Posted on 12/04/2021 7:33:37 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
I hate stupid spellcheck too, always tripping me up!
Well, considering the drawing consisted of the following:
A drawing of a bullet with “blood everywhere” written above the bullet.
A drawing of a person who appeared to have been shot twice and bleeding.
A drawing of a laughing emoji.
Writing that said, “My life is useless.”
Writing that said, “The world is dead.”
Would it take a psychologist to figure out the kid was severely disturbed? The parents knew they had just given him a handgun like the one in the drawing as an early Christmas present.
I agree kids draw pictures of all kinds of things. Boys draw pictures of guns and gore. But this... well, this is um, what you might call disturbing, especially the “thoughts won’t stop, help me” part.
Seems the proof is for sure once he killed 4. Guess that what it takes for some to see how giving this turbo-psycho kid a gun might be a problem.
Kindergartners have been suspended for aiming a finger gun at classmates
I think this is on the kid and the parents. As for searching the backpack, I believe the school has to have a legitimate reason to search it. If they’d known about the early ‘xmas present’ maybe they would have. But I don’t think they did.
Yet kids as young as kindergartners get snitched out to children’s services by the schools, face suspension and having “interventions” by therapists who are more screwed up in the head if they dare draw a picture of a gun
They should be convicted and would be for sure if they lived in my 2nd reddest state in the country. Provide a handgun for someone who is prohibited = arrest even if you are a cop buying it for a felon boyfriend like happened here. And the cops who tried to cover up for her after a crime was committed using that weapon. All of them were arrested. All the cops were kicked off the force.
Generally speaking I’m not in favor of prosecuting parents for things their children do. However sometimes there are exceptions considering the mitigating circumstances. This would be one of those exceptions. At least based on what I know so far.
The DM reported at one time that a “gun expert” had told them the gun was an older model and likely purchased from a private source, but dropped that. The gun was bought at a gun shop, the name and picture of it published by various media accounts. Some have posted the gun is still in production. Sheriff said it was a Sig Sauer SP 2022.
There was much confusion over whether she was Ethan’s mother or stepmother, too. Latest reports have her as Ethan’s mother, Eli was born to a previous girlfriend, and there is a sister older than Ethan who has yet another mother. So, the guy has three kids by three different women. Gets confusing for sure!
Yep. Another difference is that back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, when I was growing up, you did see a lot of rifles in high school parking lots and you also saw ads for kids getting rifles and boys life magazine. However, it was all about rifles.
And the reason the gun charge against Kyle was thrown out was because he was using a long rifle. Pistols, on the other hand, our design primarily for shooting human beings. The parents buying a pistol for a 15-year-old is unconscionable. At least that’s my opinion. And they are probably going to suffer some seriously consequences because of it.
And rightly so.
Yes, worth getting checked out by a shrink.
Some possible context from the parents perspective from what I’ve read, the drawing was scratched out by the time it was shown to them. They would have to rely on the credibility of the school folks to believe it was a real threat.
The school folks probably lost all credibility with the parents because the day before, the school complained that the kid was looking at ammo on his phone in class.
I guess you don’t understand the difference between knowing something in advance vs after the fact.
You know, when you lay out all the facts here, it does appear the parents had a depraved indifference.
This was too obvious though. Should’ve known for sure.
purchases of firearms as a gift for family members are generally an exception to the straw man law.
According to the prosecutor the law against Involuntary Manslaughter. Whether they can prove that will be up to a jury. Unless they plead guilty. But they can’t count on a very good plea offer.
They were charged with Involuntary Manslaughter- not plain Manslaughter. Different elements to that offense. You don’t have to prove intent, rather, reckless or criminally negligent behavior.
The teacher photographed the drawing before he defaced it. I guess they have cellphones too. Sure, worth having a shrink take a look. That’s why the school gave them 48 hours to get him to one. In the meantime, surely he did not belong at school.
I agree the kid looking at ammo on his phone was not a big deal*. But the drawing was.
*At the same time, Mom texting back “Lol, I’m not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught,” is a bit concerning, considering he was doing it in class.
All the people posting here about looking at Field & Stream and ammo ads when they were boys would likely not have got such a response from their mothers if they were doing it in class when they were supposed to be paying attention. Even if a normal Mom didn’t think it so bad, if, say, the kid was super bright and bored in class, she would still have insisted he behave properly in class and not be looking at a magazine or cellphone.
I’m not saying she’s a horrible person because of this, but it does show she did not encourage her son to behave properly in class. Urging him “not to get caught” implies she thinks paying attention in class is unimportant. It’s plain rude to the teacher and the rest of the class, plus the kid isn’t learning math or whatever the class is.
I pity the teachers trying to keep class discipline when all the kids want to play on their cellphones — and some parents encourage it.
That will be the central issue at trial. The parents will try to argue they had no reason to believe their son would ever be capable of doing something like this and could not have predicted it. I think that may be a hard sell but let’s wait and see all the real facts.
Thanks, Laz, but I suspect you have seen a picture of the Mom, and declined to declare her Not Guilty (grin)
Love your tagline, and can relate. There are other times I feel like it’s 1757 and Nancy Pelosi is saying “Après nous, le déluge”.
I think many on this thread underestimate just how screwy some teens are. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that for every shooter there are a thousand teens that behave just as oddly as this shooter but don't shoot anybody.
That means that the average person faced with the same circumstances as these parents are justified in believing that their little prince is entirely incapable of inflicting such harm. And 999 times out of a thousand they are probably correct. Given what I believe the statistics are, you can't claim that the parents KNEW what the future would hold.
“Please tell the class what actual Law they broke. We’ll wait”
If my son wrote a note saying he was going to kill his next door neighbors with a gun (you) and showed that gun and we as his parents did not take away said guns we should not be liable?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.