The parents of the Oxford shooter are taking tremendous heat. And rightfully so. But we can't overlook the school's insane non-response, either. This kid drew seriously concerning things about shooting people, and no one thought to check his backpack or ask about gun access?
This wasn't a student pointing finger guns or "acting out." He drew people getting shot and expressed serious mental instability re: serious violence. The FIRST step should have been to ensure he wasn't an imminent threat, then assess general gun access for future threats.
Which is, frankly, also my issue with the parents. I get called into that meeting? I go home and double check the status/security of all lethal means in the home. And any gun is staying on my person or inaccessible until that kid's been in therapy for 6 months, minimum.
I cannot overstate how important it is for gun owners with children or mentally unwell individuals to always know the status of their guns. It can and does save lives - often from suicide, but also from school shootings.
This is a good time to review the case law on student searches and the Fourth Amendment. While students certainly have a fair amount of 4A protection, it's unfathomable to me to read cases like NJ v. T.L.O. as a meaning the school couldn't search this kid's backpack. THREAD.
The short version is that the court upheld the reasonableness of an administrator's search of a student's purse for cigarettes after a teacher reported her for smoking in the bathroom. 2/
The basic premise is that searches must be reasonable at their inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the search in the first place. 3/
A number of people have asked about this shooting in Lubbock, Texas, for which video was just released showing the confrontation from two angles. Here's the tl;dr - there is a pretty strong case for criminal charges against the shooter. THREAD kcbd.com/2021/11/24/att…
In Texas, the use of deadly force is only justified “when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary” to protect against another’s unlawful use of deadly force, or to prevent the imminent commission of specific violent felonies. 1/
The use of deadly force in defense of property is justified only when immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of serious crimes like arson, burglary, or robbery – note, trespassing is not included. You can't shoot or threaten to shoot trespassers without more. 2/
- Travis McMichael guilty of malice murder [top charge] and four counts of felony murder, along with several other felonies.
- Greg McMichael guilty of four counts of felony murder, and several other felonies
- Roddie Bryan guilty of three counts of felony murder
I thought Bryan had a reasonable shot with the claim that he didn't know the McMichaels were armed or would shoot anyone. But this general outcome was expected by anyone who actually watched the trial.
Let's break this down a bit: THREAD
This was actual vigilantism. Georgia's [then-existing] citizen's arrest law was horribly written, but obviously did not authorize the armed pursuit of [at worst] a misdemeanor suspect no one actually saw commit said misdemeanor, for the purpose of "questioning" him.
(1) The framing of basic facts here is appalling. This wasn't a peaceful protest. Those ended hours earlier. By the prosecution's own admission, at the very least Rosenbaum - had he lived - would have been prosecuted for his actions that night.
(1)(cont.) Grosskruetz was himself armed with a gun. The whole thing is taking place in front of a minority-owned car lot that's actively being destroyed, during riots that cause $50 million in damages, and begins with Rittenhouse trying to put out an intentionally-set fire.
How are we still playing this game? First, I reject that premise that Rittenhouse "instigated contact" because the video evidence shows him actively running away while being chased, while the contextual evidence is that *no one* should have been there under those circumstances 1/
But let's do this. Right in the thread of dozens of cases is that of Tony Bristol, who killed one unarmed man and nearly killed a second, with a gun he indisputably could not legally possess as a felon but brought his night club security job. clarksvillenow.com/local/verdict-… 2/
Bristol claimed the two men confronted him over an ongoing dispute, he tried to leave, and they engaged him. He claimed he believed they were armed and he reasonably feared imminent danger. 3/
I mean there are text messages that night reasonably inferring she was going to his house specifically to kill him. That's...really damaging to a self-defense claim. It's *still* possible that she did, in that moment, still act in lawful self-defense. But much more complicated.
You can read more below. I want to be very clear - the asshole she killed was a horrible human being who deserved a lifetime of punishment. I have an infinite amount of sympathy for Kizer. She lived through complete hell.