March 22nd:
~Brent plead guilty to kidnapping and assault as non-dangerous crimes-- as if this LEGAL definition really applies to an incident that lasted less than 60 seconds.
~HE LET THE GIRL GO. She did not escape. AFTER he let her go, he threatened her to not speak of the INCIDENT, NOT before he let her go... knowing full well she would; by then he'd already put the weapon away in his pocket. She then told him she had to go home, and proceeded to WALK away. Brent is the one that ran.
~He did NOT stalk her. Both children, in fact, simply walked home by the same route for several years. It just happened that they were in the same place at the same time.
~Camoflauge clothing is no indication of ANYTHING: mom wears it almost daily, sometimes for duty, sometimes for fun, as do MANY friends and acquaintances, and actual military service personnel. In fact, it's a trend with the general population on any street, on any given day, anywhere you go in the USA. Get off the stereotyping: it was part of a regular uniform. He didn't strip it down, as claimed, but merely wore only this portion.
March 23rd:
~THE POLICE did not find Brent with any weapon of any kind. Period. Nor did the police EVER see Brent in camoflauge clothing. The police did not travel two blocks to our home to look for Brent. Instead they called his folks to go find him, from their jobs 45 minutes away! THEY NEVER LOOKED.
~BRENT NEVER MADE A THREAT, neither verbal nor written. He is "guilty" only of sitting in his own home and thinking. Did he really think about what he said later-- or did he say it for the "drama" and "shock value" to get his point of feeling helpless across too strongly? Did he say what he said because he was scared or angry? Or because he recognized what he'd done and saw no other way out? Did he ever intend to LEAVE the house? Have we as a society entered the milieus of "1984" and "The Giver?" Putting children in prison for alleged thoughts IS INDEED going overboard.
~Brent's INTENTION, which he did not formulate until after at least 11:30pm on March 22nd, 2007, was SUICIDE-BY-COP! The firearm was never considered prior to that time, NOR had it been removed from lock-up. The only person he intended to hurt was HIMSELF. That is FAR different from killing hostages or a "Columbine-like" scenario. Similar ELEMENTS of a situation do NOT make it a copycat. Planning implies a desired longterm outcome; beyond his own death, Brent had none. HOW CONSPICUOUS WOULD HE HAVE BEEN WALKING ONTO CAMPUS DRESSED IN CAMO PANTS AND HUGE WINTER CAMO JACKET IN MARCH IN ARIZONA? Such a sight would surely set off alarm bells long before he'd made it as far as any classroom, especially with his knowledge of Resource (Police) Officers on school grounds at all times!
~Back to the statutes: it is not a crime for a child to be in possession of a firearm in a parents' home, if it is legal, owned by a resident, and on private property. It is only illegal if the child has it under their immediate control. A firearm sitting in a backpack across the room from a kid playing video games, zipped close, is not under anyone's immediate control.
~About that backpack: NOBODY has yet reported that the backpack also contained personal school papers, old valentines, some rings, a couple of books on his favorite subject: military history, a flashlight and gloves. Does the packing of mementos and cold-weather clothing indicate that his intention might have actually been to run away? Otherwise, why pack a big bulky winter jacket in the first place? That large jacket certainly had no benefits as far as mobility for a "terrorist."
~He sat in his own home for more than 3 hours waiting for his parents or the police to arrive on the doorstep-- knowing the police would be looking for him. If he intended to act, he'd have hidden somewhere in the vicinity of the school where he could watch and wait, not where he would be easily located and stopped.
~Brent did not go back to school at any time, never made a threat or an indication of a threat. Was it therefore ethical to CALL up kids and their families AFTER the arrest and ASK if they WISHED TO BE VICTIMS, as the police report claims, even though they were never in any danger?
(Hey--two cars just got into an accident at the intersection half a block from my house. I'd like to be a victim, because I MIGHT have been driving down that street at that very second in time.)
