>

Bullshit. Absolutely bullshit. Parents need jail time. Kid needs counseling
If a six year old can acquire your firearm, it was never secure. >

They’re throwing their kid under the bus. >

Probably the best legal strategy to take. I imagine Adult negligence vs. child shenanigans have very different punishments >

Plus, the kid is already going to jail. Parents are just hoping he'll take the entire rap. >

I'm not to sure. But I don't think you guys jail 6 year olds. More likely would be put into a specific child care program. Or am I wrong? >

Not wrong. Probably some treatment program, depending on the situation. Hopefully they'll let him visit his parents in jail. Secure, my ass. >

Yeah, if a six year old can get to something. It's not secure. It's probably on the counter. >

I think we need his definition of 'secured'.. >

Maybe he meant to say "locked and loaded"? >

....a couple of things here. My parents had a handgun in our house for a very long time before I was ever aware of it. Especially at 6 years old. Is it common you tell your kids about these things? Additionally,  it was a 9mm....ok, so how does a 6 year old know how to chamber a round, take the safety off and have the hand strength to do this? Beside all that what was his big beef with this teacher? I mean sure, some people kill random strangers but this kid made very specific decisions aimed at one person. The parents had to have some knowledge of his anger towards her...this wasn't some spur of the moment impulse. He made efforts to conceal the weapon.
The message from the lawyer is pandering IMO. They are trying very hard to say all the right things to mitigate the issue. I'm not buying the "it was secure" story. Maybe they have measures in place but weren't using them for convenience and an opportunity for a misguided child presented itself. >

Supposedly up on a high closet shelf with a trigger lock on.
So, on top of everything you listed, the kid knew where the weapon was, knew where the key was, and how to unlock said trigger lock. >

The teacher is very lucky to be alive. >

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" >

Amazing movie and this line in particular had an effect on my life. >

Please elaborate >

Obviously not secured enough! Or did they simply hide it in the underwear drawer with a note attached saying "Do not bring to school!" >

Yeah, but the kid can’t read >

"That sign can't stop me because I can't read" >

Arthur was darker than I remember >

“The firearm our son accessed was secured.”
Obviously it wasn't. >

You don't know.  Maybe he knew where the key was, unlocked the gun safe, found the bullets, loaded the magazine, and chambered a round, all by himself...at the age of 6.  
/s >

It was probably more like "it was secured - we didn't think he could reach that shelf yet". >

I think it might have been more “we had a secured spot for it, but someone forgot to put it back.” >

Was it, like, in a shoe box with the lid on?  Maybe under a towel too?
If a 6 yr old had the gun, it was NOT secure. >

“Hmmm, my kid shot someone… OH SHIT I MIGHT LOSE MY GUNS!” >

This is America, we don't take guns from anyone, not even toddlers. Something something individual rights, unless you're LGTBQ. Guns are ok, but using a different pronoun is uhh... bad for freedom of speech????? Something like that. >

Ah, the gun was secured because the parents say so.
Clearly, a teacher-hating gremlin must have snuck in the house, "unsecured" the firearm, loaded and handed it to the child, then left without a trace.
It's the only explanation that even remotely makes sense. >

Narrator: It was not, in fact, secured >

Lawyer: Yes, it was.
Edit: It's an Arrested Development gag, guys. >

Narrator: “Clearly, this was not the case.” >

What kind of a care plan requires a parent to attend school with the child?  It sounds like he should have been in a specialized school, depending on his disability. >

Whoever released that statement should be arrested along with the parents.
Its insane how a 6 year old who is a seriously troubled kid who is at a special school was able to get a secured weapon…
Secure my ass , arrest these scumbags >

I don’t really know much about the case, but the one thing I can say for sure, with like 100% confidence, is that the firearm was not secured. >

The kid is described as having a "severe disability" that requires his parents to go to school with him every day, but for some reason they didn't that day. This sounds a lot like the kid in Detroit (I think) that shot and killed his mom because she wouldn't buy him a PS5 or something like that. Childhood schizophrenia is a real thing and has to be a parent's worst nightmare. I don't know if that's what he had but it reads like it. >

On the far end of my extended family is a kid around this age with a whole grab bag of disabilities.  Along with the problems comes a complete mastery of whatever he focuses on.  The family has gone to extreme lengths to secure everything that needs securing.  He gets out of seatbelts, climbs over barriers, figures out keypad passwords.  And the most important form of security is keeping an eye on the kid.  
I don't claim to fully understand the story OP posted, it seems to be missing crucial info, but I think it's possible the kid is a bit more competent than your average crayon muncher >

Ok, but the simple fact is, the gun was not “secured” by definition. It may have been locked up, but it was not “secured” because he was able to get to it. If I were the injured teacher, the release of this statement would piss me off so much. >

Fair enough.  I'm Canadian, so these definitions aren't immediately obvious to me.  
Does Secured mean (among other things) that a dependent can't access the gun? >

To me, secured means my guns are in a safe unless i'm carrying them and i have the only key. To some people, it might mean "In a drawer with a simple child proof tab" or "Up on a high shelf". >

Good thing the kid had a gun or this could have turned out so much worse. 😢 >

Narrator: Clearly, it wasn’t >

They said that their son had some issues. Not blaming anyone but why did they feel the need to mention this. It’s like they’re saying something bad was eventually going to happen with him. Another reason not to have a gun secured or not in the home that was apparently easy for him to get to. I think the parents are the ones with issues! >

I've read a couple of these articles but I haven't found one that says how they secured it.  Any one have a source on how the family claims the secured it?  Safe?  Biometric pistol lockbox?  Top shelf? >

"“Our family has always been committed to responsible gun ownership and keeping firearms out of the reach of children,” said the family, which was not identified. “The firearm our son accessed was secured.” 
The statement did not elaborate further on where the 9mm handgun was kept or what they meant by “secured.”" >

Umm, apparently not. >

Perhaps this kid is an extreme sociopath evil genius (Chucky Age 6), or the gun wasn't sufficiently secure. Either way, the parents did not exercise sufficient oversight, and are ultimately responsible. >

Lots of half-assed statements from the lawyer himself.
“It is my understanding…”
“I believe…”
Straight up “And I guess…”
What do you know? >

Shit lawyer says what?