Why your hostility? Anyway, in this case, you have a LEO who failed on two counts: 1) She failed to recognize (or act on) her son's emotional state/condition; 2) She failed to securely store her firearms and ammo, allowing a minor to have access. She will be held accountable.
If he has had mental issues his dad isn't going to be a sheriff much longer. Yes there are laws in some states that guns need to locked up or removed if there are mental issues within the household. Don't know if that applies to FL.
Correct
That’s fine and I agree with what you are saying
Florida State Statute 790.174
The mother was negligent in securing her weapons
No. The existing FL statute seems to apply to minors, those under 16. That law should not be based on age. It should mandate that firearms and ammo should be secured, period. No age qualifier. In this case, though, we know the young man was active in some sort of junior LEO program, was familiar with firearms, had access to firearms, and had emotional issues. His mom knew this. She failed him. And those individuals involved in her son's actions.
Yes, but this is an odd situation. What access was there to the service gun? What protocols weren’t followed? Did he even use the service weapon or was it another gun? A lot to review and learn from.
Yes…the mother failed but even if the law was raised to 20…this still would have happened as the mother was negligent
Reports are one firearm was a service weapon. But, the point is, all weapons (and ammo) should have been secured.
A more effective law would be to require firearm owners to secure all weapons and ammo. So, yes, an ineffective law, as is. Again, she will be held accountable. Most LEOs routinely secure their service weapons when not in use. Have to think it's "policy" in most departments. As for personal firearms, you'd think there'd be some degree of awareness and carryover....
Was not her service weapon. At one point it was. Then the department switched issued guns land allows cops to purchase their old service weapon. Quite common
Sure. Not her current service weapon. But, again, it's the secure storage of any and all firearms that's missing here in that LEO household, and in many other households. Laws need to catch up to this dynamic. Civil suits and awards should awaken firearms owners to their exposure/liability, even if laws are not on the books.
I've understand why you took a break from this. Crazy people ruin everything!This thread is going the usual way.
The usual same people who quickly became experts on ship navigation, airplane crashes, helicopter safety, etc with thin information are ready to conclude less than a few hours after the incident what exactly went wrong and who is to blame. On other branches of anti-social media, folks are trying to assign blame to the the side they are not on.
I don’t think this thread has gone that way at all.This thread is going the usual way.
The usual same people who quickly became experts on ship navigation, airplane crashes, helicopter safety, etc with thin information are ready to conclude less than a few hours after the incident what exactly went wrong and who is to blame. On other branches of anti-social media, folks are trying to assign blame to the the side they are not on.
My bad. I wasn’t passing judgment either way, but I’ll shut up now and wait for the facts to come out.
I get it and don’t totally disagree. My bother is a gun guy. Has two adult children. Both avid hunters, one is in the army, Neither know the combo to his gun safe.
Poli-sci student - Pro Pally
Looks a little "off"
How do you not get tired of lying like this? Seriously…
A law requiring the owner to secure the weapon and ammo, as in keeping them locked in a gun safe.
There was more to that quote….
Should parents be responsible for locking up alcohol regardless of their child’s age? Weed? Prescription meds?
Someone said there are laws for the legal owners of the gun and that probably varies from state to state. But A: Guns and ammo need to be securely stored. And B: A new law to address your question. THROW THE BOOK at those who do not securely store their weapons which result in crimes committed.
Yes, they should. Up to a point. The gunman was 20 years old. He cant legally drink, might not be legal for him to possess weed in that state, and I'm not sure if he can have certain prescriptions not in his name. So the parents would be responsible if he got his hands on them. Akin to if you give alcohol to guests at your party (or they serve themselves), you are potentially liable in the event of anything caused by the alcohol you provide.
If that child takes any of those items out of the home and "shares" with other children, the parent would be responsible, liable for any resulting damages, and could be prosecuted. Right?
He already answered the question, which you would have realized if you had read the entire thread. And then he answered it again (directly) in direct response to this post. What more do you want from the guy….100% agreement with another “side?”
If that’s the way u translate that then you are truly an idiot who is only posting with a political agenda
One that makes a gun owner responsible for proper storage of said gun. Why was he able to access the weapon? I work for law enforcement and in our building any weapon that is in the building must either be secured on the officers person or locked in the armory. The question I have was why was the gun not properly secured? Why was he able to access it? Yes no law is going to stop every incident but a law that requires one to be responsible for their weapon perhaps would make people think perhaps instead of keeping the weapon in a night stand drawer they would instead secure it.
The Knight Report
Three Rutgers wrestlers ink NIL deal with Miller's Rentals
The Knight Report
Rutgers Football Fall Camp is Rolling: Get 75% off The Knight Report now - JUST 2 Days Left
The Knight Report
Michael O'Connor named to the Allstate Wuerffel Trophy Watchlist
The Knight Report
Four Rutgers Football commit candidates in the 2028 class
The Knight Report
Projecting the 2026 paths for all 25 Rutgers freshmen and how the new 5-for-5 rule factors in
