The six-year-old student who shot his teacher in the US earlier this year, boasted about the incident saying “I shot [her] dead”, unsealed court documents show.
While being restrained after the shooting at a Virginia school, the boy is said to have admitted “I did it”, adding “I got my mom’s gun last night”.
His teacher, Abigail “Abby” Zwerner - who survived - filed a $40m (£31.4m) lawsuit earlier this year.
The boy has not been charged.
The boy’s mother, however, Deja Taylor, has been charged with felony child neglect and misdemeanour recklessly leaving a loaded firearm as to endanger a child.
In Ms Zwerner’s lawsuit, filed in April, she accuses school officials of gross negligence for ignoring warning signs and argues the defendants knew the child "had a history of random violence
The documents also mention another incident with the same student while he was in kindergarten. A retired teacher told police he started “choking her to the point she could not breathe”.
This boy choked someone and shot someone else before turning 7. Maybe a psychiatric hospital should be his home.
A lot of focus is being justifiably placed on the mom, but the kid’s actions very closely mirror allegations against his father, Malik Ellison.
The [father’s girlfriend] said she backed away to create space, but Ellison followed her, pushed her onto the bed, put his hand around her neck, and threatened to kill her, according to court records.
That attack wasn’t the only time the woman claimed Ellison was violent toward her, court records show. The woman called Newport News police again on Sept. 21, 2021 and told investigators that Ellison held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her, according to court records.
Fucking seriously… This kid has future murderer written all over him… I get that your brain isn’t fully developed yet, but I don’t think kids like him go from “literally a psychopath” to “normal adult”
A normal kid might do something crazy in a fit of rage or emotion, but then regret what they did when they see the fallout from it. This little psycho boasted about it…
but I don’t think kids like him go from “literally a psychopath” to “normal adult”
Not with that attitude they don’t. Do you really think a 6 year old is beyond help?
They need to be removed from the parents, given proper psychiatric help and support, and placed with a loving family that can help them manage whatever issues they have.
I have a feeling that won’t happen though and part of the reason for this is because people believe that small children cannot be helped.Do you really think a 6 year old is beyond help?
The real question here is “are you willing to bet someone’s life on it?”
You’re betting someone’s life on it no matter what.
I’m not willing to give up on someone, especially a child, just because of what might happen.Definitely betting one life vs. maybe betting several. It’s a version of the trolley problem. There isn’t a right answer, unfortunately - though I personally would move the kid to professional full time psychiatric care in a “hope for the best, plan for the worst” sort of thing. Especially since I don’t think kids are inherently more valuable than adults.
I mean, we have 12 years to find out? The kid needs help and care.
There are 6 year olds that are psychopaths and this is likely one of them.
The worst part is treatment is not a guarantee they can be integrated into society.
It’s tragic for everyone involved but it is true, some people are just missing certain wiring, and being placed in a “loving home” can just mean more bodies and a confused 6 year old not understanding why it’s bad that they killed their parents because they got sent to timeout.
Absolutely. I don’t feel like commenting this whole comment section because this is a hard subject, but “psychopathy” is not a learned trait, and childs can absolutely do some very dark things. I think most people just can’t believe that a human, let alone such a young one, could be so fucking detached and “appear” evil, but yeah, there are humans out there that are like lizards, they just don’t adverse it.
deleted by creator
this is likely one of them.
This is wrong, most likely they were a normal baby who got fucked up by his fucked up parents. Is it possible they were a born psychopath? Of course it’s possible, but statistically speaking they were born fine. All we know is a kid with exceptionally shitty parents did something exceptionally shitty. No reason to speculate they were born evil or whatever.
Are kids autistic because of shitty parents? This isn’t about the kid being evil, this is about the high chance, given the kids history, that the child does not have a typical neurological makeup.
This has nothing to do with autism.
He’s in a new school and being raised by his grandparents.
For all intents and purposes, I believe the system believed that Mary Bell could have been helped and her case seemed incredibly sinister.
Damn, that was a trip
and placed with a loving family that can help them manage whatever issues they have.
I’ve seen that movie several times. Doesn’t end well for the parents
Real life isn’t a movie…
I don’t think anyone thinks a 6 yo can’t be helped. But where’s the funding for this?
We gut anything related to education or healthcare, force people to be parents, and even childless people are struggling to care for themselves.
Free options for care are probably going to be Christian focused, further screwing the kid up.
What is honestly the solution here?
I absolutely agree, I didn’t really say he can’t be helped, I was responding to a comment about him belonging in a home where they would help him. It was more about the fact that he will absolutely get worse if left to his parents.
You must be rolling in the dough with your uncanny ability to diagnose mental health issues through a news article.
Fun fact: there’s more than 1 article for this story.
Anyone who’s been paying attention to this series of events will likely conclude similarly.
A normal kid doesn’t see their father try to murder their mother . . .
I might have a lead on any missing pets in the area
deleted by creator
It’s amazing to me how focused these comments are on the child being “evil” and not the environment that created this situation. A child isn’t born believing that shooting their teacher is a viable solution to their problems. At 6 years old you’re barely functional. For this to happen they had to exist in a profoundly fucked up environment with no moral compass and access to a lot of information, presented without good context, far above their age. Everyone responsible for raising this kid should be held responsible.
This kid needs years of therapy and support and a loving caregiver. Before the age of 10 children are incredibly impressionable and still undergoing very basic core development, until the age of 25 people are still in development to some level. There are many years ahead where this child can be saved from themselves. There is no reason to call a 6 year old irredeemable.
It can be both sadly. Some kids are born not right. But will usually be ok with good and professional follow up and loving parents. But there are some kids born without the ability to emphasize with others and that never will get the help they need. And they become terrifying in their teens.
Empathy is something that is taught. If some kid does not have the ability to have empathy for others, it’s likely because they were neglected/abused during childhood, and were not taught such a thing as empathy.
No, there really are people who are born without the capacity of compassion and empathy. They can learn to mimic it and live by the laws but it needs therapy and people who catch that there is a problem early enough.
It’s actually problematic that people immediately jump to the conclusion that the parents did a poor job, because it leads to people not getting adequate help. It also leads to parents not seeking help because they think they just need to be better at parenting when that’s often not going to change all that much.
Everything said above can be true in parts or at the same time. Obviously, this kid had access to a gun and shouldn’t have. Likely, the kid has other problems at home. Possibly, the kid has a neurological divergence that hadn’t been fully investigated.
Fuck the parent for not securing the gun. Fuck the school for not showing more caution. Fuck the teacher for getting shot… wait… (/s on the last one, of course)
But also, how can a kindergartener choke an adult to the point they can’t breathe? I’d think anyone who isn’t elderly could throw a child that age. I probably don’t have all the facts about that.
But also, how can a kindergartener choke an adult to the point they can’t breathe?
Because when you do not feel for other people you can go all in. Most people are not brutal and even unintentionally hold back against others. It is also really hard to defend against a child if you don’t want to hurt the child.
My neighbours kid broke one of his mother’s fingers at an age before he went to school (so he must have been 7 years old max). If you do not want to seriously hurt a child, how do you defend yourself when they won’t let go?
But also, how can a kindergartener choke an adult to the point they can’t breathe? I’d think anyone who isn’t elderly could throw a child that age.
I wondered this too, and my only (weak) hypothesis is the teacher was too afraid to hurt the child in return before they realized how serious it was going to get. But I’m also not sure how little 5 year old hands would have the strength, unless they used a rope or other tool.
Edit: the article does say the choked teacher is now retired, so they also could have been fairly old.
Having actually worked around troubled youth and seen literally 100’s of children move through the system, I don’t think you could be more wrong than you are. Prior to working with troubled youth I assumed it was more like 50/50 environment/genetics. I’m completely convinced it’s almost entirely environmental. In nearly 100% of the cases I’ve seen troubled children, they had parents that were doing something profoundly wrong. Whether it be neglect, violence, sexual abuse, etc, there was always something extremely concerning. I think it is actually incredibly rare for a child to end up severely messed up without extreme “help” from the parents getting there.
The problem with your anecdotal evidence is that what you experience can simply be the consequence of children only ending up in the system when they have a troublesome environment.
I wouldn’t rule out lack of empathy also being potentially biological / genetic. Empathy is based on feeling which is based on chemicals and hormones in your body. It wouldn’t be impossible to be born with the inability to produce/recognize those chemicals/hormones.
Yes, I agree with this very much.
And their adulthood
It’s possible he really has no remorse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
I’d like someone more knowledgeable to confirm this, but I remember that kids cannot be diagnosed certain PDs, so I’m not sure that this can really apply to a child. Also, PDs more often than not derive from childhood problems.
This is somewhat true. I’m fairly knowledgeable about this topic (US) im pretty sure Children still cannot be officially diagnosed with a severe personality disorder until usually 14-18 depending on the state and the personality disorder. Usually it’s higher age brackets for more “severe” disorders like aspd. Yet weirdly low for add, adhd and odd. Depends mainly on state.
Many problematic children will be diagnosed with both odd and adhd /add at a young age and the moment they “age out” of youth services they’ll be immediately diagnosed with aspd or a whole bouquet of other DSM’s. This is one of my bigger pet peeves as parents are often left out of the loop pourpousefully simply as there is no “solution” to a child with such issues other than buttloads of money and time.
To add, as someone who has worked with children and children with behavioral issues. In multiple countries and cultures:
We usually know with like 80% certainty by the time the child is I’d say six or seven, roughly what is wrong with any given child, and can give pretty spot on diagnosis between ourselves. We are ofc not allowed to speak with parents regarding most of these issues, that’s a 5 minute talk between a child’s psychologist and its parents every six months. And Timmy just can’t sitt still for more than 20 minutes! It’s a disaster! But other than thst he’s a little angel!
Also, imagine telling a Karen her precious angel tried stabbed another kid with scissors?
Yeah I fucking stabbed her, I fucking stabbed the lil bitch in the face cause I fucking hate her fucking bitch"
And then two weeks later you almost loose your job, cause surprise. Timmy just stabbed the lil bitch in the FACE with Scissors. I know from the grapevine Timmy is now in a locked mental health juvie. Like. How do I explain. We all knew? All of us who ever worked with him told each other he was going to spend the rest of his life getting bailed out of jail by mommy and daddy, or dead, or 15-life. We knew he was dangerous. Deranged even. Why dosent anyone listen? Parents didn’t care, administration didn’t care. Hell the only people who seemed to actually care were us and the girls parents. (big and biggest Bitch)
It’s this shit + the metal detectors (+admin) that makes people like me charge 100$/h tutoring autistic kids now instead of working 50% and volunteering 50% at local school districts.
I am not a teacher. Just a giant guy who has always been good with kids. (I never stopped being one)
I dont think im intelligent enough to get into the nature vs nurture argument. It’s a doozy. My opinion is “why not both” I’ve seen both sides proven imo, a good nurture just gives you alot more tools to use.
Also, imagine telling a Karen her precious angel tried stabbed another kid with scissors?
Yeah I fucking stabbed her, I fucking stabbed the lil bitch in the face cause I fucking hate her fucking bitch"
Holy shit, that’s actually disastrous and not something that I could think of, so thank you so much for your insider input. Mustn’t be very nice knowing that something terrible has a good chance of happening and not being able to do anything about it.
I dont think im intelligent enough to get into the nature vs nurture argument. It’s a doozy. My opinion is “why not both” I’ve seen both sides proven imo, a good nurture just gives you alot more tools to use.
and I agree with that, dismissing genetics completely also doesn’t feel convincing to me. The biggest takeaway that I wanted my comments to have is to keep an eye on the parents, as very often bad parenting bakes tragedies.
Correct. ASPD isn’t diagnosed until the child is 18. They usually will diagnose them with “conduct disorder” as a minor instead.
I assure you, even though it is likely that the environment failed them, some kids are just plain evil and will require lifelong support. Parents arent always to blame.
Yeah, but parents who leave loaded guns around where their six-year-olds can have access to them are probably to blame.
Why do you think that some kids are just plain evil? I’m reading several comments stating this thing and it just baffles me, to say the least.
Because the world is so much easier to comprehend when you convince yourself some people are just naturally bad and thus undeserving of compassion. To some this is preferable to thinking that an impressionable child may be pushed to violence by their environment.
Never mind that the child was likely mimicking his father (who had attempted to murder his mother on several occasions) and was raised in the kind of environment where a loaded weapon was just left around for him to grab.
I mean, no offence, but you can use that line of reasoning to explain away literally anything.
“Because the world is so much easier to comprehend when you convince yourself all people are just naturally good, and thus can always be saved.”
I was born and raised with a psycho, I really wished for the longest time that my sibling was normal and just acting out. I guess having first-hand experience with a sick person will erase someone’s doubts real quick.
I’m not explaining away anything, nor denying that dangerously violent or even psychotic children exist. I was specifically railing against the idea of condemning a real, life human child because you have decided that they were “born bad”, in face of the plentiful evidence that they were raised in a violent environment.
For what it’s worth I’m sorry you had to go through that, but you’re not the only one who grew up with someone unstable and violent. I would not presume to speak to your experience, but in my case I was all too privy to the neglect and abuse they were put through and it’s left me convinced that barring any actual inborn neurological damage the only way a child turns violent is if something is pushing them to act that way.
I was not making a statement on the specific child in the article, I also mentioned that the environment is often the most important factor. I am just raising the fact that in some cases it can be a mental disorder, and it is not about deciding who is born bad, but assessing correctly every situation so you can do the greatest good, and protect yourself. I think we agree mostly, maybe my original comment could sound reductionist to some ears, but I tried my best to convey that I was pointing out a rare scenario, specifically to counter the arguments that you can’t have this sort of mental disorder at the time of birth. It is important to point out, otherwise innocent parents will get harmed (not those in the article, obviously)
Nobody is trying to invalidate your experience, but we also can’t take your story and assume it applies to a random child in the news that has nothing to do with your story.
Because my sibling was a psycho, and I doubt there is anything more my parents could have done. You have to get to know one (child or not) to understand that this exists not just in movies.
Sorry about your experience, I can imagine how terrifying this must be. I guess that there are many reasons why I (like others) am very skeptical about it being just nature, especially considering science doesn’t have a definitive answer to this (as far as I know). I know that genetics play a role in predicting future diagnoses. It’s just that having full blown personality disorders from childhood (especially when personality is something that you develop during childhood) sounds weird, and many people are labeled “bad” when it’s really a dark childhood that is running the scene.
Absolutely, I never met anyone else like that in my life. I assumed most people with bad behaviours had bad childhood, but I can’t deny knowing at least one person with a troubling disorder.
deleted by creator
People say things like this, then years later find out their siblings/demon kids in their lives were abused (sexually or no) by parents friends/distant relatives etc.
I don’t think people become psychopaths or develop extreme BPD out of nowhere. Like never.
You don’t believe in genetic mental illness? That one can be born with a sickness in the brain?
You don’t have to believe everyone on the internet, I can only offer you my slice of experience. Nothing wrong happened to my sibling. It was a child who actively tried to hurt people and kill stuff barely after learning to walk. It scared everyone for a while but medication and therapy helped turn they into a stable and functional adult. My sibling is also pretty open about it, at least with me.
I do believe a lot of our issues are genetic. But we also know different people with identical genetical “problems” will and won’t develop mental illnesses based on their environments and traumatic events in their lives. Epigenetics and all. Like schizophrenia. It was first purely genetic, now we’re pretty sure it’s also environment and experience led.
Because people aren’t born as a blank slate, although people seem to like that idea. Genetics play a huge role in personality and character. Some people are born without remorse. They need help and therapy like every other type of disability. But people are just too hung up on the idea of free will and virtuous character values to accept that our brains are organs that can have broken parts.
When you happen to cross paths with someone like that you will know. A kid I know is like this. He would hurt his younger brother to get attention and use other manipulation tactics (at 8 years old!). He will lie straight to your face and it’s just obvious he is very different from other children.
His mother had to stop working and basically 24/7 supervise this kid and the overall situation is nightmarish.
Maybe not always, but nearly always. Which begs the question why people are so keen to blame a 6 year old kid here and not the parents? It feels to me like it’s just easier for people to simplify matters by blaming the person involved because the alternative is messy and complicated.
After the kindergarten incident the child should’ve been given a psychiatric evaluation. It is possible he’s got a “screw loose” but in the vast majority of cases like this you’ll find there’s violence in the home. The foster system sucks ass, but in this case rolling the dice probably would’ve led to a better outcome than leaving him in that home.
deleted by creator
Not sure I fully agree, humans are social animals and learn what behaviors are beneficial for both themselves and the group. You can point to specific things that run counter to this, but that doesn’t change what humans are. But it is a distinction without a difference. Either way it’s the environment the child is in that is eventuating a negative outcome.
Are you outing yourself?
None of that conflicts with the comment you replied to. You’re both correct.
The earliest years are where the individual gains their fundamental personality. This kid is toast, no matter what kind of treatment or assistance they receive. They weren’t born this way, but they’re now done for.
There are exceptions to every rule. Some kids are born evil, although you’re probably right that the parents suck too
True, but we have no idea if this child is a born psychopath or not. We do know they did something extremely depraved and were raised very poorly.
This is why some US Americans want armed teachers ?
To shoot back at 6 year olds ?
They say it’s so teachers can protect themselves and their students (from the consequences of failed gun laws) but really, it’s just because they have to say something – and it can’t be the truth.
At a civilian level, most of them simply don’t care. They’re confident it will never be their kids and they consider a stranger’s children less important than their own easy access to firearms.
But they can’t say that, so they make flowery comments about freedom, defending their family and how they’re the ones keeping America out of the hands of tyrants, even though they staunchly support tyrants and wouldn’t even wear a mask to protect other people, let alone fight and die for them.
On the corporate and political level, there’s good money and easy votes in guns. It’s no different to tobacco, asbestos and everything else they fought to profit from even as it killed people.
But they can’t say that either. So instead, they coordinate what today’s scapegoat is going to be. Computer games? Too many doors? Timid police? Whatever keeps the money flowing.
The important part for all of them is demanding other solutions are tried before gun control. They know they won’t work, but it will buy them more time and the more time they waste, the better.
That’s why their current solution is “free, universal healthcare for everybody in America, including 5 year olds and people who don’t want treatment, done to a standard far beyond even the most cutting edge of medicine, completely and permanently curing people in less time than it takes to buy a gun”.
Which they then block anyway, because it’s important their conditions for supporting gun control are never met.
@LarryTheMatador @PoliticalAgitator
Yup. I followed them because of this.
deleted by creator
NRA checks will continue to arrive on schedule and in the agreed upon amount.
It was $8 million a year until 2012, after which it doubled to $16 million a year. I wonder what could have happened to require such a substantial increase in bribes?
Not just teachers: this obviously wouldn’t have happened, if all the other students had been armed, too.
The only thing that can stop a bad 6-year-old with a gun is a good 6-year-old with a gun.
Removed by mod
Bringing whole new level to “Kindergarten Cop” I don’t think Arny could have predicted this
Maybe because of the tumor?
It’s not a tumor
Eets naht ah toomaaah!
Yes but they seem to be forgetting the very obvious thing that will happen (and has already happened) when you have more guns being brought into schools, even by those you (misguidedly) trust.
For some reason they don’t seem to be able to get that not having guns in or anywhere near a school is the best way not to have shootings at schools.
That article highlights just one obvious problem. Here are others:
-
We can’t even rely on our cops to shoot only the people who need to be shot. Now we’re going to trust that teachers will be able to perform better under those stresses - which may include the need to shoot one of their own students - than cops do? How on earth does that track?
-
Legal gun owners go on shooting sprees too. Really easy for you when you are already whitelisted to be showing up to school armed.
-
A variation on the article I linked: Careless teacher with a gun leaves it in the bathroom and kid finds it and shoots themselves and/or others with it instead of turning it in.
Legal gun owners go on shooting sprees too.
And teachers have to deal with an incredibly stressful situation all day which ever-restrictive Republican education laws in many states make even more stressful. Put guns in the mix and one of them will go postal one day.
But the solution could be as simple as the gun is locked and retrievable by the teacher either by biometrics or code. It could also trigger a school wide alarm if the firearm is released so it would give other classes a chance to lock down. The option is there if the teacher needs it they don’t need to be having the gun on themselves.
Sure, if none of the teachers ever break the rules or are careless with that system in any way, it will prevent everything except the part where we expect teachers to be better than cops at target identification and using a firearm under stress, and also expect them to be willing to shoot a student they know personally.
We’re also expecting them to accept all the trauma that comes with that, while getting paid shit, and having chosen a career in education.
That’s why I said the option would be there if they chose it. They wouldn’t be required to but it would be nice that they had the option to fight for their life.
Better gun control would mean there would be a much lower chance they would ever be in a situation where they need to fight for their life.
-
No, no, no, you’ve gotten it all wrong. We need armed teachers to shoot dangerous books.
There’s no way we can ban all of the dangerous books, so we need teachers to shoot them out of the hands of our precious youth.
The intentional shooting itself is all I need to know that the little kid has really significant issues that need to be treated. The fact that he bragged about it isn’t news; he’s six, I’m not expecting him to act maturely about anything.
My mom works in a school as a therapist for very mentally ill children. There are a few that have been sent to the bad kids school because of violence. I wouldn’t be surprised if she told me one of the kids shot someone.
Oh look another shooting that basic safe storage laws could have prevented, without even restricting firearm ownership, but ammosexuals still resist them.
proper gun ownership turns you gay tho
How would safe storage laws prevent this? They would just result in another charge for the mother. You really think someone who leaves a gun around with a 6 year old with behavioral issues would lock it up just because of a law?
Storage laws are the easiest to abide by, though. My stuff all lives in a safe, which key is on my person, because my dotty wife and ditzy daughter frequently forget to lock the door behind them.
Is an intruder just gonna take the safe and lockboxes? Yep.
Am I gonna report that theft as “lockbox, contained one pistol (SN:xxxxxxxx); loaded magazine, 9 rounds?” You betcha.
As you say, LPL videos are free so a lockbox and safe are like, the least obstructive Imlediments ever. What’s the harm in this Pascal’s wager?
Edit: bah! Wrong reply bug! This was directed to a comment down thread 👇
Bingo they’re just a barrier to entry that negatively effects those of lower income since safes aren’t cheap. Start a program to provide secure no cost safes upon request and I’m with you.
Trigger locks are $10
Trigger locks aren’t secure storage and moreover they’re not $10 every local sheriff’s office I’m aware of will provide a trigger lock or cable lock at no charge no questions asked.
Lockpickinglawyer youtube videos are free.
Nobody on the internet can mention safe storage of firearms without an apologists for people who keep guns in a drawer turning up and saying “Lockpickinglawyer”.
Lol apologist? Are you kidding me right now?
Sorry most gun locks aren’t what they’re marketed as. If all I need to beat a lock is a slip of plastic from a 2 litter your lock is not secure.
LockPickingLawyer is extremely good at picking and bypassing locks. Most children and opportunistic criminals are not.
His channel also showcases the worst locks he can find, because that’s where the views are. In countries with gun laws that actually work, they often have approved safes and locks specifically to ensure they meet a reasonable standard of security.
Millions of Americans keep loaded guns in drawers, glove compartments, closets and naff hidden compartments. The pro-gun community generally turns a blind eye to this and staunchly oppose measures to ensure “responsible gun owners” are actually being responsible.
And the excuse that always pops up eventually is “LockpickingLawyer proves that trying to secure guns with more than threats of domestic violence is a waste of time”.
Surely the 6 year old in question will just eBay a set of sparrow picks and practice tumblers
This is just poor logic. Guns themselves cost money, which negatively effects those one lower incomes. Should we provide free guns to anyone that wants one too?
And you know what else negatively effects those on low incomes? Being shot.
Not at all. Guns are often inherited and transferred without fee. And yes in my opinion if you pass a free series of tests on gun ownership/responsibility/safety then yeah, as a militaristic country invasion is almost certainty sooner or later. Should we be militaristic? Probably not but we adjust for the conditions as they are not as we wish them to be.
Correct, systemic issues including fun fact gun control attempts make lower income areas higher crime and thus higher gun crime. Weird huh?
Correct, systemic issues including fun fact gun control attempts make lower income areas higher crime and thus higher gun crime. Weird huh?
Are you having a stroke? None of this makes any sort of sense.
It’s plain English boss, reading comprehension is your part to provide.
Lmao, whatever you say buddy.
Some states require a trigger lock to be sold along with the weapon. Not as good as a safe but it should prevent accidental discharge. That being said I would support a program to provide no-cost lock boxes (not giant safes) for handguns.
How would safe storage laws prevent this? They would just result in another charge for the mother. You really think someone who leaves a gun around with a 6 year old with behavioral issues would lock it up just because of a law?
The implication is that you actually enforce the laws after you implement them, rather than just implementing them as a way to add a charge. For example in my country police will come to inspect my house at least once a year to make sure im storing them properly and if a neighbour complains or something they will also make an unschedules checked.
I get American gun owners would take this basic safety precaution as the deepest violation of a tyranical government and would shoot a cop before they let them inspect their home for safety, but my point is if they did agree to sensible safe storage legislation this wouldnt have happened
This shit happens literally every day in the US. At this point, it’s like getting worked up about the wind blowing. They’re a lost cause.
Jesus Christ dude.
The boy’s mother, however, Deja Taylor, has been charged with felony child neglect and misdemeanour recklessly leaving a loaded firearm as to endanger a child.
It looks like she violated the storage laws.
No, its more like they came up with that as a way to punish someone for this act. As far as im aware, there isnt a law describing how guns need to be sotred to keep them away form kids and if there is, it sure as hell isnt enforced.
How do you enforce this other than punishing it when something happens? The police can’t just go into people’s homes to double check that they have their firearms stored safely. People aren’t going to report themselves.
Why can’t they they? That’s how it works in most other developed nations?
Laws don’t force people to use gun safety protocols, but I think the violation of such laws needs to be a felony (no more guns for you).
deleted by creator
Well that depends on what “unsecured” really means
Yo, how strong does a kindergartner need to be to be able to choke out a fully grown adult? Wild.
How deranged does a kid need to be for the system to keep a very close eye on them? Seriously that kid is probably a psychopath who’s gonna kill more people if nobody prevents him from doing so
It says she’s retired so she’s probably up there in age. That and probably trying not to hurt him
Bigger boy (for his age) and a smaller woman, especially a kid using all his strength, it can definitely happen.
Especially if you’re trying not to hurt them.
deleted by creator
My 5 year old is very big compared to my 5’1" 105 lbs. Honestly I could totally see a kid his size if they were deranged being able to do some serious damage to someone my size.
What in the hell?
Murica
FrEeDoM
So two observations, first how is leaving a loaded gun in reach of a 6 year old not more than a misdemeanor? I don’t even let my kid near a slingshot or pelet gun unsupervised much less anything lethal.
Second, “choking her to the point she could not breath”? How big is this kid that this is even possible? That’s no small feat for a full grown adult if you’re talking bare handed much less a young child.
That the kid at that age even thought that was a thing to do says all too much about the influences on them. We need another Mr. Rogers here…
deleted by creator
Confused…? Which part?
I think he’s objecting to “why couldn’t you stop someone smaller and weaker from abusing you?”.
Maybe, but there’s stopping an adult with an actual intent to harm you versus just picking up someone you could probabbly carry under one arm. At some point if you can’t do that well, please don’t get a large dog or such for a pet I guess?
Additionally, the thought was more ‘how can a kid that small even muster the strength to strangle someone to begin with’.
deleted by creator
So I’m not inclined to get drug off on some distraction with an easily offended sort over the morally correct phrasing or how one should think, but I’ll put it as this.
1: Abuse comes in many forms, not just physical, focusing the notion of keeping it secret and being difficult to talk about on the one most outwardly visible face of it detracts from the larger battles happening in the emotive and mental abuse space.
2: There is a material difference in physical assault perpetuated by an adult or mature child which has a level of malice and intent behind it and that done by a child which, although I’m speculating since it’s not listed, would have been doing this bare handed and without a properly formed mindset to fully comprehend their own actions. A small child at that age likely weighs somewhere under 60 pounds and has hands of relevant size. At some point a person simply needs to be able to fend for themselves or be considered incapable of dealing with a situation, be that in physically resisting or in correcting the behavior of the kid to begin with.
A teacher shouldn’t have to plan for a kid bringing a gun to class, that’s fully on the parents being negligent, but if you work with kids, particularly young ones that haven’t properly learned control of their emotions yet, it should be expected that you’re going to get kicked in the shins here and again and be capable and prepared to deal with that.
Second, “choking her to the point she could not breath”? How big is this kid that this is even possible? That’s no small feat for a full grown adult if you’re talking bare handed much less a young child.
I assume it was an old lady because the article mentions it was a retired teacher. Considering the kid has only been alive 6 years, it probably happened the year prior, so if the teacher was able to retire that soon after, they probably were in their 90s or early hundos
That’s possible, to that end the pre-school my youngest attended had a rule of two teachers per class so at any given time one could lead the class and the other watch for troubles since young kids can be volatile at times if they want something right now. Not good if the kid is that misguided to the point of outright violence, but at the same time kids will climb the cubbords sometimes and you need to be able to take them off or catch them if they fall. If the teacher is not physically capable of that then they need an assistant in the room.
See yall next school shooting
Do I have time to eat before?
Yea, they’re on summer break still. Once classes start back up we’ll have them daily again
What. The fuck.
We need to
talk about Kevinpunt this little shitweasel.
We need to arm all the teachers. And all the students. And all the guns. And all the bullets: they can carry little baby guns with more guns in them.
Only after every atom in the universe is a gun will we ever be safe from guns.
Next Kyle Rittinghouse just watch.
You’re suggesting the six year old child is going to lawfully defend himself against 3 adult males, including a pedophile? I’m not understanding your comparison.
Let’s not pretend that the technical legality of Rittenhouse’s actions make him any less a piece of shit. And he certainly wasn’t trying to rid the world of a pedo, as he had no way of knowing that. So acting like it somehow makes things better is quite disingenuous.
He went looking to use his rifle, and got himself in deep enough to create a scenario where he could get away with doing so. Nothing more admirable than that.
You forgot to mention the part where he obtained the rifle through an admitted straw purchase and still shouldn’t have been in possession of it or out past curfew.
He was breaking multiple laws before anyone tried to disarm him.
No argument here, I just know folks who jump up to defend Rittenhouse don’t even slightly care about those details.
Remember, if you jaywalk it voids your right to self defense.
He ran away from the assailants each time and didn’t shoot the one guy until he pointed the pistol at him again. His actions show you’re completely full of shit. Those guys would be fine if they didn’t choose to attack an armed kid.
It boggles my mind how you can get away with a self-defense defense even when you entirely created the situation
Zimmerman is a great example to me… He brought the gun, he stalked an unarmed kid minding his own business, and he confronted him up close and personal. If Treyvon Martin had gotten the gun and shot Zimmerman instead, he’d have a way stronger self-defense case (in principle at least)
Like I could understand avoiding a murder charge, but shouldn’t it be manslaughter at least? At best according to the one side of the story we have, Zimmerman was negligent to the point someone died. If he didn’t bring the gun, it’s doubtful anyone would have died. If he left it to the police, no one would have died. If he kept his distance or tailed him in a car, no one would even have been at risk.
Our laws are seriously wonky in this country…
Do explain how Rittenhouse knew he was shooting a pedophile. Did he see the man’s criminal record before opening fire?
Dont worry there will be plenty of school shooting stories in the future for you to come in and praise guns.
I think he is trying to conflate the 6 year old bragging about shooting people with Kyle Rittenhouse “bragging” about overcoming an attempted character assassination, criminal charges, and successfully defending himself from those who intended to cause death or great bodily harm.
I belive he thinks Kyle Rittenhouse “bragging” about shooting (lawful self-defense) people is the same as the 6 year old bragging about shooting (attempted murder) his teacher.
I saw Rittenhouse crying when he was in court like a little bitch.
Then 3 weeks later saw him in an advertisement for some shitty video game where he cracked tongue in cheek jokes about the whole shooting thing.
He lacks what most Republicans lack; a backbone, empathy,moral righteousness, AND the self awareness about any of those shortcomings.
Unfortunately the courts wouldn’t let them show jurors the video like a week or two before the shooting where he physically attacked a preteen girl, and when a couple Black teens yelled at him to stop he curled I to the fetal position and bawled his eyes out that he was being attacked…
They didn’t even touch him. Just psychopath crocodile tears.
Or the video he filmed between that and the shooting where he sat outside a CVS and fantasized about if paying customers were looting so he could kill them.
He went out there with a gun so he could feel like a big strong man and kill someone.
Those videos would have helped establish his frame of mind when the shootings took place.
As far as I know, he’s just a murderer, not a pedophile.
deleted by creator
but Kyle Rittenhouse was in the right
He wasn’t legally allowed to be in possession of the gun…
Let alone running around a riot with it after curfew
Screw the kids parents
Removed by mod
It’s probably a case of her thinking she can not defend herself out of fear of backlash. Teachers have been charged with assault when defending themselves from students.
Removed by mod
lol, ok. Must be nice living in fantasy land where all consequences can be dealt with later.
losing your career and being sued into oblivion by the kids parents sounds like a real good choice!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
She’s alive, so she didn’t let him strangle her to death. But you bet your ass, any teachers who want to stay in the profession are waiting until there’s no other choice before putting their hands on a kid, even if it’s just to push them away. And she was like a year away from retirement? Definitely not doing anything to mess that up; many teachers still get pensions if they retire.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Hmmm, yes, let us murder this child before he has a chance to murder us. This is what a society does.
Bruh, I’m just appealing to utilitarianism here. Also, remember that this child almost murdered an innocent teacher.
Approx. 20.000 juveniles were arrested for murder or attempted murder in 2020 (per the US Dept of Justice) Shall we put them all down, as you say? Just to be safe?
Calling your position utilitarianism is interesting, in what way is really, actually murdering a child (never mind the massive amount of legal, ethical and emotional complications that entail) to prevent a hypothetical future murder maximizing utility for anyone?
No, of course we shouldn’t put them all down. But extreme cases like this ought to be considered carefully, and if the risk is high, we should remove these individuals from society.
To your second point, this child already almost killed someone and then bragged about it, showing no remorse. There is a very good chance he will grow up to try and commit murder again; he’s too far gone. That’s where the utility maximisation comes in.
And re: your point about there being a great deal of legal, ethical, and emotional complications for this kind of policy intervention, I completely agree. Good thing we’re just talking shit on Lemmy, right? 😂
Utilitarianism is about maximizing the wellbeing of all. Just like how in the trolley dilemma you would leave one person to die to save 5 others. This could very well be a utilitarian justification, if the underlying assumptions turn out to be true. Generally, if those violent children can never be rehabilitated so they go on harming more humans, then it would definitely be obvious that we should put it down, as the harm done by this is less than the harm that the child would inflict on others otherwise. But if such children can be rehabilitated, there would be no harm done at all. Compared to the harm done by putting it down, it becomes obvious again that the decision to rehabilitate it is the only correct one. I, being an utilitarian, think a society whose first thought is “rehabilitate” when someone did something wrong instead of “put it down” would turn out to be of greater wellbeing.
What brain-dead form of utilitarianism is that supposed to be? The “I’m-16-and-on-a-wikipedia-bender”-kind?
We don’t hold 6-year-old children accountable for very much in a legal sense, because they are essentially animals able to (barely) speak. Thats why we instead regulate gun-ownership, so that no child has access to firearms. And if that doesn’t seem to do the trick yet, I’d suggest regulating more comprehensively and holding parents accountable, so that it is very much in their own interest to keep guns from kids. We might also fund social services and schools to the extent that children are able to adequatley learn how to control their emotions and verbalise anger, unhapiness in a non-ciolent way, even if their parents are a bunch of irresponsible idiots.
That seem much preferable to executing a six year old every once in a while to be save.
That’s just utilitarianism taken to its logical conclusion, is it not? Don’t hate the player, hate the game lol.
And I agree that all of those interventions are preferable to capital punishment for juveniles. But in extreme cases where they are too far gone and are going to grow up to become killers, surely there is more we can do? Cos atm, we just let that happen and innocent people die.
I don’t agree with this rehabilitation bullshit, it’s only for rich and small countries with already high living standards. Any other country, and it will be just like you said, a bunch of people working their assess off just for a slight chance at a psycho not turning into a disgusting asshole.
Yeah. I would also say that even in rich and small countries, it’s hard. Some people are just born psychos - far ends of the bell curve, etc etc.
Yeah lets just kill all children who show psychopath/violent tendancies.
/s
Yes rehabilitation costs money and time, but do you realise that the death penalty often uses more money and resources than keeping somebody alive and in prison for the remainder of their life?
It baffles me when people like you jump to these extreme conclusions. Kids a fucked up little shit, but here you are calling for his death. That in itself is extremely fucked up.
No see he wants the restrictions on the death penalty to be removed so the state can execute people easily
It’s because he wants the “undesirables” killed off where he can’t see it happening.
deleted by creator
Age 6 was the time to intervene but the system is trash, bare minimum assistance provided generally makes things worse.
Nation-wide 6mm abortions up until the age of 14 lol
😂
You are correct. Have a downvote.
