6 year old shoots his teacher

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: andy06shake

Kids are quite perceptive and can be cruel... teach caught a cap from a 6 year old for some reason.

Teacher obviously sucks, You're Fired!

Nah. The teacher should have been armed. If the teacher was the armed "good guy with a gun",and shot the armed 6-year-old, this would be a different story.

Everyone is a victim in this story, there are no heroes... only one perspective is required and that is to process it thru that lense, the victims perspective.

If everyone is a victim, then that's a lot of perspectives there. Anywho, I don't know what that has to do with the prospect of the teacher being armed, and shooting an armed 6-year-old.

Well it just seems you'd like to paint the teacher into a heroic role or some kind of hero to public school teacher everywhere because they took a bullet and this is what school teachers have to endure.

Sorry I don't subscribe to that, I am actually with Trump on this one... you're not a hero if you get captured so you can't be a victim and a hero cause you got shot.

That's how it is now a days though, it's called victimhood culture, where you're the brave one "the hero" if you're the victim.

That's just how it is in this day and age... I'm not a subscriber.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good idea? I don't have an answer.

This is a wise answer!

So you do have some wise answers anyway!

a reply to: iamthevirus

Well it just seems you'd like to paint the teacher into a heroic role or some kind of hero to public school teacher everywhere because they took a bullet and this is what school teachers have to endure.

I responded to you when you posted this:

Kids are quite perceptive and can be cruel... teach caught a cap from a 6 year old for some reason.

Teacher obviously sucks, You're Fired!

I didn't say anything about the teacher being a hero or a victim for having been shot.

I merely said that if the teacher had been armed, this would be a different kind of story.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MykeNukem

This was all hypothetical and admittedly, rhetorical.

Dangerous rhetoric, however.

Of course I wouldn't want that to happen, but we were discussing "hypothetically" if that IS what happened, I'd support it.

I wouldn't. If a child has to take such drastic steeps to defend themselves, my next question is, where were the parents? Why were they so apathetic as to allow things to proceed this far?

Kids know when somethings not right.

However, they do not always know how to resolve the situation.

That's why we have this thing called "parents."

TheRedneck

It's hypothetical.

If, if, if, the teacher was a pedo and the kid shot him, then good.

I didn't create a detailed backstory for the kid, in my hypothetical situation.

I'm sure there would be LOT'S of questions asked afterwards, about responsibility, neglect, etc. Hypothetically.

My wife and I managed to raise 2 upstanding, hard-working, stand up men. I know what being a responsible parent is.

I never said I approved of a 6 year old having a gun, or parents leaving guns laying around.

It was a "what if", and if that's what it was, I'd support the kid. I don't condone it, but I'd support the kid, after the fact.

Hypothetically, can't stress that enough.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So are you suggesting that the chance of a school staff member shooting a child without cause is greater than the chance of a criminal shooting the school up?

If so, the chance of a school shooter killing someone must be pretty damn small. According to this site, there are 16 million people in the USA who carry guns regularly and 53 million who own handguns. Pew Research then places gun-related murders at just shy of 20,000 (43% of 45,222). So out of 16 million armed people, there were less than 20,000 murders. That works out to the chances of someone being murdered with a gun at less than 0.125%.

And that doesn't include the number of un-permitted criminals, who are usually the cause of these murders.

Accidental shooting were reported grouped in with law enforcement killings, etc., and still amounted to less than 1400 cases. I think we can safely say law enforcement accounted for at least half of those, so let's say 700? Out of 16 million armed citizens? Now we're talking about 0.004% chance of being shot accidentally.

Thank you for bringing up just how unlikely murder by gun really is.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MykeNukem

Come on, man. You were a little over the top with that post; just admit it.

I get the anger, really. I'd feel the same way. But I can't condone it and neither should you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So are you suggesting that the chance of a school staff member shooting a child without cause is greater than the chance of a criminal shooting the school up?

No. Not at all. If the teacher was armed and had shot this 6-year-old first, the teacher would have had cause. If a teacher shoots a student violently assaulting them, or another student or teacher, that teacher would have cause.

Of course, the courts would have to figure out the justification after the fact.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: MykeNukem

Come on, man. You were a little over the top with that post; just admit it.

I get the anger, really. I'd feel the same way. But I can't condone it and neither should you.

TheRedneck

Here's the actual quote, which was a response to someone, which I think adds context:

Are you saying that shooting a teacher that is causing you harm isn't justified?

I'm not saying this is the case, but what if the teacher was a pedo?

I'd support my kid "ventilating" a POS pedo teacher.

Law be damned.

Again, not saying that's what happened, but hypothetically.

I stand by that statement. If I felt I was wrong, you know I'd admit it.

You're free to disagree. In that hypothetical scenario, it was generalized, and age wasn't even mentioned.

a reply to: nugget1

If this event truly occurred, your proposal of charging parents is spot on. Parents must take responsibility for their minor children.

Sweet Christmas… LOL. I am going to use this in my next argument with a gun hating liberal. a reply to: Lysergic

It looks very possible that this school has had serious problems in their relationship with parents and with the children.

I am not saying children in low income families cannot excel in an academic venue, but it is far more difficult.

If the child brought the gun to school because he was having issues with the teacher, then the issue should have been addressed by the parents and the school. Under no circumstances is it okay for a child to handle his grievances by carrying a gun to school.

Parents that have to raise their children in poor, dangerous areas, are usually very aware of the consequences. Parenting is hard but is exceptionally hard in inner city areas of extreme poverty.

The gun culture in those areas often lead children to believe they will never make it to adulthood, and there is no way out. The value they put on their own lives can be very low, so they are likely to place zero value on anyone else's.

I have not been able to find many details on this event. I was able to find information on the school, and it is very poorly rated. I would like to have more information on how this happened exactly, that is not available from what I could find.

For me, it is still looking like the parents or guardians, school, and the system failed this child and many others in this school.

No easy answers. No easy fixes.

www.greatschools.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If the teacher was armed and had shot this 6-year-old first, the teacher would have had cause. If a teacher shoots a student violently assaulting them, or another student or teacher, that teacher would have cause.

To be honest, in that scenario, I wouldn't be as certain as you... although I imagine I would have to come down on the side of the teacher as well. It would, technically, be self-defense.

It would be a tragedy no matter how one looked at it. I'm not even sure I could fire on a child that young, even in self-defense. Against an adult, sure, been there and it's not an issue... but a small child? I shudder at the very thought.

I find it strange that your comment seemed to indicate you were actually in support of the idea of arming school staff.

TheRedneck

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

No easy answers. No easy fixes.

That is a very profound statement.

And very, very true.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

"
I find it strange that your comment seemed to indicate you were actually in support of the idea of arming school staff.

I can't really take a stand on that, one way or the other. It's a tough one. I do think, however, that arming teachers should be 100% voluntary. Plus, the teachers should be well versed in "anger management".

a reply to: TheRedneck
It would be a tragedy no matter how one looked at it. I'm not even sure I could fire on a child that young, even in self-defense. Against an adult, sure, been there and it's not an issue... but a small child? I shudder at the very thought.

K, my turn.

You can entertain the idea of a teacher shooting a 6 year old? Hypothetically of course.

But not a student shooting a PEDO teacher? I'm over the top for even suggesting it?

Sorry, we don't see eye to eye on this.

Both are hypothetical of course.

IMO my scenario is easier to accept.

ETA: you know I love ya Red, we just disagree on this.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I can't really take a stand on that, one way or the other. It's a tough one. I do think, however, that arming teachers should be 100% voluntary. Plus, the teachers should be well versed in "anger management".

You might want to rethink that. We're in agreement, and I know how much that irritates you.

I think anything less than 100% volunteer is a recipe for disaster. I also would like to see specialized training, probably in an initial and then monthly basis, by the local law enforcement. That would certainly include "anger management" of some kind.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: MykeNukem

If, if, if, the teacher was a pedo and the kid shot him, then good.

That may not be so far fetched as it sounds... for atleast over the past decade now 9 times out of 10 it is a woman teacher being hauled in for having sexual relations with kids or inappropriately touching children.

At times it's like we have a new one every week... all women.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: MykeNukem

If, if, if, the teacher was a pedo and the kid shot him, then good.

That may not be so far fetched as it sounds... for atleast over the past decade now 9 times out of 10 it is a woman teacher being hauled in for having sexual relations with kids or inappropriately touching children.

At times it's like we have a new one every week... all women.

K.

Him/Her

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

"
I find it strange that your comment seemed to indicate you were actually in support of the idea of arming school staff.

I can't really take a stand on that, one way or the other. It's a tough one. I do think, however, that arming teachers should be 100% voluntary. Plus, the teachers should be well versed in "anger management".

Shouldn't they be well versed in anger management either way...gun toting or not?

Or is that secondary to gun toting teachers?

a reply to: MykeNukem

You can entertain the idea of a teacher shooting a 6 year old? Hypothetically of course.

Not without sacrificing part of what sanity I have left.

But not a student shooting a PEDO teacher? I'm over the top for even suggesting it?

You're over the top because a 6-year-old should not even be allowed to hold a gun without a parent or at least a trusted friend of the family right there with them. Much less carry one to school. Much less with intentions of shooting anyone.

A parent shooting a pedo teacher caught in the act of abusing the child I can understand... it wouldn't be self-defense (the child can simply be taken away from that presence) but it would be an understandable crime of passion IMO; if I were on the jury I couldn't convict them. A small child, however, does not have the maturity to handle a gun safely, and does not have the wisdom to differentiate between a true pedo and someone they might think might be a pedo.

That is NOT, I repeat NOT, a defense of pedos. It is a statement concerning justice.

I'm going to give everyone a reason to get those flamethrowers out and primed to illustrate what I mean with an example. Suppose a 16-year old girl, who is very well-developed for her age, gets a good fake ID and is sitting in a bar drinkiing. A 20-year old guy sees her and sits down with her. She tells him she's 19; she looks to be 19; her ID says she's 19. They leave together and go back to a motel for some adult fun. If caught, the 20-year-old is convicted of statutory rape, called a pedophile, and becomes a sexual predator legally for life. The 16-year-old girl? She is coddled and sent to counseling to resolve her "trauma."

That's wrong. The statutory rape, if one says it did occur at all, is the result of the actions of the girl. The guy is not a pedophile because he thought he was with a girl one year younger than him. We're supposed to have a court system so people unjustly accused can defend themselves, but public anger seems to negate that on certain issues.

Situations like this can, do, and have happened. When I was younger, I knew people who it happened to. Now you think it is OK to shoot them as well? Because a young child will likely not have the maturity to know the difference between someone accused and an actual pedophile.

TheRedneck