Parents charged in school shooting

[Darth]

The link from goofball 2003?
This morning news, California follow home gun point robbery.
Any day groups fighting each other, running gun fights, smash n grab robbery, Chicago, blm, democrats, etc..

Well, no, that's from 2013, but even if it was from 2003 I assume you were born before that.

The MSM is pushing the "woe is me" we are getting more violent as a society lie, but it's not true. You only need to look to the 40s to see about 6 million reasons that it's not true. And the 20s roared for a reason...and so on.

 

[Robin]

Lots of conflicting information being reported about the arrest of this parents, lots!!! Big media is ramped up and going full on guilty until proven innocent. The main cop spokesman is rabid!!! What an asshole!
Well, I hope the truth of it will come out, which looks and sounds less and less possible every day.
Robin

 

[spat]

It's not really about humor so much as it is reality.

It's an objective observation.

Society is Coarser But Better

Yes, pop culture is crude, but who gives an F-word? By virtually every measure, we're a safer, nicer, kinder country.

www.google.com

On average, that's true.

But we also have some pockets of far greater violence than we have seen in decades.

It is also true that these sorts of school shootings are a new phenomenon. Yes, the country was a more violent place in the past, but prior to Columbine this type of event was unheard of.

The obvious conclusion is that this is a result of differences in how we are raising kids these days.

 

[Darth]

On average, that's true.

But we also have some pockets of far greater violence than we have seen in decades.

It is also true that these sorts of school shootings are a new phenomenon. Yes, the country was a more violent place in the past, but prior to Columbine this type of event was unheard of.

The obvious conclusion is that this is a result of differences in how we are raising kids these days.

That is the obvious conclusion. It's just incorrect. Or more the point the conclusion of "if we just kept beating our kids, promoting religion, promoting following orders without question, we'd be in a better place" is wholly incorrect.

 

[Acer-m14]

Parents AND the school are culpable. They all f’ed up and are at least partially responsible

add in CPS ...

This only happened, and I can't think of it ever happening, when I was young, by the true insane. Of course we had the belt, back of the hand, Fly back paddle, shoe, something from the kitchen drawer to keep you this side of the straight n narrow. One mother, one father, religion, schools with shooting ranges, shop class, corporal punishment at school.
Now, two moms, two dads, no responsibilities, no religion, no shop, no punishment, only feelings, "Walk It Off!", you little wussy.

Discipline with a belt or wooden spoon and getting smacked side the head when you fucked up once in a while is not beating up your kid ..

but it is to CPS ..

 

[spat]

That is the obvious conclusion. It's just incorrect. Or more the point the conclusion of "if we just kept beating our kids, promoting religion, promoting following orders without question, we'd be in a better place" is wholly incorrect.

What evidence do you have that it's incorrect ?

Certainly teaching kids that their guilt or innocent is decided by their race and not their actions is going to cause major problems.

Now, just because all the stuff we used to do isn't great, doesn't mean as a package it's not better than what we've got now.

The ideal solution of course would be to keep the good stuff and get rid of the bad.

 

[SmallGameAddict]

I'll wait for the trial

I won't be on the jury

A lot of info seems to always come out afterwards

 

[Robin]

Well Mom and Dad, the punishment by process has begun and the press is removing any possibility of sympathy from the American people. The lynch mob is gathering.
Robin

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[holdover]

Michigan Involuntary Manslaughter Law​

Involuntary manslaughter (also called criminally negligent manslaughter) occurs when a person is accidentally killed due to someone else's criminal negligence, or when someone is killed during another crime, where the intent was not to cause bodily injury or death. Unlike a murder charge, involuntary manslaughter means that a person had no intention of killing another, but due to their careless or reckless actions caused the death of a human being.

A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor can prove all of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt (Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction 16.10):

• First, that the individual caused the death of the victim, that is, that the victim died as a result of the individual’s act.
• 
  
• Second, in doing the act that caused the victim’s death, the individual acted in a grossly negligent manner OR in doing the act that caused the victim’s death, the individual intended to injure the victim. For example, an individual who commits assault and battery with the intent to inflict injury but instead causes an unintended death, then this amounts to, at least, involuntary manslaughter. People v Datema, 448 Mich 585; 533 NW2d 272 (1995).
• 
  
• Third, that the individual caused the death without lawful excuse or justification.

The following are also considered involuntary manslaughter under Michigan law:

• “The wilful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother, shall be deemed manslaughter.” MCL 750.322.
• “Any person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child any medicine, drug or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, shall, in case the death of such child or of such mother be thereby produced, be guilty of manslaughter.” MCL 750.323(1).
• “A person who wounds, maims, or injures another person by discharging a firearm that is pointed or aimed intentionally but without malice at another person is guilty of manslaughter if the wounds, maiming, or injuries result in death.” MCL 750.329(1). This does not apply to peace officers in the lawful performance of their duties. MCL 750.329(2).

Might be tough to get a conviction on Involuntary Manslaughter if the element requires that the subject caused the death . But possibly of a lesser crime. Depends a lot on whether the parents knew, or should have known the kid was a threat to others. Seems more like political pressure at the moment, but the parents do seem to have some responsibility if they knew this kid was ill.

 

[OwnTheRide]

It is also true that these sorts of school shootings are a new phenomenon.

Not really (unless you meant something specific with "these sorts" that I missed). They're definitely more frequent, though.

The first recorded US school shooting actually occurred before we were the US (1764), though admittedly that sounds more like an Indian raid than a school shooting. The 1800s saw 13 school shootings. Obviously, we have seen a significant increase in the numbers of school shootings, and we can attribute this to many reasons. A simple example is population. In the mid-1700s, our population was a whopping 2 million people. We're edging towards 400 million now.

But, IMO, there is one change in particular that has had the biggest influence on the increase in school shootings, or mass shootings in general: media coverage. Shooters - school shooters in particular - get a lot of attention from the media. And that is precisely what shooters are looking for: attention to their perceived plight. Read up on shooters, you'll see that a large number of them were seemingly obsessed with past shooters. They devoured every bit of writing and video they could find. They try to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors, and top their "achievements" (a.k.a. body count).

If nothing else, consider this: I bet most people reading this will be able to recognize a majority of the names in this list: Adam Lanza, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes, Jiverly Wong, Stephen Paddock, John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo, Jared Loughner, Dylan Roof, and Nikolas Cruz. All mass shooters. But I bet none of us can name a single victim from any of the incidents these shooters are associated with. The message is clear: become a shooter, and you will be known. Infamy is still fame. Whether they intend to or not, the media is glorifying these shooters.

I don't necessarily know the solution to this issue of media being a catalyst to future shooters. I certainly do not want to take away even the smallest slice of the freedom of the press. I do think a social pressure campaign could have an impact here, and arguably already has (for example, many news organizations now decline to name shooters). But we are running up against a point where we can only do so much without giving up more rights, which I'm unwilling to agree to in any capacity.

 

[tirwin1]

Not really (unless you meant something specific with "these sorts" that I missed). They're definitely more frequent, though.

The first recorded US school shooting actually occurred before we were the US (1764), though admittedly that sounds more like an Indian raid than a school shooting. The 1800s saw 13 school shootings. Obviously, we have seen a significant increase in the numbers of school shootings, and we can attribute this to many reasons. A simple example is population. In the mid-1700s, our population was a whopping 2 million people. We're edging towards 400 million now.

But, IMO, there is one change in particular that has had the biggest influence on the increase in school shootings, or mass shootings in general: media coverage. Shooters - school shooters in particular - get a lot of attention from the media. And that is precisely what shooters are looking for: attention to their perceived plight. Read up on shooters, you'll see that a large number of them were seemingly obsessed with past shooters. They devoured every bit of writing and video they could find. They try to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors, and top their "achievements" (a.k.a. body count).

If nothing else, consider this: I bet most people reading this will be able to recognize a majority of the names in this list: Adam Lanza, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes, Jiverly Wong, Stephen Paddock, John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo, Jared Loughner, Dylan Roof, and Nikolas Cruz. All mass shooters. But I bet none of us can name a single victim from any of the incidents these shooters are associated with. The message is clear: become a shooter, and you will be known. Infamy is still fame. Whether they intend to or not, the media is glorifying these shooters.

I don't necessarily know the solution to this issue of media being a catalyst to future shooters. I certainly do not want to take away even the smallest slice of the freedom of the press. I do think a social pressure campaign could have an impact here, and arguably already has (for example, many news organizations now decline to name shooters). But we are running up against a point where we can only do so much without giving up more rights, which I'm unwilling to agree to in any capacity.

Agree 100%. If I recall correctly there was a psychiatrist that agreed to a interview after Sandy hook on the condition the name of the perp was never brought up. She believed that extensive press coverage practically guaranteed future copycat shooters. Of course right off the bat the tv interviewer mentioned the name of the shooter and the psychiatrist was rather angry.

 

[spat]

Not really (unless you meant something specific with "these sorts" that I missed). They're definitely more frequent, though.

The first recorded US school shooting actually occurred before we were the US (1764), though admittedly that sounds more like an Indian raid than a school shooting. The 1800s saw 13 school shootings. Obviously, we have seen a significant increase in the numbers of school shootings, and we can attribute this to many reasons. A simple example is population. In the mid-1700s, our population was a whopping 2 million people. We're edging towards 400 million now.

But, IMO, there is one change in particular that has had the biggest influence on the increase in school shootings, or mass shootings in general: media coverage. Shooters - school shooters in particular - get a lot of attention from the media. And that is precisely what shooters are looking for: attention to their perceived plight. Read up on shooters, you'll see that a large number of them were seemingly obsessed with past shooters. They devoured every bit of writing and video they could find. They try to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors, and top their "achievements" (a.k.a. body count).

If nothing else, consider this: I bet most people reading this will be able to recognize a majority of the names in this list: Adam Lanza, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, James Holmes, Jiverly Wong, Stephen Paddock, John Allen Muhammad, Lee Boyd Malvo, Jared Loughner, Dylan Roof, and Nikolas Cruz. All mass shooters. But I bet none of us can name a single victim from any of the incidents these shooters are associated with. The message is clear: become a shooter, and you will be known. Infamy is still fame. Whether they intend to or not, the media is glorifying these shooters.

I don't necessarily know the solution to this issue of media being a catalyst to future shooters. I certainly do not want to take away even the smallest slice of the freedom of the press. I do think a social pressure campaign could have an impact here, and arguably already has (for example, many news organizations now decline to name shooters). But we are running up against a point where we can only do so much without giving up more rights, which I'm unwilling to agree to in any capacity.

By "these sorts" I meant both the modern incarnation and the national media coverage.

Ironically Biden's "gun free school zones act" is probably largely to blame for the rise.

You are correct about the media responsibility too. "If it bleeds it leads" bears a large share of the responsibility here, and a legal solution to that would be more dangerous than the killings.

But, a social stigma and self censorship about such reporting would be very effective. If the media took the same approach to reporting on mass murder than they did on covid related skepticism we could probably solve the problem altogether.