Mass Shooting in Michigan High School

Page 11 of 21 [ 332 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 21  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,014

04 Dec 2021, 9:51 pm

One of the victims attempted to disarm the shooter before getting killed
https://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-li ... f084fce551

I'm surprised republicans aren't calling the victim a looter or arsonist :roll:



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 720

04 Dec 2021, 10:34 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
demeus wrote:
1) The parents bought said gun for their child even though it was illegal for the child to own, carry, or even use said gun anywhere except for a shooting range or on their property if they owned a large enough piece of land.

2) The parents advertised that they specifically purchases said gun for the child on social media

3) When the child went searching for ammo and was caught, the parents were blaise about it

These points #1-3 are everyday legal activity.

As you note, parents can buy guns for their children because children can legally use them for hunting and on shooting ranges.

Parents buy long guns for their children/teens to use for hunting and shooting contests/ranges (such as the AR 15 that Rittenhouse had). A 9mm is not a hunting gun by any means. In fact, it is illegal for someone under 18 to possess a 9mm, even if it is open carry (unlike a hunting gun).

It's not surprising the kid wanted to get ammo for his new gun (that he just got a few days earlier).

That's how kids are.

It was ammo for a gun which it was not legal for the kid to even own so his father would have had to make the purchase. He could not get ammo without his parents help.

demeus wrote:
4) The parents insisted that the child remain in school when the school requested that the child go to counseling (although on this point, the school should have forced the parents to take the child home that day OR demanded permission to search the child's belongings as a condition for the child to remain at school).


The school did not expect the parents to run out to a psychologist at that moment.

It takes time to find a doctor who would take him, and their health insurance, and schedule an appointment.


The school demanded that the teen sees a psychologist within 48 hours. I would say that would be as close to immediately as you can get given the situation you mention above.

I know that prosecutor overreach is a real thing. However, in this case, it might not be. Everyday activities can be considered criminal if they lead to a crime being committed and the person acting in such a way has reason to believe that a crime will be committed. Just because there is not a law against the activity does not mean that other laws do not apply. Also, quite a few times, the line is drawn because someone one, be is a DA or a plaintiff in a civil case decides to extend the law to cover the situation. We found out where the line is for self-defense in Wisconsin recently. We might find out eventually where parents culpability is for teens who commit violent acts in Michigan.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

04 Dec 2021, 10:51 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
I very much doubt that. It was right after he got in trouble the first time with the ammo.


Check your info, he was never caught with ammo, he was caught searching for ammo online with his phone.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

05 Dec 2021, 1:58 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
3) When the child went searching for ammo and was caught, the parents were blaise about it

As you note, parents can buy guns for their children because children can legally use them for hunting and on shooting ranges.

It's not surprising the kid wanted to get ammo for his new gun (that he just got a few days earlier).

That's how kids are.


What you posted here is precisely what is wrong with American gun laws (amongst a myriad of other concerns) in relation to children. The supporters of US gun laws think it's ok for "little sally" and "little Timmy" to have armed weapons that can kill. It not not only normalises weapons to children (like Rittenhouse, Roof or Zimmerman) but when you put weapons in the hands of a 15-17 yr old you are literally playing Russian roulette with everyone's lives.

No normal parent would think a child has the capacity to make rationale decisions with a loaded gun. Mrs Rittenhouse made that mistake when she let her son play with guns and live ammo. Look what happened there.


You have to look at the whole picture surrounding each individual.

I’m very liberal and anti-gun, but my son learned to shoot, and I would have allowed my daughter to if she had joined a suitable program. There are no weapons in our home and there never will be. The guns my son learned to shoot stayed at the gun range, and the instruction came with extensive safety training and rules.

Shooting is a sport, not just offense or defense.

A child well trained in the safety and sport side of shooting, and raised with a strong respect for human life, actually can make a rational decision with a loaded gun. I watched a generation of Boy Scouts do just that.

But no one I know would have let my son or any of his peers anywhere near a gun while he was having anger, stress or mental health issues. It’s the combination that quickly becomes deadly.

The prosecution believed there was enough of a pattern of negligent behavior on the part of the parents to charge them. For obvious reasons, any parent that is going to allow their child to be involved with weapons should be handling the situation with the strongest of safety protocols. These parents did not, and even one of my most pro-gun mom friends wants them hung out to dry.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Dec 2021, 2:03 am

It’s obvious the young shooter was influenced by the overall attitude of his parents.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,721
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Dec 2021, 2:33 am

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
I very much doubt that. It was right after he got in trouble the first time with the ammo.


Check your info, he was never caught with ammo, he was caught searching for ammo online with his phone.


The information coming in soon after the fact sometimes is incorrect. It happens.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,014

05 Dec 2021, 2:47 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
A child well trained in the safety and sport side of shooting, and raised with a strong respect for human life, actually can make a rational decision with a loaded gun. I watched a generation of Boy Scouts do just that.

But no one I know would have let my son or any of his peers anywhere near a gun while he was having anger, stress or mental health issues. It’s the combination that quickly becomes deadly.


This is a drastic difference in the culture between the USA and the rest of the English speaking world.

I'm not saying Australians don't do sports/recreational shooting (they do) and I know people and had friends who owned guns. However they are a minority. Most of us don't and I wouldn't dream of giving my daughter a weapon.

BTW, do most parents know the signs of anger/stress/mental health issues in their kids before they confiscate their child's weapon? it's a tricky business, only takes one bad day.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2021, 4:00 am

demeus wrote:
Parents buy long guns for their children/teens to use for hunting and shooting contests/ranges (such as the AR 15 that Rittenhouse had). A 9mm is not a hunting gun by any means. In fact, it is illegal for someone under 18 to possess a 9mm, even if it is open carry (unlike a hunting gun).

This is not accurate.

In Michigan, children can legally use (posses) pistols at shooting ranges and for hunting with adult supervision.

Michigan use to require a child to be 10 years old to possess a firearm for hunting, however, that law was eliminated.

Children Under 10 Now Allowed To Hunt In Michigan
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01 ... -michigan/

Image


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Last edited by TheRobotLives on 05 Dec 2021, 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,014

05 Dec 2021, 4:13 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
Children Under 10 Now Allowed To Hunt In Michigan
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01 ... -michigan/

Image


Wait...so 11 year old babies can walk around with a loaded gun?? seriously that's nuts.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2021, 4:29 am

cyberdad wrote:
Wait...so 11 year old babies can walk around with a loaded gun?? seriously that's nuts.

under 10 years old can now hunt ... so 5 years old or any age


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Dec 2021, 5:27 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
The prosecution believed there was enough of a pattern of negligent behavior on the part of the parents to charge them. For obvious reasons, any parent that is going to allow their child to be involved with weapons should be handling the situation with the strongest of safety protocols. These parents did not, and even one of my most pro-gun mom friends wants them hung out to dry.

That's a problem, because why even have laws?

Why even have Constitutional separation of powers?

We can simply let a prosecutor decide what behaviors are "negligent".

For example, with no such law, a prosecutor can declare LGBT people are engaging in "negligent behavior" and use that to prosecute them for say child abuse for exposing their children to such a "lifestyle".

It's crazy dangerous to let prosecutors decide how people should behave.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,683
Location: Northern California

05 Dec 2021, 6:14 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The prosecution believed there was enough of a pattern of negligent behavior on the part of the parents to charge them. For obvious reasons, any parent that is going to allow their child to be involved with weapons should be handling the situation with the strongest of safety protocols. These parents did not, and even one of my most pro-gun mom friends wants them hung out to dry.

That's a problem, because why even have laws?

Why even have Constitutional separation of powers?

We can simply let a prosecutor decide what behaviors are "negligent".

For example, with no such law, a prosecutor can declare LGBT people are engaging in "negligent behavior" and use that to prosecute them for say child abuse for exposing their children to such a "lifestyle".

It's crazy dangerous to let prosecutors decide how people should behave.


The law isn't defined by written statutes alone. It is also defined by the body of previous case law and established precedence. A prosecutor can't just make a decision out of the blue; they do have to follow the law.. But it is my understanding that established precedence built from previous court decisions does allow a pattern of behavior to be treated differently than any single incidence would be under codified statutes. That seems to be what is happening in this case: they are adding up unique instances that would not be against the law on their own, and using them to establish a pattern of behavior that is criminally negligent.

I would assume that these kinds of cases are tricky to actually take to trial. A lot of variables have to be proven and then added together into what is an inherently subjective standard. I haven't studied criminal law in any way, shape or form (I have officially studied tax law) so I don't know how often such cases actually come together; my guess is that they often end up settled before trial simply because it is inherently subjective. But I don't actually know; we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Just for a little more background on how precedence works, once a trial has concluded, it can be appealed. It is in the appeals process that issues of constitutionality and appropriateness of process are often addressed. Appellate courts issue detailed opinions that break down the legal basis for their conclusions. Such decisions can continue to be appealed all the way up to the US Supreme Court. The higher up the decision comes from, the stronger legal weight it carries as precedence.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 720

05 Dec 2021, 7:31 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
demeus wrote:
Parents buy long guns for their children/teens to use for hunting and shooting contests/ranges (such as the AR 15 that Rittenhouse had). A 9mm is not a hunting gun by any means. In fact, it is illegal for someone under 18 to possess a 9mm, even if it is open carry (unlike a hunting gun).

This is not accurate.

In Michigan, children can legally use (posses) pistols at shooting ranges and for hunting with adult supervision.

Michigan use to require a child to be 10 years old to possess a firearm for hunting, however, that law was eliminated.

Children Under 10 Now Allowed To Hunt In Michigan
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01 ... -michigan/

Image


But was Ethan doing either hunting or at a shooting range at any time he possessed the gun? If not then under law, he was not allowed to possess the gun period and the parents should have reasonably made sure that he did not possess it outside of those activities and outside of their supervision. Now normally, that would rise only to civil tort but the actions of the parents during this time period suggest something that rises above ordinary tort and taken as a a whole suggests a criminal action.

Also, even if handgun hunting is a thing, most children and even teens might not have the skill to perform it successfully (takes quite a bit of marksmanship), requires a gun with a scope, and does not usually involve a 9mm. As for children under 10, most use 20 gauge long guns which have less kick. Even with that, responsible parents lock up guns that are used by their children when not being used for a permissible activity. I know this from my step-sister and their family in Wisconsin.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 720

05 Dec 2021, 7:34 am

cyberdad wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Children Under 10 Now Allowed To Hunt In Michigan
https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01 ... -michigan/

Image


Wait...so 11 year old babies can walk around with a loaded gun?? seriously that's nuts.


They can't just walk around with guns. They are supposed to be under adult supervision and the guns are supposed to be locked up when not in use for their permissible purpose.



demeus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 720

05 Dec 2021, 7:45 am

TheRobotLives wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
The prosecution believed there was enough of a pattern of negligent behavior on the part of the parents to charge them. For obvious reasons, any parent that is going to allow their child to be involved with weapons should be handling the situation with the strongest of safety protocols. These parents did not, and even one of my most pro-gun mom friends wants them hung out to dry.

That's a problem, because why even have laws?

Why even have Constitutional separation of powers?

We can simply let a prosecutor decide what behaviors are "negligent".

For example, with no such law, a prosecutor can declare LGBT people are engaging in "negligent behavior" and use that to prosecute them for say child abuse for exposing their children to such a "lifestyle".

It's crazy dangerous to let prosecutors decide how people should behave.


The prosecutor brings charges and argues said charges in trial. It is up to the judge and/or jury to decide if those charges have merit either through motions to have charges dismiss because a crime was not committed (re Kyle Rittenhouse and the curfew and gun carrying charge) or by a jury trial (re Kyle Rittenhouse, self defense argument). Yes, they are allowed to decide what behavior they think is a crime to charge as such and are given wide latitude (some think too wide and there are not many limits on prosecutor power, read Locked In by John Pfaff). Society also gets to decide what is a crime and what is not by a process known as jury nullification. For a good read there, look into the issues of possession of MJ between the federal government agencies such as the Border Patrol, the federal prosecutor, and the state.

So yes, the prosecutor can bring whatever charged they feel fit. They cannot convict anyone of the charges they bring however. That is why many people will be watching the trial of the parents with great interest.



uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,183

05 Dec 2021, 3:46 pm

Michigan law clearly states that minors are only allowed to be in possession of a firearm WHILE engaged in lawful firearm use at a shooting range or hunting, AND WHILE they are physically and actively under the supervision of a parent or guardian. The kid doesn't get to have unrestricted unattended access to it.

Michigan law also clearly states:

“You may be criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by a person less than 18 years of age who lawfully gains unsupervised access to your firearm if unlawfully stored.”

And more from the state of Michigan:

"A firearm should always be unloaded when not in use and the ammunition stored separately from the firearm. It is generally recommended that the cylinder assembly of a revolver and the barrel assembly of a semi-automatic be removed from the frame for longterm storage. Both the ammunition and the firearm should be stored in a safe place out of the reach of children.

You may be criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by a person less than 18 years of age who lawfully gains unsupervised access to your firearm if unlawfully stored. As such, a trigger lock, gun case or other device designed to prevent unauthorized access to a firearm is strongly recommended.

The improper storage of a firearm at home could result in the arming of a criminal breaking into the home or the injury or death of a child who discovers the firearm and plays with it."

Michigan seems pretty clear on the matter. And new firearms are required to be sold with a trigger lock or similar security device, in a lockable case.

Dad apparently left the firearm and ammo somewhere the kid could get direct access to it. Kiddo took the firearm, unsupervised, not to a designated shooting range or hunting territory, but to a clean-zone such as his school. He then killed four people. A minor can't legally own a gun, so even if daddy bought it for kiddo, daddy is still legally the owner responsible for the care and storage of the firearm.

Regardless of what the mom was referring to when she said "don't get caught", that's still a pretty sh*tty message for a parent to send. No, not illegal, but still sets a trend. "Misbehaving is ok so long as you get away with it". While "don't get caught with the gun" would certainly be worse, it's not like "don't get caught looking up ammunition" or "don't get caught using your phone during school" are all that great messages to start with.

"But it's not illegal!" is a remarkably low bar to set.


"Duty of care"
n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.

If you buy a firearm, you have a reasonable duty to keep it in a manner which prevents unnecessary risk, such as mishandling by a child. It is not unreasonable to expect a parent to secure a firearm to prevent a minor from accessing it when they are not present.



Last edited by uncommondenominator on 05 Dec 2021, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.