Mom kills her two teens for being mouthy.

How horrible! As a husband and father, I don't think I can fully comprehend the shock, the grief, and the stress that Parker Schenecker must be suffering now.

Yes, and guilt for not being there.

Very sad situation and yet so easy to see how they got into those positions. I wonder what relatives she may have had or not that could have helped?

I am not searching for blame, but we all need help in this world and generally we get it from family. The family is disintegrating.

The family is disintegrating.

Hard to understand yet I think if we are honest, we can understand easily.

I'm saddest for those two children- and angry - yes, I have to admit.

When I read this, my first reaction was disbelief and then anger as in, 'here we go again, destruction of life at the hand of of someoneone who had obvious mental issues holding a gun'.

She had a pre-existing condition, was obviously on the verge of psychosis - it takes psychosis to shoot your children in the back of the head - NOT depression in and of itself- yet she was able to obtain a gun last week.

And I do believe if she hadn't had the gun these children might still be alive.

Hard to understand yet I think if we are honest, we can understand easily.

Understand what? A mother shooting her children in the back of the head?
I can't understand that at all. I think this is the most horrific story I've heard in a while.
I could understand Andrea Yates in the midst of her delusions sending her children to heaven 1000 times more than I can understand this woman sneaking up behind her daughter at the computer and shooting her in the back of the head because she was sassy.

These children are the victims.

Lemme get this straight:
if it were discovered that there were errors
in reporting this, and that in FACT,
she had fed them poison,
then u 'd not suffer from saddness nor anger?!
or if she had used a knife or a bom or an ax, that 'd be OK ?

Note that any sassiness
might have been among the murderer's delusive
hallucinations, for all we know. The unarmed victims
might well have been polite.

Lemme get this straight:
if it were discovered that there were errors
in reporting this, and that in FACT,
she had fed them poison,
then u 'd not suffer from saddness nor anger?!
or if she had used a knife or a bom or an ax, that 'd be OK ?

You know what David? I'm not really buying this whole 'the poor lady was so depressed' scenario.
What I've read indicates to me that she was unhappy with her childrens' behavior toward her and by god she was gonna teach them a lesson and put an end to it.
The words she is quoted as using in her note sound as if she is arrogant and controlling and didn't like being crossed by her kids.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if there were an element of her playing pay-back toward her husband for leaving her alone so much of her life with these kids- as in 'Yeah - you go away again- even after I have a serious accident and am dealing with too much for me to be able to handle on my own...just wait and see how I'm gonna fix your wagon.'

This was obviously planned. She went out and BOUGHT the murder weapon so it'd be available to her.

Would people give the same benefit of the doubt to this woman if she wasn't blond, blue-eyed, upper middle class and living in a half-million dollar house sending out perfect Christmas cards every year?

I don't think so.
It takes a lot of arrogance to believe that you are the arbiter of life and death for another person. And it is cowardly to mete out your punishment while their back is turned.
I know a LOT of depressed people and they don't shoot their children in the head for talking back.
This isn't a situation that sprung up overnight.
You don't go from being the perfect mom to hating your children so much that you want them silenced forever in a few days.
Looks can be deceiving.

My point avout the gun is - if she'd tried to attack her kids with a knife - unless they were sleeping in their beds when she did it - they'd have had a fighting chance. I KNOW both of my teen-age kids could probably overpower and disarm me if I came at them with anything EXCEPT a gun.

If she'd tried to poison them, maybe they'd have told their teacher they were feeling ill after every meal and someone would have gotten them to the doctor.

Whereas a gunshot punctuates and ends the argument or struggle rather definitively - don't you think?

These kids never had a chance because their sick mother had access to a gun.

Note that any sassiness
might have been among the murderer's delusive
hallucinations, for all we know. The unarmed victims
might well have been polite.

This is the one thing you've said with which I cannot disagree.

Sounds like this woman held pretty high standards
and meted out VERY severe punishments when they weren't met.

I feel sorry for the people who got caught in her orbit.

This is so tragic.
My heart goes out to the father. He probably didn't even know his wife had bought the gun. Depression is the number one disease. We all know someone who is depressed. To blame the father is a bit premature and wrong. Are we all at fault when we leave a depressed person for an hour or a few days?
As for spanking the kids to prevent this kind of thing happening...
Wow, that's just nuts.

Really?!?
If you can't handle the kids talking back, take a vacation, go to the gym, go to the doctor, get some valium... Seriously. Blaming the victims here is retarded. Everybody had attitude at some point, beating a kid to prevent further tantrums only insures other problems.

Arming a child to prevent a parent from shooting them
is the worst kind of grimm fairy-tale I can imagine.

Jesus, imagine the phycological crap that would leave a person with.
I'm agog at the suggestion.

Would people give the same benefit of the doubt to this woman if she wasn't blond, blue-eyed, upper middle class and living in a half-million dollar house sending out perfect Christmas cards every year?
I don't think so.

David, having a gun does not guarantee your safety.

You don't carry it with you at all times and you don't suspect
all people all the time. Please.

I understand you feel everyone has the right to own a gun and defend themselves
but that in and of itself does not mean they can defend themselves.

Do you carry a gun while going about your chores? Do you carry a gun while showering
and eating your meals? Do you carry a gun in case someone in your home goes postal?

You need to grasp the difference...

you may have the right to bear arms and defend yourself,
but... it does not mean it WILL save your life, only that it CAN.

So please stop interjecting your simple statement (they should have been armed) into every situation that arises ... that daughter could not have defended herself even if she were armed. She not only didn't suspect her mother of killing her, but she had her back turned and head down... wasn't she doing her homework?

David

parados wrote:

If you had a child and he acted the way you wanted the 2 teens in this story to act,
they would have killed you quite some time ago.[For what reason ??]
Probably when they were 8.

That is only chaotic confusion coming from u,
Parados. U usually show some logic in your posts.
Is this a joke ?

The way that I 'd want them to act is DEFENSIVE,
in the event of predatory violence.

In order for kids to defend themselves they would have to be prepared to shoot their parent before they were shot. Since you always carry a gun, they would have to assume intent simply from you carrying. Waiting til you shot them would be too late, would it not?

Your post is unclear as to whether u r attributing
predatory violence to me, against my own family.

Maybe u were only mindlessly mudslinging; I dunno.

Its below your standards, Parados.
Maybe u have forsaken logic, in your anti-victim zeal.





David

Let's look at the logic David.

In order to defend oneself from
a parent that would shoot a child, that child has
to shoot the parent before they are shot, would
they not? What is the threat that would lead to
shooting in self defense David?

You would be carrying a gun.
How would a child know when you would raise
the threat to using your gun?

Why would you want them to
wait until you actually threatened them since
waiting until that time would mean they wouldn't
have the ability to defend themselves since you
could shoot them before they could respond?

So, in order to be ready to defend themselves the child would have to have the gun out and able to be pointed at you quickly.

This would put you at a disadvantage
David since the child could then shoot you before
you can defend yourself.

This means you would have to also have your gun out at all times or be unable to defend yourself before being shot.

So David..
In the art of self defense with a gun, do you keep it holstered until shot at?

Doesn't that defeat your statement that people with guns are protected from being shot?

For example, parent telling the kid that he is going
to kill him, while reaching for his gun,
or actually shooting him, inflicting a non-disabling wound

For example, parent telling the kid that he is going
to kill him, while reaching for his gun,
or actually shooting him, inflicting a non-disabling wound
or parent missing the target of his homicide.
I think that is e z to figure out, Parados; kinda obvious.