Authorities described the student as a juvenile male but did not provide further identification or specifics pending an investigation

Wisconsin police shot and killed a student who officials say came to a local middle school with a gun. The student never got into the school, but as a precaution the entire district was put on a lockdown late Wednesday morning.

Students have since been reunited with their parents, some of whom waited up to five hours for their children to be dropped at a bus storage center in Mount Horeb, a village about 20 miles south-west of Madison, the state capital, according to WMTV 15 news.

No other students or staff were injured in the shooting, Josh Kaul, Wisconsin’s attorney general, said during a Wednesday news conference.

  • Jafoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Don’t bring guns to school, kids. If the staff have to choose between their establishment potentially becoming the next Columbine or Uvalde, and filling the chest of someone who really didn’t mean any harm up with 80 pounds of lead, they’re going to choose the later, without hesitation

      • Xanis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        People are stupid so I prefer to drum out the idiocy with better, not necessarily stricter, gun laws. The less dumb people with guns, the less kids are likely to get ahold of them.

        • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Cool, when you evolve past the 18th century you’ll find “stricter” works everywhere else

          In the meantime enjoy your medieval shitehole 😂

          • Xanis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Stricter can also mean smarter. Just like you probably bitch about shitty drivers and wonder why they have a license, I feel more intelligent testing should be required for firearms.

            Be harsher on safety. Maybe provide free small arms gun cases after passing actual firearm classes and certs. Amongst others. NOT stricter as in take away rights. Stricter as in make the fools earn it, whereas the rest of us who are not idiots and leave shit like that out or easily accessible without some form of key would easily pass and secure that right. If done correctly the people most impacted would be the same ones most likely to be dumbasses in the first place.

            Anyway, I’m rather neutral on the subject and am mostly idea dumping. So whatever.

            • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I don’t bitch about shitty drivers because in my country, the driving test is strict, it doesn’t involve simply driving up to the drive-thru and verbally abusing another human being 😂

              • Xanis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                So what you’re implying is intelligent and stricter testing has created drivers who you don’t have to complain about. Is that right?

  • Eol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    The kid just had a gun and didn’t shoot it or anything…? Was there no intent to do a “shooting”?

    • designatedhacker@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-fatally-shoot-student-wisconsin-middle-school-responding-report-rcna150308

      Not a ton more detail, but it sounds like a kid has a visible gun that some students reported seeing. Then they tried to enter the school, but the school had a video doorbell/door buzzer type setup. There were five or so shots in quick succession that must’ve included officers.

      Have to wait on more info, but it sounds like at worst they failed to deescalate. At best they showed up and the kid started shooting and they returned fire.

      No innocent kids died, so that’s a win in my book.

      • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        So all he did was illegally have a fire arm and he was executed for it and that’s a win in your book? Sick fuck

        • NESSI3@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          As a parent speaking for every other parent in that district, yeah that’s a win. No other kids life should be risked at all. Period.

      • 🔍🦘🛎@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        While it’s good news not to have a fresh school shooting, how hard is it to detain a middle schooler without murdering them…?

          • Wiz@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            If the child shot or even aimed at police, the police shoot back. That’s how it works in this country.

              • theparadox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Here is the question though. Does this rule apply to just them? Does it apply to others with respect to them?

                If not, how do you deal with the police abusing the power this gives them?

                If yes, how do you avoid constant bloodbaths of people shooting each other because they all had guns?

                • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Seems like dishonest questions from you here. You responded as if I implied scenario that solves all problems ever in policing because you jumped right at it with some “well what about …” comments.

                  At the heart of what I am saying is cops have families and deserve safety like any other worker. I would expect anyone with a job who goes into dangerous situations are kept safe. Cops are unique in that their safety is threatened by other people. There are so many problems with police, right now this “on killing” attitude that infected police forces needs to be purged. Doesn’t negate what I said though.

                • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  MURDER
                  Murder is when one human being unlawfully kills another human being. See Homicide. The precise legal definition of murder varies by jurisdiction. Most states distinguish between different degrees of murder. Some other states base their murder laws on the Model Penal Code. Contents:

                  • Common Law Murder
                  • Pennsylvania Method of Classifying Murder
                  • Model Penal Code
                    Overview
                    Background: Common Law Murder

                  At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is a legal term of art, that encompasses the following types of murder:

                  1. “Intent-to-kill murder”
                  2. “Grievous-bodily-harm murder” - Killing someone in an attack intended to cause them grievous bodily harm. For example, if the defendant fatally stabbed the victim, even if the defendant only intended to wound the victim, the defendant would still be liable for murder.
                  3. “Felony-murder” - Killing someone while in the process of committing a felony. Note that at common law, there were few felonies, and all carried the death penalty. For example, at common law, robbery was a felony. So if a robber accidentally killed someone during a robbery, the robber could be executed.
                  4. “Depraved heart murder” - Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

                  And that’s just the Cornell Law School page. It’s actually much more complex than what’s linked above. You’re out of your element, son.

        • Leg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          A tragedy of firearms is it makes children just as dangerous as anyone else. If the child was using the gun, they were the most dangerous person in the school.

      • Xhieron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        We need more information. The fact that the details about the victim are currently lacking is a bit of a red flag here. There is a marked difference between “police observed a 17 year old approaching the middle school with an automatic weapon and several bandoliers of ammunition” and “an 11 year old tried to sneak a handgun into the building in his backpack.” Neither of those children need to be let anywhere near the school, but one of those situations you might be able to deescalate–maybe both. More pertinent to the subject at hand, if the case were the former, I would expect the police to be extremely forthcoming about it. The fact that those kinds of details are, to my understanding, yet to be revealed leads me to suspect that the cops want some time to get their story straight first.

        It’s always a good thing when a school shooting doesn’t happen, but that doesn’t change the sad reality that police in the United States are not to be trusted. This is still a story about a child killed by police, and that deserves scrutiny. Hopefully the action was well justified, but I think anyone would be forgiven for exercising skepticism given the dearth of details about what happened.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          There are laws specifically against reporting information on children under 18, so in both your cases you would see an information delay. That doesn’t NECESSARILY mean they’re covering something up. Or rather, they may be covering up for the sake of the family rather than the cops. So the way they learn about it isn’t on TV or from a mob of reporters pounding on their door.

          • Xhieron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s entirely possible (and common) to reveal details about an incident without revealing personally identifiable information about a minor. There are good reasons not to–but unfortunately when police are involved, Occam’s razor cuts in favor of agency self-preservation.

      • quindraco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Would you prefer the police wait for the kid to shoot someone first?

        So you’d prefer to be put in prison now, rather than having society wait for you to actually commit a crime?

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s a crime to carry a firearm without a carry permit. It’s also a crime to bring a weapon to a school in most states.

        • smackjack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          If someone is running towards your wife with a knife, are you going to wait for him to stab her before you shoot him?

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Context is very important.

        If the kid had no intention of using it and didn’t brandish it at the police then shooting him doesn’t seem like the correct course of action.

        If the police told them to drop it and they refused it is a different story.

        The point is we don’t know so it’s impossible to say whether it was justified.

    • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Something else happened, kids bring guns to schools all the time and don’t get caught if they don’t flash them around. It’s gotten to the point where some schools have metal detectors at the entrances.

        • Crack0n7uesday@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Depends how you think about it. Out in the more rural parts of America there’s gun safety education and target practice shooting where guns are provided to kids under supervision for extra circular activities and no one even questions it. Those are generally not the schools that make the news though. All provided within the public education sector and at schools.

          Yes, if your an American your taxes may have supported teaching some country kid out in the Appalachian Mountains how to hunt with a gun, it’s not very uncommon. You have to take the good with the bad. How does the saying go " I would rather let 99 murderers go free than convict one innocent person".

      • smackjack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Shortly after Columbine, my school banned backpacks and if you brought a lunch box to school, they would want to search it.