So here you are claiming it was the parents fault and holy balls they were charged which is the right thing to do but yet here you are screaming at the gun. Thought and prayers.
Last edited:
Parents Charged
- Thread starter my_2cents
- Start date
🙄
Just keep pushing your right-wing religion, regardless of the truth.
Do you care about both?
This is a thread about a school shooting, not abortion. Everything doesn't get defected back to abortion just because you don't like discussing certain topics.
No, I mean pushing a radical right-wing narrative on guns and what those right-wingers believe the Constitution says.
@my_2cents I don't understand the problem the parents are being held accountable. So did the gun buy itself and get in the kid's hand or did the parents break a law? You dems are idiots about guns.
Did the media file the charges? Nope.
Did you listen to the news conference that the prosecutor gave and her reasoning for charging the parents? She laid out what the parents did and did not do. Do you believe the behavior by the parents is acceptable behavior?
I agree.
Not true. The prosecutor has stated that her investigation is still active and she hasn't ruled out not charging school officials.
So you think the prosecutor might have charged the parents not based on the law but for ideological reasons?
Also @my_2cents if the school was so worried why did no one check the backpack? The school can do that without consent.
The problem is that we continue to have school shootings and innocent children and other individuals continue to die. We have had so many school shootings, it seems that it has been accepted as the norm by some. It is being normalized in our country, which is absolutely sickening and disgraceful.
btw, I'm glad the parents were charged. Doesn't change the fact though that we still have a serious problem with guns in this country (from school shootings to other types of gun violence).
Last edited:
Actually, the school just can't do that. The school has to legally be able to search the backpack.
Here, there was legal justification for searching the backpack. And it should have been done. However, based on what we know right now, school officials didn't know the parents had just bought their 15 year old son a gun nor do we know if the gun was in the backpack.
I have serious concerns about the actions of the school officials and the prosecutor has stated that she hasn't ruled out bringing charges against a school official. That is good to hear.
None of this though lets the parents off the hook. What they did and failed to do is reprehensible. As a parent myself, their actions make no sense at all.
Thomas More’s Utopian Satire
The genre of utopian satires came into being in the early 16th century with the publication of Thomas More’s Utopia in 1516. Thomas More was Lord High Chancellor to England and a Catholic who…
supererling.wordpress.com
So no answer to the questions I asked of you?
I'm curious as to what you think of the parents' actions before this shooting occurred? And do you really think the prosecutor could be charging people based on ideological reasons and not based on the law/the actions of those charged?
Actually, they can, though due to cowardice, some districts require probable cause as part of their policy. They can also require that backpacks be made of a see-through material (plastic, mesh) as well.
Says the guy who has NEVER answered one single question posed to him.
We also continue to have car wrecks and innocent people continue to die. We have liquor stores and people continue to drink themselves to death. What all inanimate things do you want to outlaw. Your list would get pretty long if you stayed consistent.
Thomas More’s Utopian Satire
The genre of utopian satires came into being in the early 16th century with the publication of Thomas More’s Utopia in 1516. Thomas More was Lord High Chancellor to England and a Catholic who…
"As a result, some critics, particularly conservative ones, have argued the work is pure satire, an ironic portrait of an impossible society rather than a critique of early modern power structures or a concrete platform for reform.
As literary critic Susan Bruce writes, “For critics of the right it is irksome that one of the most canonical texts in English literature appears to express so profound and explicit a critique of the economic system underlying all Western societies.” They square the circle by simply arguing More didn’t believe what he wrote.
But while it is unlikely that More ever meant book two to be a genuine political proposal, there is no reason to think he didn’t endorse the sentiment that “the whole island is as it were one family or household.”
Moreover, the multivocal aspect of the text is not necessarily evidence of disingenuousness, nor does it prove Utopia is a straightforward satire (even if it shares some aspects of that mode). These qualities merely categorize Utopia as a precursor to the novel, and speak to its narrative complexity.
The politics of Utopia are also undeniably radical. More wastes no time in launching a scathing critique of the increasingly unequal distribution of economic power in England and the consolidation of state power in London.
His Utopia is in many ways a carnival mirror image of England — a foil to an unjust society that it reflects back."
Five Hundred Years of Utopia
How Utopia shaped the world
No, they must have legal justification. Reasonable suspicion.
Backpacks are personal property, therefore, the students have a privacy right attached to them. Unlike lockers, for example, which are school property
More was a wealthy landowner with at least two homes. To suggest that Utopia was anything other than satire, and that he was advocating socialism is an assinine leftist pipe-dream.
I answer all your questions, unlike you, who usually deflects away from (or ignore) the questions that expose your hypocrisy and/or error.
Last edited:
Yes, and we regulate both the driving of cars and liquor. We try to minimize the deaths resulting from both of these.
As we should also do with guns.
😆😆
Just as the article I quoted noted. More blows you right-wingers away with his reasoning in Utopia, therefore you have to find some way to dismiss it. You have to find some way to fit More into your American political ideological box, after all.
You just can't accept that More's thinking was multifaceted.
Now you're just full of shit. Only a state law or a district policy could prevent a school employee from searching a student's backpack. It is not the same standard as a LEO and some random citizen outside the school environment. Buh-bye, jerkoff.
More was one of the most intelligent people of his time. That right there precludes him from being a socialist/collectivist. Face it, you and your ilk were the exact people he was ridiculing. Just as most of the posters here do to you.
As usual, you are just flat out wrong.
btw, I never stated searching a student's backpack has the same standard as personal property outside a school. A search warrant is normally required for that. However, searching a student's backpack requires reasonable suspicion.
Are you now going to try to argue with what the law is??😆😆 ...
"Students have a privacy right in their personal belongings, such as backpacks, and school officials must have “reasonable suspicion” before searching a student’s items. Lockers, on the other hand, are owned by the school, so the school can search those without having “reasonable suspicion.”
"In the world outside of schools, searches of personal property typically cannot be conducted unless law enforcement has a search warrant. To get a search warrant, police officers have to convince a judge that they have a good reason to search someone’s house or belongings. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures to protect their privacy interests in their homes and personal belongings. Typically, to constitute a “reasonable” search under the law, law enforcement needs a warrant before conducting the search.
"But courts have decided that students are not subject to the full privacy protections that the Fourth Amendment guarantees because school authorities do not need a warrant to search a student’s belongings—they only need “reasonable suspicion” of injury or wrongdoing. This means that a school official cannot just randomly stop a student in the hall and force that student to hand over their backpack for a search. That student must have given the school a legitimate reason for searching the backpack, such as potentially having a weapon or illegal drugs in the backpack."
Proving You Wrong Once Again
Murder and assault statutes deal with those crimes. Not guns.
We need more gun regulation in this country. Note, I'm not saying "ban all guns."
I agree.
Only to someone like you.
Many intelligent people throughout history have been socialists and many intelligent people today are socialists. More wrote a socialist treatise and had socialistic leanings. Sorry this bothers you so much!
It is hilarious though how you invoked More, thinking that was going to help your argument! 😆😆
Nah, I'll wait for you to answer the questions.
Go ahead, they aren't difficult questions.
Why, are you afraid of providing your reasoning as to why the parents should be charged and what specific laws they broke.
I readily admit I haven't followed the details of the case and would love to hear your reasoning.
Many intelligent people used leeches to heal people. Many intelligent people are sociopaths.
They were charged with involuntary manslaughter. In Michigan, this occurs when a person is accidentally killed due to someone else's criminal negligence. This means that a person had no intention of killing another, but due to their careless or reckless actions, the person caused the death of another human being.
Here are some of the actions the parents committed according to the prosecutor:
1) On Black Friday, the father bought his 15 year old son a semiautomatic 9-millimeter Sig Sauer handgun.
2) His mother then went with her son to test the gun.
3) Social media posts were made by the mother about the purchase of the gun as a gift for their son. The 15 year old boy called it his "new beauty."
4) The gun was not locked up but kept in the parents' bedroom.
5) The day before the shooting, a teacher discovered the son searching online for ammunition. This was reported to school officials. They called the parents and left a voicemail and emailed the parents. The parents never responded.
6) However, the mother texted her son and said, "LOL I’m not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught."
7) The next day, the day of the shooting, a teacher discovered a drawing by the son scrawled with images of a gun, a person who had been shot, a laughing emoji and the words “Blood everywhere” and “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.”
8) The parents were called to the school for a meeting. In the meeting, they apparently never mentioned they had just bought their son a gun. They never inquired of their son as to where the gun was. The parents also did not search his backpack.
9) School officials told the parents they must get their son mental counseling within 48 hours. They also wanted the student to go home. The parents however resisted him being taken out of school. Son went back to class.
10) After the meeting, the father at some point went home and realized the gun was missing.
11) Once the school shooting news began to spread into the community, the mother texted her son and said, "Ethan don’t do it.”
12) The father only then called 911 to report the gun missing and that his son could be the shooter.
Quotes from the prosecutor:
"I am in no way saying that an active shooter situation should always result in a criminal prosecution against parents, but the facts of this case are so egregious."
"I’m angry as a mother, I’m angry as a prosecutor, I’m angry as a person that lives in this county, I’m angry. There were a lot of things that could have been so simple to prevent."
"The notion that a parent could read those words and also know their son had access to a deadly weapon, that they gave him, is unconscionable, and I think it’s criminal."
Given all of this information, do you agree with the parents being charged with involuntary manslaughter?
Behind the Charges Faced by the Parents of the Michigan Shooting Suspect
I was referencing the right-wing's interpretation of the Second Amendment and their desire to force that interpretation upon all Americans using our court system.
Is there a law in Michigan that forbids parents buying a firearm that children would use? Is there a law in Michigan that requires firearms be secured? Is there a law that says kids cannot handle firearms with parental or other supervision? Is it against the law for kids to search the internet for ammunition?
I'm all for upholding the law but I am adamantly against prosecution based on emotion.
"In Michigan, a person under the age of 18 generally may not possess a firearm in public except under the direct supervision of an adult 18 years of age or older.
Persons under age 18 may possess a firearm while at, or going to or from, a recognized target range or trap or skeet shooting ground if, while going to or from the range or ground, the firearm is enclosed and securely fastened in a case or locked in the trunk of a motor vehicle.
Persons under age 18 may also possess a firearm while hunting game under the authority of a hunting license on land upon which a parent or guardian is regularly domiciled or where a parent or guardian, or another adult at least 18 years old authorized by a parent or guardian, accompanies the minor.
Michigan prohibits any person from knowingly selling a firearm “more than 26 inches in length” to a person under age 18.
Michigan also prohibits issuance of a to any person under age 18. If the handgun is to be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, the applicant must be age 21 or older."
Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Michigan
There is no law in Michigan that requires gun owners to keep guns locked away from children. But remember in this instance, the parents bought the gun for their son who could have not purchased it on his own and publicly bragged the purchase.
I'm sure there is also no law that says someone can't search for gun ammunition on the internet. However, schools have policies as to what students can do on the internet while at school. I don't know what this school's policies are.
With all that said, remember, this is involuntary manslaughter. So in charging the parents, you are looking at at their behavior and rather that behavior was careless or reckless.
Do you believe the text the mother sent to her son was careless or reckless? Their behavior at the meeting? Their behavior after the meeting? Their behavior with the gun knowing their son's situation?
Do you believe that is what is occurring here given the information you have been provided?
Versus the left's interpretation of the second amendment and their desire to force that interpretation upon all Americans using the court system.
Do you think before you post or are you really that oblivious?
I agree.
Doesn't change or make false my original point though about what right-wingers are doing.
btw, there is a correct interpretation. And I believe we can arrive at that correct interpretation if we set our current politics aside and seriously consider the Amendment within its context. Unfortunately, that is difficult for both sides to do.
Similar threads
