Another shooting at a Chesapeake Walmart. The local paper said the shooter was a store manager, but TV reports say it was an employee, no position given. They are talking about how these shootings are like a contagion, one shooting giving permission for another shooting. One commentator last night said something that struck me. He said do not call this a incident of mental illness, but a deliberate suicide attempt. Indeed, the shooter did kill himself after killing six other people at least.
Gun proliferation in the American society is a dangerous mix,
Another shooting at a Chesapeake Walmart. The local paper said the shooter was a store manager, but TV reports say it was an employee, no position given.
CNN has identified the alleged shooter as a "team lead", which sounds like someone with some supervisory authority but probably not very much. According to this tweet by a local reporter one of the witnesses claims the alleged shooter was deliberately targeting managers and told the witness (a non-manager) to "go home".
They are talking about how these shootings are like a contagion, one shooting giving permission for another shooting. One commentator last night said something that struck me. He said do not call this a incident of mental illness, but a deliberate suicide attempt. Indeed, the shooter did kill himself after killing six other people at least.
There is some of that. One of the things that is helpful is to distinguish between the two different types of mass shooting. The first is when someone targets people they personally know and have a grudge against, usually family or co-workers. The Chesapeake shooting seems to fall into this category, at least from the initial reports. Those kinds of mass shootings have always happened in the U.S., albeit not quite as frequently in the past.
The other kind of mass shooting is when a gunman goes to some kind of public venue to kill a whole bunch of strangers. This kind of occurrence is a fairly recent 'innovation'. The Club Q shooting seems to fall into this category. The first such incident that I can think of was the University of Texas Tower Shooting incident in 1966. After that there were no similar mass shootings until the 1980s and the occurrences by decade seem to be getting more frequent, really taking off in the 2010s.
Another shooting at a Chesapeake Walmart. The local paper said the shooter was a store manager, but TV reports say it was an employee, no position given.
CNN has identified the alleged shooter as a "team lead", which sounds like someone with some supervisory authority but probably not very much. According to this tweet by a local reporter one of the witnesses claims the alleged shooter was deliberately targeting managers and told the witness (a non-manager) to "go home".
They are talking about how these shootings are like a contagion, one shooting giving permission for another shooting. One commentator last night said something that struck me. He said do not call this a incident of mental illness, but a deliberate suicide attempt. Indeed, the shooter did kill himself after killing six other people at least.
There is some of that. One of the things that is helpful is to distinguish between the two different types of mass shooting. The first is when someone targets people they personally know and have a grudge against, usually family or co-workers. The Chesapeake shooting seems to fall into this category, at least from the initial reports. Those kinds of mass shootings have always happened in the U.S., albeit not quite as frequently in the past.
The other kind of mass shooting is when a gunman goes to some kind of public venue to kill a whole bunch of strangers. This kind of occurrence is a fairly recent 'innovation'. The Club Q shooting seems to fall into this category. The first such incident that I can think of was the University of Texas Tower Shooting incident in 1966. After that there were no similar mass shootings until the 1980s and the occurrences by decade seem to be getting more frequent, really taking off in the 2010s.
The police released a photo of the Chesapeake shooter. He appeared to be an angry young man.
Third thought: apparently the two brave people who stopped the attacker were not carrying guns.
Yeah, saw a lovely quote about that:
"Turns out you don't need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy, just a gay guy with balls"
Three people have been credited with stopping the Club Q shooter. The one who got him on the ground, got one of the shooter's handguns in his hand and started hitting him on the head with it was Richard Fierro, a 15-year army veteran, who was at the club with his wife, daughter, and his daughter's boyfriend (who died in the shooting). They were there to see a friend of his daughter's perform in a drag show and it was Mr. Fierro's first time at a drag show, but he said that he felt that his service in the army was to defend the freedoms of people like those in Club Q to live as they want.
Thomas James moved the shooter's rifle away to safety and kicked the shooter on the floor in the head when Fierro asked him to as Fierro was still trying to immobilize the shooter. James has not been interviewed until recently because he was injured in the hospital. From what I have read, it seems that he identifies as gay and had been to Club Q before.
Fierro also asked one of the drag queens to stomp on the shooter's head with her heels, which she did, but I have not seen the drag queen be named anywhere.
I know this is Hell, but what I'm about to write might stray into Epiphanies territory. But it is relevant to the shooting and if we need to move discussion of it to Epiphanies we can.
The accused shooter's lawyer has said that they (the accused) identifies as non-binary, uses they/them pronouns, and prefers to be referred to as Mx. rather than Mr. or Ms. I have not read anything that indicates that anyone who knew the accused knew about this prior to the shooting - one https://www.thedailybeast.com/anderson-lee-aldrich-colorado-springs-club-q-shooting-suspect-used-anti-gay-slurs-neighbor-saysDaily Beast article quotes a former neighbor of the shooter as saying that he had had heard the shooter use anti-gay slurs - but that does not mean their revelation of their gender identity is not genuine. Prosecutors have said that being a member of the group that one attacks does not prevent someone from being charged under the hate crime laws as they are written in Colorado - and I am aware that gender identity and sexual orientation are different things regardless. However, prosecutors have not said that they know exactly what the shooter's motive was yet (or at least I have not read anything where they or the police say that they have determined a motive yet). Nevertheless, Prosecutors have gone ahead and charged the shooter with murder and hate crime (called bias-motivated crime in Colorado) charges.
And now the evil of unprovoked shooting has spread to peaceful Australia, where gun laws are much more restrictive than in America.
Police, trying to locate a missing person, went on a routine call to the rural property of the missing man, only to be shot at. Two police officers and an innocent neighbour were killed, and two other police escaped with their lives. Later a police armed response unit shot and killed the occupants of the property.
It turns out that the property owner was a right wing nut job who subscribed to QAnon online, to the extent that, unlike most Australian nutters, he believed in the US nut job's maxim "shoot anyone anytime".
And now the evil of unprovoked shooting has spread to peaceful Australia, where gun laws are much more restrictive than in America.
Police, trying to locate a missing person, went on a routine call to the rural property of the missing man, only to be shot at. Two police officers and an innocent neighbour were killed, and two other police escaped with their lives. Later a police armed response unit shot and killed the occupants of the property.
It turns out that the property owner was a right wing nut job who subscribed to QAnon online, to the extent that, unlike most Australian nutters, he believed in the US nut job's maxim "shoot anyone anytime".
It reminds me of Ruby Ridge. I hope he doesn't become a martyr for other conspiracy theorists in Oz, like the family at Ruby Ridge did.
When a conspiracy theorist holes him/herself out with others in an isolated area with weapons and a desire to violently confront any arm of the state that tries to find them, how should the state respond in order to avoid an event that makes the movement of antigovernment conspiracy theorists even stronger? And how do you distinguish between the people who just want to be left alone (although that often means breaking the law in one or more ways) from people who want to overthrow the government and/or carry out terror attacks?
And how do you distinguish between the people who just want to be left alone (although that often means breaking the law in one or more ways) from people who want to overthrow the government and/or carry out terror attacks?
I'd query that "often" that you use. Madame and I would certainly want to be left alone, and I suspect that you would also. While I can't say if you're breaking the law or not, neither of us is.
And how do you distinguish between the people who just want to be left alone (although that often means breaking the law in one or more ways) from people who want to overthrow the government and/or carry out terror attacks?
I'd query that "often" that you use. Madame and I would certainly want to be left alone, and I suspect that you would also. While I can't say if you're breaking the law or not, neither of us is.
I think the sort of people @stonespring is talking about want to be left alone by e.g. tax officials.
... whereas for some parts of the U.S., it's polygamists and others with ... interesting... views of how families work. Like child marriage.
Or so-called “sovereign citizens” (who consumed way too much of my time for way too many years).
Oh do tell. I love these sorts of alternative reality types. Over here we have Freemen on the Land who believe they can avoid being arrested by asking "what is your claim against me?" and court fines by saying "show me your oath of office".
... whereas for some parts of the U.S., it's polygamists and others with ... interesting... views of how families work. Like child marriage.
Or so-called “sovereign citizens” (who consumed way too much of my time for way too many years).
Oh do tell. I love these sorts of alternative reality types. Over here we have Freemen on the Land who believe they can avoid being arrested by asking "what is your claim against me?" and court fines by saying "show me your oath of office".
Yes, we’ve had the Freeman on the Land iteration. They used to argue that the courts in which they were being tried had no jurisdiction because there was gold fringe on the flag, and that according to them meant the court was sitting in admiralty.
... whereas for some parts of the U.S., it's polygamists and others with ... interesting... views of how families work. Like child marriage.
Or so-called “sovereign citizens” (who consumed way too much of my time for way too many years).
Oh do tell. I love these sorts of alternative reality types. Over here we have Freemen on the Land who believe they can avoid being arrested by asking "what is your claim against me?" and court fines by saying "show me your oath of office".
Yes, we’ve had the Freeman on the Land iteration. They used to argue that the courts in which they were being tried had no jurisdiction because there was gold fringe on the flag, and that according to them meant the court was sitting in admiralty.
I would say you couldn’t make this stuff up, except they’ve demonstrated you clearly can.
It puts me in mind of QAnon, inasmuch as it's demonstrably at odds with reality. The arguments these SC/FotL people use don't work in court, just as Q's predictions didn't occur. We've got some conspiracy theorists like this as well; I've got one I keep an eye on who confidently predicted that two years ago schools would close permanently under the pretext of Covid prevention. This simply didn't happen, but she still has a following of people hanging on her every word.
It's a kind of fantasy world, which people build, in order to avoid the real world. Hence, the sovereign citizen decries the state as illegitimate, whereas his/her identity is somehow genuine. This might be OK, but it often turns into anti-social and violent acts. Of course, there is a wide spectrum of such movements, including anti-vax, freemen on the land, tax resisters, QAnon, etc. It is often linked with white supremacism, but there are black or "Moorish" groups, claiming to be not bound by state laws.
As to why people try to avoid harsh reality, it's human, all too human. I just hit the bottle. I suppose it often links with fascism.
Until a couple of days ago, most here have said that the local equivalent were (i) very few in number (ii) complete and utter loopies, and (iii) basically harmless. The dreadful events in Queensland have shown the falsity of the last point, while basically proving the first two.
I used to think they were mostly harmless but strange too Gee D,but there were a few oddities that caught my attention. The article Nick referenced mentioned that they were more dangerous that many people suspected.
From the news report I read it sounded like a lot of other things were also going on in that family.
I saw the father of the offenders distress, and my sympathies are also with the families of the young police officers who were killed in the line of duty.
Yes - so young and killed with absolutely no reason. I can only speak of what we've heard in the local area, but the shock and distress I referred to seem to be pretty widely felt.
This happened in my local area. The grief and shock are very real. There are quite a few anti-vax, conspiracy theorists out this way, which adds to the worry.
This will likely get the parents in extreme trouble. It can be the grounds for Child Welfare to intervene for placing a child in an unsafe situation and criminal neglect. I can see the teacher suing the parents as well.
Adults should not keep a loaded gun within reach of a young child. Fact is, the gun should have been unloaded and in a gun safe with a tamper proof lock. Better yet, remove the gun altogether,
There's a tiny minority of the population (farmers, hunters, veterinary surgeons and the armed forces) whose professions and/or hobbies require them to need guns.
The rest of us do not.
If the teacher survives, I hope she sues the parents into the middle of next week.
There's a tiny minority of the population (farmers, hunters, veterinary surgeons and the armed forces) whose professions and/or hobbies require them to need guns.
The rest of us do not.
While I definitely agree, I’ll note that in many parts of the US, hunters comprise much more than a tiny minority of the population.
FWIW, Newport News is in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia, which also includes Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Norfolk and some other towns. There are a number of military bases in the region, and because of that the area has a higher than average concentration of current and former military personnel. Whether that’s in any way connected, I can’t say, but that military/former military presence is felt in the region.
Even where hunters are common that needn't involve keeping guns at home, and even where that is allowed it should be under strict conditions, preferably with secure storage that logs access.
Active military personnel don't need guns at home either, they'll be issued the guns they need which will be stored on base. Unless, of course, the threat of invasion and/or armed insurrection is so high that they need access to their guns to defend the nation without first getting onto base - in which case, you might need a well regulated militia (and, without that threat, you don't need a well regulated militia either).
All- American parenting for some: "Ready for your first year at school, dear? Here's your lunchbox. and here's your six-gun, in case anyone is not polite enough to you."
Now I'm waiting for the NRA to tell the world that elementary school teachers, who may not be allowed to use corporal punishment, should carry their own guns instead.
All- American parenting for some: "Ready for your first year at school, dear? Here's your lunchbox. and here's your six-gun, in case anyone is not polite enough to you."
Now I'm waiting for the NRA to tell the world that elementary school teachers, who may not be allowed to use corporal punishment, should carry their own guns instead.
I cannot think of a scenario where a normal parent would give a six year old a loaded gun to use. The kid probably could have stolen the gun from under the parent's pillow in the bedroom, or the parent is just incapable of raising a kid. I am leaning to the second alternative. Child Welfare has to investigate.
There was another shocking video that surfaced today of a young adult attempting to rob a fast food restaurant in Texas with a gun. One of the customers ended up shooting the robber and then checked the gun the robber was using. Turns out, the robber's gun was fake. And the god-awful reaction of the shooter was he left the scene. He drove away! By law he should have stayed there until the police responded. Sorry, I cannot link to the video. In the past I had posted a similar video and it was deleted because the volunteers here thought it was too violent.
AFAIK hunting is not done with handguns, which is what was used in this case.
There are people that hunt with handguns, but the guns they use aren't really the same as the handguns that people carry for self-defense, that law enforcement routinely carries, and that criminals routinely use.
Question: why is the child in police custody, they’re six ?
I believe the police took the six year old in custody at the scene, but handed him over to the Department of Social Services later.
Has such a case happened before in the US? That is to say, where a child has apparently shot someone deliberately - IIRC, there have been accidents involving children handling guns...
I cannot think of a scenario where a normal parent would give a six year old a loaded gun to use. The kid probably could have stolen the gun from under the parent's pillow in the bedroom, or the parent is just incapable of raising a kid. I am leaning to the second alternative. Child Welfare has to investigate.
One could reasonably argue that having a loaded handgun in a place where a six year old child could acquire it and take it to school automatically places the parent in "incapable of raising a kid" territory.
Six year olds are, well, six. They're mostly a long way from having a complete grasp of things like the fact that if you shoot someone with an actual real gun, then the results are rather significant.
What does "deliberately" mean here? Did the kid intend to point the gun at the teacher and pull the trigger? Yes. Did the kid actually understand that this was a real weapon, and did the kid fully understand the consequences of firing a real weapon at someone? Those are different questions...
I cannot think of a scenario where a normal parent would give a six year old a loaded gun to use. The kid probably could have stolen the gun from under the parent's pillow in the bedroom, or the parent is just incapable of raising a kid. I am leaning to the second alternative. Child Welfare has to investigate.
<snip>
What does "deliberately" mean here? Did the kid intend to point the gun at the teacher and pull the trigger? Yes. Did the kid actually understand that this was a real weapon, and did the kid fully understand the consequences of firing a real weapon at someone? Those are different questions...
Indeed they are different questions, and (I assume) remain to be answered as far as this case is concerned.
My use of the word *deliberately* was perhaps misleading, but I couldn't think of another way to describe what appears to have happened - given that it was, presumably, not an accident.
Or was it? Giving the child the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
I expect more information will come to light, but it's an horrific scenario...
My use of the word *deliberately* was perhaps misleading, but I couldn't think of another way to describe what appears to have happened - given that it was, presumably, not an accident.
Or was it? Giving the child the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
I expect more information will come to light, but it's an horrific scenario...
My point is really that there are different kinds of "deliberate".
At one level, it's a question about whether the kid pulled the trigger on purpose vs "it just went off in my hands".
But at another level, it draws in all those questions of intention and understanding of consequences and reality and so on.
Turns out the boy's mother had legally purchased the firearm. The boy took it out of mother's purse and stuck it in his school backpack. The incident happened while the teacher was leading the class. The boy pulled out the gun and pointed it at the teacher who reached out as if to get the gun. The boy fired, hitting her in the chest.
While wounded, the teacher got the rest of the class out of the room She then went to the school office and collapsed on the office floor. When police got to the scene they found a school employee restraining the child. There were other bullets in the gun--a .09 mm weapon.
Mother may still be charged with a crime. Investigation ongoing.
CBS said in the last year there were six other shootings done by other six-year-olds.
Comments
Yeah, saw a lovely quote about that:
"Turns out you don't need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy, just a gay guy with balls"
Gun proliferation in the American society is a dangerous mix,
CNN has identified the alleged shooter as a "team lead", which sounds like someone with some supervisory authority but probably not very much. According to this tweet by a local reporter one of the witnesses claims the alleged shooter was deliberately targeting managers and told the witness (a non-manager) to "go home".
There is some of that. One of the things that is helpful is to distinguish between the two different types of mass shooting. The first is when someone targets people they personally know and have a grudge against, usually family or co-workers. The Chesapeake shooting seems to fall into this category, at least from the initial reports. Those kinds of mass shootings have always happened in the U.S., albeit not quite as frequently in the past.
The other kind of mass shooting is when a gunman goes to some kind of public venue to kill a whole bunch of strangers. This kind of occurrence is a fairly recent 'innovation'. The Club Q shooting seems to fall into this category. The first such incident that I can think of was the University of Texas Tower Shooting incident in 1966. After that there were no similar mass shootings until the 1980s and the occurrences by decade seem to be getting more frequent, really taking off in the 2010s.
The police released a photo of the Chesapeake shooter. He appeared to be an angry young man.
Three people have been credited with stopping the Club Q shooter. The one who got him on the ground, got one of the shooter's handguns in his hand and started hitting him on the head with it was Richard Fierro, a 15-year army veteran, who was at the club with his wife, daughter, and his daughter's boyfriend (who died in the shooting). They were there to see a friend of his daughter's perform in a drag show and it was Mr. Fierro's first time at a drag show, but he said that he felt that his service in the army was to defend the freedoms of people like those in Club Q to live as they want.
Thomas James moved the shooter's rifle away to safety and kicked the shooter on the floor in the head when Fierro asked him to as Fierro was still trying to immobilize the shooter. James has not been interviewed until recently because he was injured in the hospital. From what I have read, it seems that he identifies as gay and had been to Club Q before.
Fierro also asked one of the drag queens to stomp on the shooter's head with her heels, which she did, but I have not seen the drag queen be named anywhere.
I know this is Hell, but what I'm about to write might stray into Epiphanies territory. But it is relevant to the shooting and if we need to move discussion of it to Epiphanies we can.
The accused shooter's lawyer has said that they (the accused) identifies as non-binary, uses they/them pronouns, and prefers to be referred to as Mx. rather than Mr. or Ms. I have not read anything that indicates that anyone who knew the accused knew about this prior to the shooting - one https://www.thedailybeast.com/anderson-lee-aldrich-colorado-springs-club-q-shooting-suspect-used-anti-gay-slurs-neighbor-saysDaily Beast article quotes a former neighbor of the shooter as saying that he had had heard the shooter use anti-gay slurs - but that does not mean their revelation of their gender identity is not genuine. Prosecutors have said that being a member of the group that one attacks does not prevent someone from being charged under the hate crime laws as they are written in Colorado - and I am aware that gender identity and sexual orientation are different things regardless. However, prosecutors have not said that they know exactly what the shooter's motive was yet (or at least I have not read anything where they or the police say that they have determined a motive yet). Nevertheless, Prosecutors have gone ahead and charged the shooter with murder and hate crime (called bias-motivated crime in Colorado) charges.
Police, trying to locate a missing person, went on a routine call to the rural property of the missing man, only to be shot at. Two police officers and an innocent neighbour were killed, and two other police escaped with their lives. Later a police armed response unit shot and killed the occupants of the property.
It turns out that the property owner was a right wing nut job who subscribed to QAnon online, to the extent that, unlike most Australian nutters, he believed in the US nut job's maxim "shoot anyone anytime".
Kyrie eleison
It reminds me of Ruby Ridge. I hope he doesn't become a martyr for other conspiracy theorists in Oz, like the family at Ruby Ridge did.
When a conspiracy theorist holes him/herself out with others in an isolated area with weapons and a desire to violently confront any arm of the state that tries to find them, how should the state respond in order to avoid an event that makes the movement of antigovernment conspiracy theorists even stronger? And how do you distinguish between the people who just want to be left alone (although that often means breaking the law in one or more ways) from people who want to overthrow the government and/or carry out terror attacks?
I'd query that "often" that you use. Madame and I would certainly want to be left alone, and I suspect that you would also. While I can't say if you're breaking the law or not, neither of us is.
I think the sort of people @stonespring is talking about want to be left alone by e.g. tax officials.
Oh do tell. I love these sorts of alternative reality types. Over here we have Freemen on the Land who believe they can avoid being arrested by asking "what is your claim against me?" and court fines by saying "show me your oath of office".
The most recent iteration I dealt with was the Moorish Sovereign Citizens.
I would say you couldn’t make this stuff up, except they’ve demonstrated you clearly can.
It puts me in mind of QAnon, inasmuch as it's demonstrably at odds with reality. The arguments these SC/FotL people use don't work in court, just as Q's predictions didn't occur. We've got some conspiracy theorists like this as well; I've got one I keep an eye on who confidently predicted that two years ago schools would close permanently under the pretext of Covid prevention. This simply didn't happen, but she still has a following of people hanging on her every word.
I do not understand this phenomenon.
As to why people try to avoid harsh reality, it's human, all too human. I just hit the bottle. I suppose it often links with fascism.
Nick Tamen - thanks for the link.
Quetzacoatl. that kind of makes sense of a man here who put red fingerprints over a court document, in effect claiming his own uniqueness.
And you’re welcome, Huia.
Until a couple of days ago, most here have said that the local equivalent were (i) very few in number (ii) complete and utter loopies, and (iii) basically harmless. The dreadful events in Queensland have shown the falsity of the last point, while basically proving the first two.
From the news report I read it sounded like a lot of other things were also going on in that family.
I saw the father of the offenders distress, and my sympathies are also with the families of the young police officers who were killed in the line of duty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64194407
This will likely get the parents in extreme trouble. It can be the grounds for Child Welfare to intervene for placing a child in an unsafe situation and criminal neglect. I can see the teacher suing the parents as well.
Adults should not keep a loaded gun within reach of a young child. Fact is, the gun should have been unloaded and in a gun safe with a tamper proof lock. Better yet, remove the gun altogether,
There's a tiny minority of the population (farmers, hunters, veterinary surgeons and the armed forces) whose professions and/or hobbies require them to need guns.
The rest of us do not.
If the teacher survives, I hope she sues the parents into the middle of next week.
FWIW, Newport News is in the Hampton Roads region of Virginia, which also includes Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Norfolk and some other towns. There are a number of military bases in the region, and because of that the area has a higher than average concentration of current and former military personnel. Whether that’s in any way connected, I can’t say, but that military/former military presence is felt in the region.
Now I'm waiting for the NRA to tell the world that elementary school teachers, who may not be allowed to use corporal punishment, should carry their own guns instead.
I cannot think of a scenario where a normal parent would give a six year old a loaded gun to use. The kid probably could have stolen the gun from under the parent's pillow in the bedroom, or the parent is just incapable of raising a kid. I am leaning to the second alternative. Child Welfare has to investigate.
There was another shocking video that surfaced today of a young adult attempting to rob a fast food restaurant in Texas with a gun. One of the customers ended up shooting the robber and then checked the gun the robber was using. Turns out, the robber's gun was fake. And the god-awful reaction of the shooter was he left the scene. He drove away! By law he should have stayed there until the police responded. Sorry, I cannot link to the video. In the past I had posted a similar video and it was deleted because the volunteers here thought it was too violent.
Doublethink, Admin
(Nor anyone else for that matter, without a very clear warning and a very good reason.)
I believe the police took the six year old in custody at the scene, but handed him over to the Department of Social Services later.
There are people that hunt with handguns, but the guns they use aren't really the same as the handguns that people carry for self-defense, that law enforcement routinely carries, and that criminals routinely use.
Has such a case happened before in the US? That is to say, where a child has apparently shot someone deliberately - IIRC, there have been accidents involving children handling guns...
One could reasonably argue that having a loaded handgun in a place where a six year old child could acquire it and take it to school automatically places the parent in "incapable of raising a kid" territory.
Six year olds are, well, six. They're mostly a long way from having a complete grasp of things like the fact that if you shoot someone with an actual real gun, then the results are rather significant.
What does "deliberately" mean here? Did the kid intend to point the gun at the teacher and pull the trigger? Yes. Did the kid actually understand that this was a real weapon, and did the kid fully understand the consequences of firing a real weapon at someone? Those are different questions...
Indeed they are different questions, and (I assume) remain to be answered as far as this case is concerned.
Or was it? Giving the child the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.
I expect more information will come to light, but it's an horrific scenario...
My point is really that there are different kinds of "deliberate".
At one level, it's a question about whether the kid pulled the trigger on purpose vs "it just went off in my hands".
But at another level, it draws in all those questions of intention and understanding of consequences and reality and so on.
While wounded, the teacher got the rest of the class out of the room She then went to the school office and collapsed on the office floor. When police got to the scene they found a school employee restraining the child. There were other bullets in the gun--a .09 mm weapon.
Mother may still be charged with a crime. Investigation ongoing.
CBS said in the last year there were six other shootings done by other six-year-olds.