Shots fired in Marinette HS

There is NO POSSIBLE WAY this happened the way it is being reported. Everyone knows that "Gun Control" laws are followed to the letter by EVERYONE, even criminals and the insane.

This person was 15. Under State and Federal law, there is NO WAY he could legally possess a firearm without adult supervision.

The event allegedly happened in a High School. Since there are Federal and State laws that prohibit possession of a firearm on school property, there is NO WAY he could have legally brought those alleged guns in to the school.
Every single point of this story is OBVIOUSLY fabricated, made-up, and untrue.

Please, when will the media stop posting these made-up, untrue, fabricated stories about things that JUST CAN'T HAPPEN.

The Public demands TRUTH.

We want to know who the LEO was that shot this kid, and why he also shot the projector, and held all those people hostage. How do we know the REAL perp in this event was a cop? Well, because under Federal and State laws, an LEO is the ONLY person who could have a gun on school property.

Let's dig out the TRUTH of this story, people...

Oh, wait a minute... The truth is that some deranged kid stole his old man's guns (a felony), brought them onto school property (another felony), kidnapped and held hostage his classmates (ANOTHER felony), discharged a firearm on school property and destroyed school property (another felony and an arrestable misdemeanor).

Gee, all those laws, and not a single one of them worked... Hmmmm...

Meanwhile, the law-abiding teachers, staff, and parents of this high school are obeying the law, and rendered defenseless against deranged, law-breaking hoodlums like this kid.

When will our Government learn?...

Great post Dreamer.

The truth needs to be told and believed, GUN FREE ZONES DON'T WORK.

Actually, at the prodding of a Wisconsin member, I researched the legality of suicide in WI, and as it turns out, I was wrong.

Suicide (attempted or successful) is neither a statutory crime or a common law violation in WI.

Here in NC (and in many other states) attempted suicide IS a common law violation, punishable as a misdemeanor.

I stand corrected, and apologize for the misinformation...

I also agree that this is not possible... No way a gun would enter a GFSZ... Having teachers that carry is still wrong, right?

Question for LE in here

I thought if there was a chance that a mass killing was taking or about to take place police were supposed to engage the person immediately?

Took over 5 hours?

Just a question not trying to stir anything up, you people like to get fired up in here.:lol:

sst0185 said:

I thought if there was a chance that a mass killing was taking or about to take place police were supposed to engage the person immediately?

Took over 5 hours?

Just a question not trying to stir anything up, you people like to get fired up in here.:lol:

Click to expand...

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: LEO bashing

sst0185 said:

I thought if there was a chance that a mass killing was taking or about to take place police were supposed to engage the person immediately?

Took over 5 hours?

Just a question not trying to stir anything up, you people like to get fired up in here.:lol:

Click to expand...

This is not the Soviet Union. The totality of circumstances dictated that the crisis would be negotiated. There simply was no immenant danger of a "mass killing". If the place were stormed immediately, there is a chance that like an animal cornered, the young man would have fired in fear and someone else would have been wounded or killed. As it turned out, the only injury was self inflicted. I say that this was handled just fine.

No one hurt, bad guy dead, no costly trial. Seems good to me.

but if we could carry in or around schools that just might of been the deterring factor that kid needed to say hey this aint worth it and then noone would be dead and a famly would not be without there 15 year old son GFSZ sounds like something out of the bush days lol

There simply was no immenant danger of a "mass killing".


But there WAS immenant danger of a 'mass killing' the kid had guns, bullets AND hostages...he easily couldve lined them up against a wall and started shooting...EASILY

GlockRDH said:

There simply was no immenant danger of a "mass killing".


But there WAS immenant danger of a 'mass killing' the kid had guns, bullets AND hostages...he easily couldve lined them up against a wall and started shooting...EASILY

Click to expand...

I believe the justification for storming the place that you are looking for involves the term "Active Shooter". In this case, the suspect was not an "Active Shooter" by definition.

An active shooter is defined as "... an armed person who has used deadly physical force on other persons and continues to do so while having unrestricted access to additional victims."

Click to expand...

He had not used deadly force on others, and obviously had not continued to do so since he never started. He had the capacity to become an active shooter but was not, at the time.

Here's Wiki's entry on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shooter

GlockRDH said:

But there WAS immenant danger of a 'mass killing' the kid had guns, bullets AND hostages... he easily couldve lined them up against a wall and started shooting.

Click to expand...

I agree.

He also is reported to have had a couple hundred extra rounds in his pockets (strong pockets!). I wonder if he had any clue how to reload, and how long it would take, and that his hostages would figure out that they weren't in danger if they jumped him then? Even if he only tried to load one gun while the other had bullets, how could he do it one-handed? He'd have to put it down sometime.

I know, he wasn't thinking clearly. That's obvious.
I feel sorry for his family, and for the kids who witnessed him shoot himself.
But as others have said, this makes it VERY clear that laws don't stop criminals.

sst0185 said:

I thought if there was a chance that a mass killing was taking or about to take place police were supposed to engage the person immediately?

Click to expand...

The police have NO DUTY or legal obligation to protect individual citizens.

See "Warren vs. District of Columbia," "Riss v. New York", "DeShaney vs. Winnebago County", et.al...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.4lawnotes.com/showthread.php?t=116

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County


Under the law, the police don't have any duty or legal obligation to show up or do anything at all, until the ammo runs out, everyone is dead, and the crime scene is no longer dynamic.