Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Mother shoots her two children because they were "mouthy and talked back"

50-year-old Julie Powers Schenecker has been charged with the brutal shooting deaths of her two children. Schenecker alleged shot her children because they were "mouthy and talked back."
According to police reports Schenecker bought a .38-caliber revolver five days before the murders. She allegedly shot her 13-year-old son, Beau, twice in the head on the way to soccer practice for "talking back." She then allegedly drove to their home and shot her 16-year-old daughter, Carlyx, in the face as she sat in front of her computer studying.
Friends and neighbors were shocked by the murders. According to police records, Schenecker was a law abiding citizen with no criminal history. In November she was in a traffic accident in which she was cited for careless driving.
Schenecker's husband is a U.S. Army intelligence officer and was on assignment in the Middle East at the time of the shootings.
The Florida mother was hospitalized after the shootings but has since been released from the hospital and returned to jail.


  1. Okay, so what is your point?

    That ordinary people can do horrible things?

    Did you do a post on Andrea Yates or Susan Smith?
    Both of those moms drowned their kids.

    Does the method of murder matter?

    Second: what law, either on the books or proposed, would stop or even reduce the incidences of parents killing their children?

    You are addressing the issue of the tool but completely avoiding the root cause of the problem.

    Until you address the root cause, you will do nothing to stop the murders. Don't you agree?

  2. Bob, I think his point with this post, and the entire blog, is to dispel the myth that pro-gun folks have that horrible shooting crimes are only committed by career criminals and gang-bangers. The truth is that previously "law-abiding citizens" like this one also commit horrible murders, suicides, and accidents. The prevalence of guns in our society, the lack of waiting periods in most areas, and the ease with which guns kill, make it easy for crimes like this to occur.

  3. Baldr,

    No one is denying that 'law abiding citizens' commit crimes.

    Most of the crimes are committed by gang members and people associated with the drug trade.

    Do you deny that?

    My questions still stand.

    What law, either on the books or proposed, would either greatly reduce or prevent this type of crime?

    You on the other hand seem to also ignore the Susan Smiths and the Andrea Yates -- you remember the moms that drowned their children?

    Why focus on the tool: does it make the dead children morally superior if they are killed with a gun than if they are drowned?

    Again, what are you doing to address the root cause of the problem?

  4. Bob,

    There are many causes of violence: domestic abuse, mental illness, poverty, lack of resources, to name a few. Easy access to firearms is also a cause of violence. I choose to work on the latter, assuming and hoping that others are out there working on the former and that combined we will have an impact.

  5. Ohh Shoot,

    Please explain how "easy access to firearms is also a cause of violence".

    That sentence makes no sense. Are you trying to claim that violence wouldn't happen if there was no firearm?

    Again --- since you avoided the question -- what law do you propose or is currently on the books that would have stopped, prevented or greatly reduce this type of crimes??

  6. Bob, honestly, I don't think there is a law on the books that could prevent this. Perhaps having a waiting period may have helped, since it was only 5 days from the time she purchased the gun. You can't control for undiagnosed insanity. One might question why she bought the gun in the first place. And if she lashed out so violently this time, chances are she has lashed out in less violent ways in the past -- a warning sign to friends and family that may have been ignored. No law can get them to take action, but personal ethics might.

  7. Baldr,

    You admit you can't think of a law that would stop it but you want to pass laws to try to stop it.

    Did I understand you correctly?

    Personal ethics might get people to take action?

    Really, take action on what?
    The daughter reported --- after the fact -- that the mom hit her.

    What public action could have people observed and acted on?

    The plain fact is you and Oh Shoot are dancing in the blood of the dead in order to drum up support for gun control laws.

    You don't mention Andrea Yates -- the mom with KNOWN mental illness issues.

    You don't mention Susan Smith, the mom who 'just snapped' and drowned her kids.

    What laws do you propose to stop, prevent or reduce those types of murders?

    And while you are talking about laws that may, might have, conceivably if the the moon is in Libra reduce the deaths or injuries; why not talk about how many more rapes would be committed, how many more unarmed people would be murdered, how many more homes would be invaded?

    Try as gun controllers will, you can not deny the existence of defensive gun uses. You may -- and do --try to ignore them but they are out there.

    Every day people use firearms to protect themselves and their families.

    How many people are you willing to be the victims of crimes so that you can lower "gun violence"?

  8. "The plain fact is you and Oh Shoot are dancing in the blood of the dead in order to drum up support for gun control laws."

    "How many people are you willing to be the victims of crimes so that you can lower "gun violence"? "

    Don't be an ass, Bob. I was trying to meet you halfway.

  9. Right Baldr,

    Exactly how were you trying to meet me halfway?

    Was it in compromise? Oh, that's right you can't name a single law you would support repealing.

    Was it in the flat recognition the laws you support wouldn't stop this crime or any like it but you still support those laws?

    So, exactly how is a law requiring a background check going to stop a criminal from getting a firearm?

    So, exactly how is a law requiring a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or less going to stop a crime?

    So, exactly how is any law you support going to stop a crime?