>

In all my schooling I never saw a parent ever stay with a kid in class. Even severely disabled kids would have an aide. I think the lawyer is misrepresenting the situation. My guess would be the parents usually accompanied the kid to the classroom to make sure he didnt wander off.
Wait a tick. According to the article, administrators at the school heard he may have had a weapon prior to the shooting and couldn’t find it after searching his bag? So this 6yr old, with an “acute disability”, was able to procure the gun from a “safe” spot, take it to school, HIDE IT FROM ADULTS, and shoot his teacher? What…the…fuck… >

Schools who want to skirt their responsibilities under the ADA to provide the kid an IEP might just pull some nonsense like this. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's a poor school district. >

Teacher here. At one school I taught at, a drug dealer had three of his friends help him sell and distribute drugs. When caught, the three friends were expelled. The drug dealer stuck around to commit more offensives because the school couldn’t legally prove that his drug selling behavior wasn’t part of his behavior disorder that was covered by his IEP. 🤡 >

it's suddenly making a lot more sense why in high school my special ed class was 90% filled with the kids who threw chairs at teachers >

I am sure that the kid does have a disability. The responsibility lies on the parents to lockup the firearm. In cases that are rare, and a 6 year old can break into a lock. It is on the parents to still secure the firearm. If a 6 year old got it, than it was not secure. >

That’s the crazy part is all the updates I’m seeing is the parents are maintaining it was secure?? >

You mean the parents are lying to protect their own asses? >

No, that’s the lawyer’s job! >

The parent's job is to be quiet and not speak to anyone without their lawyer's permission.  Instead, they are acting like public relations is their job and making their lawyer want to shoot himself. >

All he has to do is invite the kid to the mediation. >

No need, if a gun is safe locked away no 6 year old can get it
That simple >

Having read the parent's side of the story I realize this kid is a master lockpicker, a savant at free climbing, a smuggler and liar who could get you in and out of North Korea blindfolded, and filled with such killer instinct that the only reason his teacher survived is that he didn't shoot to kill.  After all, as an aspiring 00 agent he has not yet to be issued his license to kill. >

Oceans 6 and 1/2 >


“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.”

Someone should explain to them what "secured" means. >

I would like them to explain what they think secured means. >

"It was in my purse." >

"In the nightstand drawer that has a lock but we forget to lock it." >

Anything a 6 year old can gain access to is not "secure". The parents are morons and should be in jail. >

Gun rights come with gun responsibilities. >

I think you might have meant to say "Gun rights should come with gun responsibilities". Not all voters, and consequently not all legislators, share your position. >

I thought most voters support some form of reasonable gun control legislation, but the legislators/lobbyists don't. >

To a degree I think polls back that argument, except that many of those voters consistently vote for politicians that aggressively push "they're coming for your guns!" fearmongering, and oppose every single legislative effort to put together any reasonable gun control. >

Ok, and how does that help the parents’ case? If anything, it makes them out to be even more negligent. >

Kind of reminds me of drunk drivers, who at the scene of a fatal accident which they survived, claim to be 'sober enough to drive'.
A cheap gunsafe will run you about two or three hundred bucks at Wal-Mart.  It might not keep out a professional burglar, or even a particularly dedicated junkie.  But the odds are pretty good it'll keep out a six year old child.  I mean fuck it; a budget AR-15 from PSA runs about five hundred bucks now.  
If you can afford a gun, you can afford a safe.  Lock your shit up. >

Hell, you don't even need to spend that much! My dad got our first gun about 4-5 years ago for a father's day gift to himself, it is a 22 AR-15 style rifle. They quickly got a trigger lock and keep it in their room which also has a lock (for previous candy theft issues)
When we got a 9mm pistol, it came with a case and a basic cable lock to keep it closed, but the cable was too long so you could still open the box and grab everything, so they bought a new lock and put the old one on our side yard gate.
It's not that hard, these parents need to be charged. >

So a 6 year-old with an “acute disability” that somehow managed to get their hands on a “secured” fire arm, brought to school, and shot his teacher because she was taking it away. Do I have this right? Because that is a whole mountain’s worth of negligence on the parents, like this piece of info doesn’t make their case any better. >

AND one parent was supposed to be with him in class.  Neither parent attended class with him the week this happened. >

Why is the mother not being charged??? A six year old should not have access to a gun and bullets. >

And knew to conceal it, sneak it onto class, hide it for a few hours and shoot a teacher. Not a chance a 6 year old should get anywhere near a weapon if it's secure >

…that’s so much worse. Not only could a 6-year-old could have access to a gun, but an “acutely disabled” 6-year-old could. >


Ellenson told The Associated Press by phone Thursday evening that his understanding is that the gun was in the mother’s closet on a top shelf that was well over six feet high. The weapon also had a trigger lock that requires a key, similar to a bike lock.

1) On top of a shelf in a closet IS NOT SECURE 
2) If it had a trigger lock, then there are only two possibilities: either the gun was stored unlocked or they did not securely store the key because the child found it >


On top of a shelf in a closet IS NOT SECURE

What angers me about this most is I'm in the process of applying for a firearm permit in NYC and I have to jump through hoops to show I'm not an idiot or trying to hurt someone (which I'll happily do), and I'm already happily looking for a firearm safe just to keep everything locked up so my wife and I don't have easy access to a firearm... Not that I am worried something might happen, just that there's no need for me to have the weapon easily accessible, and we don't even have a child yet. People like this are the reason we get such strict gun laws in places like NY and Chicago. >

That doesn’t negate the fact that the parents were obviously negligent since they let their kid being a gun to school. >

I teach middle school, so I don't know how it works at the elementary level, but this "care plan" sounds fucked up.
Why is a parent going to the school everyday sitting in a classroom with their kid? Does this kid have such severe disabilities that they require additional classroom supports and an aide? If so, why wasn't a para hired? Where's the IEP? 
Given that this kid shot his teacher, I assume the parents are there and the school created this plan due to awful behavior by the child.
I need to know more about this care plan, but I already feel like I know why it was put in place. Kid had awful behavior. Teacher and school are fed up so the parents said they'd come in and watch the kid. The school, worrying about their negative exclusion numbers, especially for a child so young, decides to make a deal with the parents. >

Parents volunteer in classes all the time at that age. >

This is such bullshit. As an educator (over 10 years,) I have never heard of, or seen, parents included as supervision during a child’s regular school day or “care plan.” Public, private, charter… I’ve worked it all. This family is making a multitude of excuses for their poor parenting. Charge the shit out of them. >

Sounds like theyre shifting the blame to the school or teacher.
Crux of the situation is

The kid knows about the gun
Knows where to find them
Knows about safety 
Knows how to hide, why hide and how to shoot
And shoot.

This is totally not the school or any teachers fault.
A kid dont just grab a gun and shoot someone without learning multiple prior step that leads to that narrative. >

The idea that a child could shoot their teacher and we'd even entertain the thought that the teacher could be at fault is.... very American, in the worst way >

If this child had some kind of disability where he could not fully understand the consequences of his actions or how shooting a gun at someone might really hurt them, his parents should not have had one in the house at all, I don’t care how secure they thought it was.
And don’t herp-a-derp at me about cars, kitchen knives, etc. All of those can be used for purposes other than causing bodily harm, and usually are. >

Children develop empathy around age 5.  If the kid didn't understand violence he had no business in this school without a student aide on hand. >

Apparently he usually had someone at school (a parent?) with him until shortly before this incident. >

Yep, it was his first time without a parent accompanying him at school.  And that was the day he accessed a “secure” firearm, smuggled it into the schools, hid it from a bag inspection, and intentionally shot a teacher. >

Nothing says responsible and secure like a disabled six year old stealing your gun and smuggling it right by your clueless ass. Turn in your guns, you moron. >

This is on the parents, regardless of the kid's disability - or, maybe especially because of.
And/or the school, as per part of the arricle.
I had no idea our parents had firearms while we were growing up - my brother has some serious disabilities as well (which lead to very poor impulse control, amongst other things).  Never an issue with us ever finding them, either, and we snooped like crazy.
Now, as his legal guardian, he has no idea that we do. They're properly secured and in a part of our house he never has access to. In addition, he doesn't live with us, nor has a key, etc.
My husband's extended family is laissez faire about it, though I've warned them they need to never show him their firearms and that they need to be secured. Thankfully, purposely (for other reasons), he has very little interaction with them, so it's nearly a non-issue.
My real concern is that he may be sold one by an unscrupulous retailer (we have few requirements here) or acquires one illegally.  His background is clean, though I feel it should not be (past assaults, including on us - no charges). >

Does your state have red flag laws?  If so you can file one for your son, which should be helpful in case someone sells him a firearm. >

It wasn't that cute. If you have an individual, especially a child, who has some mental instability and you want to keep firearms in the house then you should make sure it is locked up like Fort Knox. The teacher's life will never be the same. Throw the book at the parents. >

Or not have firearms in the house. Statistically kids are much more at risk with firearms in the house, and a kid who may be intellectually impaired and not understand the consequences of his actions, even more so. >

I agree with what the person interviewed said. The fact that the parents were required to attend class with the student is the tip of the iceberg in terms of issues here. That's not how the law works. If the student has a disability that requires such close supervision, the school should have been providing that support person. It wasn't on the parents to provide FAPE. This is in addition to the fact that there was already a suspicion that the child had brought a weapon to school, but when they searched the student's backpack, they didn't find anything. How was the student permitted access to their backpack after that point? How was the student allowed back in the classroom with the teacher after the suspicion was raised? >

I just wrote about that in another post. Something doesn't add up. If the child had such severe disabilities then why was a para not provided? If the parents are required to be there and it's not because the child had such severe disabilities that they require supports in the classroom, then why are the parents required to be there? Is it because the child's behavior was so awful? If the child's behavior is so awful that the parents need to be there then this child doesn't belong in that school or that classroom setting. Captain Hindsight, but obviously the child created a dangerous situation being there. 
Something doesn't add up for why the parents were required to be there. Someone messed up and it's probably the school. I just can't find an explanation that makes sense for why the parents are required to be there. >

Yeah I’ve never heard of a school requiring a parent to attend along with the child. That’s a really odd detail. Can schools even do that? Who has that authority? >

In our school it's an alternative to suspension. We had one too many parents pick up their suspended kids promising them McDonald's and screen time. You send them home, the kids basically won >

Oh interesting, do the parents generally comply? >

Something doesn't add up:
1) the child is severely disabled.
2) the gun was secured (by definition a normally-functioning adult would have difficulty accessing it).
3) the teacher was fucking shot with the pistol by said student. >

Per the article the gun was stored on a closet shelf "well over 6 feet" high and locked with something like a bike lock that requires a key.  And also presumably loaded unless a severely disabled 6 yr old knows how to find and load a magazine. >

I’m assuming by “something like a bike lock” they’re referring to a slide lock—looks like a padlock with a long flexible cable to go through the slide and keep it from being loaded, much less fired. So now they’re alleging a disabled 6 year old got a gun off a 6+ foot high shelf, found the key for the lock and removed it, knew how to load the gun, snuck it to school, avoided its detection when he was searched, and managed to shoot his teacher with it?
I’m calling bullshit on that one. >

Quote from the child's parents
“The firearm our son accessed was secured.”
Narrator: The weapon was in fact, not secure. >

It’s was secured, but our six year old mentally disabled child was able to overcome our security procedures >

Credit Roll:
Lastly we'd like to thank u/Budmanes for the correct definition of "Unsecured"
fin >

The parents need to be charged. There’s no if ands or buts. >

Okay, so this "disability" caused the kid to bring a gun to school and shoot his teacher when his parents weren't watching.  I'd say he needs a lot more help than just his parents keeping an eye on him >


Okay, so this "disability" caused the kid to bring a gun to school and shoot his teacher when his parents weren't watching

So this is the part I don't get: the parents are claiming the kid has a "disability" (possibly a mental illness of some kind?) and that there was a standing order that a parent or guardian must accompany him to school daily. And that this was the first time no one accompanied him.
This is an EPIC FAIL not only on the parents' part, but on the school's. Why was this dangerously disabled child allowed into the school without the required parent/guardian??? >

Seriously the whole situation is a giant mess. By law, that student should have been provided an aide for school along with a behavioral plan after a formal assessment. This shouldn't be up to the parents to manage during the school day, unless they decide to homeschool. 
It sounds like he has some sort of cognitive disability / social-emotional issues (like autism or even adhd)  - it's not uncommon that children with developmental delays in these areas at that age have issues with emotional control, empathy, impulsive behavior, understanding consequences, etc. After all, even many of their neurotypical/non-disabled peers only developed those skills 1-2 years prior. But no 6 year old should under any circumstances have access to a gun, let alone a loaded one. 
And when a child has a disability that impairs their judgement and leads to impulsive/violent behavior but still has them physically fully capable (often even "more capable" in the sense that many kids with autism for example don't always register/react to pain the same way as neurotypicals and will show seemingly "super-human strength" while injuring themselves in the process), you probably just shouldn't own any firearms at all. Most of the developed world lives just fine without guns. >

There's also some discussion about whether a child can simply be a psychopath.  Although the possibilities you raise are more common, a child with the abilities of those described in that article or this one might be one capable of accessing a gun in the "secure" storage described as well as the planning and foresight necessary to shoot a teacher.

Ellenson told The Associated Press by phone Thursday evening that his understanding is that the gun was in the mother’s closet on a top shelf that was well over six feet high. The weapon also had a trigger lock that requires a key, similar to a bike lock. >

Also the kid waited until his parents were no longer staying at school with him to take a gun and shoot a teacher?!? Obviously this kid knew a lot more then the parents are trying to convey. Almost as if this was premeditated. Crazy! >


The statement did not define the boy’s disability. And it did not explain what his “care plan” was and whether it was similar to other plans that serve children with disabilities.

We all seem to be concentrating on the gun. I’m concerned about the child. The child had been accompanied each day, until that week. It doesn’t sound like it was a physical disability, and I’d be taking a WAG on the type of disability he suffered from. Assuming the Parents are punished, what would be the best outcome? Removal of custody, jail time, community service, 🤷🏼‍♂️. Then what happens to the child, ward of the State, Child Protective Service’s, Foster homes, relatives? >

They’ve been diagnosed with ”being  shooty” >

Treatment: Duck!!!!
That lawyers is looking for a get out of kindergarten jail free card. >

The child is obviously emotionally disturbed but the parents need to be charged and held responsible. >

Parents belong in jail >

TIL shitty parents is an ‘acute disability’ >

From what I understand a valid defense to any crime in the US is that you are under the age of 7. Legally, you don't have the ability to know right from wrong at an age below 7 therefore you aren't criminally responsible for your actions. >

The parents are >

“The firearm our son accessed was secured.”
Sure it was... >

Gimme a break.  This is all about the parents.  They don't get a pass. >

Evidently, so do the parents. >

Having bad parents is indeed a disability >

This is not about the kid. This is about parents who have a gun accessible to a child and enough hate for the child to mimic it. >

"Parents' gun security is so poor that their acutely disabled 6yo could retrieve it" >

The parents do too apparently >

I don't understand them saying anything about the kid...disabled or whatever...he is six. Responsibility is with the parents and if the kid had the gun it wasn't "secure". Pretty straightforward. >

Hiding behind sons disability when it’s not at all a relevant factor. >

Nothing about this article makes sense. >

Yeah… his moron parents who let him get his hands on a loaded weapon >

It sounds like the disability was this kid is a psychopath. >

I bet the teacher didn't think it was very cute
Obligatory /s >

You think?
Charge his mother and psychologically observe him for the next decade. >

I think you mean charge the parents.  Unless they're separated and the weapon was accessed on her property.  Even if it was her gun, if both parents lived there, it was on both of them to secure it.  Or should have been. >

I hope I'm wrong because I agree that it should be both parents' responsibility, but I think it falls to the mother because she made the purchase. >

Why in the world would someone inflict upon the general public such an uncontrollable child. Why take him to school with a parent always next to him? Why not home school? I think it might come out that the parents were afraid of him. Maybe that’s what the gun was for. >

They should "regret not being there that day" in a jail cell for the rest of their lives. 
The more I read about this case, the more infuriated I get about the entire situation. >

problem with the usa and education is that kids can hide behind a disability.  even with a disability, kids know right from wrong. >

Then they should be testify to that effect under oath in a courtroom, under penalty of perjury.
Don't really care what they claim in a public statement where there aren't any legal repercussions if it's full of shit. >

Where were the other kids and their guns to stop her? Why didn't the teacher shoot first? >

Lock up the parents period >

Curious if the kid had an IEP.  Certainly if 1:1 was needed, the school would have provided an aide under the IEP. >

Who cares?! We don't need to know anything about the kid. He shouldn't have had access to a weapon! >

Even if the kid has a disability, the parents are complete dumbasses. >

I'd say even moreso. 
No kid should have unfettered access to firearms. But certainly not a special needs kid. >

I am still confused by what they mean by ‘acute disability’… I work in mental health and have never seen this term… >

psychopathy? yeah sure >

Sounds like a rare, childhood form of hereditary incarceritis. >

But why wasn’t the weapon secured? >

Press release reads as “we are bad parents, we know it and we are hoping people don’t take notice” >

Oh thank God, it has nothing to do with guns then. >

What in the hell is an acute disability? 
—Teacher of 21 years (hundreds of IEPs). >

ED most likely. It refers to emotional disabilities usually. The lawyer/family are just trying to skirt around calling it what it is. 
-former teacher >

This lawyer must of graduated at the top of his fucken class… >


The firearm our son accessed was secured.

It wasn't. You know how I know, the middle three words of the sentence. >

In layman’s terms- he’s a psychopath >

I don’t care how cute it was >

This is a small price to pay in order to make sure the crazies have loads of access to guns. - Russian funded NRA operative. >

Yeah, it's called living in the United States. >

Damn. Alleged facts are:
A. Acute disability
B. Gun stored in closet, on top shelf with a trigger lock
C. Disability requires parents at school daily. 
D. School decided parents were no longer necessary
E. School heard he has a gun and searched his back pack
F. Kids shoots teacher on his first day without parents 
Potential lies are B and E. B - unless he’s rain man and could’ve managed to get the gun and unlock the trigger lock, mom has to go to jail. E - how did they not find the gun if they searched him and why didn’t a cop complete the search? Teacher and students are about to get paid. 
Terrible scenario for all involved. >

For E. I've seen it posted he had the gun on him. And they only searched the bag. He would likely have been wearing a winter coat. >

Which is why cops should’ve been called. >

I agree. Clearly they didn't think of checking him. As if it not being in the bag meant the tip was completely wrong. I know he's 6, but you'd think a warning about someone having a gun would be a bigger reaction. >

Do we know what gun it was? I'm having trouble picturing a 6 year old concealing a weapon so well it's not immediately noticeable. My kid can't sneak a LEGO by me. >

Glock clone. Don't know the exact model, but was a Taurus polymer. Probably the size of a Glock 19. You can look it up to see the dimensions, but a 6 year old isn't shoving that down their pants and none notice unless they are blind. He'd have to look like he was hiding something (like coat zipped up indoors).
Even a micro-compact would be hard to hide on a 6 y/o and even if he pulled that off, if they were told he had a gun, why did none give a quick check of the kid? >

He has a disability likely caused by poor parenting. >

Shhhh
It was Jesus testing their faith or something something mysterious ways >

Guess we already forgot about the California politician who had “secured firearms” stolen recently too /shrug >

He a straight killa is that problem >

Acute his ass to the psych ward >

I am terrified to ask, but what happened to this child? How is he so terribly broken? >

And why are there many like him across the country, in every school? Most of them, thankfully, don't end up committing violence, but almost every teacher I know can think of a kid (or several kids) that has a lot in common with the kid who did this >

Sorry but if your crazy kid needs a parent with him at school every day just home school them. >

And that disability ain't aiming.   
Don't let it hold ya back, kid! >

Ands gun. Don’t forget the gun part. >

Fuuuuuuuuck, here we go. >

Well apparently it wasn’t secured there Mom. The kid got it and shot someone. I don’t care if he’s disabled or not. That irrelevant. He was still able to access a gun and shoot a person. >

Were these parents on the PTA?  Im thinking not.... >

He’s a lot less cute holding a gun, that’s for sure. >

I bet the teacher didn’t think it was cute >

I didn't know idiots for parents qualified. >

I don’t think it was pretty cute🤷🏼‍♂️ >


“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.”

Jimmy Hill. >

If a disabled 6-year-old can get their hands on firearms, maybe it's too easy to get firearms.
If an entire city's police force is scared of one person with an assault rifle, maybe assault rifles shouldn't be for sale to citizens. >

Bitch I got more than a “acute disability” and I ain’t shooting anyone >

Doesn’t seem too cute to me! >

LilFuckerItis BadParentious syndrome