Pellinore
Platinum Member
- May 30, 2018
- 1,994
- 1,153
- 940
In instances such as this, I fall back on the legal standard of "if not for."
If not for the homeowners keeping their guns as they did, is it definite, probable, possible, or impossible that the rampage would still have occurred? I say probable. These two kids were so intent on destruction that even with no access to the firearms, they would have done something else, such as ambush the homeowner with kitchen knives, or simply move on to a different house until they find some.
If not for the juvenile detention system mishandling the case, is it definite, probable, possible, or impossible that the rampage would still have occurred? I say impossible. Without access to minimal restraint and a 12-year-old acolyte, the 14-year-old violence machine would never have had the opportunity.
That makes it pretty clear to me where I place the blame. Someone needs to get fired, and a system overhauled down there in ... oh, Florida. Okay.
If not for the homeowners keeping their guns as they did, is it definite, probable, possible, or impossible that the rampage would still have occurred? I say probable. These two kids were so intent on destruction that even with no access to the firearms, they would have done something else, such as ambush the homeowner with kitchen knives, or simply move on to a different house until they find some.
If not for the juvenile detention system mishandling the case, is it definite, probable, possible, or impossible that the rampage would still have occurred? I say impossible. Without access to minimal restraint and a 12-year-old acolyte, the 14-year-old violence machine would never have had the opportunity.
That makes it pretty clear to me where I place the blame. Someone needs to get fired, and a system overhauled down there in ... oh, Florida. Okay.