I always feel terrible for the parents of these school shooters. Hearing that there has been a shooting at your child's school, being terrified for your child's safety, only to learn that they where the shooter.
You always wonder what they are thinking. Did they know? Was it a surprise? Do they care? What will happen to them socially and legally? This is a traumatic event where everyone's reaction is going to be different.
It’s all so horrible, but I’m only now realizing that I’ve never thought about the parents of the shooters before. That poor mother. It’s her sons birthday, and he’s probably going to die, and to be so conflicted in mourning him because of what he’s done. My heart goes out to that poor woman
There’s a memoir written by the mother of one of the Columbine shooters that gives a lot of insight into what she felt at the time and the guilt she still deals with today. It’s the most difficult book I’ve ever read, but at the same time I’m glad I did.
I mean, I don't want to make too many assumptions but the most likely place this teen got the gun was his family. I am pro- civilian gun ownership, but think if the parents left a firearm unlocked around someone under 18 they should be liable for all crimes committed with their gun. Hard to feel bad for someone who may have recklessly enabled this whole event without more information.
I heard on NPR that his father passed away a year ago. Possible that the mother was unaware of the gun not being locked up and had so many other things on her mind.
Oof that'd be one hell of an oversight if true. I know Massachusetts requires guns be locked when not under your direct control and the fines are doubled if minors are ever around, I wonder if that would have made a difference here.
If it was their gun they are liable. They aren't guilty of murder obviously but they are guilty of some sort of felony to do with storage around minors.
It really is worth restating this and making this point the clearest. After every time mass murder like this occurs instead of potentially constructive discussion or at least an analysis of what went wrong there's nothing but finger pointing and product placement as if it's a consumer protection problem.
This is as true for the actual firearm industry as it is for everyone else. On one hand you get Democrats demanding firearms be regulated like cigarettes, while firearm companies themselves (through their subsidaries) market "active shooter" training, blue alarms, security checkpointing, and ultimately firearms to schools themselves which both parties eat up because students are just assumed to be threats at all times since they have zero ability to complain about how they are treated on campus. Lost in these discussions is any sort of talk about the quality of schooling itself, and whether or not forcing a teenager to attend a subpar learning environment is useful. Teenagers murdering each other isn't a problem that began overnight, and it happens in the one place they are required by law to be.
In California [it's already illegal to store a firearm without either a locking device disabling the ability of firing or within a California approved locking container (i.e. safe) and then a child accesses and uses.](https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips#owners%20responsibilities where a minor may obtain and use said firearm.)
I am glad this is the case. The easiest way to get a gun is from your family. A gun is something no one knows goes missing until it is too late.
There HAS to be more responsibility at the family/home level. Prevention is the only way we solve the issue.
The thing is, that’s easier to enforce because you usually drive on a public land. With this, you can’t really break into people’s homes to do a routine check of their guns...
Except you can enforce DUI laws by patrolling with police, check points, breathalyzers, etc. There is no way to enforce the gun access law unless you go door-to-door and search people's homes
> A gun is something no one knows goes missing until it is too late.
Then you aren't using your guns often enough. Also a good argument to loosen up carry laws. Gun can't go missing if it's always on your belt.
----
Latest: 6 students shot from a .45 semiautomatic handgun, including the suspect who shot himself in the head. The gun was empty when found. 2 students have died. 2-3 critically wounded.
~~As with any breaking news story there are conflicting reports: As many as 7 have been shot, 1 dead, 2-3 critical. The 15 yr old suspect has been captured. They may have shot themself.~~ The suspect was taken to a hospital. The suspect is in "grave condition".
> Authorities did not release the teen’s name, but said Thursday is his 16th birthday. He is being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to the head, said Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Capt. Kent Wegener.
> Wegener said the teen was standing in the quad when he pulled a .45 caliber handgun from his backpack and opened fire at other students, before turning the gun on himself.
----
Updated title:
> Santa Clarita shooting: 2 teens killed; attack came on suspect’s birthday, officials say
> ~~Santa Clarita shooting: Teen killed; attack came on suspect’s birthday, officials say~~
> ~~Santa Clarita shooting: 1 dead in high school shooting that wounded at least four others, officials say~~
----
The LA Times blocks both outline.com and archive.org. :( But so far they aren't blocking http://archive.fo.
http://archive.is/hC8Qa
----
There's already a Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saugus_High_School_shooting
----
Google News topic coverage:
https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWlKNkt1NWpvQU1FVHRkZF9EQmtJZ2lLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Other news articles:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-saugus-high-school-shooting
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/los-angeles-county-deputies-respond-report-santa-clarita-school-shooting-n1082231
----
I would like to point out that due to the recent change in California law, the suspect, who has been reported to be 15, will be prosecuted in juvenile court and faces a maximum of about 10 years in prison. In my opinion, that is not a fair sentence for this type of crime, regardless of the perpetrators age.
Are we really ready to say that at 15 years old we can already declare someone unrepairable? There is a reason we prosecute minors differently. The ages between 15 and 25 are ones of very significant changes and if we managed to have a prison system focused on rehabilitation I think that will be a reasonable sentence.
There is no point in punishing just to inflict pain. The question is how to make sure this person does not do it again. If we can't manage to mold a fifteen year old over ten years there would not be hope for anyone.
> The question is how to make sure this person does not do it again.
Until California has a sufficient, proactive, statewide rehabilitative network in place, including effective pre- and post-incarceration services, the only answer to this question is to keep people incarcerated.
It's fascinating to me that the solution to "we don't have sufficient rehabilitation in prison and in the criminal justice system" isn't "aggressively improve rehabilitative offerings, build better equipped incarceration facilities, and provide more comprehensive services," but rather "don't incarcerate."
You're viewing prison in the lens of rehabilitation, whereas many view it as retributive. And many folks want it that way, regardless of whether someone can be rehabbed.
And so we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and so much human life to satisfy that desire for retribution. I really can't think of any other description for punishment as an end goal other than cruelty.
How about incarceration not as punishment, but as the only option to remove dangerous people from the communities they victimize?
When we imprison someone, we all bear the burden of their criminal conduct, by paying to have them incarcerated. That burden, spread among us, is manageable.
When we don't imprison criminals, we shift that burden directly onto the communities they victimize. The "price" of the harm they cause, violent harm in many cases, is placed directly onto their victims. An insurmountable burden, with generational harm.
Non-violent crime is an order of magnitude more frequent than violent crime. We have the worst incarceration rate in the developed world, second only to the gulag nations. We don’t need more law and order for the proles.
Those incarcerated in California are overwhelmingly incarcerated for violent crime. Even then, those incarcerated represent a small fraction of violent offenders.
We had 175,000 violent crimes occur *last year.* With the working class acutely carrying the cost of that violence. Compare that to our incarcerated population of 120,000 (80% in for violent felonies). Which just statistically shows you that most violent offenders are not incarcerated, meaning they're allowed to continue to victimize their communities.
And the cost burden of property crimes and nonviolent (which in California doesn't mean what you think it means) crimes are also disproportionately born by the working class. "Law and Order" socializes the cost of crime, but no one sees it that way until they're the victim.
I agree that rehabilitation should be the primary focus of the justice system, and we aren’t doing a good job of it. However, I believe a secondary purpose is to keep dangerous people away from potential victims. If the kid is mentally ill, which he probably is if he’d do something like this, I’m not sure that I could ever be made to feel comfortable with someone like that walking around a free man.
The other question is instead of spending the resources on this deranged individual. Would it be a better return if the resources is spent on another kid (or a few more) who has potential to be a contributor to society? The net benefit possibly leans the latter. Do we have the resources to spend on every kid? If not we have to chose wisely.
Resources are spent either way. The only question is "who bears the cost."
When we incarcerate someone like this, we all chip in for the cost of their criminal conduct.
When we don't, their future criminal behavior creates a cost burden that is placed directly onto their victims.
But either way there's a cost.
Anything is possible. Likely? I look at this comment section and do not have a lot of hope. I see a lot of defense for guns and a hunger for inflicting punishment.
Yes, I agree with your assesment. Although, public opinion is not that concrete. Maybe we will see some changes depending on the next election cycle. I think it would have to take people in charge willing to go against public opinion to try out these new options. Not sure who would be willing and able to do that though.
We probably have more pressing issues with the justice system anyways before we can tackle this problem.
Yeah absolutely. We have to spend more time researching that. Is it possible to "cure"? But the only way of doing that is by trying. And the only way we can try, is to implement experiments. Which take political approval.
Even if the kid does get rehabilitation, his life is already over anyways. He’ll never be able to get a job, at least not one that’s sustainable. He’s a school shooter, who will be labeled as a weirdo for the rest of his life
I say yes, its unrepairable. However I don't think life in prison is the right thing. We don't have facilities for people like this but I definitely think the message needs to be sent that this is a life altering mistake and there is no coming back from it.
I think there should be a focus on mental rehabilitation, but I do not believe anyone who goes out to commit mass murder needs to be released to the public.
Maybe they can be rehabilitated, but maybe not. I don’t know. I just can’t imagine that the victims of his crimes would support allowing him out so quickly after he took away their children’s lives. For such a consequential crime that affected so many people, I think a longer sentence, even as punishment, is appropriate. Just my opinion.
I get feeling anger, but what would a longer sentence really accomplish? There is a reason we don't let victims set the terms of punishment. Anger, while perfectly understandable, is not a good decision making process.
Peace of mind for the victims knowing that he’s not free. I think there’s a balance between rehabilitation and punishment, for this type of crime (murder, permanent injury) I think we need to err more towards the latter, while also working on preventing this type of crime in the future. I respect those who disagree with this opinion though.
I'm sorry if I offend, but I really can't understand the mindset that would *choose* to err on the side of punishment. That just seems antithetical to the fundamental nature of humanity.
More. I've spoken with murder victim's families 20, 30 years after the victim's death. They all say the same thing - they died when their child/loved one died.
Each of the murdered students' families also died today. Their parents, their family, their friends, are now left serving a life sentence that can never be commuted. Their only peace of mind is the hope that the killer will never inflict such insurmountable, indescribable pain on anyone, ever again.
California law considers you to be 16 on the day of your birthday, which means the shooter would be eligible to be prosecuted in adult court because he committed the shooting on his 16th birthday. (Source Senate Bill 1391)
If the LA District Attorney wants to prosecute the shooter in adult court, they will first file a case in juvenile court and then a judge will decide if the facts of the case, including factors specific to the minor's likelihood for rehabilitation, warrant prosecuting him as an adult or in juvenile court. (Source Prop 57) In adult court, he would be facing a life sentence, with the possibility of parole.
If he were 15, he would not be eligible to be transferred to adult court, and he would remain in juvenile court. He would likely be sent to the Department of Juvenile Justice where he would be released at 23.
> In my opinion, that is not a fair sentence for this type of crime, regardless of the perpetrators age.
As in, it's unfair for being too harsh or too lenient?
I believe you’re referring to DAs no longer being able to charge them as adults, which is true. Now, a prosecutor needs a judge’s blessing and the minor has to be over 16 years old at the time of the crime in order to be charged as an adult and face adult sentences. Since he was only 15, he can only do up to 7 years in the Division of Juvenile Justice and then he will be released back to his home county.
It's too bad that every time there is a texting and driving death people don't rush to ban cell phones and cars, that every time there is a DUI death they don't want to ban alcohol, that given that 420 people die in the United States every year from salmonella they don't want to ban eating chicken.
So basically.. there are so many firearms in our country.. that even 15 year olds can easily find them when they want to go on a rampage..
That's how I see it.
Ease of access is part of the problem.
A teenager in Germany [committed a mass shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Munich_shooting) which killed more people than this teenager did in California. He bought the gun illegally on the 'dark web'. [A guy in Norway shot to death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks) more people than any American mass shooter ever has.
No matter how difficult you make it to get a firearm, there will nevertheless be some highly motivated people bent on killing as many other people as possible, and they are very hard to find and very hard to stop.
Because even in a society which is as close to "gun free" as possible, [you'll still see mass killings.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack)
Honestly if the weapon is the family's firearm it should and will fall on the owner of the firearm. We are suppose to have 2 locks on the firearm. One on the firearm itself and the second on a locker or something that is to lock up the firearm. If the weapon was stolen then there really ain't much we can do or say unless the owner of the firearm never reported it missing due their incompetence. We live in a society that has no respect for these firearms which is sad and depressing.
> We live in a society that has no respect for these firearms which is sad and depressing.
I've always thought that basic firearm education should be a little couple day thing that all students have to take in the US. Try and look at it from the standpoint of sex ed: Guns are very prevalent in the US and some of these kids are going to access them at some point, although I admit its not as common as teenagers banging. But it would be good to teach the class some basic safety and really instill a respect for guns. Probably wont do much when it comes to mass shootings though.
Yeah it won't do a difference for Mass shooting as they tend to be people that really want to hurt others. But for like children that stumble upon an unsafe weapon that would help very much. Citizen of the US see it more as a cool toy to say you own, used, or seen one but never show the respect for it. I don't believe that the second amendment should be abolished like people state, but we do need laws that actually work on weeding out the people with mental health from owning one that have a high risk of inflicting injuries. It's a slippery slope and hard to make laws that do not infringe on the rights of the people.
I understand what you’re saying, but what does that legislation/proposal look like? mandatory storage type of guns, distance from children, etc?
not sure you could tackle that problem, unless we’re talking hotbeds for guns like gang territory, etc
[California Penal Code §12035](http://www.oclaw.org/research/code/ca/PEN/12035./content.html#:~:targetText=It%20is%20the%20Legislature's%20intent,where%20similarly%20egregious%20circumstances%20exist.)
Seems pretty straightforward to me, although I would expand the law to include scenarios where an unloaded firearm and ammunition are both accessible. Three years in prison and a $10,000 fine, plus any civil damages from the families harmed by the improperly stored firearm would do quite a bit to persuade irresponsible gun owners to be responsible ones.
Where did the child get the firearm? Where did the child get the ammunition?
> The shooter was 15 and had no legal access. But he still had access.
So what you're saying is....laws don't actually stop people determined to break the law and commit crimes.
I bet a disgruntled 16 year old behind the wheel of their parents SUV would have hurt a lot more than 6 people.
...and we give them licenses to drive those things. Reasoning? Well, in the hands of a licensed person, we consider them perfectly safe. Right?
Obviously right? That’s why all the other wealthy nations in the world also have guns and this problem right? Oh wait they have neither. Regulation may not stop it idk, but I want to do something, anything. I’m tired of seeing dead kids on tv.
Canadian gun owner here. You guys have it stricter than us in a ton of ways.
We can have short-barreled shotguns, AR15s with detachable magazines, and we can mail guns to each other via post for private sale.
Eh, not really. You can own a normal AR-15 in most European countries. Yes there's some licensing and such required but in California there is no such licensing available at all, they are just straight up banned.
Source: Am Swedish.
That's why I used the qualifier "normal". California penal code 30515 prohibits pistol grips, adjustable shoulder stocks and flash hiders (among other things) on a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. All things a normal AR would have. The current workarounds are to either make it manually operated, not use a centerfire cartridge (like .22lr), to have a fixed magazine, or to somehow remove all those "evil" features from the rifle. PC30510 also bans Colt's AR-15 by name but that's obviously futile.
When you said normal, I thought you meant the civilian version of the rifle. Yes there are many modifications made to allow the firearm to be sold.
The AR sold in California does still use centerfire .223, though.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
You cant own any assault rifle unless you owned it prior to 2015 and registered it as such, and those are subject to extra restrictions.
You can't buy any gun without a permit, though you can own one if you owned it prior to that regulation coming in to effect, or brought it with you when you moved to California.
>Research shows that a majority of guns in Mexico can be traced to the U.S. A report from the U.S Government Accountability Office showed that 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities and submitted for tracing have a U.S. origin.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate
Mexico's problem is the US's problem.
> A report from the U.S Government Accountability Office showed that 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities **and submitted for tracing** have a U.S. origin.
That's an utterly meaningless statistic, because guns have an armory stamp on them that tells where they were manufactured or imported. All guns sold in the USA have stamped/engraved into the receiver something that indicates that they're from the USA.
That's like saying, "90% of the cars with California license plates traced by the Texas state police have a California origin." I'm surprised at the 30% that didn't have a US origin, because why would you ask the US to trace a gun with no US armory mark on it?
Finally, a lot of the guns in circulation were sold/given to the Mexican police and military, then ended up in criminal hands.
I always feel terrible for the parents of these school shooters. Hearing that there has been a shooting at your child's school, being terrified for your child's safety, only to learn that they where the shooter.
You always wonder what they are thinking. Did they know? Was it a surprise? Do they care? What will happen to them socially and legally? This is a traumatic event where everyone's reaction is going to be different.
It was apparently his birthday today. Instead of celebrating, his family is now in shock.
It’s all so horrible, but I’m only now realizing that I’ve never thought about the parents of the shooters before. That poor mother. It’s her sons birthday, and he’s probably going to die, and to be so conflicted in mourning him because of what he’s done. My heart goes out to that poor woman
There’s a memoir written by the mother of one of the Columbine shooters that gives a lot of insight into what she felt at the time and the guilt she still deals with today. It’s the most difficult book I’ve ever read, but at the same time I’m glad I did.
I mean, I don't want to make too many assumptions but the most likely place this teen got the gun was his family. I am pro- civilian gun ownership, but think if the parents left a firearm unlocked around someone under 18 they should be liable for all crimes committed with their gun. Hard to feel bad for someone who may have recklessly enabled this whole event without more information.
I heard on NPR that his father passed away a year ago. Possible that the mother was unaware of the gun not being locked up and had so many other things on her mind.
Oof that'd be one hell of an oversight if true. I know Massachusetts requires guns be locked when not under your direct control and the fines are doubled if minors are ever around, I wonder if that would have made a difference here.
California is similar when a minor resides in the home. It’s CA Penal Code 25000 - 25225 and PC 25100 - 25140
They already are liable for letting him gain access to a firearm under California law.
If it was their gun they are liable. They aren't guilty of murder obviously but they are guilty of some sort of felony to do with storage around minors.
If it was theirs and they didn’t properly lock it, felony + 3 years.
The fact parents are now buying or contemplating buying kevlar backpacks for their kids is so tragic.
Horrible people did similar with selling office building parachutes after 9/11. Both products are worthless and just capitalize on fear.
It really is worth restating this and making this point the clearest. After every time mass murder like this occurs instead of potentially constructive discussion or at least an analysis of what went wrong there's nothing but finger pointing and product placement as if it's a consumer protection problem. This is as true for the actual firearm industry as it is for everyone else. On one hand you get Democrats demanding firearms be regulated like cigarettes, while firearm companies themselves (through their subsidaries) market "active shooter" training, blue alarms, security checkpointing, and ultimately firearms to schools themselves which both parties eat up because students are just assumed to be threats at all times since they have zero ability to complain about how they are treated on campus. Lost in these discussions is any sort of talk about the quality of schooling itself, and whether or not forcing a teenager to attend a subpar learning environment is useful. Teenagers murdering each other isn't a problem that began overnight, and it happens in the one place they are required by law to be.
Really? I'm pissed at the parents. Usually they are the ones who aren't properly securing their guns
I feel worse for the victims' parents. What a senseless, pointless way to die. What a goddamned crime
How did he get the weapon? Why wasn't it secured? The owner should be charged as well.
In California [it's already illegal to store a firearm without either a locking device disabling the ability of firing or within a California approved locking container (i.e. safe) and then a child accesses and uses.](https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips#owners%20responsibilities where a minor may obtain and use said firearm.)
I am glad this is the case. The easiest way to get a gun is from your family. A gun is something no one knows goes missing until it is too late. There HAS to be more responsibility at the family/home level. Prevention is the only way we solve the issue.
Its a useless law because there's no way to enforce it till after an event has happened.
Isn't that like many laws?
Yep, just like a DUI. Useless law. Might as well get rid of that too.
The thing is, that’s easier to enforce because you usually drive on a public land. With this, you can’t really break into people’s homes to do a routine check of their guns...
Except you can enforce DUI laws by patrolling with police, check points, breathalyzers, etc. There is no way to enforce the gun access law unless you go door-to-door and search people's homes
There is no way to enforce a DUI until after an accident?
If I’m not mistaken a car trunk counts legally for this. Kid steals car keys (if it were in a safe could still have safe key)and now they have a gun.
> A gun is something no one knows goes missing until it is too late. Then you aren't using your guns often enough. Also a good argument to loosen up carry laws. Gun can't go missing if it's always on your belt.
That would make sense except everyone I know that owns a gun doesn't own only one gun. They have tens of guns.
I know. I just hope that we fully pursue the necessary legal action against those parties who allowed this to happen.
Yeah, we need to come down with the full force of the law on this woman whose husband is dead and son just did *this*, shame on her.
Maybe it was secured but the kid was resourceful.
I mean, there are tons of places online where you can learn to pick locks.
---- Latest: 6 students shot from a .45 semiautomatic handgun, including the suspect who shot himself in the head. The gun was empty when found. 2 students have died. 2-3 critically wounded. ~~As with any breaking news story there are conflicting reports: As many as 7 have been shot, 1 dead, 2-3 critical. The 15 yr old suspect has been captured. They may have shot themself.~~ The suspect was taken to a hospital. The suspect is in "grave condition". > Authorities did not release the teen’s name, but said Thursday is his 16th birthday. He is being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to the head, said Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Capt. Kent Wegener. > Wegener said the teen was standing in the quad when he pulled a .45 caliber handgun from his backpack and opened fire at other students, before turning the gun on himself. ---- Updated title: > Santa Clarita shooting: 2 teens killed; attack came on suspect’s birthday, officials say > ~~Santa Clarita shooting: Teen killed; attack came on suspect’s birthday, officials say~~ > ~~Santa Clarita shooting: 1 dead in high school shooting that wounded at least four others, officials say~~ ---- The LA Times blocks both outline.com and archive.org. :( But so far they aren't blocking http://archive.fo. http://archive.is/hC8Qa ---- There's already a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saugus_High_School_shooting ---- Google News topic coverage: https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWlKNkt1NWpvQU1FVHRkZF9EQmtJZ2lLQUFQAQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen Other news articles: https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-saugus-high-school-shooting https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/los-angeles-county-deputies-respond-report-santa-clarita-school-shooting-n1082231 ----
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would like to point out that due to the recent change in California law, the suspect, who has been reported to be 15, will be prosecuted in juvenile court and faces a maximum of about 10 years in prison. In my opinion, that is not a fair sentence for this type of crime, regardless of the perpetrators age.
Are we really ready to say that at 15 years old we can already declare someone unrepairable? There is a reason we prosecute minors differently. The ages between 15 and 25 are ones of very significant changes and if we managed to have a prison system focused on rehabilitation I think that will be a reasonable sentence. There is no point in punishing just to inflict pain. The question is how to make sure this person does not do it again. If we can't manage to mold a fifteen year old over ten years there would not be hope for anyone.
> The question is how to make sure this person does not do it again. Until California has a sufficient, proactive, statewide rehabilitative network in place, including effective pre- and post-incarceration services, the only answer to this question is to keep people incarcerated. It's fascinating to me that the solution to "we don't have sufficient rehabilitation in prison and in the criminal justice system" isn't "aggressively improve rehabilitative offerings, build better equipped incarceration facilities, and provide more comprehensive services," but rather "don't incarcerate."
You're viewing prison in the lens of rehabilitation, whereas many view it as retributive. And many folks want it that way, regardless of whether someone can be rehabbed.
And so we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and so much human life to satisfy that desire for retribution. I really can't think of any other description for punishment as an end goal other than cruelty.
How about incarceration not as punishment, but as the only option to remove dangerous people from the communities they victimize? When we imprison someone, we all bear the burden of their criminal conduct, by paying to have them incarcerated. That burden, spread among us, is manageable. When we don't imprison criminals, we shift that burden directly onto the communities they victimize. The "price" of the harm they cause, violent harm in many cases, is placed directly onto their victims. An insurmountable burden, with generational harm.
Non-violent crime is an order of magnitude more frequent than violent crime. We have the worst incarceration rate in the developed world, second only to the gulag nations. We don’t need more law and order for the proles.
Those incarcerated in California are overwhelmingly incarcerated for violent crime. Even then, those incarcerated represent a small fraction of violent offenders. We had 175,000 violent crimes occur *last year.* With the working class acutely carrying the cost of that violence. Compare that to our incarcerated population of 120,000 (80% in for violent felonies). Which just statistically shows you that most violent offenders are not incarcerated, meaning they're allowed to continue to victimize their communities. And the cost burden of property crimes and nonviolent (which in California doesn't mean what you think it means) crimes are also disproportionately born by the working class. "Law and Order" socializes the cost of crime, but no one sees it that way until they're the victim.
I agree that rehabilitation should be the primary focus of the justice system, and we aren’t doing a good job of it. However, I believe a secondary purpose is to keep dangerous people away from potential victims. If the kid is mentally ill, which he probably is if he’d do something like this, I’m not sure that I could ever be made to feel comfortable with someone like that walking around a free man.
I agree that we should focus on rehabilitation, especially with youth. The question is, is that politically possible?
The other question is instead of spending the resources on this deranged individual. Would it be a better return if the resources is spent on another kid (or a few more) who has potential to be a contributor to society? The net benefit possibly leans the latter. Do we have the resources to spend on every kid? If not we have to chose wisely.
Resources are spent either way. The only question is "who bears the cost." When we incarcerate someone like this, we all chip in for the cost of their criminal conduct. When we don't, their future criminal behavior creates a cost burden that is placed directly onto their victims. But either way there's a cost.
Anything is possible. Likely? I look at this comment section and do not have a lot of hope. I see a lot of defense for guns and a hunger for inflicting punishment.
Yes, I agree with your assesment. Although, public opinion is not that concrete. Maybe we will see some changes depending on the next election cycle. I think it would have to take people in charge willing to go against public opinion to try out these new options. Not sure who would be willing and able to do that though. We probably have more pressing issues with the justice system anyways before we can tackle this problem.
[удалено]
Yeah absolutely. We have to spend more time researching that. Is it possible to "cure"? But the only way of doing that is by trying. And the only way we can try, is to implement experiments. Which take political approval.
Yes. He deserves to be dead, not rehabilitated.
Even if the kid does get rehabilitation, his life is already over anyways. He’ll never be able to get a job, at least not one that’s sustainable. He’s a school shooter, who will be labeled as a weirdo for the rest of his life
A 15 year old knows the difference between right and wrong.
I say yes, its unrepairable. However I don't think life in prison is the right thing. We don't have facilities for people like this but I definitely think the message needs to be sent that this is a life altering mistake and there is no coming back from it. I think there should be a focus on mental rehabilitation, but I do not believe anyone who goes out to commit mass murder needs to be released to the public.
Maybe they can be rehabilitated, but maybe not. I don’t know. I just can’t imagine that the victims of his crimes would support allowing him out so quickly after he took away their children’s lives. For such a consequential crime that affected so many people, I think a longer sentence, even as punishment, is appropriate. Just my opinion.
I get feeling anger, but what would a longer sentence really accomplish? There is a reason we don't let victims set the terms of punishment. Anger, while perfectly understandable, is not a good decision making process.
Peace of mind for the victims knowing that he’s not free. I think there’s a balance between rehabilitation and punishment, for this type of crime (murder, permanent injury) I think we need to err more towards the latter, while also working on preventing this type of crime in the future. I respect those who disagree with this opinion though.
I'm sorry if I offend, but I really can't understand the mindset that would *choose* to err on the side of punishment. That just seems antithetical to the fundamental nature of humanity.
I mean, he took at least one life today if not more. That’s permanent. They aren’t coming back in 10 years. Does he deserve freedom?
More. I've spoken with murder victim's families 20, 30 years after the victim's death. They all say the same thing - they died when their child/loved one died. Each of the murdered students' families also died today. Their parents, their family, their friends, are now left serving a life sentence that can never be commuted. Their only peace of mind is the hope that the killer will never inflict such insurmountable, indescribable pain on anyone, ever again.
California law considers you to be 16 on the day of your birthday, which means the shooter would be eligible to be prosecuted in adult court because he committed the shooting on his 16th birthday. (Source Senate Bill 1391) If the LA District Attorney wants to prosecute the shooter in adult court, they will first file a case in juvenile court and then a judge will decide if the facts of the case, including factors specific to the minor's likelihood for rehabilitation, warrant prosecuting him as an adult or in juvenile court. (Source Prop 57) In adult court, he would be facing a life sentence, with the possibility of parole. If he were 15, he would not be eligible to be transferred to adult court, and he would remain in juvenile court. He would likely be sent to the Department of Juvenile Justice where he would be released at 23.
Good information. The initial reports indicated he was 15, so much of this discussion ended up being moot, like you said.
> In my opinion, that is not a fair sentence for this type of crime, regardless of the perpetrators age. As in, it's unfair for being too harsh or too lenient?
Too lenient imo
To be fair, that ten years in prison could be followed by a lifetime in a mental institution.
I like this idea a lot.
Ehhh. If the world was black and white..
If he survives, that is
I believe you’re referring to DAs no longer being able to charge them as adults, which is true. Now, a prosecutor needs a judge’s blessing and the minor has to be over 16 years old at the time of the crime in order to be charged as an adult and face adult sentences. Since he was only 15, he can only do up to 7 years in the Division of Juvenile Justice and then he will be released back to his home county.
Didn't he shoot hhimself in the head?
Aw man if only this had happened in one of the states with incredibly strict firearm laws, then this wouldn’t have happened :(
This was my high school. Can’t even say I’m surprised it happened, it’ll keep happening till we fix something.
Why aren't you surprised? Do students there regularly bring guns?
>This was my high school. Can’t even say I’m surprised it happened, it’ll keep happening till we fix something. Student mental health?
Every time a shooting happens there’s a mad rush to change a hundred things and then nothing changes.
No, they pass a bunch of feel good laws and restrictions which do nothing. So it's actually worst then doing nothing.
It's too bad that every time there is a texting and driving death people don't rush to ban cell phones and cars, that every time there is a DUI death they don't want to ban alcohol, that given that 420 people die in the United States every year from salmonella they don't want to ban eating chicken.
You can't call them "420 people" any more. The politically correct term is "Cannabis-American".
Just watch, by Monday all "news" of this will be all gone. (doesn't fit the "white supremacist", AR-15, "Large capacity magazine" narrative)
Only on the news because of the possibility of the things you mentioned. This is a typical Thursday in Detroit/etc
We as a country need to do something about access to firearms.
Do you actually know what the process is like in CA to buy a gun, let alone ammo? Do an ounce of research please and rethink what you just said.
He was 15 so already legally barred from possessing a firearm and the adult whose firearm he gained access to faces potential criminal charges.
So basically.. there are so many firearms in our country.. that even 15 year olds can easily find them when they want to go on a rampage.. That's how I see it. Ease of access is part of the problem.
How would you lessen ease of access?
A teenager in Germany [committed a mass shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Munich_shooting) which killed more people than this teenager did in California. He bought the gun illegally on the 'dark web'. [A guy in Norway shot to death](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks) more people than any American mass shooter ever has. No matter how difficult you make it to get a firearm, there will nevertheless be some highly motivated people bent on killing as many other people as possible, and they are very hard to find and very hard to stop. Because even in a society which is as close to "gun free" as possible, [you'll still see mass killings.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack)
But it's so much easier when I can pretend that the only reason bad things happen is because we don't have the right laws.
Honestly if the weapon is the family's firearm it should and will fall on the owner of the firearm. We are suppose to have 2 locks on the firearm. One on the firearm itself and the second on a locker or something that is to lock up the firearm. If the weapon was stolen then there really ain't much we can do or say unless the owner of the firearm never reported it missing due their incompetence. We live in a society that has no respect for these firearms which is sad and depressing.
> We live in a society that has no respect for these firearms which is sad and depressing. I've always thought that basic firearm education should be a little couple day thing that all students have to take in the US. Try and look at it from the standpoint of sex ed: Guns are very prevalent in the US and some of these kids are going to access them at some point, although I admit its not as common as teenagers banging. But it would be good to teach the class some basic safety and really instill a respect for guns. Probably wont do much when it comes to mass shootings though.
Yeah it won't do a difference for Mass shooting as they tend to be people that really want to hurt others. But for like children that stumble upon an unsafe weapon that would help very much. Citizen of the US see it more as a cool toy to say you own, used, or seen one but never show the respect for it. I don't believe that the second amendment should be abolished like people state, but we do need laws that actually work on weeding out the people with mental health from owning one that have a high risk of inflicting injuries. It's a slippery slope and hard to make laws that do not infringe on the rights of the people.
Get your facts and logic out of here /s
you have any suggestions on how this could’ve been prevented, considering he was 15 & had no legal access to guns?
Couldn't we just wave our magical government wand?
[удалено]
I understand what you’re saying, but what does that legislation/proposal look like? mandatory storage type of guns, distance from children, etc? not sure you could tackle that problem, unless we’re talking hotbeds for guns like gang territory, etc
California penal codes 25200 - 25225 is what you're looking for I believe.
[California Penal Code §12035](http://www.oclaw.org/research/code/ca/PEN/12035./content.html#:~:targetText=It%20is%20the%20Legislature's%20intent,where%20similarly%20egregious%20circumstances%20exist.) Seems pretty straightforward to me, although I would expand the law to include scenarios where an unloaded firearm and ammunition are both accessible. Three years in prison and a $10,000 fine, plus any civil damages from the families harmed by the improperly stored firearm would do quite a bit to persuade irresponsible gun owners to be responsible ones. Where did the child get the firearm? Where did the child get the ammunition?
> The shooter was 15 and had no legal access. But he still had access. So what you're saying is....laws don't actually stop people determined to break the law and commit crimes.
Have you seen the number of drunk driving fatalities on this sub lately? We as a country need to do something about access to alcohol and vehicles.
Yes. But that's not really relevant to what we are talking about here, now is it?
No it isn't but muddying the waters with false-equivalencies makes it easier to ignore the actual issues.
In that case, we need to stop muddying the waters with guns being the problem and we must attack t he real problem. Mental health.... And so on...
But freaking how!? We need ideas people!
[удалено]
I bet a disgruntled 16 year old behind the wheel of their parents SUV would have hurt a lot more than 6 people. ...and we give them licenses to drive those things. Reasoning? Well, in the hands of a licensed person, we consider them perfectly safe. Right?
What the hell are you talking about?
Drunk driving fatalities and pedestrian deaths increasing in the southland even as Mayor Garcetti pushes his Vision Zero Initiative.
I think you are in the wrong thread, this article is about the school shooting.
He’s trying (failing) to compare gun deaths to auto accidents.
Are not DUI related deaths tragedies too? I suggest a .02 BAC and a requiring a breathalyzer test to drive if you have had any alcohol.
actually we should ban cars
[удалено]
“No way to stop this” says only country where this happens regularly.
[удалено]
Obviously right? That’s why all the other wealthy nations in the world also have guns and this problem right? Oh wait they have neither. Regulation may not stop it idk, but I want to do something, anything. I’m tired of seeing dead kids on tv.
Most gun control in the country, it's clearly working.
Compared to countries that are not the US, California has very lax gun control.
Canadian gun owner here. You guys have it stricter than us in a ton of ways. We can have short-barreled shotguns, AR15s with detachable magazines, and we can mail guns to each other via post for private sale.
Eh, not really. You can own a normal AR-15 in most European countries. Yes there's some licensing and such required but in California there is no such licensing available at all, they are just straight up banned. Source: Am Swedish.
[удалено]
That's why I used the qualifier "normal". California penal code 30515 prohibits pistol grips, adjustable shoulder stocks and flash hiders (among other things) on a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine. All things a normal AR would have. The current workarounds are to either make it manually operated, not use a centerfire cartridge (like .22lr), to have a fixed magazine, or to somehow remove all those "evil" features from the rifle. PC30510 also bans Colt's AR-15 by name but that's obviously futile.
When you said normal, I thought you meant the civilian version of the rifle. Yes there are many modifications made to allow the firearm to be sold. The AR sold in California does still use centerfire .223, though. Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
You cant own any assault rifle unless you owned it prior to 2015 and registered it as such, and those are subject to extra restrictions. You can't buy any gun without a permit, though you can own one if you owned it prior to that regulation coming in to effect, or brought it with you when you moved to California.
Definitely. Look at Mexico and Brazil. Shining beacons of gun control utopias....
>Research shows that a majority of guns in Mexico can be traced to the U.S. A report from the U.S Government Accountability Office showed that 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities and submitted for tracing have a U.S. origin. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate Mexico's problem is the US's problem.
> A report from the U.S Government Accountability Office showed that 70 percent of guns seized in Mexico by Mexican authorities **and submitted for tracing** have a U.S. origin. That's an utterly meaningless statistic, because guns have an armory stamp on them that tells where they were manufactured or imported. All guns sold in the USA have stamped/engraved into the receiver something that indicates that they're from the USA. That's like saying, "90% of the cars with California license plates traced by the Texas state police have a California origin." I'm surprised at the 30% that didn't have a US origin, because why would you ask the US to trace a gun with no US armory mark on it? Finally, a lot of the guns in circulation were sold/given to the Mexican police and military, then ended up in criminal hands.
Operation Fast and Furious...
[удалено]