I will come back and respond to this. Right now I'm reading this and it's hilarious so bear with me.

WINNER WINNER! The only thing better than your comment is the fact that someone thought you were serious. I'm dying.

I think we agree on most points. I'm not trying to pass judgement on whether dad was justified or not. What I'm trying to argue is that you can't blame the girl for the kid's death. If you're blaming someone for this young man being shot in the head, go to where the action originated and blame the person who shot him…

Who is saying he's abusive? I think you might have replied to the wrong comment. My bottom line is, the person who shot the kid in the head is the only one responsible for shooting the kid in the head.

My point is that he's responsible for the action he took. Which is sneaking into a house. Dad is responsible for the action he took. Which is shooting a young man in the head. That's where the responsibility lies.

I think we've reached agreement! Our perspectives are limited by our experience. As the daughter of a controlling, abusive dad, I disagree with your interpretation but as someone that had protective parents, you disagree with my interpretation. Admitting our experience colors our objectively is as far as we go to…

Wouldn't you agree that in that case she'd be less at fault?

Yes, that is what it means.

I think I'm being unclear. How is thinking that someone is creepy because they're hitting on someone younger than them an example of "stereotyping and discriminating against groups or individuals based on their age"? I'm missing the stereotype or discrimination.

If you think I'm assuming he's abusive, you've misunderstood my point. I think I'm missing yours, too, though - what exactly is the conclusion you're trying to prove? It's getting a bit mixed up I think.

if he is not accountable for his actions, then wouldn't that push responsibility to his parents?

If she was that worried about being caught, why not sneak OUT instead of sneaking him in?

In case you ask why I'm not responding to your hypothetical situation, it's because it's irrelevant to this case because it didn't happen.

As a teacher of teens, I disagree. Teens are kids. Once you accept that, you accept their brain development and the reasonable expectations for their understanding consequences for themselves and others. You know how I know she's been hearing cautionary tales for years? Because she snuck this young man in. If she…

The part I'm missing is the "so what" (not trying to be rude in that phrasing; I don't understand what your conclusion is). You said no one gets credit for the death BUT - that tricky conjunction that negates what proceeded it. I read that as you think she does get credit. Her action was that she lied. Dad's action is…

I don't know about that one way or the other - I'm just arguing that she's not to blame criminally for the act. Seems we agree! Commentariat win!

BETTER:

Nailed it.

So why stop there? Why can't you say he's actually to blame because he snuck in her room? You sound like you know a lot about law, so I'm surprised you're not thinking about the reasonable expectation all the people you mentioned had. Even though school shooting mom didn't expect her daughter to call 911, she's in…

Oh I see - thanks for clarifying.