School shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia

[mom2scouts]

24 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I hope his parents are prosecuted.  That is negligence.  I don’t know how else we’re going to convince parents to take their responsibility to safe guard firearms seriously.  We’re never going to get to a place where 100% of guns are poofed in thin air, so this is a necessary step regardless of what we do on gun control. 

From what I'm seeing, Georgia does not have a minimum age for ownership of rifles and shotguns. 

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

That's Ethan Crumbley's school. The principal and counselor saw his threatening drawings and called his parents, but did not bother to search his backpack or require that his parents remove him, they just sent him back to class — with a loaded weapon in his backpack.

Ah!  Gotcha.  Yes, they should be prosecuted as well.   I’d be afraid it would go to the Supreme Court and they would rule that school officials have no duty to protect the children though.  If cops don’t have a duty to protect I doubt school officials do.   It’s all so depressing.  

Edited September 5 by Heartstrings

[Elfknitter.#]

27 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I hope his parents are prosecuted.  That is negligence.  I don’t know how else we’re going to convince parents to take their responsibility to safe guard firearms seriously.  We’re never going to get to a place where 100% of guns are poofed in thin air, so this is a necessary step regardless of what we do on gun control. 

 

25 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Well let's see. Will Georgia do what Michigan did to these parents? Is more putting parents in prison for buying their minors weapons and ignoring the warning signs? Is this where we are now? 

Still waiting for the Oxford principal and counselor to face the music. How they have gotten off free and easy, I will never know.

 

I was watching the CNN updates earlier. This popped up (you'll have to scroll for a bit because it's farther down the page now):

Quote

"Colt Gray, 14, is a student at the high school and is in custody, Chris Hosey, the director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, said at a news conference Wednesday.

He will be charged with murder and will be tried as an adult, Hosey said."

 

[Heartstrings]

The other parents were charged even though that shooter was tried as an adult too. 

[Annie G]

17 minutes ago, mom2scouts said:

From what I'm seeing, Georgia does not have a minimum age for ownership of rifles and shotguns. 

Minimum age is 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun. 

[Sneezyone]

If the parents truly did nothing and continued to allow Jr. easy access to guns, I hope they’re charged too. They were clearly on notice. I mean, WTH? Raise your hand if the FBI sat you down to tell you Jr is threatening to shoot up a school and you continue to have guns in your home/available to the child?

Edited September 5 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

There's a very disturbing pattern in so many of these cases where schools, parents, and even law enforcement do not take threats seriously, as if the red flags waving in front of them may seem "concerning," but not in a we really need to do something about this right now kind of way. It's just too surreal to imagine that a mass shooting would ever happen in this town to people I know.  

This is the 384th mass shooting in the US so far this year!!!  Obviously it can happen anywhere, from the biggest city to the smallest podunk town. Ignoring red flags because "stuff like that just doesn't happen here" or "my kid would never do that" is dangerously, stupidly, willfully ignorant.

[Sneezyone]

15 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There's a very disturbing pattern in so many of these cases where schools, parents, and even law enforcement do not take threats seriously, as if the red flags waving in front of them may seem "concerning," but not in a we really need to do something about this right now kind of way. It's just too surreal to imagine that a mass shooting would ever happen in this town to people I know.  

This is the 384th mass shooting in the US so far this year!!!  Obviously it can happen anywhere, from the biggest city to the smallest podunk town. Ignoring red flags because "stuff like that just doesn't happen here" or "my kid would never do that" is dangerously, stupidly, willfully ignorant.

Negligent. Not ignorant, criminally negligent. The basics match the Crumbley parents.

Edited September 5 by Sneezyone

[Happy2BaMom]

4 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I just have absolutely zero respect for anyone suggesting anything in response to this other than gun/ammo regulation.  There’s plenty more that needs done to help reduce creating people with so much hate-filled mental illness. But we can start with not giving them easy access to guns and limitless ammo. 

I completely agree with you, but THIS COUNTRY HAS DONE NOTHING BUT GO IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION FOR THE PAST TWENTY+ YEARS!!!

Please excuse me for shouting, it's really not aimed at you, but I am frustrated to the point of frothing because "we" keep electing people in MANY, MANY states who have made it a point of pride to make it ever easier for anyone to access any type of gun and/or ammo, with no or as few restrictions as humanly possible. 

Two years ago, GA Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a bill allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon into public without a license. In 2017, the state passed a law *requiring* colleges to allow guns on campus. There are no regulations on safe storage. GA has no red flag laws. And that's just a start, if you care to look. 

Erasing the few existing gun safety restrictions in state after state has been widely celebrated by a significant portion of the voting public. And they keep electing, and then re-electing, the people who have accomplished this.

We live in a country that would rather see multiple schools shot up on a regular basis than add ANY gun or ammo restrictions. Until enough people mobilize and focus, nothing will change.

[Heartstrings]

I’m wondering about the details of that phone call.  It said “5 schools” and this Appallacha High would be “first”.  First implies a planned second and third, and so on.  Is there another one planned in GA tomorrow?  They obviously didn’t take the call seriously enough today.  

[Frances]

2 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

I completely agree with you, but THIS COUNTRY HAS DONE NOTHING BUT GO IN THE EXACT OPPOSITE DIRECTION FOR THE PAST TWENTY+ YEARS!!!

Please excuse me for shouting, it's really not aimed at you, but I am frustrated to the point of frothing because "we" keep electing people in MANY, MANY states who have made it a point of pride to make it ever easier for anyone to access any type of gun and/or ammo, with no or as few restrictions as humanly possible. 

Two years ago, GA Governor Brian Kemp signed into law a bill allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon into public without a license. In 2017, the state passed a law *requiring* colleges to allow guns on campus. There are no regulations on safe storage. GA has no red flag laws. And that's just a start, if you care to look. 

Erasing the few existing gun safety restrictions in state after state has been widely celebrated by a significant portion of the voting public. And they keep electing, and then re-electing, the people who have accomplished this.

We live in a country that would rather see multiple schools shot up on a regular basis than add ANY gun or ammo restrictions. Until enough people mobilize and focus, nothing will change.

And most of the people voting over and over again for these officials and celebrating the laws they pass also claim to be pro-life. But that really just means anti-abortion because that is so easy to be because for most people it means sacrificing nothing, giving up nothing, absolutely no affect on their lives. But when they are asked to wear a mask or accept reasonable gun control legislation, then that is just a bridge too far to protect the lives or health of others. I mean seriously, we have officials who proudly and loudly proclaim they are pro-life and pose for family pictures with everyone armed to the hilt, absolutely glorifying gun culture. 

[Murphy101]

9 hours ago, TechWife said:

The texts are disturbing. The fact that media exploits children & their families by publishing and making money off of their trauma, at a time when they are likely in shock & can’t really give consent, much less informed consent, is abhorrent and makes me angry. 

 

What do you mean by this?  One presumes that in order to get access to the texts, the person who owns the phone or the adult of that person is sharing that of their own free will and consent.  Are you saying that the media is getting those texts in some other manner?

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

This is unreal:

"The teen — identified by state police as Colt Gray, a student at the school — was interviewed by authorities last year after the FBI received several anonymous tips about his alleged online threats to commit a school shooting, the agency said in a statement. “At that time, there was no probable cause for arrest or to take any additional law enforcement action on the local, state, or federal levels,” the FBI said, adding that the teen denied making threats." (from WaPo)

So this kid was investigated by the FBI for threatening to carry out a school shooting, but he denied it so they just went oh, well, no point in following up on this.

AND his parents were obviously informed that he had been accused of threatening to shoot up a school, yet somehow allowed him access to an "AR-15 style" rifle.

AND school officials were warned that they would be the first target in a school shooting today, but did not ask for extra security or make any attempt to check student backpacks and lockers.

Who could possibly have predicted this??? Clearly there was no way to prevent it, we can do nothing but offer thoughts and prayers after the fact.

 

3 hours ago, Corraleno said:

There's a very disturbing pattern in so many of these cases where schools, parents, and even law enforcement do not take threats seriously, as if the red flags waving in front of them may seem "concerning," but not in a we really need to do something about this right now kind of way. It's just too surreal to imagine that a mass shooting would ever happen in this town to people I know.  

This is the 384th mass shooting in the US so far this year!!!  Obviously it can happen anywhere, from the biggest city to the smallest podunk town. Ignoring red flags because "stuff like that just doesn't happen here" or "my kid would never do that" is dangerously, stupidly, willfully ignorant.

I agree it’s all disturbing but I do not, necessarily, agree it means that law enforcement isn’t taking it serious or doing their job.  I need more information to think that it true in this case.

The truth is our laws are rightly built on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. And that the legal system requires proper gathering of evidence before various levels of law enforcement can act on a citizen.  This is not a quick system for a reason.  It’s entirely possible that they acted as quickly as they could to gather evidence and deal with this within the law, but the law is never going to be faster than bullets. And the law is not permitted to do much based on “they might do something illegal”.

And then I also wonder how it would be if the schools and LEO did staff and react as though every single call were a creditable threat.  How many days would kids miss school? How many times would all the kids have to evacuate? I wonder if the schools and LEO are legit scared of the backlash the public will have if they were to find out how often this threat happens.  How often are schools getting this threats?  Bc one should be wondering if this is a situation of getting 10 calls a day means the odds really are in their favor that 9 are false and against them that 1:10 is going to get missed for a lot of reasons. 
 

ETA: and again all the “taking it serious” presumes they have the staff and ability to cover every single call in that manner. And I’m seriously doubting that ability for most places in the states these days. 

Edited September 5 by Murphy101

[Kassia]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

What do you mean by this?  One presumes that in order to get access to the texts, the person who owns the phone or the adult of that person is sharing that of their own free will and consent.  

 

@TechWifeexplained in her post that the media is taking advantage of people when they are vulnerable, in shock, and traumatized.  Not really a time when people are capable of making good decisions on what personal information to share with the world.  I think many people regret what they have said or shared with the media right after a tragedy like this.  

Edited September 5 by Kassia

[Corraleno]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I agree it’s all disturbing but I do not, necessarily, agree it means that law enforcement isn’t taking it serious or doing their job.  I need more information to think that it true in this case.

The truth is our laws are rightly built on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. And that the legal system requires proper gathering of evidence before various levels of law enforcement can act on a citizen.  This is not a quick system for a reason.  It’s entirely possible that they acted as quickly as they could to gather evidence and deal with this within the law, but the law is never going to be faster than bullets. And the law is not permitted to do much based on “they might do something illegal”.

And then I also wonder how it would be if the schools and LEO did staff and react as though every single call were a creditable threat.  How many days would kids miss school? How many times would all the kids have to evacuate? I wonder if the schools and LEO are legit scared of the backlash the public will have if they were to find out how often this threat happens.  How often are schools getting this threats?  Bc one should be wondering if this is a situation of getting 10 calls a day means the odds really are in their favor that 9 are false and against them that 1:10 is going to get missed for a lot of reasons. 

ETA: and again all the “taking it serious” presumes they have the staff and ability to cover every single call in that manner. And I’m seriously doubting that ability for most places in the states these days. 

In this case, though, both law enforcement and the school were aware that one of the students had previously made online threats about shooting up the school. That seems to me to be enough evidence that they could have least continued monitoring his social media, checked if he had access to guns, etc. And if someone calls the school and specifically tells them that the school will be shot up today, AND they know they have a student who has made these specific threats before, AND that student is right there in the building, then you'd think the very least they could do would be to get the school resources officers there immediately, question the kid who is most likely to have made that threat, go through his locker and backpack, and maybe even keep him in the counselor's office while the police try to track the phone call and assess the seriousness of it. There are a lot of options in between closing school down and sending everyone home in response to every possible threat and doing absolutely nothing while a student with a history of threatening to shoot the place up has an assault rifle hidden in the school that no one is looking for, despite the school being warned that a shooting was imminent.

[Carrie12345]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

And the law is not permitted to do much based on “they might do something illegal”.

Im not educated on the details, but I’ve always been under the impression that death threats were illegal. In my relatively law-naive but social services beginning education, I would have expected mandatory counseling at the least.

[Carrie12345]

We have a local district going remote today for “safety reasons”. We HAVE to work on holistic solutions!

[DoraBora]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

Im not educated on the details, but I’ve always been under the impression that death threats were illegal. In my relatively law-naive but social services beginning education, I would have expected mandatory counseling at the least.

I think the threats were anonymous, and that authorities didn't have enough evidence to make an arrest.  They had received "tips" about online threats, which may have been taken down before they could see it(?).  Authorities interviewed the boy, but couldn't do more.

I would think he'd be on their radar, but maybe he was quiet after that.

[Sneezyone]

37 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

I think the threats were anonymous, and that authorities didn't have enough evidence to make an arrest.  They had received "tips" about online threats, which may have been taken down before they could see it(?).  Authorities interviewed the boy, but couldn't do more.

I would think he'd be on their radar, but maybe he was quiet after that.

They were able to track the threats to this specific kid, hence the sit down with dad.

Edited September 5 by Sneezyone

[Harriet Vane]

Speaking as a foster mom, I absolutely believe that administrators and police are not responding appropriately to credible threats. It has been my long experience and that of every foster parent I know that across the board, the powers that be minimize and deny to a pathological level. It is incredibly hard to get help and access resources for mentally unwell children and teens. It is embedded in the culture to minimize and deny the problems while simultaneously scapegoating the whistleblowers. 

[Heartstrings]

3 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Speaking as a foster mom, I absolutely believe that administrators and police are not responding appropriately to credible threats. It has been my long experience and that of every foster parent I know that across the board, the powers that be minimize and deny to a pathological level. It is incredibly hard to get help and access resources for mentally unwell children and teens. It is embedded in the culture to minimize and deny the problems while simultaneously scapegoating the whistleblowers. 

100 times all of this.  Cops and authorities minimize and brush away until they can’t anymore.  Even the Trump assassination attempt had cops brushing away warnings, despite multiple adults telling them there was a guy with a gun right there.  

 

[Heartstrings]

38 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

I think the threats were anonymous, and that authorities didn't have enough evidence to make an arrest.  They had received "tips" about online threats, which may have been taken down before they could see it(?).  Authorities interviewed the boy, but couldn't do more.

I would think he'd be on their radar, but maybe he was quiet after that.

I’ve seen that the threats were made on a video game platform.  They were able to track it to the house by IP address.  There is no way it was anonymous if it was video game, most online video games are connected to a password protected account usually with payment methods saved.  They most likely just couldn’t prove that no one else had access to the device, or they decided the kid was just running his mouth and didn’t really mean it. 

[Annie G]

36 minutes ago, DoraBora said:

I think the threats were anonymous, and that authorities didn't have enough evidence to make an arrest.  They had received "tips" about online threats, which may have been taken down before they could see it(?).  Authorities interviewed the boy, but couldn't do more.

I would think he'd be on their radar, but maybe he was quiet after that.

He denied making the threat, and maybe they believed him. The interview was in Jackson county, which is adjacent to the county where I live. The schools there knew to watch him. But the shooting was in Barrow county, so presumably he moved.  I’m guessing there are more kids to worry about than we think.  
Schools in our county have beefed up police presence for the next week or so, according to the sheriff’s department. There’s no specific threat, but parents want it and nobody wants a copycat situation. 
I suspect when the investigation is done we’ll hear about all the gaps and holes that should have been filled. But it’s a lot easier to piece that puzzle together after the fact. Wish we could do better at preventing the incidents in the first place. 
 

[Kassia]

48 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

Speaking as a foster mom, I absolutely believe that administrators and police are not responding appropriately to credible threats. It has been my long experience and that of every foster parent I know that across the board, the powers that be minimize and deny to a pathological level. It is incredibly hard to get help and access resources for mentally unwell children and teens. It is embedded in the culture to minimize and deny the problems while simultaneously scapegoating the whistleblowers. 

ITA and this is one of the reasons it disturbs me when this happens and then the shooters are tried as adults.  

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Heartstrings said:

I’ve seen that the threats were made on a video game platform.  They were able to track it to the house by IP address.  There is no way it was anonymous if it was video game, most online video games are connected to a password protected account usually with payment methods saved.  They most likely just couldn’t prove that no one else had access to the device, or they decided the kid was just running his mouth and didn’t really mean it. 

The likelihood is the latter. Josh Duggar wasn't able to overcome that access challenge in his case. To me, it's laziness and a presumption that this stuff and online threats are normal. They're not. A lot of communities with gun fetishizing tendencies poo poo access issues even if they nominally investigate threats. Whatever happened to zero tolerance?

Edited September 5 by Sneezyone

[Pam in CT]

re what does "taking a threat seriously" look like

7 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

...I agree it’s all disturbing but I do not, necessarily, agree it means that law enforcement isn’t taking it serious or doing their job... The truth is our laws are rightly built on the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty. And that the legal system requires proper gathering of evidence before various levels of law enforcement can act on a citizen.  This is not a quick system for a reason.  It’s entirely possible that they acted as quickly as they could to gather evidence and deal with this within the law, but the law is never going to be faster than bullets. And the law is not permitted to do much based on “they might do something illegal."

(snipping to focus on your point about what preventative actions can be taken before a crime has occurred on the basis of threats)

 

Even without gun safety laws, a kid's locker and backpack can be searched. This routinely happens for DRUG SEARCHES. Even without gun safety laws, the school counselor and/or resource officer can be called in to chat with the kid on the basis of a specific threat.

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

In this case, though, both law enforcement and the school were aware that one of the students had previously made online threats about shooting up the school. That seems to me to be enough evidence that they could have least continued monitoring his social media, checked if he had access to guns, etc. And if someone calls the school and specifically tells them that the school will be shot up today, AND they know they have a student who has made these specific threats before, AND that student is right there in the building, then you'd think the very least they could do would be to get the school resources officers there immediately, question the kid who is most likely to have made that threat, go through his locker and backpack, and maybe even keep him in the counselor's office while the police try to track the phone call and assess the seriousness of it. There are a lot of options in between closing school down and sending everyone home in response to every possible threat and doing absolutely nothing while a student with a history of threatening to shoot the place up has an assault rifle hidden in the school that no one is looking for, despite the school being warned that a shooting was imminent.

 

And even pretty modest legislation can also lower the odds of these types of shootings through preventative (rather than after-the-fact) legal action. Safe storage laws require adults to lock their guns if there is a minor in the house (some of them also require than ammunition be locked separately). Liability laws, such that a person whose gun is NOT locked and is then used by a minor to commit a crime is liable for civil damages, support enforcement of safe storage laws.  Red flag laws provide a mechanism -- it's appropriately a somewhat lengthy legal process, requiring a judge to sign off on it -- that if a person has made credible threats of harm to others or engaged in domestic violence -- for guns to be temporarily removed from that person.

It's possible. The Root Causes of mass school shootings are not some nebulous set of universal intractable problems, or it would be as endemic in other nations as it is here. It is not endemic in other nations. Just here.

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

t's possible. The Root Causes of mass school shootings are not some nebulous set of universal intractable problems, or it would be as endemic in other nations as it is here. It is not endemic in other nations. Just here.

 And other countries have guns too.  I know we have more and different kinds but Canada, Australia, etc. still have private gun ownership.  It’s not like they are some gunless utopias, the way some people like to portray them.   We are alone in both our gun violence overall AND our lax laws.  We have more rules and norms around Tylenol than guns.  

[Sneezyone]

And even if we don’t add laws specifically requiring safe storage, existing legal principles around reckless disregard and negligence can and often do describe the conduct of adults in many of these cases. That we’ve been reluctant to pursue charges, or rather, that some communities have prosecutors reluctant to pursue charges, doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be done.

[prairiewindmomma]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

And even if we don’t add laws specifically requiring safe storage, existing legal principles around reckless disregard and negligence can and often do describe the conduct of adults in many of these cases. That we’ve been reluctant to pursue charges, or rather, that some communities have prosecutors reluctant to pursue charges, doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be done.

This AND until we as a culture despise guns being used to kill people, things will not change. Currently a sizable portion of our culture glorifies them.

[Murphy101]

10 hours ago, Kassia said:

@TechWifeexplained in her post that the media is taking advantage of people when they are vulnerable, in shock, and traumatized.  Not really a time when people are capable of making good decisions on what personal information to share with the world.  I think many people regret what they have said or shared with the media right after a tragedy like this.  

Oh. Hmm. That’s possible but I think it’s up to the victims to decide if that’s true or not for them. 

[Drama Llama]

2 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re what does "taking a threat seriously" look like

(snipping to focus on your point about what preventative actions can be taken before a crime has occurred on the basis of threats)

 

Even without gun safety laws, a kid's locker and backpack can be searched. This routinely happens for DRUG SEARCHES. Even without gun safety laws, the school counselor and/or resource officer can be called in to chat with the kid on the basis of a specific threat.

 

And even pretty modest legislation can also lower the odds of these types of shootings through preventative (rather than after-the-fact) legal action. Safe storage laws require adults to lock their guns if there is a minor in the house (some of them also require than ammunition be locked separately). Liability laws, such that a person whose gun is NOT locked and is then used by a minor to commit a crime is liable for civil damages, support enforcement of safe storage laws.  Red flag laws provide a mechanism -- it's appropriately a somewhat lengthy legal process, requiring a judge to sign off on it -- that if a person has made credible threats of harm to others or engaged in domestic violence -- for guns to be temporarily removed from that person.

It's possible. The Root Causes of mass school shootings are not some nebulous set of universal intractable problems, or it would be as endemic in other nations as it is here. It is not endemic in other nations. Just here.

I agree with this all except I don't understand why this would be limited to minors.  If you own a gun, it should be locked up whenever it's not on your person.  If it isn't locked up, and someone else gets hold of it and uses it you should be held partially responsible.  

[Murphy101]

I don’t think I am being understood. Everything takes TIME. Time that LEO might not have.

No matter how creditable they think the threat they have to get the tip, make calls and do paperwork to follow the tip info. What video game? Can they create an acct and see the threat there or do they have to contact the game and ask them to pretty please share account info or get a warrant to demand the info? Got the info and now how to look into who that account holder is. Where are they and what we do we know about them. Contact the school and tell them this may be creditable and then the person at the school has to follow their protocols. 

It all takes time to follow the law.  Despite the digital era, it still takes time.

I think everyone is picturing some tv drama setting where there’s dozens of people in swat uniforms moving about like well synchronized bots to get everything done almost instantly or within minutes and that’s just not reality. 
 

As to whether while following the law they worked as swiftly as they could bc they thought it was creditable or not - I don’t know yet.  I can easily believe they didn’t. But we don’t know yet. Bc again. It takes time to gather evidence.

[Heartstrings]

11 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

I don’t think I am being understood. Everything takes TIME. Time that LEO might not have.

 

I think you are missing that the threat and that investigation happened a YEAR ago.  If the local cops AND FBI need more than a year to investigate AFTER they have tracked down the threat using the IP address we should just give up the ghost and disband all of it.  They are completely useless at that point and a waste of resources.  
 

A YEAR after the threat was reported AND theydid whatever to get the game company to turn over IP address and account info.   A year ago is when they interviewed the boy and his parents.   Who knows how long it took from threat to knock on his door, but he was interviewed a year ago.  
 

The call happened that morning.  
 

 

Edited September 5 by Heartstrings

[Laura Corin]

2 hours ago, Heartstrings said:

 And other countries have guns too.  I know we have more and different kinds but Canada, Australia, etc. still have private gun ownership.  It’s not like they are some gunless utopias, the way some people like to portray them.   We are alone in both our gun violence overall AND our lax laws.  We have more rules and norms around Tylenol than guns.  

The UK has guns, even though people might have heard differently.  No handguns.  And for a rifle or shotgun, you have to give a leisure or professional reason why you need the licence.  This would include a location.  So you can't just say, 'shooting deer'.  You have to say, 'shooting deer on my friend X's land'.  Then X can be contacted to check.  And police records also should be checked.  'Personal protection' is not considered a valid reason.  You have to show safe storage.  And anyone can call the police to mention concerns, which will lead to a visit.

It's not a perfect system, but there are enough hoops that there is a built in cooling-off period.

Edited September 5 by Laura Corin

[Kassia]

31 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

. That’s possible but I think it’s up to the victims to decide if that’s true or not for them. 

I know victims who have said this was true for them. 

[Murphy101]

17 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I think you are missing that the threat and that investigation happened a YEAR ago.  If the local cops AND FBI need more than a year to investigate AFTER they have tracked down the threat using the IP address we should just give up the ghost and disband all of it.  They are completely useless at that point and a waste of resources.  
 

A YEAR after the threat was reported AND theydid whatever to get the game company to turn over IP address and account info.   A year ago is when they interviewed the boy and his parents.   Who knows how long it took from threat to knock on his door, but he was interviewed a year ago.  
 

The call happened that morning.  
 

 

Okay I guess I am confused then. At what point did they know that mornings call was tied to that kid from one year ago? How was that connection made?

As for what happened a year ago - what do you think they should have done to someone who made a threat? What can they legally do within the limits of the law? I know making a threat is illegal but it doesn’t carry the same punishment as actually doing it. And do we think bringing the hammer down on every threat is the answer so that we can, in theory, about missing creditable threats. If we do that route in law, what do you think should be done to say a 14 yr old kid who makes a threat in the heat of the moment online or makes no threat but is caught drawing a scary picture or looking up something online that is disturbing?

These questions don’t have simple or fast answers.

and none of it would be easier or faster than if we had already been regulating guns and ammo. 

[Murphy101]

9 minutes ago, Kassia said:

I know victims who have said this was true for them. 

Then they should speak up louder.  I did hear some of that after a previous shooting but it prompted many students to say they wanted their family to leave their bodies on the streets in front of the school to stop hiding how ugly the truth is about what students are living and dying with these days. 

Bc it does beg the counter issue of media taking away the literal voice of victims in the name of protecting them too.

But I also think more and more people will be discussing this so families will have thought about it before hand more often. Because it’s not like this isn’t going to keep happening every day or week. which was the point some students were trying to make about not hiding how ugly and traumatic it is for the families so that the rest of the nation can sleep better.

Personally I don’t see me doing that. But I doubt I’d speak on a camera for anyone anyways unless i genuinely felt I had no other option for some reason. I don’t even like my picture being taken so someone coming at me with a camera to talk on tv while i or my loved ones are sobbing in grief would not be greeted in a way conductive to airing on tv.  

[CTVKath]

CNN is reporting that the teachers got new ID cards a week ago that had buttons to summon police in this kind of situation. I'm glad they had that and I hope the rest of our counties here will get the same. It's called Centegix.

[Heartstrings]

29 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay I guess I am confused then. At what point did they know that mornings call was tied to that kid from one year ago? How was that connection made?

When he got his AR 15 out after being at school for 2 hours and starting shooting people.  
 

I know it’s hard for schools to figure out if a call is credible.  And they can’t cancel school every time.  But at a MINIMUM when those threat calls come in school officials should round up the couple of kids who have been interviewed by the FBI for making school shooting threats.   Get them and few band kids and some AP kids and do a “random” bag and locker search or something.  

Edited September 5 by Heartstrings

[Heartstrings]

36 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

As for what happened a year ago - what do you think they should have done to someone who made a threat? What can they legally do within the limits of the law? I know making a threat is illegal but it doesn’t carry the same punishment as actually doing it. And do we think bringing the hammer down on every threat is the answer so that we can, in theory, about missing creditable threats. If we do that route in law, what do you think should be done to say a 14 yr old kid who makes a threat in the heat of the moment online or makes no threat but is caught drawing a scary picture or looking up something online that is disturbing?

These questions don’t have simple or fast answers.

We could use DHS. and family courts to  mandate counseling and parenting classes, like we do if a kid walks to the park alone.  
 

In places with red flag laws we could remove the guns from the home.  

 

We could notify schools so they have a list of kids to watch, and maybe give extra scrutiny to when a threat comes in.  
 

We could do something besides shrug our shoulders and hope everything is fine then shrug and say, “what can ya do?”after.

 

 Otherwise what is the point of investigating threats?  If nothing can be done about a threat, why are we bothering?  We could put that money into mental health services or something.  If it’s just security theater, why bother?

Edited September 5 by Heartstrings

[Corraleno]

48 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay I guess I am confused then. At what point did they know that mornings call was tied to that kid from one year ago? How was that connection made?

The school knew that a kid in their school had made past threats that were serious enough that the FBI and local police investigated him.
They knew the identity of that kid.
They knew that someone called the school that morning saying that multiple schools would be shot up and Apalachee was first on the list.
And they knew that the kid who had been investigated by the FBI for exactly that reason was in that building.

It was their job — or should have been — to immediately investigate whether there was a connection between the current call and the kid in the building who had made those exact threats in the past.

There were two school resource officers assigned to that school, who for some reason didn't get there until after the shooting started. Why weren't they called to the school as soon as the school got the threatening call?  Why weren't they searching lockers and backpacks, starting with the kid who had made threats in the past, looking for weapons?

Administrators at Apalachee HS made exactly the same mistakes that Oxford did — they had warnings, and they had a kid they knew was a potential threat sitting in the school with a hidden weapon, yet they didn't take it seriously enough to even search the kid's backpack. Ethan Crumbley and Colt Gray were allowed to just sit in class among their unsuspecting classmates until they found a convenient time to retrieve their hidden weapons and terrorize an entire school.

[Murphy101]

37 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

When he got his AR 15 out after being at school for 2 hours and starting shooting people. 
 

well. That just sucks. 

37 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

I know it’s hard for schools to figure out if a call is credible.  And they can’t cancel school every time.  But at a MINIMUM when those threat calls come in school officials should round up the couple of kids who have been interviewed by the FBI for making school shooting threats.   Get them and few band kids and some AP kids and do a “random” bag and locker search or something.  

Except that’s called harassment. If someone hadn’t been found guilty of something - we aren’t supposed to keep harassing and blaming them and presuming they are guilty of all possible future crimes.  And again, I’m wondering just how many kids that would be and how often.

In your example, if be pretty pissed off if that’s when the threatening kid decided to blow and my kid was the random tribute to that front row seat selection.

34 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

We could use DHS. and family courts to  mandate counseling and parenting classes, like we do if a kid walks to the park alone.

Never minding that it shouldn’t happen for a kid walking home alone - that likely won’t solve the problem. 

34 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

In places with red flag laws we could remove the guns from the home.  

k

34 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

We could notify schools so they have a list of kids to watch, and maybe give extra scrutiny to when a threat comes in.

Again. That’s a rights violation. Schools aren’t supposed to label problem kids and then get permission to harass them. It’s bad enough how they do it already. 

34 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

We could do something besides shrug our shoulders and hope everything is fine then shrug and say, “what can ya do?”after.

again. Until we have gun and ammo regulation, we will never be able to do more than shrug that bullets will always be faster than hindsight. 

34 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Otherwise what is the point of investigating threats?  If nothing can be done about a threat, why are we bothering?  We could put that money into mental health services or something.  If it’s just security theater, why bother?

I’m all for universal health care and creating an education system that gives more opportunities for people to have healthcare and social services careers.  Alas I suspect we will see gun regulation faster than better than healthcare. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

well. That just sucks. 

Except that’s called harassment. If someone hadn’t been found guilty of something - we aren’t supposed to keep harassing and blaming them and presuming they are guilty of all possible future crimes.  And again, I’m wondering just how many kids that would be and how often.

In your example, if be pretty pissed off if that’s when the threatening kid decided to blow and my kid was the random tribute to that front row seat selection.

Never minding that it shouldn’t happen for a kid walking home alone - that likely won’t solve the problem. 

k

Again. That’s a rights violation. Schools aren’t supposed to label problem kids and then get permission to harass them. It’s bad enough how they do it already. 

again. Until we have gun and ammo regulation, we will never be able to do more than shrug that bullets will always be faster than hindsight. 

I’m all for universal health care and creating an education system that gives more opportunities for people to have healthcare and social services careers.  Alas I suspect we will see gun regulation faster than better than healthcare. 

That is not harassment. That is investigation and monitoring of threats. Harassment ks unwarranted, unwelcome, and interfering. These schools stand in loco parentis and have a higher duty. Violent threats are, themselves, often a crime. In a school, they’re grounds for expulsion. Full stop. He never should have been there, instead sitting at home for a year of expulsion and virtual school.

Edited September 5 by Sneezyone

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The school knew that a kid in their school had made past threats that were serious enough that the FBI and local police investigated him.
They knew the identity of that kid.
They knew that someone called the school that morning saying that multiple schools would be shot up and Apalachee was first on the list.
And they knew that the kid who had been investigated by the FBI for exactly that reason was in that building.

You say “the school” like it’s a person with the ability to make all these decisions but it isn’t. Who, exactly knew what and when? What did they do with that information when they had it?

How many other students have made threats and were investigated previously?

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

It was their job — or should have been — to immediately investigate whether there was a connection between the current call and the kid in the building who had made those exact threats in the past.

and I’m 100% willing to believe people didn’t do their job. But I do t have enough info to decide that yet.  You make it sound like he is the only kid at the school to have ever done this and I’m betting donuts he isn’t. 

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There were two school resource officers assigned to that school, who for some reason didn't get there until after the shooting started. Why weren't they called to the school as soon as the school got the threatening call?  Why weren't they searching lockers and backpacks, starting with the kid who had made threats in the past, looking for weapons?

idk. Why?

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Administrators at Apalachee HS made exactly the same mistakes that Oxford did — they had warnings, and they had a kid they knew was a potential threat sitting in the school with a hidden weapon, yet they didn't take it seriously enough to even search the kid's backpack. Ethan Crumbley and Colt Gray were allowed to just sit in class among their unsuspecting classmates until they found a convenient time to retrieve their hidden weapons and terrorize an entire school.

I agree. But what I want to know is why. What else is going on that made that seems reasonable to them at the time? It’s not an excuse or a pass for them to ask why. We can’t come up with better plans unless we face that question without shaming them for it.

[Corraleno]

19 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Except that’s called harassment. If someone hadn’t been found guilty of something - we aren’t supposed to keep harassing and blaming them and presuming they are guilty of all possible future crimes.  And again, I’m wondering just how many kids that would be and how often.

It's not harassment, schools are allowed to search backpacks and lockers if they have "reasonable suspicion."  A call threatening that someone is going to shoot up the school that morning would be reasonable suspicion for searching the locker and backpack of a kid who has made threats to do exactly that. If there are multiple students at this school who have been investigated by police and the FBI for threatening to shoot up the school, then by all means search all their lockers.

Edited September 5 by Corraleno

[Murphy101]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

That is not harassment. That is investigation and monitoring of threats. Harassment ks unwarranted, unwelcome, and interfering. These schools stand in loco parentis and have a higher duty. Violent threats are, themselves, often a crime. In a school, they’re grounds for expulsion. Full stop. He never should have been there, sitting at home for a year of expulsion and virtual school.

 

But the point of an investigation is to come to a resulting conclusion. Not to just keep treating someone like a criminal for the rest of their lives.  I think if they confirm he made the threat he should suffer the legal punishment for that. But the legal punishment is conviction.  If he wasn’t convicted of anything then they lose the basis to demand punishment. If he served his conviction then they don’t get to keep punishing him further after that.

Im not looking for a fight here.  I’m looking at how the logic plays out within our current legal framework.  And legally there’s a lot that doesn’t work the way people think it does or think it should.  I’m looking at what is going on inside these schools that makes this kid not be on the radar.  To me that says nothing good about how awful the school environment is and absolutely no one wants to hear that the place they are legally and financially forced to send their kids is that bad.  

 

[Dmmetler]

I can speak for the schools I taught at. Lockers are school property and can be searched at any time. Many schools X-ray bags or have students talk through metal detectors or both and do hand checks of any possible weapons, and even at the elementary level if a child has brought weapons or made credible threats, daily bag checks are often part of a school reentry plan. 

 

And no, conviction is NOT required for schools to mandate such a plan. Typically, it's a choice between that or being placed on homebound or sent to an alternative school (which WILL have metal detectors and bag checks). 

 

 

Edited September 5 by Dmmetler

[Heartstrings]

32 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

guilty of something - we aren’t supposed to keep harassing and blaming them and presuming they are guilty of all possible future crimes.  And again, I’m wondering just how many kids that would be and how often.

It’s in most public school handbooks that your locker and bag are subject to random search.  Decide today is the perfect day to bring in the drug dog and do a sweep.  

 

24 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

and I’m 100% willing to believe people didn’t do their job. But I do t have enough info to decide that yet.  You make it sound like he is the only kid at the school to have ever done this and I’m betting donuts he isn’t. 

I doubt most schools have so many kids that have been interviewed by the FBI that the school officials can’t put eyes on them when a threat is called in.  

 

27 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

idk. Why?

Seriously?  Why should the school resource officers have been at the school after a threatened shooting?  Because the call was a threat, so you increase security.  Not even increase really.  You just make sure your existing security is actually present.  Again, bare minimum.    

 

20 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

But the point of an investigation is to come to a resulting conclusion. Not to just keep treating someone like a criminal for the rest of their lives.  I think if they confirm he made the threat he should suffer the legal punishment for that. But the legal punishment is conviction.  If he wasn’t convicted of anything then they lose the basis to demand punishment. If he served his conviction then they don’t get to keep punishing him further after that.

He wasn’t cleared by the investigation, they just didn’t think there was enough evidence to pursue it, because the kid said Scout’s honor.  Gee mister, I’d never say something like that, that would be bad.  
 

 seriously, DHS does more for less ALL the time.  If I leave my kid to read a book in the car while I go into WalMart, I can be required to jump through all kinds of hoops in family court, without ever being charged with anything.  Most kids in foster care are removed and the parents aren’t charged with anything. A friend of mine had to sign a safety plan with DHS because a neighbor kid broke their wrist jumping off of her porch.  She wasn’t charged with anything.  How about the cops pass it to DHS and the parents have to sign a safety plan about gun storage and counseling?  

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

But the point of an investigation is to come to a resulting conclusion. Not to just keep treating someone like a criminal for the rest of their lives.  I think if they confirm he made the threat he should suffer the legal punishment for that. But the legal punishment is conviction.  If he wasn’t convicted of anything then they lose the basis to demand punishment. If he served his conviction then they don’t get to keep punishing him further after that.

I don't understand why you are so hung up on the idea that if this kid wasn't charged, tried, and convicted of making threats, then he cannot possibly be considered a suspect when those exact threats are made again. People are very rarely prosecuted for "making threats," even when there is clear evidence that they did, because the criminal justice system in this country is so overwhelmed that few prosecutors have the time and resources to pursue charges like that — especially against a minor.

If a person threatens to commit mass murder, then it's perfectly reasonable to consider that person a suspect if that exact threat is made against the exact same target while the person is in a perfect position to carry it out.

I mean, if Joe Schmo who works at WalMart is investigated for threatening to kill his coworkers, and for some reason he is allowed to keep working there despite those threats, and then a year later someone calls Walmart warning that an employee is about to shoot up that very store, do you really think it's unreasonable for the police to question the employee who has a history of making exactly those threats? 

 

[Faith-manor]

3 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

This AND until we as a culture despise guns being used to kill people, things will not change. Currently a sizable portion of our culture glorifies them.

The 2 largest, non-chain gas stations and mini-marts in my area are massive gun and ammo stores with all kinds of signs and shirts advising people to stock up against the big bad government, signs that laugh about shooting people, trespassers will be shot, look funny at my truck and you will get shot, bumper stickers threatening to shoot up the world, every kind of low class, killing and gun humor you can imagine. They are swarmed with people all the time. We do everything we can to avoid driving by or going in. I was terrified the night mother in law needed aspirin and one of these stupid joints was the only place open. It feels like walking into a war zone, and it is not an exaggeration to say most folks in there as well as employees are packing. Many will brag that the safety is off. All you can hope is they shoot themselves in the foot trying to draw it. You keep your head down, pay, don't let anyone see how much money you have on you, don't make eye contact, don't speak except hi and thanks, and make a mad dash to your car, get the hell out of there. The sheer amount of hard liquor and beer going out WITH the ammo and guns is staggering. Alcohol and guns, what could go wrong? 😠

Until kids a prep schools start getting mowed down, nothing is going to change. Too many people think this kind of culture is delightful! They are bullies, and like having the particular interpretation of the constitution that backs up their bullying ways in the driver's seat. They enjoy scaring the freak out of people. They don't care who dies until it is one of their own loved ones, and frankly, even that doesn't always change them. My nephew drunk cleaned his hand gun, the bullet narrowly missing his child and pregnant wife...about an inch and fried the wiring inside the wall. He still has not given up his guns, and has purchased more. He didn't actually harm her, so a near miss is fine legally. Not that she would have ever pressed charges because she is just as stupid as he is. My mother called CPS. Nothing.

 

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

My mother called CPS. Nothing.

That’s crazy.  Firing a weapon near a child in anything other than self defense should have been reckless endangerment.