I can't help wondering what that child's mother must be going through right now.
I've read almost nothing about this case beyond the fact that (I think) this took place in a depressed neighborhood, which in turn means a less-safe environment -- hence, the adult keeps a gun for self-protection. Because, you know, one of the prevailing and apparently unkillable myths in my country about gun-ownership is that one's gun will provide one with protection when confronted with malefactors.
It's easy to be appalled and to question the IQ of the adult involved here, but (having lived in depressed neighborhoods in NYC many years ago) it's possible to feel real concern for the mother involved here. Maybe her work hours required crossing high-crime areas at night; perhaps there was a violent ex-spouse in the picture. Who knows?
What I do know is that if she did live in a depressed and/or high-crime neighborhood, it's typical for public transport and/or parking to be scarce, policing thin or absent on the ground, and for neighbors (if any) to be unwilling to be involved.
While I can see some sympathetic explanations for the gun in the purse, I would still question why you wouldn't at least put it on a high shelf or in a locked cupboard rather than leaving it where a 6 year old can easily reach.
Maybe she usually did, the problem in this situation is that you only have to forget once. If you are going to accept adults can carry weapons on their person, you accept this kind of risk and hope it won’t happen very often.
For example, if she’d being carrying the gun in a holster whilst out and about - what’s to stop that one time the child clambers onto her, or throws their arms round her and takes and fires the gun for whatever reason ?
Of course it is unlikely, but every so often an unlikely thing will happen.
While I can see some sympathetic explanations for the gun in the purse, I would still question why you wouldn't at least put it on a high shelf or in a locked cupboard rather than leaving it where a 6 year old can easily reach.
Presumably it was in her purse because she wanted to carry it with her for self-defense. So it was in her purse just like her keys and her wallet are in her purse.
Maybe she usually did, the problem in this situation is that you only have to forget once. If you are going to accept adults can carry weapons on their person, you accept this kind of risk and hope it won’t happen very often.
For example, if she’d being carrying the gun in a holster whilst out and about - what’s to stop that one time the child clambers onto her, or throws their arms round her and takes and fires the gun for whatever reason ?
Of course it is unlikely, but every so often an unlikely thing will happen.
There was a story a few years ago of a woman in Northern Idaho who was a trained firearms instructor that kept a loaded gun in a holster on her (ahem) upper chest. For some reason, the gun fired, striking her in the heart, instantly killing her. Even so called trained people are in danger.
Turns out the boy's mother had legally purchased the firearm. The boy took it out of mother's purse and stuck it in his school backpack. The incident happened while the teacher was leading the class. The boy pulled out the gun and pointed it at the teacher who reached out as if to get the gun. The boy fired, hitting her in the chest.
While wounded, the teacher got the rest of the class out of the room She then went to the school office and collapsed on the office floor. When police got to the scene they found a school employee restraining the child. There were other bullets in the gun--a .09 mm weapon.
Mother may still be charged with a crime. Investigation ongoing.
CBS said in the last year there were six other shootings done by other six-year-olds.
Where did you read that the gun was in the mother’s purse? All that I have read has said that the gun had been legally purchased by the mother and that the student had brought it with him to school, with no details on where the student had gotten his mother’s gun.
Turns out the boy's mother had legally purchased the firearm. The boy took it out of mother's purse and stuck it in his school backpack. The incident happened while the teacher was leading the class. The boy pulled out the gun and pointed it at the teacher who reached out as if to get the gun. The boy fired, hitting her in the chest.
While wounded, the teacher got the rest of the class out of the room She then went to the school office and collapsed on the office floor. When police got to the scene they found a school employee restraining the child. There were other bullets in the gun--a .09 mm weapon.
Mother may still be charged with a crime. Investigation ongoing.
CBS said in the last year there were six other shootings done by other six-year-olds.
Where did you read that the gun was in the mother’s purse? All that I have read has said that the gun had been legally purchased by the mother and that the student had brought it with him to school, with no details on where the student had gotten his mother’s gun.
My apologies for not getting back to this. I should have said the boy likely got it from the mother's purse.
Nevertheless, some more information has come out. The boy's family has issued a statement.
First, they expressed concern for the teacher.
Second, they said their boy "is highly disturbed." The family had in care plan with the school which said one of the parents would be with him when he was in class; but for some reason, neither parent was there on that day. They said this is something they will regret for the rest of their lives.
Third, they claimed the gun was supposedly secured. They do not know how he got it. Somehow, the school had received a tip that the boy may have a gun, but a search of his school bag at the school did not find the gun.
Now, if the boy had some disturbance issues, why did the parents still have the gun? I know if someone may be a danger to himself, or others, the first thing people are advised to do is to remove all guns from the household. That did not happen.
The fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins is in the news again.
I don't know if it's been discussed on this thread already and I don't know if the legal case can be discussed.
But why do 'cowboy' type movies still have to be made where shooting guns seems to be a prominent feature?
The fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins is in the news again.
I don't know if it's been discussed on this thread already and I don't know if the legal case can be discussed.
But why do 'cowboy' type movies still have to be made where shooting guns seems to be a prominent feature?
They don't "have to be made", but they certainly don't have to be made dangerously. A great many films and television programmes get made every year featuring shootings without anyone actually getting shot. I suspect there are more deaths and injuries involving explosives or vehicles on set than guns.
I think what I meant was why, culturally, is entertainment seemingly so popular when it involves violence -guns or whatever?
I would guess it's because a lot of great drama involves risk and conflict. Putting lives at stake is an easy way to heighten tension. Plus the archetype of the hero able to put the world to rights with a shot from his (and it's usually his) pistol or a blow from his sword is an ancient and powerful one. Even where that archetype is subverted (as in Lord of the Rings, for example), the violence is still needed to show that it is ineffective or insufficient.
Ah, yes, redemptive violence.
Really mine was a 'why, oh why' sort of 'why'.
But seeing as you mention LOTR; (which I mean to read again when I can free up some time one day) I don't remember violence being a big feature in the book -which is probably why the films weren't really my thing. And do you think Frodo was subverted by The Ring?
What he is saying is that in the Lord of the Rings there is the fantasy that the hero will solve the problems of the world by heroic virtue and ability and defeating evil through violence. And instead evil is defeated because of a deeply unheroic character whose life was previously spared by some other characters whose virtues and abilities are of an unheroic kind.
Ah, yes, redemptive violence.
Really mine was a 'why, oh why' sort of 'why'.
But seeing as you mention LOTR; (which I mean to read again when I can free up some time one day) I don't remember violence being a big feature in the book -which is probably why the films weren't really my thing. And do you think Frodo was subverted by The Ring?
The violence in the book wasn't glorified in the way it was in the film. Also the preparations for war (rebuilding fortifications, evacuating non-combatants before the big battles) and clearing up the mess afterwards were given more prominence.
And of course Frodo was subverted by the Ring. He couldn't throw it into Mount Doom, at the end: Gollum had to bite his finger off to get it. The point is that he was able to resist using it for longer than anyone else.
Making a strenuous effort to get back on topic, this is why guns are so problematic. I'm sure everyone who has a gun for 'self defence' or hunting thinks of themselves as a Good Guy with a Gun. But it doesn't take much to turn into a bad guy with a gun. A moment's panic. A bullet going astray. Or, as in this case, someone else getting hold of your gun and using it themselves.
And the other part of the problem, the cultural part... everyone thinks of heroes as people who go about solving problems with swords and guns and fists. Heroes aren't all like that, and most problems in the modern world can't be solved by slaughtering your enemies.
Ah, yes, redemptive violence.
Really mine was a 'why, oh why' sort of 'why'.
But seeing as you mention LOTR; (which I mean to read again when I can free up some time one day) I don't remember violence being a big feature in the book -which is probably why the films weren't really my thing. And do you think Frodo was subverted by The Ring?
This may be an urban legend, but apparently there was a delay in the production of the LOTR for several months. The story goes they were using AI to allow the avatar soldiers to fight independently. Problem was, every time they tried to create a battle scene, the avatars ran away.
I was thinking of the pond difference here - watching Silent Witness the other night (yes I know but frankly ludicrous plots are the least of my problems at the moment) one of the plot hinges was the discovery that a handyman had a gun. This was
Ah, yes, redemptive violence.
Really mine was a 'why, oh why' sort of 'why'.
But seeing as you mention LOTR; (which I mean to read again when I can free up some time one day) I don't remember violence being a big feature in the book -which is probably why the films weren't really my thing. And do you think Frodo was subverted by The Ring?
This may be an urban legend, but apparently there was a delay in the production of the LOTR for several months. The story goes they were using AI to allow the avatar soldiers to fight independently. Problem was, every time they tried to create a battle scene, the avatars ran away.
I can pretty much guarantee that is an urban legend. AI is nothing like that clever.
Ah, yes, redemptive violence.
Really mine was a 'why, oh why' sort of 'why'.
But seeing as you mention LOTR; (which I mean to read again when I can free up some time one day) I don't remember violence being a big feature in the book -which is probably why the films weren't really my thing. And do you think Frodo was subverted by The Ring?
This may be an urban legend, but apparently there was a delay in the production of the LOTR for several months. The story goes they were using AI to allow the avatar soldiers to fight independently. Problem was, every time they tried to create a battle scene, the avatars ran away.
It's mentioned in the extras on the DVD. It was in regard to the Battle of Pelennor Fields. As I recall the phenomenon did indeed occur that at the fringes of the battlefield some of the AI controlled troops were seen heading away from the fighting, which looked a bit like they were trying to run away. It turned out simply to be an outworking of an algorithm that saw each fighter move ahead to find their next fight, and some finished their previous fight facing a gap so when they've moved forward they simply kept going, not able to find another opponent.
TL;DR exaggeration of something that actually happened.
Regards the six year old who shot his teacher. Turns out the kid got the gun from the top self of mom's closet--so much for it being in a secure place. And now, the teacher is suing the school district. The district administrators were notified four times during the day that the kid had a gun in his pocket. He showed it three times to other students, who, in turn notified teachers or staff of the gun. At one time, when staff informed the one administrator, the administrator said it was impossible because the kid's pockets were too small. When another staff member asked for permission to search the kid, the administration said not to bother, because the school day was about to end. Bang.
FFS. A kid at school here brought a ceremonial knife in for show and tell and it was immediately locked in a drawer in an office until a parent could collect it. How the fuck does a gun get reported multiple times and ignored?
FFS. A kid at school here brought a ceremonial knife in for show and tell and it was immediately locked in a drawer in an office until a parent could collect it. How the fuck does a gun get reported multiple times and ignored?
Also, why the fuck did the teachers who were told about the gun have to ask some district-level bureaucrat for permission to do something about it?
FFS. A kid at school here brought a ceremonial knife in for show and tell and it was immediately locked in a drawer in an office until a parent could collect it. How the fuck does a gun get reported multiple times and ignored?
Also, why the fuck did the teachers who were told about the gun have to ask some district-level bureaucrat for permission to do something about it?
I think it was a staff member who heard about the gun now. The staff person asked for permission to search. It all has to do with boundary training. Doesn't look good for an adult to be searching through a kid's backpack without the permission of the parents.
Moreover, if the kid was known to have behavioral issues, this might of been a trigger for a blow up.
I think it was a staff member who heard about the gun now. The staff person asked for permission to search. It all has to do with boundary training. Doesn't look good for an adult to be searching through a kid's backpack without the permission of the parents.
Moreover, if the kid was known to have behavioral issues, this might of been a trigger for a blow up.
I have no idea what boundary training might mean in this context. If there are reasonable grounds to search, surely there is also a duty to do so - part of the school's duty of care to other pupils.
I think it was a staff member who heard about the gun now. The staff person asked for permission to search. It all has to do with boundary training. Doesn't look good for an adult to be searching through a kid's backpack without the permission of the parents.
Moreover, if the kid was known to have behavioral issues, this might of been a trigger for a blow up.
I have no idea what boundary training might mean in this context. If there are reasonable grounds to search, surely there is also a duty to do so - part of the school's duty of care to other pupils.
I suspect there is a history of schools using bag searches in a racialised way to the point where restrictions have been placed on it, plus privacy issues which schools aren't very good at respecting.
I suspect there is a history of schools using bag searches in a racialised way to the point where restrictions have been placed on it, plus privacy issues which schools aren't very good at respecting.
As early as about 12:30 p.m. — an hour and a half before the shooting — a teacher had reported to school administration that she had searched the boy’s backpack, believing he may have a gun, Ms. Toscano said. No gun was found, but the teacher reported that she believed the boy had put the gun in his pocket before going outside for recess. Instead of conducting a search, Ms. Toscano said, an administrator dismissed the threat, saying that the 6-year-old “has little pockets.”
...
Around 1 p.m., another teacher reported that a student had come to the teacher crying, saying that the 6-year-old boy had shown him the gun at recess and threatened to shoot the student if the student told anyone, Ms. Toscano said.
...
A third employee who heard about the situation asked an administrator for permission to search the boy, Ms. Toscano said, but was advised to wait because the school day was almost over. But around 2 p.m., the police said, the boy pointed the gun at Ms. Zwerner and fired in the middle of a lesson, sending the class of first graders scrambling.
But yes, schools in the US are terrified of lawsuits so there are a lot of procedural rules about touching students' property and touching students themselves. I imagine there are also rules about these things in other countries, but in the US, rules at all levels, in public and private institutions, tend to be interpreted by superiors as how best to avoid a lawsuit over other considerations. Not sure if that influenced anyone's decision making in this case, and I went to public schools with affluent parents who might have been a bit more litigious than the parents at this school.
As early as about 12:30 p.m. — an hour and a half before the shooting — a teacher had reported to school administration that she had searched the boy’s backpack, believing he may have a gun, Ms. Toscano said. No gun was found, but the teacher reported that she believed the boy had put the gun in his pocket before going outside for recess. Instead of conducting a search, Ms. Toscano said, an administrator dismissed the threat, saying that the 6-year-old “has little pockets.”
...
Around 1 p.m., another teacher reported that a student had come to the teacher crying, saying that the 6-year-old boy had shown him the gun at recess and threatened to shoot the student if the student told anyone, Ms. Toscano said.
...
A third employee who heard about the situation asked an administrator for permission to search the boy, Ms. Toscano said, but was advised to wait because the school day was almost over. But around 2 p.m., the police said, the boy pointed the gun at Ms. Zwerner and fired in the middle of a lesson, sending the class of first graders scrambling.
But yes, schools in the US are terrified of lawsuits so there are a lot of procedural rules about touching students' property and touching students themselves. I imagine there are also rules about these things in other countries, but in the US, rules at all levels, in public and private institutions, tend to be interpreted by superiors as how best to avoid a lawsuit over other considerations. Not sure if that influenced anyone's decision making in this case, and I went to public schools with affluent parents who might have been a bit more litigious than the parents at this school.
I'd have thought that no-one could have had a legitimate objection in those circumstances and that fear of a law suit is being used as an excuse for failure to carry out a duty - a duty of care to all other students and staff.
As early as about 12:30 p.m. — an hour and a half before the shooting — a teacher had reported to school administration that she had searched the boy’s backpack, believing he may have a gun, Ms. Toscano said. No gun was found, but the teacher reported that she believed the boy had put the gun in his pocket before going outside for recess. Instead of conducting a search, Ms. Toscano said, an administrator dismissed the threat, saying that the 6-year-old “has little pockets.”
...
Around 1 p.m., another teacher reported that a student had come to the teacher crying, saying that the 6-year-old boy had shown him the gun at recess and threatened to shoot the student if the student told anyone, Ms. Toscano said.
...
A third employee who heard about the situation asked an administrator for permission to search the boy, Ms. Toscano said, but was advised to wait because the school day was almost over. But around 2 p.m., the police said, the boy pointed the gun at Ms. Zwerner and fired in the middle of a lesson, sending the class of first graders scrambling.
But yes, schools in the US are terrified of lawsuits so there are a lot of procedural rules about touching students' property and touching students themselves. I imagine there are also rules about these things in other countries, but in the US, rules at all levels, in public and private institutions, tend to be interpreted by superiors as how best to avoid a lawsuit over other considerations. Not sure if that influenced anyone's decision making in this case, and I went to public schools with affluent parents who might have been a bit more litigious than the parents at this school.
I'd have thought that no-one could have had a legitimate objection in those circumstances and that fear of a law suit is being used as an excuse for failure to carry out a duty - a duty of care to all other students and staff.
You would think that, but the rules might be (I am conjecturing) that if a teacher had patted down a 6-year old student without receiving approval from a superior to do so, and they had not found a gun, then the teacher might have been fired for invasive physical contact with a student. Any rule that makes a teacher afraid to search a child for a gun if they have a good suspicion that they student might have one seems like a bad rule, but I bet the rule (if such a rule exists) is in place because the school district is afraid that parents might sue.
But maybe there is no rule in this case and there was just gross negligence and incompetence.
A teacher (or anyone else for that matter save for the parent of a child) would be stark raving mad to pat down a child without at least one other adult present. But that does not detract from my main point.
A teacher (or anyone else for that matter save for the parent of a child) would be stark raving mad to pat down a child without at least one other adult present. But that does not detract from my main point.
several of my teachers were 'stark raving mad'.........
Sometimes there is no other adult available. They don't just sit around in school all day waiting for a crisis (at least, not in the UK).
And of course, there are quite a few one-teacher schools here. But if there is a real need for investigation that need would override the normal, legitimate objections.
It seems he had a shotgun certificate and a shotgun. I haven't seen an indication of whether he liked to shoot live birds or clay ones. As I understand it, the law as it stands requires the police to approve a shotgun certificate as long as they can't find a specific reason why the applicant isn't fit to own a gun.
Unfortunately this type are the Hooray Henrys who keep grouse moors persecuting raptors so that they can shoot a bunch of birds in a field.
Aside from the horror of the murder of a woman and her daughter, it must be so traumatising for the other staff and pupils given that it happened on school property.
Aside from the horror of the murder of a woman and her daughter, it must be so traumatising for the other staff and pupils given that it happened on school property.
Their family home was on school property, but knowing this kind of school it won't be part of the publicly-accessible campus, and certainly not a part that pupils would be expected to go to. It will be more like a neighbouring property that just happens to also be owned by the school board.
I mean, it's still going to be traumatising of course. But it's not like it happened in the middle of the assembly hall or in a classroom.
Aside from the horror of the murder of a woman and her daughter, it must be so traumatising for the other staff and pupils given that it happened on school property.
Their family home was on school property, but knowing this kind of school it won't be part of the publicly-accessible campus, and certainly not a part that pupils would be expected to go to. It will be more like a neighbouring property that just happens to also be owned by the school board.
I mean, it's still going to be traumatising of course. But it's not like it happened in the middle of the assembly hall or in a classroom.
I'm aware of that - I used to live basically opposite to Winchester College and I'm familiar with the sort of layout schools with onsite teacher accommodation have. But it still happened on campus rather than a house miles away from the school, and so is connected to the school to a greater extent.
And again. Three students killed on the campus of Michigan State University and 5 more in the hospital. MSU, with 50,000 students, is the largest (or one of the largest) universities in the US. The logistics of evacuating buildings at such a location are staggering... news video shows students being escorted out of one building, into the cold, then into another building once it has been cleared. Over and over.
Reports just now (12:30 am local time) the shooter has taken his life.
Spoiler tags for discussion of mass killers and others such as family annihilators, brief discussion of murder and suicide:
Having looked at the examples of a lot of mass killers, there's a lot to suggest that they are really elaborate suicide attempts (in contrast to family annihilators - people, usually men, who kill their partner and children before killing themselves* - which suggest that they are elaborate femicidal killings). Definitely not a defence of the killings at all, but grief at the amount of internal rage and pain that means you kill others on your way to killing yourself.
*women who kill their children rarely kill their partners, which is part of the requirements for being a family annihilator.
It is getting bad when some Michigan State students had experienced other mass shootings in their towns or high schools.
And, now, another mass shooting in Iowa at a mall.
The above mass shooting was in El Paso TX.
Today's Mass Shooting is in Arkabutla MS, a small town of 300. That is 2% of the population. But, what if 400,000 people in New York City were killed in a mass shooting, do you think people might want to do something about gun control?
I found out this morning that one of my friends was murdered Saturday. D was having a disagreement with her boyfriend, and the boyfriend's 21 year old son went into the house, got a gun and shot her.
D was a wonderful musician who sang opera and was in musicals. She was full of love and fun and joy. And I loved her so much. And I'm going to miss her light in the world.
She lived in Georgia, but the gun nuts are certainly here in Florida, too
Comments
I've read almost nothing about this case beyond the fact that (I think) this took place in a depressed neighborhood, which in turn means a less-safe environment -- hence, the adult keeps a gun for self-protection. Because, you know, one of the prevailing and apparently unkillable myths in my country about gun-ownership is that one's gun will provide one with protection when confronted with malefactors.
It's easy to be appalled and to question the IQ of the adult involved here, but (having lived in depressed neighborhoods in NYC many years ago) it's possible to feel real concern for the mother involved here. Maybe her work hours required crossing high-crime areas at night; perhaps there was a violent ex-spouse in the picture. Who knows?
What I do know is that if she did live in a depressed and/or high-crime neighborhood, it's typical for public transport and/or parking to be scarce, policing thin or absent on the ground, and for neighbors (if any) to be unwilling to be involved.
For example, if she’d being carrying the gun in a holster whilst out and about - what’s to stop that one time the child clambers onto her, or throws their arms round her and takes and fires the gun for whatever reason ?
Of course it is unlikely, but every so often an unlikely thing will happen.
Presumably it was in her purse because she wanted to carry it with her for self-defense. So it was in her purse just like her keys and her wallet are in her purse.
There was a story a few years ago of a woman in Northern Idaho who was a trained firearms instructor that kept a loaded gun in a holster on her (ahem) upper chest. For some reason, the gun fired, striking her in the heart, instantly killing her. Even so called trained people are in danger.
Where did you read that the gun was in the mother’s purse? All that I have read has said that the gun had been legally purchased by the mother and that the student had brought it with him to school, with no details on where the student had gotten his mother’s gun.
My apologies for not getting back to this. I should have said the boy likely got it from the mother's purse.
Nevertheless, some more information has come out. The boy's family has issued a statement.
First, they expressed concern for the teacher.
Second, they said their boy "is highly disturbed." The family had in care plan with the school which said one of the parents would be with him when he was in class; but for some reason, neither parent was there on that day. They said this is something they will regret for the rest of their lives.
Third, they claimed the gun was supposedly secured. They do not know how he got it. Somehow, the school had received a tip that the boy may have a gun, but a search of his school bag at the school did not find the gun.
Now, if the boy had some disturbance issues, why did the parents still have the gun? I know if someone may be a danger to himself, or others, the first thing people are advised to do is to remove all guns from the household. That did not happen.
I don't know if it's been discussed on this thread already and I don't know if the legal case can be discussed.
But why do 'cowboy' type movies still have to be made where shooting guns seems to be a prominent feature?
They don't "have to be made", but they certainly don't have to be made dangerously. A great many films and television programmes get made every year featuring shootings without anyone actually getting shot. I suspect there are more deaths and injuries involving explosives or vehicles on set than guns.
I would guess it's because a lot of great drama involves risk and conflict. Putting lives at stake is an easy way to heighten tension. Plus the archetype of the hero able to put the world to rights with a shot from his (and it's usually his) pistol or a blow from his sword is an ancient and powerful one. Even where that archetype is subverted (as in Lord of the Rings, for example), the violence is still needed to show that it is ineffective or insufficient.
Really mine was a 'why, oh why' sort of 'why'.
But seeing as you mention LOTR; (which I mean to read again when I can free up some time one day) I don't remember violence being a big feature in the book -which is probably why the films weren't really my thing. And do you think Frodo was subverted by The Ring?
The violence in the book wasn't glorified in the way it was in the film. Also the preparations for war (rebuilding fortifications, evacuating non-combatants before the big battles) and clearing up the mess afterwards were given more prominence.
And of course Frodo was subverted by the Ring. He couldn't throw it into Mount Doom, at the end: Gollum had to bite his finger off to get it. The point is that he was able to resist using it for longer than anyone else.
Making a strenuous effort to get back on topic, this is why guns are so problematic. I'm sure everyone who has a gun for 'self defence' or hunting thinks of themselves as a Good Guy with a Gun. But it doesn't take much to turn into a bad guy with a gun. A moment's panic. A bullet going astray. Or, as in this case, someone else getting hold of your gun and using it themselves.
And the other part of the problem, the cultural part... everyone thinks of heroes as people who go about solving problems with swords and guns and fists. Heroes aren't all like that, and most problems in the modern world can't be solved by slaughtering your enemies.
This may be an urban legend, but apparently there was a delay in the production of the LOTR for several months. The story goes they were using AI to allow the avatar soldiers to fight independently. Problem was, every time they tried to create a battle scene, the avatars ran away.
I can pretty much guarantee that is an urban legend. AI is nothing like that clever.
It's mentioned in the extras on the DVD. It was in regard to the Battle of Pelennor Fields. As I recall the phenomenon did indeed occur that at the fringes of the battlefield some of the AI controlled troops were seen heading away from the fighting, which looked a bit like they were trying to run away. It turned out simply to be an outworking of an algorithm that saw each fighter move ahead to find their next fight, and some finished their previous fight facing a gap so when they've moved forward they simply kept going, not able to find another opponent.
TL;DR exaggeration of something that actually happened.
Also, why the fuck did the teachers who were told about the gun have to ask some district-level bureaucrat for permission to do something about it?
I think it was a staff member who heard about the gun now. The staff person asked for permission to search. It all has to do with boundary training. Doesn't look good for an adult to be searching through a kid's backpack without the permission of the parents.
Moreover, if the kid was known to have behavioral issues, this might of been a trigger for a blow up.
I have no idea what boundary training might mean in this context. If there are reasonable grounds to search, surely there is also a duty to do so - part of the school's duty of care to other pupils.
I suspect there is a history of schools using bag searches in a racialised way to the point where restrictions have been placed on it, plus privacy issues which schools aren't very good at respecting.
That's one way of putting it.
But yes, schools in the US are terrified of lawsuits so there are a lot of procedural rules about touching students' property and touching students themselves. I imagine there are also rules about these things in other countries, but in the US, rules at all levels, in public and private institutions, tend to be interpreted by superiors as how best to avoid a lawsuit over other considerations. Not sure if that influenced anyone's decision making in this case, and I went to public schools with affluent parents who might have been a bit more litigious than the parents at this school.
I'd have thought that no-one could have had a legitimate objection in those circumstances and that fear of a law suit is being used as an excuse for failure to carry out a duty - a duty of care to all other students and staff.
You would think that, but the rules might be (I am conjecturing) that if a teacher had patted down a 6-year old student without receiving approval from a superior to do so, and they had not found a gun, then the teacher might have been fired for invasive physical contact with a student. Any rule that makes a teacher afraid to search a child for a gun if they have a good suspicion that they student might have one seems like a bad rule, but I bet the rule (if such a rule exists) is in place because the school district is afraid that parents might sue.
But maybe there is no rule in this case and there was just gross negligence and incompetence.
several of my teachers were 'stark raving mad'.........
And of course, there are quite a few one-teacher schools here. But if there is a real need for investigation that need would override the normal, legitimate objections.
It seems he had a shotgun certificate and a shotgun. I haven't seen an indication of whether he liked to shoot live birds or clay ones. As I understand it, the law as it stands requires the police to approve a shotgun certificate as long as they can't find a specific reason why the applicant isn't fit to own a gun.
Unfortunately this type are the Hooray Henrys who keep grouse moors persecuting raptors so that they can shoot a bunch of birds in a field.
Aside from the horror of the murder of a woman and her daughter, it must be so traumatising for the other staff and pupils given that it happened on school property.
Their family home was on school property, but knowing this kind of school it won't be part of the publicly-accessible campus, and certainly not a part that pupils would be expected to go to. It will be more like a neighbouring property that just happens to also be owned by the school board.
I mean, it's still going to be traumatising of course. But it's not like it happened in the middle of the assembly hall or in a classroom.
I'm aware of that - I used to live basically opposite to Winchester College and I'm familiar with the sort of layout schools with onsite teacher accommodation have. But it still happened on campus rather than a house miles away from the school, and so is connected to the school to a greater extent.
Reports just now (12:30 am local time) the shooter has taken his life.
Spoiler tags for discussion of mass killers and others such as family annihilators, brief discussion of murder and suicide:
*women who kill their children rarely kill their partners, which is part of the requirements for being a family annihilator.
And, now, another mass shooting in Iowa at a mall.
The above mass shooting was in El Paso TX.
Today's Mass Shooting is in Arkabutla MS, a small town of 300. That is 2% of the population. But, what if 400,000 people in New York City were killed in a mass shooting, do you think people might want to do something about gun control?
D was a wonderful musician who sang opera and was in musicals. She was full of love and fun and joy. And I loved her so much. And I'm going to miss her light in the world.
She lived in Georgia, but the gun nuts are certainly here in Florida, too
Thanks, Dear Governor. The opposition to Florida’s proposed legislation to allow Floridians to carry concealed firearms without a permit or training was expected from gun safety advocates.
My despair grows deeper by the day.