Parents of Oxford shooter on the run

a reply to: Midnite247

The parents can’t just take him out of school. Thanks to teachers union and other corrupt actors, doing so would be a crime. The school however could’ve expelled him on the spot. So why did they drop the ball?

You say “they’re guilty” please elaborate. Exactly what crime does “not seeing what any other parent would” constitute again? MI state code please, could’ve would’ve and should’ves don’t count.

They claim the gun was locked up. And yet, is it unlawful in MI to leave an unattended weapon unlocked? In most places it is not. You can leave them wherever you please, although there’s a real risk it’ll be used against you by an attacker. Provided the state isn’t one of a handful that have passed such poorly thought out laws.

The shooter is responsible for his own actions. If the parents gave him a gun and only *should have* (according to you) known he was unable, it’s bad judgement but probably not a crime. He’s never been adjudicated as “mentally incompetent” (please forgive the term, it’s how they phrase it legally)

a reply to: frogs453

What the lawyer said about that was the couple had made plans with the lawyer to all meet the following day to be arraigned at 7:30 am. The lawyer made it sound like the couple wasn’t aware they were being sought after at the time because they were under the impression the lawyer would had spoken to the prosecutor.
The couple initially left their home, days before, because they felt unsafe and were receiving threats from the public.
The she said, They pulled the 4K out of the bank to pay the lawyer.

She didn’t get into why they were in the art studio.
But from what I gather, the 2 know the owner of the studio and arranged with them to stay the night so they could turn themselves in, in the morning.

a reply to: JBurns

Exactly!
That School principal is responsible for the safety of every student on the property.
He could had said, let’s shake the boy down before he returns to class.
He could had said, he’s being sent home for a few days.

I don’t understand how he isn’t being charged right now but the parents are.

a reply to: Midnite247

Yeah, Because I’m the one ruining lives for daring to question an official narrative? I’m the one with a problem. 👎

No matter what pressure you try to exert I will never believe the official narrative without question. I will not ignore obvious issues because they are inconvenient. And I will not stop asking questions until they have been answered satisfactorily and I’d suggest others do the same.

This is always true, but twice as much so when the families want to turn it into a political crusade and even more so one that directly threats the rights of a free people in a free society. No one is immune from criticism. And when you start advocating a policy position especially one that infringes on the rights of 370,000,000 Americans, you become a public figure by choice and have no business complaining about those who dare to demand you back up your claims

But hey, gun control is a dead issue thankfully. In no small part because of very poor behavior I mentioned in my post.

a reply to: Macenroe82
That might all sound plausible to you, however it contradicts what the attorney said and the high powered lawyer will only take cash? If the cash was for the lawyer, why not take it to the lawyer who is in Bloomfield Township, 15 minutes away from where you took the cash out? Since when do the charged individuals get to determine that since even though they were close to the court at 4pm, ehh, we will skip it and just come in the morning? Why did the lawyer not state this was the plan? She claimed they were coming from out of town to turn themselves in, not, well they are actually down the street but don't feel like coming. Why would the couple after 2-3 days of staying somewhere else suddenly decide, "hey let's go sleep in an art studio, even though I'm all over the news and all sorts of law enforcement are actively searching for me, plus, let's hide when they come in, that'll be fun!".

Talk about making excuses. This has nothing to do with whether you believe they should be charged or not. They were, and they actively fled.

The parents can just take him out of school … doing so is not a crime it’s a civil matter at best.
I won’t be so pretentious to elaborate on civil/criminal laws but suffice to say if ur told ur kid has drawn murderous drawings and u say he’s fine to stay in school u own some of that responsibility or guilt, whether in a legal sense is for a court/jury to decide but fersure in a “you know right from wrong” perspective
I can’t ever see a world where I’m called into my kids school,told they’ve drawn this. And I say yeah that’s fine, regardless whether they have access to a gun or not… there is something seriously wrong there… and if u don’t see that…. U need to seriously look
At urself .
a reply to: JBurns

Who is responsible for the actions of your children?
a reply to: Macenroe82

Tbh I don’t reallly have a point of view on the 2nd. I could care less, I just think it’s retarded to turn every localised specific issue into a national gun control issue
Bottom line is these parents were 2 fkn idiots who bought their kid a gun who, I’m guessing inherited the same dumbass gene and went all school shooty , he’d of been off just wiping out his own dumbass gene pool, and finishing off putting the gun in his own mouth… it’s only because he took out some innocents it even made the news
a reply to: JBurns

a reply to: Midnite247

And In that instance it is up to the school to initiate disciplinary actions against him not the parents. They clearly didn’t see it as a threat either, so whatever the parents missed the school missed. Only difference is the parents have the excuse he’s their son and we’re blind to the truth, what excuse does the school have? None at all.

You can’t blame the parents for not taking him home when the school failed to send him home.

And there’s nothing pretentious about Truancy laws. Some very bad people, namely public school advocates and their unions, made it unlawful to not send your child to school. School administrators on the other hand could’ve expelled him for X number of days. They saw the drawings, they could have accessed his very public social media posts, so why didn’t they? Funny how for “something no one can miss” each and every staff member at that school who encountered him MISSED it. Your assertion is not looking so reasonable anymore is it?

In reality, it isn’t up to a parent to condemn their child simply because you or anyone else says so. Personally, any time I had to deal with a public school I was on my girls side and if they wanted to convince me otherwise they could prove it to me. To me it’s just yet another failure of public schools. Maybe if they spent less time on worrying about appearing “woke” and more time doing their jobs it would be different. They had a chance to stop him right then and there. Why didn’t they search his belongings as district policy permitted? Why didn’t they send him home?

It is fine! Plenty of teenagers have suicidal or homicidal thoughts without ever acting on them. Some are interested in fairly morbid stuff. Should every kid wearing black eye makeup and lip rings be committed for potentially suicidal tendencies? Most people with issues like this will never hurt a fly.

I see plenty seriously wrong. Especially on part of school staff that should’ve known better. They had every opportunity to conduct a search, contact the police or expel him. They failed multiple times. Yet only two people were charged by that showboat of a DA letting the school totally off the hook

Maybe the real answer is getting rid of public schools, so those who want to learn can do so in a safe environment with instructors that actually pay attention to them. Funny how private schools and charter schools don’t seem to have these same problems. Makes you wander what is wrong with public funded indoctrination I mean education

a reply to: Midnite247

I would’ve preferred he had taken himself out as well. No question.

But he didn’t. And blaming the parents for something that is completely legal is not right. They didn’t do anything wrong by purchasing a gun as a gift for him, assuming that’s even accurate. He’s not an illegal drug user, he is not a felon, he has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent, he’s not a domestic abused, he’s not a deserter….nothing prohibited him from having that gun

Now, if his parents were actually aware of his intent and purchased it for him that’s one thing. But no evidence…I repeat….NO EVIDENCE suggests that is true. Just as no evidence suggests he committed any sort of terrorism. Murder is bad enough without the continuing effort to search for more graphic and more intense terms to describe crimes. It’s nothing more than an effort by MSM for ratings and viewership. And this DA is the definition of a grand standing camera seeker.

The kids a murderer. Hell never see another morning free (most likely). Blaming the parents for it won’t help. They didn’t break any laws, as far as I can tell. You can’t predict the future, aren’t expected to guess and have no way of knowing what will happen. We’re not going to criminalize someone who “should have seen it coming” No. that’s not how it works.

You break the law, and only then can the justice system take over

Either start arming school employees or give up on the ridiculous idea of compulsory public education. The shooter is who deserves the blame. A close second is the school staff and teachers union. Finally the parents IF and only if they had some foreknowledge not just a “I’m a neurotic anxious worrier this or that might happen” crap

No wonder Democrats have so many ulcers

Your thinking of this from a 2nd amendment/gun perspective…
Take a step back. Uv got family. Think if ur kid/partner whoever, was locked in that school, and took a bullet in the face because this 15 yr old kid had a bad week.
That’s something that’s been said loadsa times
But this time the parents could have done something….
They were called into the school and told ur kid looks like a psychopath. He’s drawing stuff about killing people.
They said it’s fine. Leave him to it.
Any normal human being would red flags there.
They didn’t do anything.
Your defending them on the 2nd.
If that was ur child that was shot by this lunatic would you defend him?
Could you defend them?
I certainly couldn’t and I can’t say on here what I would do them and hopefully him given the chance.
Actions have consequences
It seems parents and kids have forgotten that
a reply to: JBurns

a reply to: Midnite247

Could I defend who? The parents or the shooter?

The shooter absolutely not. I do not defend or excuse his actions under any justification.

But the parents? Unless it came out they knew he was planning an attack and did nothing OR that he was unstable and they chose to gift him the gun…absolutely not. I wouldn’t be lashing out to blame folks just because I lost everything that matters most to me.

The school? Absolutely! The same school that saw his searches, failed to investigate his social media, failed to notify police of the drawings, failed to search his physical person and property for weapons and failed to remove him from that school. The focus on the parents - and the rush to run them into the dirt - is what I take issue with.

Only if school employees and teachers involved were also charged with manslaughter would I see it as even remotely fair or just. I would still disagree with the rationale of charging any of them, but surely if the parents are liable then the school is even more so. They actually had a duty to protect those other students in their custody. The parents had no such obligation.

a reply to: BrujaRebooted

I'm glad we can agree.

But what would gun safety training do for the cases where the shooters intend to kill people? Only accidents would be prevented.

No. There's more to it than just accidents.

Guns are a mystical taboo in modern society. I can't count the number of people I have met across the Internet who are simply enamored with the possibility of actually firing a gun... something I consider nothing special at all. I can pick up a gun and a box of ammo at any time, walk outside, and start target shooting. It's not a big deal for me, but for others who have never had the experience of holding a gun it is a huge deal.

This kid likely felt the same way. He had likely never held a real gun before, and then suddenly his father buys him not just any old gun, but a Sig Sauer semi-automatic 9mm! I doubt he even knew what it was for. If one watches the media, the gun is for killing people... that's what we think of as entertainment. So he just got this heretofore unknowable device that he has been told his whole life is for killing people and never been told otherwise.

In his mind, he probably just became a hero... notice how he posted a pic of it on social media and offered to answer any questions about it?

A hero requires adoration from the masses... every see a Marvel show where the hero is not portrayed as larger than life and does not get respect? That's what he was after. That's likely why he drew the note: "I want to go play with my gun and have everyone like me/respect me/be afraid of me... not sit here and listen to this boring teacher!" That note was a cry for help... and when help didn't come as he expected it to, in the form of mass adoration/fear/respect he thought the gun was supposed to bring, he probably decided to prove his power.

And he did.

Not one part of that exonerates him... he is guilty of killing 4 people and wounding another 7. He must be punished. His life cannot continue unrestrained. That's not what I am saying, so don't assume that I am. What I am saying is that had he been taught by someone real (like a father or at least a father figure) that a gun is simply a tool and it's primary use can be a very, very bad thing, chances are that he would not have seen the gun as a passport to glory that others chose to ignore.

I mentioned how my father taught me gun safety at home... but I haven't mentioned Sergeant Smith in this thread. Sergeant Smith was the Armory Officer when I was in JROTC in high school. Most weeks, one day was set aside for weapons training. He took over the class and we would all board a bus and ride down to the National Guard Armory. There we would be taught about the various military weapons. We would hold them in our hands, take them apart, put them back together, clean them, perform drill exercises with them... and we could even fire them! I had fired an M-16A1 rifle, .223 caliber, locked on semi-automatic, at an actual military firing range before I graduated high school! I have seen Sergeant Smith fire a fully-automatic M60 machine gun (he wouldn't let students handle that beast, of course, but he let us see it in action).

When one is that familiar with a gun, the gun becomes a tool, not a symbol. As a tool, it is something to be used when needed and cared for. As a symbol, it is something to be coveted and exhibited, and even used to gain attention.

As a tool it is useful and needed. As a symbol it is dangerous.

The reason for school shootings now as opposed to back in the olden times is much more complex. Lots of small factors come together into a perfect storm.

Then it should be very easy to stop. If so many factors must all be present to make this "perfect storm," then there are many factors than can be eliminated to stop the storm. So why have we not stopped the problem?

Sorry,but that's a cop-out used by people who have a pathological fear of firearms. And that fear is typically itself a product of media marketing (entertainment) and a lack of understanding... the exact same things that firearm education would negate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JBurns

The parents can’t just take him out of school. Thanks to teachers union and other corrupt actors, doing so would be a crime.

The school asked for him to be taken out. Did you catch that? The parents refused. How can complying with the school be a crime?

The school also demanded the boy see a counselor within 48 hours. Apparently in Michigan, they have the ability to make that demand.

The school however could’ve expelled him on the spot. So why did they drop the ball?

I agree, at least that he should have been suspended pending the results of the counseling session. He should not have been allowed to remain in school if he was required to obtain counseling. The school did indeed drop the ball on that one.

However, the parents who gave him the gun also dropped the ball, by not taking him with them as was requested by the school, and by not even bothering to check to see if he had the gun at school. They apparently simply did not care. I can give a parent a long, long, long rope... been there myself, and no one is a "perfect parent"... but the amount of sheer apathy they exhibited toward an obvious unfolding situation that was so dangerous is simply astounding to me!

Almost any other case, I would be right there with you: the kid did the deed, not the parents. But this time the parents did a few deeds of their own! And they, like anyone else, must be held accountable for what they did. They are not being charged for the killing, but for gross negligence which enabled the killing to happen.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Macenroe82

That School principal is responsible for the safety of every student on the property.
He could had said, let’s shake the boy down before he returns to class.
He could had said, he’s being sent home for a few days.

I don’t understand how he isn’t being charged right now but the parents are.

I would have no problems with the principal being charged, provided he had the authority to remove the child from the school against the wishes of his parents. I don't know that he did. I know that a court order would have allowed him to do so... I know that he has the ability to expel a child if their actions are heinous enough (and I think that involves court approval after the fact)... but as JBurns is pointing out, there are also truancy laws that come into play. A school's power over a child is limited. I'm not familiar enough with Michigan law to say whether or not the principal had the right to expel the child solely on the basis of a note and against the wishes of the parents.

I do know that I have heard of cases like where a child who just got a water gun drew pictures of it in class, with water, not blood, and that itself caused this big uproar among school staff. And if I remember that little episode right, it was the same group who opposed that, calling it a travesty of justice that the child was traumatized, who now are claiming the school is at fault and the parents are completely innocent. WTF is this?

Which is it? Who has the ultimate authority over the children? The school, or the parents? I say the parents, and I have always said the parents... and I will not change that position because this one boy shot up this one school and these specific parents did nothing about it.

I think the school should be allowed to officially demand that a child receive counseling if circumstances warrant, subject to court approval, and that such a demand for counseling be accompanied by an immediate suspension until said counseling session occurs and the counselor can make a determination. No problem with that... as I have stated before, my wife and I would have pulled our kid out of school right there, at least for the day to understand what was going on with them, and certainly would have searched to ensure the kid was not armed!

But who has the final authority over the kid? The parents. Who bears final responsibility when they ignore that authority? The parents. If the school has the final responsibility, the school also gets the final authority, not just in this case, but in all cases.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JBurns

if the parents are liable then the school is even more so. They actually had a duty to protect those other students in their custody. The parents had no such obligation.

Oh, but they most certainly do have a legal obligation to protect others! We all do!

In Alabama at least, if a rancher has a break in a fence and his cattle get out, he is legally responsible for any damage they cause. In the case of cattle and an accidental break in the fence, that is usually limited to civil actions (sometimes a misdemeanor and a fine if it can be shown the rancher had a history of letting his fence fall apart). He has the legal responsibility to ensure that the animals under his control do not harm others.

If one has a vicious dog that breaks loose and kills someone in the area, the owners of that vicious dog can be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

If someone knows that a crime is about to be committed, they have a legal obligation to report their information to the authorities, or they can be charged as accomplices.

The question is not whether the parents bear some of the blame for their minor child's actions (even if the child is then charged as an adult), but how far does that blame extend? Did the parents do everything a reasonable person would do to try and prevent or mitigate the consequences of their child's actions? Normally, the parents are given the benefit of the doubt (as is proper) since they simply cannot have complete 24/7 control over the child. Society will not allow that. A child will be influenced by things outside the parents' control... peers, school, legal requirements (like the truancy laws), other adults, etc.

If it can be shown in a court of law, to a jury of 12 of their peers, that these parents abrogated their responsibility to such a degree that they demonstrated gross, criminal negligence, then they are guilty of exactly what you claim they have no responsibility for: contributing significantly to an illegal death. That's the law, like it or not. That's what the statute for involuntary manslaughter says.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You are quite right. I haven't searched the forums yet, but I do believe that the same people who believe the school was the one responsible for being more aggressive in this situation are the same people who would scream "how dare the school do this! I know my child! They have no rights and are overstepping their boundaries!"

The fact that they were told there were issues and never once told the school, we do not want to take him home, but you know, we did purchase him a gun, and maybe we should just double check he doesn't have it.

Alas we are also talking about parents who tried to flee, abandoning their child in his greatest time of need, so I guess we couldn't have expected much from them.

That said I would certainly not be surprised by at lawsuit against the district.

ETA: sigh, I may be wrong, I thought those would accuse the school of being a "police state" if they suspended him, but just saw a clip of Fox News host Jeanine stating its "the Liberal schools fault" for not suspending him. So apparently it's Liberals fault he killed those kids, yet it's also the Liberals fault when they want gun restrictions. How do you have it both ways?

a reply to: frogs453

Yeah, can't say I am too surprised at seeing so many people change their position 180 degrees when the narrative supports it. And I am not at all surprised that Fox would try to blame "liberal schools."

I will repeat: if the school thinks the issue is severe enough to require counseling, the school should also temporarily suspend the child until that counseling happens. There is no way the boy should have been left in school. There is no way I would have allowed my son to be left in school!

I'm one of those who frequently calls out schools for over-reaching their authority. The education of the children is the primary domain of the parents; the schools are simply there to facilitate that. The schools need to be teaching mathematics, science, languages, history, and the like. Courses that incorporate CRT or other social agendas, and teachers who try to teach religious contexts should not exist. However, schools do have to be free to handle disciplinary issues when they arise, and that is with or without parental consent. The day we removed corporal punishment from schools was a sad day.

But I am not going to change my position based on one case. I don't do that. I'm not any of the labels frequently used to classify political or social beliefs: I am me. Ihaven't changed being me in a half century of being me, and I don't foresee ever changing who I am.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Right, I totally understand your point and also think he should not have been allowed to stay. I did hear from my own family member this morning that the school wanted to send him home, the parents fought it and with the worry of the child's mental state they didn't want the boy home alone. Possibly they had suicide worries? I'm not sure and I also did not ask where they heard this. Besides the parents, I think all others involved will have this weigh so heavily on their conscience. How awful.