Multiple victims in Oxford High School shooting, Oakland County Sheriff confirms

[DJBrad]

I haven't been following the case. If it was a gift, then it can't be a straw purchase. I would have expected the basis for criminal negligence to be that
a) The parents knew the child was "troubled" and threatening violence.
b) Any reasonable person would realize the need to secure the firearm so that it could not be used without supervision.
c) They failed to secure the firearm.

I vaguely recall something about a conference that day, and perhaps knowing that they had failed to secure the firearm, a reasonable person would have been terrified on that day that the kid was going to shoot up the school if he had managed to gain access to the weapon. At any rate, they, having the knowledge of exactly how secure the gun was or wasn't and the means of determining whether it was still in the house, might have squandered the last clear opportunity to prevent it.

I still wonder whether deep down the mother wanted it to happen and just couldn't herself foresee that she would be prosecuted, maybe a munchausen by proxy thing, or worse.

Straw purchase claim is tongue in cheek.

 

[namedpipes]

Her issue was not in failing to tell the school about the gun imho.

It was because her and her husband made a straw purchase of a handgun for an under age individual. It was his bday gift. They failed to address mental health issues brought up to them from the school. She posted on social media about all of this. The kid easily found the gun at home. In this case there is no wonder the parents would face prosecution for at least some measures of culpability wrt to a school shooting. And in this day and age with such vehement hatred for guns the court system was bound to make it stick.

(this didn't happen in NH, but...) in NH a parent can gift a firearm to their own child. And that is the ONLY route to ownership as a minor here (someone please correct me if that's wrong) So I don't think *I* would see that as a straw purchase.

It seems irresponsible if they failed to keep it secure between range trips. I raised two kids with guns in the house and they never had access unless we were going to the range. I did that not because of MA law but because *I* thought it was proper. I think the storage laws in MA are idiotic. Monkeys typing randomly on keyboards would have yielded more sensible laws.

If they knew (and it seems likely they should have) that their kid was a sociopath, then I could see an argument that they should have done more to keep it secure.

Mrs. Pipes reminded me that the school called in Mom and ASKED her to take the kid home the day of the shooting and she refused. The school did not force her to take the kid home and IMO should have. The school is as or more responsible than Mom. Neither is as responsible as the killer, though.

The galling thing is, this verdict, which "may" be reasonable with the added context, will absolutely be used to persecute (not a typo) other people that are truly innocent and/or be used as leverage to force the passage of new and worse gun laws. I feel confident the kid broke at LEAST one law (multiple times). If he's willing to murder several kids in cold blood, is he likely to obey whatever new fantasy the lawmakers in their state come up with to "keep this from ever happening again!"?

 

[namedpipes]

Straw purchase claim is tongue in cheek.

And I fell for it. I should have known better.

[hangsheadinshame]

 

[Picton]

The school did not force her to take the kid home and IMO should have. The school is as or more responsible than Mom.

NES: "The schools have too much power over kids and their parents!"

Also NES: "The schools are culpable for homicide because they didn't force some parents to take their kid out of school!"

I'd say the school did more than their due diligence regarding their unwillingness to have the kid in the building that day. No reasonable person could have been in any doubt that they wanted the parents to take the kid out. But the parents got the final say, and rightly so if the kid wasn't breaking any suspendable school rules. They should have searched his bag, and they're on the hook for that, but they can't force a kid out of the building. Most states set up their laws in order to prevent exactly that, because they know that if it was easy for schools to jettison kids, they'd do it too often.

 

[namedpipes]

NES: "The schools have too much power over kids and their parents!"

Also NES: "The schools are culpable for homicide because they didn't force some parents to take their kid out of school!"

I'd say the school did more than their due diligence regarding their unwillingness to have the kid in the building that day. No reasonable person could have been in any doubt that they wanted the parents to take the kid out. But the parents got the final say, and rightly so if the kid wasn't breaking any suspendable school rules. They should have searched his bag, and they're on the hook for that, but they can't force a kid out of the building. Most states set up their laws in order to prevent exactly that, because they know that if it was easy for schools to jettison kids, they'd do it too often.

I guess times have changed. My principal threw me up against the wall (this was... 4th, maybe 5th grade, so... 12?) for fighting. The hell of it was, it was a bum rap. I never touched the kid in question. I was innocent! (of that particular incident, anyway) I don't think I got sent home that time, but at least couple times I was. (on foot!)

Ok, I get the point. They'd have been savaged either way.

Isn't it a shame that laws really can't prevent tragedies?

 

[rali]

If I were on that jury, I’d have voted for short helicopter ride over water.