• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

13 yo boy arrested for making threats to shoot up middle school in Florida

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Or train teachers. Offer teachers more pay to go through training.
Even if only five teachers out of twenty do the training... That's five trained people that's always there.

Offer the job to vets
Most vets are REMFs anyway. Those who actually
saw combat, might've endured trauma making
them unsuitable.
Only one group of potential school defenders has
a singular distinct advantage of suitability, ie, being
already on site when trouble starts: school staff.
Whether teacher, janitor, clerk, or lunch lady, this
is the pool from which to find suitable people to
become trained & armed.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I read this with some skepticism. Courts have a habit of taking what autistic people say wildly out of context, which is easy to do because people with autism don't always phrase things in the most obvious way. Their tone often comes across completely differently from how they meant it.

It's worth noting that apparently he was homeschooled at the time with no access to firearms, so shooting up the school might have just been an exaggerated expression of frustration and hopelessness rather than a real threat. It's clear he was suffering.

It seems more like a kid is being punished for speaking frankly about the thoughts he's struggling with, rather than getting him better care, based on a prior stereotype about autistic people being "school shooters" when most shooters have been antisocial, not autistic.

I don't mean to condemn efforts made to prevent shootings. This particular story just seems off to me.
Yeah, well that and I can't count how many times I've vocalized a desire to do violence to another while in a state of anger but nothing comes of it. I've even recently had more thoughts of violence than normal, but it's a symptom of stress, frustration, unmet needs and anti-trans bigotrybut it's not actually going to manifeat as violence.
Amd this is America. We don't have the speech laws other countries have that would potentially make what the kid did illegal, and they are better at getting people help so it would probably work out better for him on a different First World Western nation.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Holy crap!! Doesn't @Shaul even read the news sources the used? He usually drags the bottom of the barrel so sometimes I ignore them myself. I have to kick myself for doing that since the fastest way to refute his posts is usually to read his sources and see where that leads.

The kid was merely angry. He had no access to guns. The family owned no guns. He was being homeschooled at the time. He was just mouthing off as so many young kids do.

Before this happened there had already been an investigation:

"According to Jones, a threat assessment was completed in which both local police and the school signed off on the messages not being a threat. Two weeks later, Jones says her son was then arrested. When Jones asked the officers who ordered the arrest, she says an officer told her “it was the state.”"

The mother has some political baggage and it could have been state officials abusing their authority to get back at here. At any rate it does not appear to be a valid threat at all.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Arresting him doesn't indicate that's the goal, but rather just punishing an angry youth doing nothing more than running his mouth and make everything worse for him.
I don't see your reasoning. Peace officers are the first-responders. The boy had made threats of violence. It is quite reasonable that those sent to respond should be those best trained to handle and diffuse potential violence. After any immediate threat is resolved then others respond to other aspects. AFAIK that is pretty standard.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I don't see your reasoning. Peace officers are the first-responders. The boy had made threats of violence. It is quite reasonable that those sent to respond should be those best trained to handle and diffuse potential violence. After any immediate threat is resolved then others respond to other aspects. AFAIK that is pretty standard.
Wow! He never did read his article that he linked.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I don't see your reasoning. Peace officers are the first-responders. The boy had made threats of violence. It is quite reasonable that those sent to respond should be those best trained to handle and diffuse potential violence. After any immediate threat is resolved then others respond to other aspects. AFAIK that is pretty standard.
It's actually not really that common, especially when it can't be followed up (can't shoot without a gun).
And as I pointed out America lacks the laws that would potentially make it illegal in other countries.
 
Top