this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
413 points (96.0% liked)

News

23367 readers
4514 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 43 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

Is Megan being sued for negligent parenting, not getting her child and/or being appropriate emotional support, and keeping an unsecured firearm in the home?

She details that she as aware of his growing dependency on the AI. She indicates she was aware her son knew the location of the firearm and was able to access it. She said it was compliant with Florida laws, but that seems unlikely since guns and ammo need to be stored in separate, secure (typically locked) locations, and the firearms need to have trigger locks on them. If you're admitting your mentally unstable child knows the location of a firearm in your home and can access it, it is OBVIOUSLY not secured.

She seems to be saying that she knew he could access it, but also that it was legally secured. I find it difficult to believe both of those facts can be simultaneously true. But AI is the main problem here? I think it's obviously part of what's going on, but she had a child with mental illness and didn't seem proactive about much except this lawsuit. She got him a month of therapy and then stopped while simultaneously acknowledging he was getting worse and had received a diagnosis. This legal filing frankly seems more damning of the mother than the AI, and she seems completely oblivious to that fact.

Frankly, and at best, this seems like an ambulance-chasing attorney taking advantage of a grieving mother for a payday.

[–] warbond@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It could be secured to hell and back, it's all moot if he still has access, i.e. knows the combo, knows where the keys are, etc.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Yes, that's my point. Once she became aware that her mentally disturbed child had access to the firearm, which she acknowledged, then it is no longer secured. She also never mentions that it was locked in any way, so I suspect it never was. Considering he found it when he found his phone, this sounds more like a drawer or somewhere she thought he wasn't likely to look, but not somewhere that is actually locked. The idea that the ammo and firearm were secured separately and that additionally there was a trigger lock seems even more unlikely.

Sounds to me that: 1) she was aware her child was having mental health issues. 2) she was aware it was getting worse. 3) she was aware he was becoming infatuated with the AI. 4) she was aware that the child had found and had access to a firearm. 5) she was aware her child's mental health had been diagnosed by a mental health professional. 6) she did almost nothing about the things of which she was aware. 7) pikachu face better sue the internet!

And those are all things she quite literally describes as justification for suing. It's completely bizarre and shows an almost complete lack of self awareness and personal responsibility.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I haven't read the laws, but I am willing to bet they say it has to be secured, but doesn't say you can't give the keys to a minor.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

The Florida law clearly implies that if you have a child under 16 in the home, they must not have access to the firearm. Giving a minor keys would be considered giving access.

Regardless, the point is, a parent that gives a mentally unstable child access to a firearm and then sues someone else for their suicide is a hypocrite and shitty parent.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No argument on the second part. But not sure about the first. The laws "implying" something often isn't enough to charge.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

"Implying" is how laws work. You rarely have laws that spell out each and every specific and individual example. The spirit and the letter of the law for edge cases is worked out in specific cases. For the same reason no one is going to convincingly argue they don't have access to their home because the door is locked if they have keys, having keys to locked gun storage is considered access. Primary access in fact. Having keys to a lock is considered prima facie "access" and is borne out in settled case law. It's so obvious that it isn't even argued otherwise except in extreme circumstances.