15-year-old Robert Wayne Gladden Jr. has been charged as an adult with attempted murder in the Perry Hall High School shooting that took place yesterday. The victim, 17-year-old Daniel Borowy, was shot in the back and as of the last report was in critical condition. Isn’t the old adage that only cowards shoot someone in the back? But I digress.
Gladden smuggled a shotgun into the school that belonged to his stepfather’s grandfather. The step-father, Andrew E. Piper, has been charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and drug charges.
It seems that Gladden is just another cookie-cutter shooter. He dyed his long hair black and was considered goth and a loner. I’m not ready to label him a mutant yet but it wouldn’t surprise me. Speaking of cookie cutters the cookie-cutter excuse of bullying was thrown into the mix rather quickly when the media asked his father why he may have done it.
A reporter showed up at his family’s home and asked why this might have happened. The boy was bullied, answered his father, according to the Associated Press.
The boy’s lawyer was quick to jump on that too saying that his client brought the gun to school in order to intimidate bullies. His lawyer also adds that he didn’t mean to shoot anyone and the gun went off when one of the school faculty tackled him. If that’s the case then why did he also bring 21 shells with him to school? That’s a lot of intimidation.
However, the police say that bullying was not an issue in this shooting. Like most if not all school shootings if I may add.
What about his victim Daniel Borowy? He must have been some badass bully to warrant being shot in the back with a shotgun right? Not so much…
We have been told that Daniel was shot in the back and is now out of surgery. A family representative says Daniel has down syndrome and calls him a shy, athletic young man.
It sounds more like the kid who would have been bullied more than anyone. As usual, the shooter is a bigger bully than anyone he may have claimed to have bullied him And a coward of course.
Speaking of bullying I was to point out The Christian Science Monitor article I linked to above but is also here. It does a great job of trying to dispel the bullying myth and also shows how vague the term ‘bullying’ has become.
We’ve written before about how the concept of “bullying” has become so broad, so trendy, so amorphous, that it has all but lost any specific meaning. Over the past months, for instance, we’ve read news of a six-year-old “bully” getting suspended from school for singing popular song lyrics in the lunch line and a 68-year-old bus monitor getting “bullied” by a group of students.
(Neither of which seem to fit the US Department of Health and Human Service’s definition of bullying, which says the act involves aggressive behavior among school-aged children and involves a real or perceived power imbalance.)
It’s hard to argue with logic but unfortunately, we’ve become a country of pre-programmed knee-jerk reactionaries. As soon as a school shooting hits the news some ‘journalist’ will try to break the sound barrier getting the bullying meme out there.
Speaking of journalists the CSM article also quotes my favorite journalist Dave Cullen, also the author of Columbine. He sums it up very succinctly…
“We all knew what happened there, right?” he wrote about Columbine in a New York Times opinion piece soon after this summer’s mass shooting in Aurora, Colo. “Two outcast loners exacted revenge against the jocks for relentlessly bullying them.
“Not one bit of that turned out to be true.”
Yet it still perpetuates to this day. This bullying myth is what creates school shooters not any perceived notion of bullying itself.