Split Thread: 6 yr old in custody after shooting teacher

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

If a whole class full of kindergartners getting murdered won't do it, I'd say it would have to be a very high number indeed.

And even that won't do it, for there is a cottage industry of turning those tragedies into false flags with crisis actors. America will always find a way to avoid the hard truths.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Planigale

The article says the guns secured with a trigger lock and on a high shelf that should be out of easy reach of a sx year old.

The management plan was apparently successful as the article says the parents accompanying the child has stopped that week.

I say apparently because obviously it wasn't.

Completely inadequate. Any household with both children and guns should have the guns locked away in a secure location and any ammo stored in a different secure location.

Over here, storing a gun on an open shelf when you've children around will result in revocation of your licence if found.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If there's such a thing as a bad seed, this kid may be it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...gs-downplayed/

This kid needs to be put in a children's psychiatric facility until (if ever) he is no longer a threat to anyone. His parents should be declared unfit and be stripped of their parental rights until they prove that they are again fit. The public has a greater right to be protected from him that he has to be in public. Unfortunately, there are many in this country who think the opposite.

And the officials who downplayed these threats need to be fired, and perhaps held civilly accountable.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Looks like this is an exceptionally troubled kid, not just some youngster who happened to find a gun. The local paper reports:



Later:



Italics added for emphasis--that's a pretty startling care plan.

From your link:

Quote:

Newport News Police Chief Steve Drew said the boy gained access to his mother’s gun at home, put it in a book bag and carried it to school that morning. Before the shooting, police said, a school employee was notified the boy potentially had brought a weapon to school.

The student’s bag was searched by a school official, but no gun was found. At some point, Drew said, the boy had removed the gun from his backpack “and had it on his person.”

Just before 2 p.m., in the middle of class, the boy pointed the gun at his teacher, 25-year-old Abigail Zwerner, and fired a single round that struck the teacher in her hand, then the chest. No motive has been provided.

Police spokesperson Kelly King said police weren’t told before the shooting about the report of a gun at the school.

“I would rather have the information right away,” Drew said during an online community Facebook discussion this week.

Any report of a possible weapon should bring police to a school. Who the hell thinks it's not OK to have the police do the search?

This is kid is very smart for a six-year-old. Somehow he knew how to reach the gun and unlock it, then he was smart enough to hide it somewhere other than his backpack. He could be a future evil genius!

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by shemp

This kid needs to be put in a children's psychiatric facility until (if ever) he is no longer a threat to anyone. His parents should be declared unfit and be stripped of their parental rights until they prove that they are again fit. The public has a greater right to be protected from him that he has to be in public. Unfortunately, there are many in this country who think the opposite.

And the officials who downplayed these threats need to be fired, and perhaps held civilly accountable.

There is little evidence that the parents are unfit, other than owning a gun. if owning a gun and not having it in a locked cabinet separate from ammunition makes you an unfit parent then many US parents may suddenly find their children taken from them. I think in US terms having a trigger lock o a gun seems responsible.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by shemp

This is kid is very smart for a six-year-old. Somehow he knew how to reach the gun and unlock it, then he was smart enough to hide it somewhere other than his backpack. He could be a future evil genius!

I don't know; I can see the kid taking the gun out of his pack and deciding to carry it in his pocket. Not as some kind of premeditated forensic countermeasure or anything, but simply because...well, that's what you do with a gun when you have it, you carry it around with you. I presume he watches TV and movies and knows how people carry guns. And you can't show it off to your friends if you've left it in your backpack.

My big boggle from the news is how nobody noticed that a six-year-old had a gun in his pocket. Six-year-olds are tiny, and their clothes and pockets are tiny. I would have imagined even a small gun (for an adult) should stick one's hip pocket out, like, highly conspicuously. Especially to a school administrator who had been alerted he might be carrying one.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

...

Over here, storing a gun on an open shelf when you've children around will result in revocation of your licence if found.

How often do you think licenses get revoked under this law?

How often do you think kids get a hold of a gun and nothing happens?

[sackett]

In just a few minutes of googling, I've learned more than I like about involuntary psychiatric commitment for minors. Scariest thing I found out is that most US states have a 72-hour limit on how long a kid can be held, unless it's determined in a hearing that he or she is still a menace.

Should the child in this case be released? To his parents' custody?

Can you guess how I'd answer those questions at this creeped-out moment?

[Skeptical Greg]

Who want's to speculate on what the thoughts are of a six year old, who thought it would be a good idea to shoot someone; before and after the event?

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by sackett

In just a few minutes of googling, I've learned more than I like about involuntary psychiatric commitment for minors. Scariest thing I found out is that most US states have a 72-hour limit on how long a kid can be held, unless it's determined in a hearing that he or she is still a menace.

Should the child in this case be released? To his parents' custody?

Can you guess how I'd answer those questions at this creeped-out moment?

One very rarely needs this except in an emergency. The parents may well agree to voluntary placement in an appropriate unit, if not the child could be made a ward of court and the court would determine the best place of care for the child. Since the child is a child the child's consent is irrelevant it is the parent or guardian who would need to consent However, there is probably little real need for detention. At six the child is probably manageable in the community, there seems little evidence of a threat to the wider community, it is unlikely he has the resources to flee the jurisdiction.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There is little evidence that the parents are unfit, other than owning a gun. if owning a gun and not having it in a locked cabinet separate from ammunition makes you an unfit parent then many US parents may suddenly find their children taken from them.

Yes. Owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, especially if one has children, double especially if one has a child with a psychiatric condition that is known to include violent fantasies.

Quite apart from anything that happens to the child, the parents are unfit to own firearms and should be prohibited from doing so.

Originally Posted by Planigale

I think in US terms having a trigger lock o a gun seems responsible.

Necessary, but insufficient.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Planigale

One very rarely needs this except in an emergency. The parents may well agree to voluntary placement in an appropriate unit, if not the child could be made a ward of court and the court would determine the best place of care for the child. Since the child is a child the child's consent is irrelevant it is the parent or guardian who would need to consent However, there is probably little real need for detention. At six the child is probably manageable in the community, there seems little evidence of a threat to the wider community, it is unlikely he has the resources to flee the jurisdiction.

If this child was so disturbed that a care plan was in place that required the parents (or just one) to attend school with him, are you quite sure about that?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Who want's to speculate on what the thoughts are of a six year old, who thought it would be a good idea to shoot someone; before and after the event?

In movies it's a cool way the hero gets rid of or tells off "bad guys" or other people he doesn't like?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by shemp

....
Any report of a possible weapon should bring police to a school. Who the hell thinks it's not OK to have the police do the search?

This is kid is very smart for a six-year-old. Somehow he knew how to reach the gun and unlock it, then he was smart enough to hide it somewhere other than his backpack. He could be a future evil genius!

Ignoring the evil genius nonsense, I have to wonder who called the school in the first place and why was only a cursory search done. Someone here dropped the ball but it doesn't surprise me that dozens of adults from the parents to the school staff to whomever it was that ordered the parents to attend school with the child underestimated just how disturbed this kid was.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

If this child was so disturbed that a care plan was in place that required the parents (or just one) to attend school with him, are you quite sure about that?

I suspect there is an awful lot we don't know about this whole situation.

I have seen kids this disturbed at this age. It's hard to imagine how destructive they can be at such a young age so people unfamiliar with the problem underestimate it. Typically the parents are part of the problem, but it's more than a violent household. It's likely there is some kind of a serious attachment disorder going on.

attachment disorder

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There is little evidence that the parents are unfit, other than owning a gun. if owning a gun and not having it in a locked cabinet separate from ammunition makes you an unfit parent then many US parents may suddenly find their children taken from them. I think in US terms having a trigger lock o a gun seems responsible.

I disagree about owning a gun being the only evidence that they parents were unfit.

The fact that a 6 year old child managed to get access to the gun and use it is, IMO, a bigger indication that the parents are unfit. It would have been bad enough if the child brought an unloaded firearm to school and threatened the teacher but the firearm was loaded and any safety mechanisms were either already disabled or their 6 year old knew how to disable them.

The fact that their child was already subject to extraordinary measures to manage their behavioural issues is, IMO, further indication that those parents should have taken extraordinary measures to ensure that their firearms were secure.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How often do you think licenses get revoked under this law?

How often do you think kids get a hold of a gun and nothing happens?

How often do you think that people drive drunk and don't manage to cause an accident ?

I don't think that's an indication that drink driving laws should be repealed.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Ignoring the evil genius nonsense, I have to wonder who called the school in the first place and why was only a cursory search done.

In what dystopian society do elementary schools have to have procedures in place to deal with armed 6-year olds ?

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Someone here dropped the ball but it doesn't surprise me that dozens of adults from the parents to the school staff to whomever it was that ordered the parents to attend school with the child underestimated just how disturbed this kid was.

Sure, the child seems to present a number of significant challenges. My late mother was an elementary school teacher and head teacher for her entire 40 year career and over that time I'm sure she had to deal with a large number of very challenging children.

She never had to worry about them bringing gun to school.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I suspect there is an awful lot we don't know about this whole situation.

It does seem that we're only getting the parents' side of the story. From the media accounts, it seems that they did everything they were asked to and it was the school that dropped the ball by no longer requiring the parents to attend school with the child and failing to adequately search the child for firearms.

I suspect that the school, and school board, have a radically different perspective on this.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I have seen kids this disturbed at this age. It's hard to imagine how destructive they can be at such a young age so people unfamiliar with the problem underestimate it. Typically the parents are part of the problem, but it's more than a violent household. It's likely there is some kind of a serious attachment disorder going on.

attachment disorder

No matter how bad the attachment disorder, the situation would have been very different if the child didn't have ready access to a loaded firearm and the knowledge on how to disable any safety mechanisms and fire it.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There is little evidence that the parents are unfit, other than owning a gun. if owning a gun and not having it in a locked cabinet separate from ammunition makes you an unfit parent then many US parents may suddenly find their children taken from them. I think in US terms having a trigger lock o a gun seems responsible.

Answered below

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Yes. Owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility, especially if one has children, double especially if one has a child with a psychiatric condition that is known to include violent fantasies.

Quite apart from anything that happens to the child, the parents are unfit to own firearms and should be prohibited from doing so.

Necessary, but insufficient.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

If this child was so disturbed that a care plan was in place that required the parents (or just one) to attend school with him, are you quite sure about that?

Indeed, this wasn't a mom and pop poster family for some NRA advertising campaign filmed in soft focus with a wide eyed child watching his responsible parents demonstrate safe and enjoyable use of firearms. This was a disturbed kid who had a history of violence. I have put chocolates out of reach of my fairly normal six year old nephew in order to discourage his casual grabbing of them, but both the consequences of him getting them and the risks of him doing it were far lower

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

If this child was so disturbed that a care plan was in place that required the parents (or just one) to attend school with him, are you quite sure about that?

This may not be that unusual. This would be an individual education plan. Approximately 15% of children in US public schools have one, most will be for physical disability, but a significant proportion will have behavioural problems. FWIW my guess is the underlying disorder is likely to include an autism spectrum disorder. This is more likely to be attributable to neurological developmental issues with a genetic element and not represent poor parenting.

https://www.autism-society.org/livin...tion-plan-iep/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia..._United_States

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Answered below





Indeed, this wasn't a mom and pop poster family for some NRA advertising campaign filmed in soft focus with a wide eyed child watching his responsible parents demonstrate safe and enjoyable use of firearms. This was a disturbed kid who had a history of violence. I have put chocolates out of reach of my fairly normal six year old nephew in order to discourage his casual grabbing of them, but both the consequences of him getting them and the risks of him doing it were far lower

There is little value in the commonwealth allowing this behaviour (Virginia has no specific storage requirements for firearms), then complaining when something bad happens. If this is unacceptable then is has to be unacceptable before harm happens, there needs to be standards and enforcement to prevent future problems.

FWIW I am anti-firearm. I believe regardless of the presence of a child firearms should be stored in an appropriate locked container with ammunition stored separately.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There is little evidence that the parents are unfit, other than owning a gun. if owning a gun and not having it in a locked cabinet separate from ammunition makes you an unfit parent then many US parents may suddenly find their children taken from them. I think in US terms having a trigger lock o a gun seems responsible.

It does. But of course it won't be acted on.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Planigale

This may not be that unusual. This would be an individual education plan. Approximately 15% of children in US public schools have one, most will be for physical disability, but a significant proportion will have behavioural problems. FWIW my guess is the underlying disorder is likely to include an autism spectrum disorder. This is more likely to be attributable to neurological developmental issues with a genetic element and not represent poor parenting.

https://www.autism-society.org/livin...tion-plan-iep/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia..._United_States

I guess we might all look close to home.
I have a 26 year old nephew who has destroyed multiple vehicles and dwellings, and is now sleeping rough on Queen Street, yet his younger sister is about to qualify as a doctor.
Same parents.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Don

In what dystopian society do elementary schools have to have procedures in place to deal with armed 6-year olds ?

No procedure needed. There was a call, someone said the kid might have a gun. There are details here that are lacking but we do know the gun wasn't found. Seems like a hard thing to miss.

Originally Posted by The Don

No matter how bad the attachment disorder, the situation would have been very different if the child didn't have ready access to a loaded firearm and the knowledge on how to disable any safety mechanisms and fire it.

Not sure what teachers come across in 40 yrs on the job but I can tell you about one little boy in a group home I was the weekend parent for. He was 8. He was afraid he was going to be moved. He broke in a stranger's house and completely trashed it: knocked over the aquarium, turned on all the faucets, turned on all the stove burners, dumped the trash all over the floor, knocked over the TV which shattered it, and so on.

It's not just access to guns that presents a problem when young kids have very serious psych disorders.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There is little value in the commonwealth allowing this behaviour (Virginia has no specific storage requirements for firearms), then complaining when something bad happens. If this is unacceptable then is has to be unacceptable before harm happens, there needs to be standards and enforcement to prevent future problems.

FWIW I am anti-firearm. I believe regardless of the presence of a child firearms should be stored in an appropriate locked container with ammunition stored separately.

I'm not talking about firearm storage regulations but the duty of care the parents have, given the specific risks demonstrated by that specific child's behaviour.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

No procedure needed. There was a call, someone said the kid might have a gun. There are details here that are lacking but we do know the gun wasn't found. Seems like a hard thing to miss.

...and if the parents didn't negligently allow their 6 year old child with behavioural issues access to a loaded firearm then the school wouldn't be put in the position of searching that child.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Not sure what teachers come across in 40 yrs on the job but I can tell you about one little boy in a group home I was the weekend parent for. He was 8. He was afraid he was going to be moved. He broke in a stranger's house and completely trashed it: knocked over the aquarium, turned on all the faucets, turned on all the stove burners, dumped the trash all over the floor, knocked over the TV which shattered it, and so on.

It's not just access to guns that presents a problem when young kids have very serious psych disorders.

I'm sure that there are similar cases around the developed world of young children with profound behavioural issues. Fortunately those children did not have access to loaded firearms and/or the knowledge of how to use them.

The case you describe didn't end up with a teacher being shot.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do you imagine sans access to a gun children cannot kill? Knives and bricks have been used by kids killing kids. Also strangling has been used.

Murder of James Bulger was done by 2 10 yr olds.

Mary Bell strangled more than one kid, the first when Bell was 10.

This incident is very complicated and I doubt he had a normal family life. So just focusing on access to the gun misses the whole rest of the story,

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why do you imagine sans access to a gun children cannot kill? Knives and bricks have been used by kids killing kids. Also strangling has been used.

Murder of James Bulger was done by 2 10 yr olds.

Mary Bell strangled more than one kid, the first when Bell was 10.

This incident is very complicated and I doubt he had a normal family life. So just focusing on access to the gun misses the whole rest of the story,

Those children were considerable older, and presumably larger and stronger than a 6 year-old.

A gun allows a 6 year old to threaten the life of an adult so IMO it's fair to focus on the child's easy access to a loaded firearm as a significant element in this sad episode.

OTOH the press seems to be focusing on how negligent the school was in failing to find the weapon when they were warned about it. IMO schools shouldn't have to worry about armed 6 year olds and if they do, there's something pretty messed up.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by The Don

Those children were considerable older, and presumably larger and stronger than a 6 year-old.

A gun allows a 6 year old to threaten the life of an adult so IMO it's fair to focus on the child's easy access to a loaded firearm as a significant element in this sad episode.

OTOH the press seems to be focusing on how negligent the school was in failing to find the weapon when they were warned about it. IMO schools shouldn't have to worry about armed 6 year olds and if they do, there's something pretty messed up.

Exactly.

[Skeptic Ginger]

IMO, FWIW:

Biggest problem: The kid has serious psych problems that don't appear to be effectively addressed. That typically involves a very messed up family dynamic.

2nd) Access to the gun

3rd) Incompetent search by the school to find a gun on a 6 yr old.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Don

I disagree about owning a gun being the only evidence that they parents were unfit.

The fact that a 6 year old child managed to get access to the gun and use it is, IMO, a bigger indication that the parents are unfit. It would have been bad enough if the child brought an unloaded firearm to school and threatened the teacher but the firearm was loaded and any safety mechanisms were either already disabled or their 6 year old knew how to disable them.

The fact that their child was already subject to extraordinary measures to manage their behavioural issues is, IMO, further indication that those parents should have taken extraordinary measures to ensure that their firearms were secure.

The fact that there are (presumably) many gun-owning parents across America whose children do not shoot their teachers should be an indication that simply owning a gun cannot be the only evidence that they were unfit parents.

But the fact that the kid had a mental disorder that involved violent fantasies should have been an indication that they probably should not have had a gun in the house, at least until the child was older.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

The fact that there are (presumably) many gun-owning parents across America whose children do not shoot their teachers should be an indication that simply owning a gun cannot be the only evidence that they were unfit parents.

But the fact that the kid had a mental disorder that involved violent fantasies should have been an indication that they probably should not have had a gun in the house, at least until the child was older.

I've never claimed that simply owning a gun makes parents unfit - and as far as I can recall, neither has anyone else in this thread.

The unfitnesss comes from failing to secure their weapons so that a disturbed 6 year old could access and use a loaded handgun.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There is little evidence that the parents are unfit, other than owning a gun. if owning a gun and not having it in a locked cabinet separate from ammunition makes you an unfit parent then many US parents may suddenly find their children taken from them. I think in US terms having a trigger lock o a gun seems responsible.

If a parent stores a loaded gun, or gun and ammunition, in such a way to make it accessible to their six year old child, they are clearly unfit to hold parental responsibilities. In fact if anybody is criminally rsponsible for this shooting it is the child's mother.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How often do you think licenses get revoked under this law?

How often do you think kids get a hold of a gun and nothing happens?

1) Over here, as part of work, I've drafted revocation orders on direction of my Superintendent for lesser breaches of Irish gun laws.

2) Don't know, but it's far too often in the US that kids have access to guns with tragic effects.

To clarify I'm a civil servant working for An Garda Síochána with significant experience of the admin side of gun licencing. Ireland has a sane attitude to gun ownership.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

How often do you think licenses get revoked under this law?

How often do you think kids get a hold of a gun and nothing happens?

Offhand in the last five year or so I'm aware of four people who've had licenses permanently revoked and at least ten who've had them suspended (and all weapons immediately confiscated) for improper storage.
Accidental shooting with legally held weapons are vanishingly unlikely here.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Planigale

There is little evidence that the parents are unfit, other than owning a gun. if owning a gun and not having it in a locked cabinet separate from ammunition makes you an unfit parent then many US parents may suddenly find their children taken from them. I think in US terms having a trigger lock o a gun seems responsible.

You mean other than having a gun left in a location, and in a condition, where a six-year-old child could use it to kill one of his teachers.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by The Don

In what dystopian society do elementary schools have to have procedures in place to deal with armed 6-year olds ?

About 2% of US primary/elementary schools perform random daily metal-detector checks on students. They tend to also mandate see-through bags, random "contraband" checks, drug sniffing dogs et cetera.
That's over a thousand schools, so the dystopian society is the current USAia.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Planigale

The article says the guns secured with a trigger lock and on a high shelf that should be out of easy reach of a sx year old.

Imma go out on a limb and say that the parents are full of **** and the gun was sitting loaded on a nightstand or something.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by catsmate

You mean other than having a gun left in a location, and in a condition, where a six-year-old child could use it to kill one of his teachers.

A particularly disturbed 6 year old.

Also raises the question as to whether their upbringing affected that.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Imma go out on a limb and say that the parents are full of **** and the gun was sitting loaded on a nightstand or something.

That too.

And those are the sort of precautions I might take to *discourage† (not prevent) my 6 year old nephew from getting some chocolates that he shouldn't. Not to prevent him from getting a lethal weapon.

I also wonder whether the kid would have known about loading, cocking and removing the safety catch.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by jimbob

That too.

And those are the sort of precautions I might take to *discourage† (not prevent) my 6 year old nephew from getting some chocolates that he shouldn't. Not to prevent him from getting a lethal weapon.

I also wonder whether the kid would have known about loading, cocking and removing the safety catch.

If mom left the gun laying around already chambered and ready to fire (self defense ready), then the only issue for the kid would be the safety. Whether he knew how to flip it, or whether it was already open is still an interesting point.

Has it been posted what kind of gun it was? If a semi 9mm, I'm surprised a little 6yo could handle it at all, or deal with the kick.