. They are probably all carrying weapons and dealing drugs now.

[Pit Pony]

Byker28i said:

The father of school shooter Ethan Crumbley has been found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter, a month after his wife was found guilty of the same charges. Sentencing in dues on 9 April for both, they face upto 15 years in jail.

They gave access to a handgun to their son, a SIG Sauer 9mm, who used it to kill four students and wound six students and a teacher at Oxford High School on 30 November 2021.

Prosecutors had claimed James Crumbley was “grossly negligent” because he bought the SIG Sauer 9mm gun for his son days before the attack, failed to properly secure it, ignored his son’s deteriorating mental health and did not take “reasonable care” to prevent foreseeable danger.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/14/us/james-crumbl...

This was actually the story line in one episode of Law And Order.
Except the twist (or rewriting of the story) was the wife had to give evidence against the husband in order to keep out of jail.

[Electro1980]

Byker28i said:

Anecdotal evidence
Son had an assignment to create a new Constitutional amendment. The teachers were expecting a lot of silly responses. Instead, almost universally, kids submitted gun control
https://twitter.com/briskide/status/17690276879793...

It’s not a quick fix, but the generation growing up with the trauma of active shooter drills and the legitimate risk of school shootings will be more inclined to make change when they hold power.

[Pit Pony]

Mark-C said:

There's some doubling up on that list ... it's worrying enough without.

Having lived in Ohio I spotted OSU on there twice.

My Neice and Nephew both studied there. Neither own guns.

[Byker28i]

The parents of Ethan Crumbley who bought their son a gun as a Christmas present, who then went on a shooting which left four students dead and seven other people injured at Oxford High School, have been sent to jail

They were the first parents of a school shooter to be convicted of manslaughter in the US. 10 years for Jennifer Crumbley and 15 for her husband James

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environmen...
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/james-jennife...

Little remorse shown, instead complaining they were victims of a slanderous prosecution and a media circus

[coldel]

Byker28i said:

The parents of Ethan Crumbley who bought their son a gun as a Christmas present, who then went on a shooting which left four students dead and seven other people injured at Oxford High School, have been sent to jail

They were the first parents of a school shooter to be convicted of manslaughter in the US. 10 years for Jennifer Crumbley and 15 for her husband James

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environmen...
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/james-jennife...

Little remorse shown, instead complaining they were victims of a slanderous prosecution and a media circus

Just read about this. It is a strange one...parents give a kid a gun aged 15 (demonstrable stupidity but this is the USA and guns). He then shows some strange behaviours writing down potentially violent slogans at school. I didnt follow it at all to be able to see if the parents were not remorseful (thats what the victims parents said rather than the court/evidence it seems) nor did the court say they were bad parents, but they could have taken action that prevented the shooting.

Opens a whole can of worms really...every parent could potentially stop their kid shooting others in some form or another I guess. Are we going to see more of these types of prosecutions now that the bar has been set.

[McGee_22]

coldel said:

Just read about this. It is a strange one...parents give a kid a gun aged 15 (demonstrable stupidity but this is the USA and guns). He then shows some strange behaviours writing down potentially violent slogans at school. I didnt follow it at all to be able to see if the parents were not remorseful (thats what the victims parents said rather than the court/evidence it seems) nor did the court say they were bad parents, but they could have taken action that prevented the shooting.

Opens a whole can of worms really...every parent could potentially stop their kid shooting others in some form or another I guess. Are we going to see more of these types of prosecutions now that the bar has been set.

Kiddie had significant recognised issues before they went out and bought him a gun - parents got off lightly I think.

Your bold ^^^^ - I hope so.

[coldel]

McGee_22 said:

coldel said:

Just read about this. It is a strange one...parents give a kid a gun aged 15 (demonstrable stupidity but this is the USA and guns). He then shows some strange behaviours writing down potentially violent slogans at school. I didnt follow it at all to be able to see if the parents were not remorseful (thats what the victims parents said rather than the court/evidence it seems) nor did the court say they were bad parents, but they could have taken action that prevented the shooting.

Opens a whole can of worms really...every parent could potentially stop their kid shooting others in some form or another I guess. Are we going to see more of these types of prosecutions now that the bar has been set.

Kiddie had significant recognised issues before they went out and bought him a gun - parents got off lightly I think.

Your bold ^^^^ - I hope so.

From what I read the prosecution focused on the warning signs in the morning, rather than anything else. The NYT seems to talk about the parents taking him to a gun range also. But I cannot read anything publicly about significant issues before buying the gun, the prosecution according to reports said the involuntary manslaughter was due to them releasing him back into school that day. NYT also mentioned a few other parents have appealed guilty to similar charges springing up recently.

Lets face it, kids go off and do all sorts of things, even the ones brought up in loving caring environments - so its important I think to recognise this isn't a case of bad parenting and more of being party to the event on the whole, on the day. Could you also include the school staff in this too? Who allowed him to remain in school?

[BikeBikeBIke]

I'm 100pc in favour of prosecuting the parents in this case *but* on the basis of their actions before the morning of the shootings.

If the parent's actions on the morning of the shootings were criminal becaise they should have had an inkling of what was going to happen then the school staff are equally guilty and I'm not comfortable with that at all.

I didn't follow the trial enough to know which of the two it was. IMHO if they're serving 10 years for not taking him home and searching his bag on the day then that's not on. If they had a mad kid and bought him a gun and left it unlocked then 10 years seems fair enough.

[coldel]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I'm 100pc in favour of prosecuting the parents in this case *but* on the basis of their actions before the morning of the shootings.

If the parent's actions on the morning of the shootings were criminal becaise they should have had an inkling of what was going to happen then the school staff are equally guilty and I'm not comfortable with that at all.

I didn't follow the trial enough to know which of the two it was. IMHO if they're serving 10 years for not taking him home and searching his bag on the day then that's not on. If they had a mad kid and bought him a gun and left it unlocked then 10 years seems fair enough.

Yes this is kind of the issue I have with it at the moment. Like you I havent followed this or understand the details, but the news reports that report very topline are saying the prosecution focused on the morning of the incident. If thats the case, were the school also negligent? In that they failed in safeguarding. If they knew it was a serious problem, why did they allow the child to remain in the school grounds and roam freely. Are they therefore complicit on the morning actions too.

But yes, if the wider evidence was that the kid had dozens of red flags raised against him and the parents went out and bought him a handgun, then I can imagine the 10 years is warranted.

[Blib]

There's a thread about the parents' trial on Reddit.

The concensus is that they should be locked up for good. Especially the boy's mother.

[coldel]

Blib said:

There's a thread about the parents' trial on Reddit.

The concensus is that they should be locked up for good. Especially the boy's mother.

I guess I would rather form an opinion on the evidence presented in court rather than opinion and gossip on a social media channel

[Blib]

coldel said:

Blib said:

There's a thread about the parents' trial on Reddit.

The concensus is that they should be locked up for good. Especially the boy's mother.

I guess I would rather form an opinion on the evidence presented in court rather than opinion and gossip on a social media channel

Or, not form an opinion at it. Other than the whole thing is too awful.

[coldel]

Blib said:

coldel said:

Blib said:

There's a thread about the parents' trial on Reddit.

The concensus is that they should be locked up for good. Especially the boy's mother.

I guess I would rather form an opinion on the evidence presented in court rather than opinion and gossip on a social media channel

Or, not form an opinion at it. Other than the whole thing is too awful.

This is true. I wont be pursuing the details. I guess I just piqued an interest as this is a first in terms of prosecutions, and can imagine its only going to get muddier waters in future.

[Catweazle]

coldel said:

Byker28i said:

The parents of Ethan Crumbley who bought their son a gun as a Christmas present, who then went on a shooting which left four students dead and seven other people injured at Oxford High School, have been sent to jail

They were the first parents of a school shooter to be convicted of manslaughter in the US. 10 years for Jennifer Crumbley and 15 for her husband James

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/science-environmen...
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/james-jennife...

Little remorse shown, instead complaining they were victims of a slanderous prosecution and a media circus

Just read about this. It is a strange one...parents give a kid a gun aged 15 (demonstrable stupidity but this is the USA and guns). He then shows some strange behaviours writing down potentially violent slogans at school. I didnt follow it at all to be able to see if the parents were not remorseful (thats what the victims parents said rather than the court/evidence it seems) nor did the court say they were bad parents, but they could have taken action that prevented the shooting.

Opens a whole can of worms really...every parent could potentially stop their kid shooting others in some form or another I guess. Are we going to see more of these types of prosecutions now that the bar has been set.

What I find interesting about this case is how far does responsibility extend? For example, could the firearms dealer be prosecuted for not performing sufficient background checks?

[coldel]

Catweazle said:

What I find interesting about this case is how far does responsibility extend? For example, could the firearms dealer be prosecuted for not performing sufficient background checks?

It was my thought as well, if the parents as reported, are guilty of involuntary manslaughter by not taking actions to prevent him shooting kids that morning...then so are the teachers at the school that allowed him to stay on the grounds. That they failed to safeguard other children when they knew the same information that morning as the parents. How far does this indirect charge reach out and who needs to be affected by it. But then again, this is the US where rule and gun law are just bonkers and driven more by voting intentions of groups than any decision made for the good of the public.

[captain_cynic]

coldel said:

It was my thought as well, if the parents as reported, are guilty of involuntary manslaughter by not taking actions to prevent him shooting kids that morning...then so are the teachers at the school that allowed him to stay on the grounds. That they failed to safeguard other children when they knew the same information that morning as the parents. How far does this indirect charge reach out and who needs to be affected by it. But then again, this is the US where rule and gun law are just bonkers and driven more by voting intentions of groups than any decision made for the good of the public.

Not really.

The teachers are not responsible for giving him the gun, not are they private security guards who can turf people off the grounds.

Also what if the shooter refused to go when asked?

Parents and legal guardians on the other hand are directly responsible for the actions of their children. It's about damned time their held to the actions of their charges.

The whole "but how far does it go" false narrative completely ignores the above because it utterly demolished this cliche.

[coldel]

captain_cynic said:

Not really.

The teachers are not responsible for giving him the gun, not are they private security guards who can turf people off the grounds.

Also what if the shooter refused to go when asked?

Parents and legal guardians on the other hand are directly responsible for the actions of their children. It's about damned time their held to the actions of their charges.

The whole "but how far does it go" false narrative completely ignores the above because it utterly demolished this cliche.

But that isnt what the prosecution appears to have focused on for the trial, this is about setting a legal precedent of complicity. Personal views on what is right and wrong isn't the issue here and its more around what they have actually been prosecuted for...

...again only reading the reports visible on line but their main thrust was that on the morning of the shooting the parents failed to remove him from school despite the warnings. If that is the main thrust of the prosecution then it should apply to all that had the opportunity to do similarly. If the teachers were so concerned and the child and parents refused to leave the grounds, the police should have been called for example.

The judge was at pains to say the judgement was not based on the parents being 'bad parents' or how they parented their child, but based on their actions failing to prevent it happening that morning, so views on their style of parenting were not on trial. As the defence mentioned, any parent would have taken the same actions the Crumbleys did in their situation because no parent could ever envisage their child going on a gun spree. In fact, you can look through history and see kids from well off backgrounds, cared and loved, still go do the same thing.

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

[The Moose]

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

[coldel]

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.