Two Children Killed In School Shooting

Deya said:
This case is starting to get bizarre.
Click to expand...
You're right. The murderer is dead. I just found out that he had bought the weapons himself.... no priors, so no red flags to stop him from the purchase. So mom wasn't responsible for supplying gun. Then why in the world would she need a high powered defense attorney? :unsure: As much as the rest of us detest what the killer did, shouldn't this woman be mourning the loss of her child and not lawyering up? Bizarre's a good word for it, @Deya
 

In case there's any temptation to "pity" or even justify the murderer on the chance he was bullied, this may keep things in perspective. This is Harper Moyski, 10, and Fletcher Merkel, 8... the babies he gunned down. I was bullied, too... I went home and cried in my pillow... Like someone here said, we coped... we didn't turn into murderers.

1756483594688.jpeg
 
CallMeKate said:
In case there's any temptation to "pity" or even justify the murderer on the chance he was bullied, this may keep things in perspective. This is Harper Moyski, 10, and Fletcher Merkel, 8... the babies he gunned down. I was bullied, too... I went home and cried in my pillow... Like someone here said, we coped... we didn't turn into murderers.
Click to expand...
That photo breaks my heart. 😢

I, too, was bullied, @CallMeKate. For a couple of years I really, really dreaded going to school. But, also like you, I went home and cried into my pillow.

I understand cyberbullying has made things infinitely worse, but I don't buy the "bullied-and-snapped" narrative. Not in this many cases.
 

The reason the mother hired a high profile criminal defense attorney, is she does know things that would involve her. Now she tells it to her attorney, it is sealed in attorney/client privilege and her attorney advises her how to answer the investigators questions to avoid any arrest or admit any responsibility. Innocent people don't hire criminal defense attorneys before they are questioned or arrested.

Should the investigators find an involvement and arrest her, then her attorney already has his case in play to get her off. Ryan Garry gets even the worst criminals off at a high rate. He is a master of manipulating the system.

What is sad, is if she did know about her sons sick state of mind, and this never comes to light, a great injustice has happened that might save lives in the future. If parents are knowledgeable about their child's obsessions, and don't seek help, and rely of criminal defense attorneys to keep them from prosecution, then these horrible killing of innocent kids will continue.

Being a parent even in my time was tough. It is much harder now with parents that won't accept responsibility for their kids actions and seek help.

This killers mother is committing a great injustice and disrespect to the families of those kids that were killed and the families of those kids that are injured. All the kids will suffer mentally for the rest of their lives. The killers mom is denying those families and the school, an important element to some form of closure. She is a coward, just like him, in my opinion.
 
Della said:
The parents, of Ethan Crumbley of the Oxford High School shootings were convicted of involuntary manslaughter for Ethan's actions. They were each sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison.
Click to expand...
Did they supply the gun? Wasn't Crumbley a minor? This new killer was 23 so I'm having a hard time figuring out what a parent would be responsible for. Guess we'll know when it all comes out (well, if the info is released, that is.)
 
CallMeKate said:
Did they supply the gun? Wasn't Crumbley a minor? This new killer was 23 so I'm having a hard time figuring out what a parent would be responsible for. Guess we'll know when it all comes out (well, if the info is released, that is.)
Click to expand...
I believe Crumbley's parents did in fact buy him a gun. IIRC it was a Christmas gift. However, I'm not sure if that was the gun he used in the shooting. I'm in a bit of a rush right now and don't have time to search it.
 
Crumbley's parents not only bought him the gun, they were called to school the day of the murders and his teachers suggested they take Ethan (age 15) home because he had drawn a violent picture. They scoffed it off and didn't take him home.

I can't think of any way this latest shooting could cause 23 year-old Westman's mother to be arrested, but you never know what the irate populace might decide. I don't blame her for seeking legal council and laying low. Nothing she says right now will change what has just happened.
 
Last edited:
oldman said:
Earlier today, two children were killed in a Catholic school in Minnesota. An 8 and a 10 year old were killed by gunfire. Another 17 were injured. Police have no motive at the time the story went to press.

Shooter was found dead at the scene from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

School Shooting
Click to expand...
May the innocent murdered children rest peacefully, sympathy and condolences to their families. Can't imagine the heartbreak and the grief they're experiencing.

Wishing for healing for the others affected by this violent attack, hoping they heal physically, mentally and emotionally. I think the killer posted something beforehand on social media or youtube, more attention needs to be given to these things before the killings. This has happened too many times, be proactive, not reactive after lives are lost.
 
Della said:
Crumbley's parents not only bought him the gun, they were called to school the day of the murders and his teachers suggested they take Ethan (age 15) home because he had drawn a violent picture. They scoffed it off and didn't take him home.

I can't think of any way this latest shooting could cause 23 year-old Westman's mother to be arrested, but you never know what the irate populace might decide. I don't blame her for seeking legal council and laying low. Nothing she says right now will change what has just happened.
Click to expand...
You are right that nothing she says will change what happened, but refusing to talk to the FBI is a sign of her knowing something. I can understand her not wanting to talk to the press, but the FBI that was just trying to get the entire story so they can do their jobs and help get justice for the families and help prevent future such tragedies.

One former school mate of the killer spoke out about the killers disturbing obsessions when in high school. If doubt the mother was totally oblivious to his obsessions and hate for just about everyone, especially kids going to church sponsored schools. From what I read, he was living with his dad, near the school, and had two siblings. I don't know if that is fact or not, but we do know neighbors saw the FBI taking the family outside so they could search the house.

I was totally surprised when I read the mother hired this high profile criminal defense attorney. I can't imagine anyone doing that unless they have something to hide. We may never know now because of her right to say nothing to law enforcement.

I know from personal experience, that of being a step parent to a mentally ill 43 years old, that when we saw signs of him becoming violent, we took every step possible to get him committed. It was a process that only became reality when the cops picked him up carrying a machete. He told them he was on his way to teach some little demons a lesson. What little demons, we don't know and glad we didn't find out. Possibility his nieces and nephews that blocked him out of their lives due to his insane behavior and his treatment of them.

As a mother, I can tell you the killers mother knew something that should have given her a clue that he was going to act violently someday. She worked with kids for 5 years at that very school, and was no doubt trained to watch for warning signs.

By his own writing, he says he brainwashed himself into thinking he was a girl. Where was the parental guidance when this was happening? As I said before, not to talk him out of it, but to help him get help so he didn't develop mental issues over it. How did school mates see he had an obsession with violence and the parents miss it?

I am not saying that the parents are responsible since he was an adult, what I am saying is I think the mother knew something was coming down and didn't have the courage to report it to authorities. Hiring a criminal defense attorney is a sure sign she is afraid of being questioned by authorities. The FBI just wanted to ask her questions. She could have answered the door and seen what they wanted and then ask to call an attorney if she thought their questions were more than just a routine investigation.

I have a gut feeling the killers mom knew something that if she had reported it, would have saved the children's lives and life long terror of the injured and survivors. She knew he was going to do something and she should have had him being watched. She had money for a high profile criminal defense attorney, she had money to hire a private investigator to watch her son. Just my opinion as a mom, that did what had to be done even though it was very difficult, stressful, expensive, and it reached to the bottom of my soul and tried to destroy me.

His mother knew something that would have saved lives had she had the courage to have her son committed or watched and arrested before he could take action.
 
Remember, the guy had 3 guns. If AR 15s were totally outlawed, he still had 2 others, a shotgun and a handgun. So if you believe that guns were the problem, then you have to advocate for total gun confiscation. I chose to address the mental illness problem and advocate for early intervention. If the mother was doing the right thing, he should have never been able to buy any guns. His mental illness wasn't undetected, just unreported and that is the crux of the matter.

When any child wants to transgender, intervention should occur. Is this the child's idea or that of a parent or some advocate councilor? Transgendering a child is a serious medical procedure that can change their life forever. Go to far and they can't go back. I agree that a child should never be given puberty blockers or surgery to alter their birth sex. Let them make that decision when they are of age. No parent should aid a child in changing their identity like the mother of the killer did. Let them change their name when they are of age. Puberty is natural and healthy and blocking such causes health issues, both mental and physical that cannot be undone. Quit using our children as horrific medical experiments.

Early detection of my step sons mental problems, kept him from buying guns. He tried and was denied. One granddaughter wanted to transition when she was a teen. Her folks weren't concerned until I told them she was cutting herself and needed help. With help, now several years later, she was recently married to a wonderful man and excited about getting pregnant and starting a family. Luckily she stopped the blocker drugs before they made it impossible for her to have children. She went to college and got a degree and works counseling kids that have problems with their birth sex.

With that I am leaving this thread, not because I agree or disagree with anyone, but because I am feeling stressed thinking about it. I must move on to more fun topics. I hope I have said something that maybe will help someone get help if they have kids or grandkids with mental issues that are not being treated. While very few will become killers, don't take that chance.
 
Last edited:
January said:
I don't blame the tool itself - I blame easy access to the tool The root cause of US having so many mass gun shootings is easy access to the tool
Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is that lack of access to firearms has historically been the true root cause of suffering on a massive scale. The first step for dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot was to disarm their citizens. Then, after the people had been disarmed and couldn’t resist, mass killings and censorship followed. Easy access to firearms doesn’t just deter criminals; it deters tyrants. Without it, freedom of speech and every other liberty becomes negotiable, because an unarmed population has no power to resist. So if you want to talk about root causes, history shows that the real danger comes when citizens are denied access to arms, not when they have them.
 
January said:
^^ well that sounds like the pro gun lobby mantra I do not agree with it.
Click to expand...

It’s not a "pro-gun lobby mantra", it’s the pro-human rights position. The U.S. Bill of Rights wasn’t written for lobbyists, it was written for ordinary citizens to protect them from government overreach. That’s why the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, and why the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The founders understood that one right is meaningless without the other. After all, free speech without the power to defend it can be crushed by the state.

Now compare that to Australia. Australia has no Bill of Rights. Its Constitution does not protect free speech in the broad sense at all. The only speech that enjoys constitutional protection there is political communication, and even that can be curtailed by laws on defamation, hate speech, or national security. That’s a far narrower shield than what Americans enjoy.

So when I defend the Second Amendment, I’m not parroting a lobby, I’m defending the same human right that makes the First Amendment possible. History teaches us that without the ability of the people to resist, free speech and every other liberty can be stripped away by those in power.
 
I have mixed feelings about this.

I was bullied in elementary and junior high school for being effeminate. A girl that I went steady with in junior high had a friend return a bracelet that I gave her by telling me she thought I was a "sissy and a queer". This was quite traumatic and I occasionally had feelings of helplessness. I overcame it by deciding to conform to a straight culture. Not a good strategy as it just made me hate myself, but I never even considered killing those who made me feel "less than". It was my cross to bear.

But times are different these days. There is social media that feeds anger and retribution. There is social media that bullies people long after they've left school. There is easier access to guns. There are more young people that think it is okay to inflict harm on others. I have no doubt that a boy that felt like a girl was bullied.

But even with the bullying aspect I have no sympathy for the shooter. Robin and his/her parents should have sought psychiatric help early on. Today's environment is enabling these horrible events, and these tendencies should be addressed before they become fatal to others.
 
oslooskar said:
It’s not a "pro-gun lobby mantra", it’s the pro-human rights position.
Click to expand...


in your view. Which does sound very similar to the gun lobby view.

In my view the rights of people not to get shot in mass shootings over rides your first amendment gun rights

Since yo u wanted t o draw comparisons to Australia - I'm quite happy with both the gun laws here and the laws here on hate speech and co.
 
Well, we know now why Mama hired the criminal defense attorney. Some outlets are starting to share some of Robert/Robin's writings. Mom must have known this would come to light, and that her child publicly blamed her for the killings. From the manifesto:

“Your words, mother, made me stay in my discomfort unable to ask for help to avoid admitting defeat. You were right mama, but the way you handled it led me to wanting to kill so so many people,” Westman wrote. “Gender and weed f***ed up my head,” he claimed. “I wish I never tried experimenting with either. Don’t let your kids smoke weed or change gender until they are like seventeen.”

The mother warned other parents not to allow their minors to transition and the manifesto says she was right. For what it's worth, I can't see a jury holding her responsible for a full adult 23 year old saying her words "made him" kill people. Thoughts?
 
January said:
in your view. Which does sound very similar to the gun lobby view. In my view the rights of people not to get shot in mass shootings over rides your first amendment gun rights Since yo u wanted t o draw comparisons to Australia - I'm quite happy with both the gun laws here and the laws here on hate speech and co.
Click to expand...

You’re reframing my argument. I was talking about constitutional rights and checks on government power, but you twisted it into something I never said, that I don’t care about people dying in mass shootings. By doing this, you shift the ground of the debate away from the principle I raised and turn it into a moral accusation. That’s a straw man.

What I actually said is that the Bill of Rights exists to protect citizens from government overreach, and the Second Amendment is part of that safeguard, just like the First. You may disagree with that philosophy, and you’re entitled to prefer Australia’s narrower protections, but let’s be honest about the distinction. It’s not a "gun lobby mantra"; it’s a constitutional safeguard chosen by Americans to ensure liberty isn’t left at the mercy of the state.
 
Babs2u said:
I don't believe we were dealing with the killing machines we have today when the second amendment was written.
Click to expand...

Our Founding Fathers were very aware of technological advances being made in weaponry. They had already seen dramatic leaps forward in arms during their lifetimes and they knew the trend would continue. And that’s precisely why the Second Amendment doesn’t say muskets and says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." The principle wasn’t tied to a specific model of gun; it was tied to the idea that citizens should not be left powerless against criminals or the state.

In fact, if we limited constitutional rights to the technology of the 18th century, we’d all be restricted to quill pens, horse-drawn carriages, and hand-cranked printing presses. Nobody suggests the First Amendment only protects speech printed on 1791 printing presses, so please don't pretend the Second Amendment only applies to 1791 muskets.
 
CallMeKate said:
Well, we know now why Mama hired the criminal defense attorney. Some outlets are starting to share some of Robert/Robin's writings. Mom must have known this would come to light, and that her child publicly blamed her for the killings. From the manifesto:

“Your words, mother, made me stay in my discomfort unable to ask for help to avoid admitting defeat. You were right mama, but the way you handled it led me to wanting to kill so so many people,” Westman wrote. “Gender and weed f***ed up my head,” he claimed. “I wish I never tried experimenting with either. Don’t let your kids smoke weed or change gender until they are like seventeen.”

The mother warned other parents not to allow their minors to transition and the manifesto says she was right. For what it's worth, I can't see a jury holding her responsible for a full adult 23 year old saying her words "made him" kill people. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Thanks for finding that, Kate. I had guessed that he might have been regretting the gender change and that would be a huge factor in his going off the rails. He wishes he hadn't "experimented with gender or weed. " People will remember the gender part and gloss over the reference to weed, but there's been lots of evidence that marijuana can trigger extreme violence in some people, particularly young ones.

I agree with you that his mother is not responsible. He was 23 and living away from her, she had no way to know what he was writing in his journals or what he was stashing in his closet. When something like this happens, people want vengeance and if the perpetrator is dead they look to someone else to project their anger. In many cases that's the mother.

If there is mental illness involved the mother is always blamed for not "getting help." For all we know she has been sending him for counselling for years, but the ill person cannot be forcibly committed unless he is very obviously an immediate danger to himself or others. That question "Why didn't their parents get help for them?" pops up all the time, but that is never as easy as people imagine. It's not like picking up the phone and making a dentist appointment.

There are no men in white coats these days. We parents have to call the police on our own children, and that can quite often result in their child being shot. Then, likely as not, they will be held and released within hours if they tell the ER doctor that they no longer feel like killing themselves or anyone else.
 
Cornhusker said:
It's really not that easy.
It's illegal to sell to someone who is mentally ill.
Until we face the fact that things like gender confusion are a mental illness, mentally ill people will get guns.
But at least we didn't hurt their feelings.
Click to expand...
Not every person who has been diagnosed as being mentally ill and unfit to own a firearm
has had their name added to the National Background Check Database.

If a person is mentally ill, but never has been to a psychiatrist or psychologist and been
diagnosed as being unfit to own a firearm, their name would never have been added to the database.

Most likely, this young man/girl has never been diagnosed as being mentally ill.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top