Georgia High School Shooting 4 Sept 2024

[thperez1972]

So far, all I’ve seen is reports of the father being “charged” and they talk about why. I don’t see where they ever truly addressed what laws were broken or what the DA actually indicted the man for. If the DA is seriously considering pursuing charges, I’m thinking they’ve got all that worked out or they’re getting it worked out. That sort of thing happens every day.

Here are the sites for the Clerk of Court and the Jail Inmate Search. His charges are still the same as listed above with no charge being related to providing access to the firearm.

Clerk of Superior, State and Juvenile Courts

http://jail.barrowsheriff.com:8095/NewWorld.InmateInquiry/GA0070000

I don't know much about criminal law, much less in Ga. But the basic theory is like a getaway driver participating in a felony crime when a death occurs during the course of the crime - they can be charged with felony murder even if the driver did nothing directly that led to the death.

So in this case, a father gave or allowed access through gross negligence a firearm/ammunition to a minor with known instability issues and the firearm was used to murder. The father didn't directly commit the murder, but he "drove the car." That's why 2nd degree - no intent. The law should include firearms like they do cars IMO. Without that we are one good lawyer away from this guy walking, and he apparently gave the gun to the kid directly.

I get your point but your comparison is not a good one as you inadvertently pointed out. If he knew about his son's mental issues and didn't take steps to limit his son's access to the firearms, his actions did not rise to the level of a reasonable person and he was, therefore, negligent. But negligence is not "participating in a felony crime when a death occurs during the course of the crime." He was not the getaway driver. He was the one who let the getaway driver have access to the car.

 

[cbbr]

No, I am aware of the difference. In this case, I think that he was a "driver".

He apparently bought the gun for the kid and gave it to him (her/it/whatever) knowing that the kid was very disturbed. And there are reports that the parents warned the school, but they must not have retrieved the gun.

But again, I specified gross negligence/intentional on purpose. In the plain, garden variety negligence cases I agree with you.

 

[John_]

I don't know much about criminal law, much less in Ga. But the basic theory is like a getaway driver participating in a felony crime when a death occurs during the course of the crime - they can be charged with felony murder even if the driver did nothing directly that led to the death.

So in this case, a father gave or allowed access through gross negligence a firearm/ammunition to a minor with known instability issues and the firearm was used to murder. The father didn't directly commit the murder, but he "drove the car." That's why 2nd degree - no intent. The law should include firearms like they do cars IMO. Without that we are one good lawyer away from this guy walking, and he apparently gave the gun to the kid directly.

We think alike on this, and I agree with you. One has to see the culpability and responsibility of the father in this case. Who could have prevented this shooting, who could have stopped it dead in it's tracks before it ever occurred? His father, by properly managing and securing his weapon. He directly enabled his 14 yo son to go on a shooting spree, a murder fest, at a school no less. A 14 yo who made threats to shoot up a school on social media (Discord) just months earlier. Like what warning signs or red flags do you need to see before you take some real action?

Everybody here on BS has an opinion, and is entitled to express it. A few here don't respect other's opinions and even go so far as to hurl veiled insults on some members. They seem to know what they can get away with, or push the limit, especially when some of the the mod's train of thought or opinion may be very similar to their own. Some show little tolerance, or respect. Not many at all, but there are a few.

Some here also state and feel the shooter's father Colin Gray did nothing wrong, shares no culpability in this shooting, in the name of our freedom and our gun rights. That he had no obligation to lock up his weapon in a safe or secure locker to prevent his disturbed son from doing what he did. Or that the father's actions are criminal. That is how radical their approach is to gun laws and rights. They are as far to one side as are the Dems on the other side wanting to ban certain semi auto centerfire rifles, high cap magazines, and the AR-15 itself. Logic and reason has to meet somewhere in the middle imo. A zealot is a zealot, no matter if he stands on the far right or the far left of a controversial topic or discussion.

 

[Abby Normal]

“I’m just a simple Caveman, your laws confuse me.”
I agree the dad was negligent in a number of ways with a nut job son. Most 14 boys 1st gun is a.22rl not an AR. If the dad is negligent for letting nut job have access to the gun, then is the FBI negligent for not watching this nut job closer? It seams that most of if not all of these nut job shooter are on the FBIs watch list. How many of times has it been now. Remember Trump’s shooter was visited by the FBI for threatening to shoot up his school. Does the FBI just show up at their home & put their name in a list with no actual watching?

 

[thperez1972]

We think alike on this, and I agree with you. One has to see the culpability and responsibility of the father in this case. Who could have prevented this shooting, who could have stopped it dead in it's tracks before it ever occurred? His father, by properly managing and securing his weapon. He directly enabled his 14 yo son to go on a shooting spree, a murder fest, at a school no less. A 14 yo who made threats to shoot up a school on social media (Discord) just months earlier. Like what warning signs or red flags do you need to see before you take some real action?

Everybody here on BS has an opinion, and is entitled to express it. A few here don't respect other's opinions and even go so far as to hurl veiled insults on some members. They seem to know what they can get away with, or push the limit, especially when some of the the mod's train of thought or opinion may be very similar to their own. Some show little tolerance, or respect. Not many at all, but there are a few.

Some here also state and feel the shooter's father Colin Gray did nothing wrong, shares no culpability in this shooting, in the name of our freedom and our gun rights. That he had no obligation to lock up his weapon in a safe or secure locker to prevent his disturbed son from doing what he did. Or that the father's actions are criminal. That is how radical their approach is to gun laws and rights. They are as far to one side as are the Dems on the other side wanting to ban certain semi auto centerfire rifles, high cap magazines, and the AR-15 itself. Logic and reason has to meet somewhere in the middle imo. A zealot is a zealot, no matter if he stands on the far right or the far left of a controversial topic or discussion.

If the father allowed the son to have access to the firearms, as was originally reported, that is not a crime in and of itself. If the father bought the rifle and gave it to the son as a gift, which was not originally reported, that is a crime. If the father allowed the son to have access to the firearms after knowing the son had mental issues, that is negligence. If the father knew the son had plans to go on a shooting spree that date and allowed the son to have access to the weapons, he directly enabled his 14 yo son to go on a shooting spree.

My personal opinion is the father's actions, or inactions, were at the criminal negligence level. I've seen nothing that indicated the father knew about the son's intent that day. That negligence resulted in the death of others and I believe negligent homicide charges are warranted. I also believe that, based on the father's apparent statements, he should be charged with providing a firearm to a prohibited person, a minor. Based on the charges listed on his jail records, he has no charges relative to allowing access to the firearm or supplying the firearm. In my opinion, an additional charge would be required in order to tie the listed charges to someone who was not actively participating in the crimes. If not, "I wasn't there" seems like it would be a viable defense.

I'm not sure if your comments referencing a mod's train of thought or opinions are meant to be directed toward me. I am the only mod in this thread who has interacted with other members, so it seems reasonable to believe they are. In case I am right, I'm going to point out a few things. I am a mod here. I also participate in a number of discussions on here. When I discuss topics, I'm rarely doing so as a mod. Anyone would be hard pressed to find any instances of my taking action as a mod in any discussions I'm personally involved in. But even as a mod, I'm slow to stifle a discussion. I'll let discussions derail much further than other mods. I've actually opened heated threads back up after other mods have closed them. If you feel you have examples of me allowing people whose opinions I agree with hurling veiled threats when I've stopped others whose opinion I disagree with, please share them.

 

[Gator 45/70]

“I’m just a simple Caveman, your laws confuse me.”
I agree the dad was negligent in a number of ways with a nut job son. Most 14 boys 1st gun is a.22rl not an AR. If the dad is negligent for letting nut job have access to the gun, then is the FBI negligent for not watching this nut job closer? It seams that most of if not all of these nut job shooter are on the FBIs watch list. How many of times has it been now. Remember Trump’s shooter was visited by the FBI for threatening to shoot up his school. Does the FBI just show up at their home & put their name in a list with no actual watching?

But but he was on our radar said no .gov agency ever!

 

[John_]

In case I am right, I'm going to point out a few things. I am a mod here. I also participate in a number of discussions on here. When I discuss topics, I'm rarely doing so as a mod. Anyone would be hard pressed to find any instances of my taking action as a mod in any discussions I'm personally involved in. But even as a mod, I'm slow to stifle a discussion. I'll let discussions derail much further than other mods. I've actually opened heated threads back up after other mods have closed them. If you feel you have examples of me allowing people whose opinions I agree with hurling veiled threats when I've stopped others whose opinion I disagree with, please share them.

First, I don't think you can successfully compartmentalize being a mod while participating in discussion in a thread. No way can you switch, like a light switch from mod to a regular member. You might think you can, but that takes 100% pure objectivity. You might think you are that good, but you are not.

Second, by your own admission above, you are much more lenient then the other mods. Reopening threads which were closed by another mod proves to me your feelings of superiority, even to the other mods. Not respecting their decision on a matter, situation, discipline, or a thread closure. I am a mod on another forum, I have never re-opened a thread closed by a fellow mod. I would discuss it with him in a PM if I felt the need, then it is ultimately his decision to leave closed or reopen. Respect for his decision in a particular instance. Let them moderate, unless they are grossly negligent. Do you feel you are a better mod than the others here at BS, in your opinion? Why do you sometimes overrule their decisions? Bayou Shooter has a TOS document and rules clearly spelled out in written form. Very clear on participant behavior and what is prohibited. Why is it so difficult to make a decision and do what is right as a mod if there is a rules violation?

 

[John_]

Or perhaps another mod asked for your opinion on the situation and his decision after the fact, and deferred to your judgement. A more likely scenario.

 

[thperez1972]

First, I don't think you can successfully compartmentalize being a mod while participating in discussion in a thread. No way can you switch, like a light switch from mod to a regular member. You might think you can, but that takes 100% pure objectivity. You might think you are that good, but you are not.

Do you have an instance where I let my being a mod interject into a discussion in which I was an active participant?

Second, by your own admission above, you are much more lenient then the other mods. Reopening threads which were closed by another mod proves to me your feelings of superiority, even to the other mods. Not respecting their decision on a matter, situation, discipline, or a thread closure. I am a mod on another forum, I have never re-opened a thread closed by a fellow mod. I would discuss it with him in a PM if I felt the need, then it is ultimately his decision to leave closed or reopen. Respect for his decision in a particular instance. Let them moderate, unless they are grossly negligent. Do you feel you are a better mod than the others here at BS, in your opinion? Why do you sometimes overrule their decisions? Bayou Shooter has a TOS document and rules clearly spelled out in written form. Very clear on participant behavior and what is prohibited. Why is it so difficult to make a decision and do what is right as a mod if there is a rules violation?

The threads that were reopened were threads that I had said I was actively monitoring to make sure they did not get out of hand. The thread that immediately comes to mind was the Israel Hamas thread. I said early on in the thread "This topic has the potential to be a little polarizing. People are welcome to disagree on this board but they should be respectful about it. It this thread sets out of hand and the posts turn into personal attacks, the thread will be closed." That discussion was going to be had either in that thread or another thread. It was too big of an event to not discuss.

For the most part, other than a few select instances, I do not reverse another mod's decision, even when I feel they have made a bad decision.

BS has a set of rules. Those rules are subjective no matter how much they are made to be objective. When dealing with people with passionate but opposing viewpoints, is there a clear definition of "rudeness or personal attacks" or "argumentative and divisive behavior" that everyone can agree on? I say no. If a rude post is filled with factual material that furthers the discussion, should that post be taken down and the user be given a warning? If someone makes an off topic post, should a warning follow? Your comments about people's opinions and people getting away with veiled threats because mods agree with them isn't consistent with the topic of the school shooting. As a mod, how should I handle that?

 

[John_]

Do you have an instance where I let my being a mod interject into a discussion in which I was an active participant?

The threads that were reopened were threads that I had said I was actively monitoring to make sure they did not get out of hand. The thread that immediately comes to mind was the Israel Hamas thread. I said early on in the thread "This topic has the potential to be a little polarizing. People are welcome to disagree on this board but they should be respectful about it. It this thread sets out of hand and the posts turn into personal attacks, the thread will be closed." That discussion was going to be had either in that thread or another thread. It was too big of an event to not discuss.

For the most part, other than a few select instances, I do not reverse another mod's decision, even when I feel they have made a bad decision.

BS has a set of rules. Those rules are subjective no matter how much they are made to be objective. When dealing with people with passionate but opposing viewpoints, is there a clear definition of "rudeness or personal attacks" or "argumentative and divisive behavior" that everyone can agree on? I say no. If a rude post is filled with factual material that furthers the discussion, should that post be taken down and the user be given a warning? If someone makes an off topic post, should a warning follow? Your comments about people's opinions and people getting away with veiled threats because mods agree with them isn't consistent with the topic of the school shooting. As a mod, how should I handle that?

Off the top of my head I don't have a particular instance in mind, I'd have to research/re-read for a while.
The rest of it I have to give some thought, the final paragraph. I must yield to your mod experience, you have 20x the experience I have. No doubt moderating here on BS is quite challenging in of itself. A balance between stimulating discussion/activity, or to stifle it. And it has been relatively quiet for 12 months or more, the shear comms volume. I keep stored in my memory Austin told me once "members come here to have a pleasurable time, to enjoy themselves, to share and learn. Nobody likes an a*ss."

 

[Mitch Dufour]

If dad "drove the car" and is to be held accountable, what should we do about the FBI, other LEO's and public officials involved in the kids life that had prior knowledge of the kids issues, AND the guy that worked the local C-Store register that knew the kid was "off" yet still sold him the gasoline to drive to school?

Maybe we should lock up everybody that does not score above the 75th percentile on their Social Credit scoring.

Slippery slopes and all.

 

[Magdump]

Here are the sites for the Clerk of Court and the Jail Inmate Search. His charges are still the same as listed above with no charge being related to providing access to the firearm.

Clerk of Superior, State and Juvenile Courts

http://jail.barrowsheriff.com:8095/NewWorld.InmateInquiry/GA0070000

Thanks. My point was, as I said, I’m sure the DA knows what they’re doing. Also, the charges may not be what folks expect or want, but how many times have we seen them go with lesser charges in an attempt to get a prosecution? When they’re selling it to a jury. This case is one of the few that seem to be on a test run. Something kind of new. Holding parents accountable for the crimes of their children. That may have something to do with less severe charges as well.
None of us are law scholars, but a little common sense can sometimes steer you right.
As others have said, WTF FBI?!!
You always say that! Just like a little busy body trying to make everyone think you’re in the know about everything. “Oh yeah, fer sure, I knew that all along”… I think I’d just keep that to myself. Watching these alphabet agencies lately and realizing what a joke they are is leaving a bitter tax paying taste in my mouth. I mean, after the crazyarse US Secret Service debacle at the trump assassination rally, they all look like buffoons to me now.

Man, look at all the good old BS drama I just jumped over… just leap frogged right over that chit. Hahaha

 

[Bolt Head]

Man, look at all the good old BS drama I just jumped over… just leap frogged right over that chit. Hahaha

Why, whatever do you mean?

 

[thperez1972]

 

[John_]

The latest minor making threats to shoot up a school in Florida. He is 11 years old and the sheriff released his pic. Sheriff says if you won't raise them right, I'm going to shame you and your family.
"Since parents, you don't want to raise your kids, I'm gonna start raising them," Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said at a news conference Friday. "Every time we make an arrest, your kids' photo is going to be put out there and if I can do it, I'm gonna perp walk your kid so that everybody can see what your kid's up to." I like this Sheriff.

article

 

[jdindadell]

Perez, yes I think so. The risks with young children or minors in the household is simply too great. People should be held accountable in that situation. And for some the only way they will be responsible/accountable is to know they can be arrested and charged for failing to secure their weapon. I vote for it. Imagine the heartache when little Johnny shoots his 4 yo sister in the head and kills her BC mommy or daddy left their pistol on the table, or on the kitchen counter, or on the nightstand.

How about this scenario:

You leave your gun out and your kid picks it up and shoots themselves, and dies of the gunshot. I'm not sure if i could think of a punishment that would be worse that being directly responsible for your own child's death... so I do not think the adult in this situation needs to have any charges.

However, you leave your gun out and your kid shoots someone else and kills/injures them. Now you need to be on the hook, and both you and the kid need to "learn a lesson" and yes that needs to be done with some charges and some jail time, etc.

I'm "pro common sense" which we all know is not common. Leaving guns laying around for kids to get hold of is a bad idea, across the board. And I do believe that if any sort of mental illness, or mood medication is in play there should not be any access to guns or other weapons, as they pose a significantly higher threat than guns in the possession of stable people. This would apply to people of all ages, not just kids. Keep the guns away from the nuts... not a nice way to say it, but nice goes out the window once murder becomes the topic.

Buying your kid a gun has always bothered me, but most of my friends who have boys have bought them guns. Now the guns are only allowed to be used under supervision, and the boys are not allowed to have access with out supervision. So that is ok with me. Giving kids access to guns is dumb, kids cant properly think things out, that's why their parents are held responsible.

And prosecuting the parents does seem to be a way to set examples without the need for more draconian gun laws. And I'm all for less draconian gun laws (all gun laws are draconian, straight from draconia, the place where all bad ideas stem from).

 

[John_]

Based on a person, not a place.

"Draconian laws can be traced to Athens, and they were created by Draco, a Greek aristocrat in the 7th century BC. He created laws as a way of reducing feud between people. However, these laws became harsh and intolerable. 549BC saw the end of the Draconian law as it was termed oppressive, and people could no longer live with it."

 

[jdindadell]

Based on a person, not a place.

"Draconian laws can be traced to Athens, and they were created by Draco, a Greek aristocrat in the 7th century BC. He created laws as a way of reducing feud between people. However, these laws became harsh and intolerable. 549BC saw the end of the Draconian law as it was termed oppressive, and people could no longer live with it."

I know who Draco was, Harry Potter's arch nemesis...

It was a bit of satire, claiming that draconian laws came from Draconia, which is a fictitious place I just made up....