19
   

Mom kills her two teens for being mouthy.

 
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 01:38 pm
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
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.
wmwcjr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 03:23 pm
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
Yes, and guilt for not being there.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Quote:
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.

Oddly enough, I feel no anger. Just a sense of horror and sadness. Makes me appreciate my own family.

0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 03:23 pm
@IRFRANK,
IRFRANK wrote:

The family is disintegrating.



Not necessarily. Perhaps she was so bent that she didn't feel like or want to or felt too alienated to consult family and friends - doesn't mean doom is at hand for families in general. Who knows what went on in her mind? I just feel very sorry for her because when she does get help and gets the reality of it all, she's going to feel dreadful. And her poor husband - he might have seen signs and symptoms for years and tried to help her, but you know that old adage about people helping themselves... I'm sure he never imagined she'd take it this far, if he even thought she was in a bad way... people have a way of hiding things from others... it's just very, very sad.
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  3  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 03:29 pm
This is a military family. Dad (military officer) was away a lot. She probably raised these kids by herself. There are probably many guns in the house.
That's not the point. She would have choked or poisoned them, if there had not been a gun. She had been dealing with depression.

I just got briefed at a mid-deployment seminar about all the resources military families have, including free consultation services (they don't call them counseling), along with financial, legal, health care, family readiness and military/family consultant program. Much was said about the stress that military families are experiencing, especially during deployment.

You can bet that there will be an investigation as to how this whole scenario happened in this family when there are so many resources available.

But we (the publilc) will not hear about it.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 09:13 pm
Punkey - Mame

You are both right of course. I was jumping to conclusions. So easy to do. There is a lot of counseling available even outside of the military but many people are too 'proud' to get it. Or they think it means they are sick.

I don't know about the family thing. If I look back at my own family, I would say I have been closer and more available to my kids than my mom and dad were. I'm not putting them down, I just didn't have those 'life' discussions with them. I was close to my dad later in life, when we were both adults. Often we have this Ozzie and Harriet vision of how families used to be, but it's not necessarily the truth.

It's just sad there wasn't anyone close enough to this mother to keep this from happening.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2011 09:19 pm
Sad, all the way around.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 01:12 am
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.

Quote:
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.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 05:22 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
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.
Lemme get this straight:
if it were discovered that there were errors
in reporting this news, 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,
or had pounded them with a rock,
or burned them to death, that 'd be OK
and your new reaction is u 'd say:
"O, thank GOODNESS!!! Wow, what a RELIEF !

OK, just as long as she did not use a gun" ?


Quote:
Hard to understand yet I think if we are honest, we can understand easily.
aidan wrote:
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.
She shot her daughter in the face & in the back of the head.
She did NOT shoot her son in the back of the head.

aidan wrote:
These children are the victims.
Yes, the DEFENSELESS victims,
who were PERFECTLY in 1OO% compliance with EVERY gun control law.

The penalty for obaying gun control laws
is DEATH, in the discretion of a predator.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 05:39 am
@aidan,
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.





David
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 05:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
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.
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 05:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
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.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 06:53 am
@aidan,
David wrote:
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 ?


aidan wrote:
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.
It appears to have been planned.
Planning murders need not include use of guns.
For most of human history, earlier than Julius Caesar,
murders were planned without guns.


aidan wrote:
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?
What BENEFIT??????
If I were a sentencing judge a case like this,
I 'd see no reason against the death penalty.






aidan wrote:
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?
I think that the victims
had the right to fight back;
sadly, thay were in obedience to all gun control laws.






aidan wrote:
These kids never had a chance because their sick mother had access to a gun.
I have posted many, many times,
that people made their own guns
long before Columbus came here.
Thay did it withOUT any
electric tools and without blueprints for guns,
both of which are freely available now.
Long before the birth of George Washington
it was too late to put the genie back into THAT bottle.
In my naborhood in Arizona, kids worked on a lot
of old junk cars and thay made guns, for fun,
not security. Commercially manufactured guns abounded everywhere.
Thay made their own anyway; thay had time on their hands.
(Thay made boms too, that we set off in our back yards,
preferably at nite.)
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:03 am
@aidan,
David wrote:
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.
aidan wrote:
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 don 't see that she was any better than Andrea Yates.



aidan wrote:
I feel sorry for the people who got caught in her orbit.
May thay all be better armed than her children were.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:33 am
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
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.
It is indeed.






Ceili wrote:
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.
Agreed.



Ceili wrote:
Arming a child to prevent a parent from shooting them
is the worst kind of grimm fairy-tale I can imagine.
No one suggested that the specific purpose
of the armament was anti-parental.
I armed myself with a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson Model 36 Revolver
when I was 8. It never occurred to me to shoot either of my parents.
We got along fairly well; not much trouble. I don 't remember any.
I armed myself against ANY threat
that were to attack me. That was the prevalent
point of vu in my naborhood.
I was never attacked for many decades,
and that was 1000s of miles away.







Ceili wrote:
Jesus, imagine the phycological crap that would leave a person with.
I'm agog at the suggestion. Shocked
Jesus agreed with ME.
He said that if u don 't have a sword
u better buy one. Luke 22:36
I think that extrapolates to a .44 revolver now.





David
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 07:34 am
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?
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 08:07 am
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
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.


Just in case there is any question, I mention the fact that her mental state seems to be the most salient point in terms of I don't think the kids brought this upon themselves in any way, shape, or form.. Some of the early discussion here was yeah, kids today, so mouthy. If they hadn't been so mouthy...

That's what I'm arguing against. I think she had something going on that was going to get triggered no matter how angelic those kids were. (And she seems to have thought a lot of them in the time before her car accident, though of course that could have just been for public consumption.)

I'm not giving her the benefit of any doubt. She did a horrible, monstrous thing, full stop. About as bad as it gets.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 08:17 am
@Mame,
Mame wrote:
David, having a gun does not guarantee your safety.
Clearly, that is true,
but your statement implies (in error)
that I had claimed that it is IMPOSSIBLE
to slay an armed man. I never said that
and I have never believed it.
I merely want victims to be armed well enuf
to be able to control a predatory emergency
if it ever arises;
i.e., in a predatory situation, I want the good guy to WIN.

I don 't allege anything beyond that hope and desire.






Mame wrote:
You don't carry it with you at all times and you don't suspect
all people all the time. Please.
Of course. It woud be gross error to suspect 1000s of innocent people
by whom we r all surrounded.






Mame wrote:
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.
I have never had any illusions to the contrary.
I thawt we all knew that the same as that
the sun is brite in the daytime.
I saw no need to explicitly acknowledge that,
because it was sufficiently obvious.






Mame wrote:
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?
No; most of the time, I live alone.
Except for the Mailman, no one goes postal.




Mame wrote:
You need to grasp the difference...
If I have ever said anything
suggesting that I believe that a man assumes absolute immortality by wearing a gun,
then I shoud have written with greater precision
and with less ambiguity. That concept has never occurred to me.
Indeed, wearing guns will not defend u from
getting hit by a car, nor by lightning.








Mame wrote:
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.
That sums it up.





Mame wrote:
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?
She was said to have been shot in the face
and in the back of the head.

Many times, victims of gunshot wounds
can and DO fight back. Death is not usually instantaneous.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 09:25 am
@Fido,
Fido, do you have children of your own? The reason I ask is that in my experience it seems like the folks who are the most heatedly vocal about being for corporal punishment of kids are the ones who have the least regular personal contact with kids.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 10:11 am
@parados,
OmSigDAVID wrote:



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.
parados wrote:
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?
It woud not.
It woud be the same as an armed citizen
of Vermont (where there r no gun laws) when
an armed police officer arrives. No one goes for his gun.
All remains peaceful; the same in a domestic environment.
U 've gotta be kidding, Parados. (no pun)





David wrote:
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
parados wrote:
Let's look at the logic David.
OK

parados wrote:
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?
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.



parados wrote:
You would be carrying a gun.
How would a child know when you would raise
the threat to using your gun?
See my last answer, above.




parados wrote:
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?
Do u propose that thay kill every
living person, against the chance that
he might, in the future, become violent?
I merely encourage every American citizen
who is able to lift n point a gun to assume
the same demeanor as the police or the Army

around American citizens, which is to keep
guns safely secured in their holsters
unless and until presented with
a clear & present danger
of imminent violence against him or her.

No surprize, just as I have always done
until under violent attack; again, kinda obvious.






parados wrote:
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.
That 's not practical; its uncalled for, in the absence
of demonstrated danger.
Is this an effort at humor on your part, Parados ?






parados wrote:
This would put you at a disadvantage
David since the child could then shoot you before
you can defend yourself.
That woud be killing the GOLDEN GOOSE.
I gave my girlfriends' children plenty of $$$$$,
unexpectedly, for no reason, in addition to other gifts,
including speaking up for them, defending them from their mothers' illogic.
(Thay liked that.)






parados wrote:
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?
Yes; the same as the police.



parados wrote:
Doesn't that defeat your statement that people with guns are protected from being shot?
Please QUOTE that alleged statement.
I deny that I ever said that.





David
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Jan, 2011 10:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
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

Ah. so you shouldn't respond until shot? Thanks for being an idiot David.
If you are shot and killed before you respond, how does a gun help you?

Quote:
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.

It is ez to figure out except for you David.
So, there will be less shootings if everyone had guns because they could defend themselves EXCEPT they can't defend themselves until an unless they are shot and possibly killed SO your argument that you wish the victims had guns to defend themselves is illogical
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Florida grand jury to probe Trayvon Martin killing - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 02:23:19