- Aug 4, 2009
- 282,635
- 148,517
- 2,615
It would have denied him access to the schoolExpelling him would not have done a thing. In fact, it would have provided him with more time and motivation in the school mass murders.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It would have denied him access to the schoolExpelling him would not have done a thing. In fact, it would have provided him with more time and motivation in the school mass murders.
He committed a felony and belongs in prison like everyone else under the lawGive it a friggin rest. This ain't about Hunter Biden. Stop trying so hard to lose.
It would have denied him access to the school
I don't think good / bad kid is the issue. Knowing whether your pre-18-yr-old is mentally ill to the point of being a danger to others is a parents duty. The school or some of its employees could also be held partially responsible, but it seems they largely did what they could in this case.
Aaah, stupid rears his head...Can even you imagine that someone like that comes down to breakfast, kisses Mom and Dad, shows them his homeword, asks for the car so he go out with his many friends, and tells you all about his after school activities with his beloved teachers -- or did you just not the hell read what I postedDid the parents read that journal?
Okay, there's you , me, the parents, etc. but you don't mention the school experts. I posted the journal entries.
Why spend all that money on people that can't see the sun at noonday
Shooting plans
In his journal, Crumbley planned the shooting, discussed his future in prison, shared a glimpse of his mental health and home life, and detailed other violent tendencies.
Crumbley described what he wanted to do to students at the high school, writing that he would find a pretty girl and shoot her in the back of the head before finding a full classroom.
"I wish to hear the screams of the children as I shoot them," he wrote.
He wrote he would keep shooting people until police arrived then surrender and plead guilty.
Crumbley also repeatedly noted that he would be spending his life in prison.
"I wonder what life in prison will be like," he scrawled along the side of a page that had a list of what he would bring on the day of the shooting. That list included a pistol, extra magazines, Molotov cocktails, a hat, a mask, and more. He also wrote on that page that he would warn some of his close friends not to come to school that day.
==================
This is one value of good parochial schools This boy's soul was diseased.
Come on Skippy.Aaah, stupid rears his head...Can even you imagine that someone like that comes down to breakfast, kisses Mom and Dad, shows them his homeword, asks for the car so he go out with his many friends, and tells you all about his after school activities with his beloved teachers -- or did you just not the hell read what I posted
YOU tell ME what those school experts can detect if they missed this guy
rightwinger made a great point.Oh, I would.
Their kid was a ticking time bomb they did nothing about.
I, for one, would not have handed a semi-automatic pistol to a fifteen-yr-old.From my personal perspective it appears as though they did what anyone would in a similar situation.
First the link.
Obviously I am not in favor of school shootings. I am no supporter of murder. I suspect this thread will be hijacked to that argument but I hope it stays close to topic.
Now the opinion. I’ve been waiting for the usual suspects to start ranting and they’ve been silent. So I decided I’d start the thread.
The fly in the buttermilk is that the parents didn’t commit the crime. Their crime was buying a gun, and not storing it in a way that would prevent their son from getting it while they were not present in the house. While they didn’t pull their kid from school after warnings on that fateful day, the people trained didn’t see any immediate threat either. The School Councilors and Staff.
So the question that springs to my mind is the rest of us. Let’s say you tuck a gun under your car seat and someone steals it. Are you now responsible for anything that happens with that gun? If someone takes it without permission, steals it, where does your responsibility end?
If you are wondering, no I was not in favor of the charges, the trial, or the precedent this sets. I am honestly surprised nobody else has pointed out the problems.
Where does the idea of keeping a good boy from going bad end? I thought it had ended in the 1980’s, but alas, it seems not.
The school did. They brought the parents in for a conference, laid out how truly fucked up he was in the head, and the MOther said,"Are we done here?" and did nothing.
I have absolutely ZERO problem with the parents going to prison for this one.
rightwinger made a great point.
"Did you know your son was in a gang?
Did you know your son had a gun?
Well, his accomplice is willing to testify that you both knew your 15 year old son was in a gang AND that he carried a gun.
Your child was a ticking timebomb that you did NOTHING about!"
Guilty...10 year sentence.
Okay, there's you , me, the parents, etc. but you don't mention the school experts. I posted the journal entries.
Why spend all that money on people that can't see the sun at noonday
Shooting plans
In his journal, Crumbley planned the shooting, discussed his future in prison, shared a glimpse of his mental health and home life, and detailed other violent tendencies.
Crumbley described what he wanted to do to students at the high school, writing that he would find a pretty girl and shoot her in the back of the head before finding a full classroom.
"I wish to hear the screams of the children as I shoot them," he wrote.
He wrote he would keep shooting people until police arrived then surrender and plead guilty.
Crumbley also repeatedly noted that he would be spending his life in prison.
"I wonder what life in prison will be like," he scrawled along the side of a page that had a list of what he would bring on the day of the shooting. That list included a pistol, extra magazines, Molotov cocktails, a hat, a mask, and more. He also wrote on that page that he would warn some of his close friends not to come to school that day.
==================
This is one value of good parochial schools This boy's soul was diseased.
I don't think good / bad kid is the issue. Knowing whether your pre-18-yr-old is mentally ill to the point of being a danger to others is a parents duty. The school or some of its employees could also be held partially responsible, but it seems they largely did what they could in this case.
First the link.
Obviously I am not in favor of school shootings. I am no supporter of murder. I suspect this thread will be hijacked to that argument but I hope it stays close to topic.
Now the opinion. I’ve been waiting for the usual suspects to start ranting and they’ve been silent. So I decided I’d start the thread.
The fly in the buttermilk is that the parents didn’t commit the crime. Their crime was buying a gun, and not storing it in a way that would prevent their son from getting it while they were not present in the house. While they didn’t pull their kid from school after warnings on that fateful day, the people trained didn’t see any immediate threat either. The School Councilors and Staff.
So the question that springs to my mind is the rest of us. Let’s say you tuck a gun under your car seat and someone steals it. Are you now responsible for anything that happens with that gun? If someone takes it without permission, steals it, where does your responsibility end?
If you are wondering, no I was not in favor of the charges, the trial, or the precedent this sets. I am honestly surprised nobody else has pointed out the problems.
Where does the idea of keeping a good boy from going bad end? I thought it had ended in the 1980’s, but alas, it seems not.
The parents had one child. One. So they are going through everything for the first time. Absolutely they were looking at things with rose colored glasses. But what parent doesn’t?
Time and again on this board we’ve read didn’t do nothin mocking the parents of some criminal kid or another. But don’t we all do that?
How many of us have relatives who have taken a bad path? How many of us spent how many years still convinced it was all going to change? Or a mistake?
When I talk to someone who is an expert. Be it a Doctor or a Mechanic. I listen to them and give a lot of weight to their words, and suggestions. I trust that they are doing their best, and giving me the best advice they can.
I try and imagine myself in the shoes of those parents. I recognize there is a problem, but how big of a problem? The experts tell me that they see no immediate threat. Ok. That starts to give me a shape of the problem. Some limits to work with. We agree to get Junior into some therapy right away. I agree and promise to make an appointment for the next day or two. I do so because I believe there is no immediate threat. We have time to deal with this. We have time to help the child.
I’m reminded of a case in Kentucky. A man was brought before a Judge and begged for help. He was hearing voices and they were telling him terrible things to do. The Judge ordered the man to a Mental Hospital. The cops put him on a bus to Florida instead.
In that case the man got off the bus and told a cop at the other end what happened. They did some checking and found it was true. But how different it could have gone. Imagine if our sick fellow had gotten a gun, no matter where, and killed several people.
In that case the cops decided the social worker, the judge, and the psych nurse were all wrong. This guy was no danger, and even if he was put him on a bus and he’s someone else’s problem.
In the parents case, nobody said the kid needed to be committed. Nobody said he was an imminent threat. Nobody said anything along those lines. They were found guilty because they should have known. That’s a dangerous precedent IMO.
There are a lot of sick people. Mentally deficient or deranged. I believe in helping them. But I have a problem with the should have known argument.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Often the best we can do is try and learn moving forward.
Remember Pearl Harbor. The Lieutenant who got the call after the information center had shut down about the radar blip coming in. He knew some planes were expected. Nobody told him that the Japanese might attack. He was put before and inquiry and cleared. We didn’t expect a Lieutenant to just know. So while the quote. Don’t worry about it. That quote is bad and a head shaker to us in the future. Nobody thought that Japan could hit Pearl like that.
We decided that there was no way he could have known, and even if he had there wasn’t time for him to get anything organized.
I don’t like they should have known. From my personal perspective it appears as though they did what anyone would in a similar situation.
There was a case in Massachusetts when Dukakas was governor and the state ran a weekend furlough program for prison inmatesI agree
They did nothing to encourage the shooting, buying a gun is legal, their son was not barred from firearms
If the kid was such a danger, the school should have identified him to the law