Why did Shauntai Nickerson buy her 16-year-old son, #GriffinJohn (Oregon school shooter) a 12-gauge shotgun for his birthday when she knew he had a documented history of intensive behavioral and social-skill challenges? In 2020, when Griffin was 10, she went on local news and talked about him being in the NEST program specifically for kids with those exact issues. She said she wasn’t equipped to handle a special-needs student at home and was relieved he could get specialized help back in the classroom. 6 years later, she legally purchases a Maverick 88 pump-action shotgun around his August birthday. He uses it to force his way into his old elementary school and open fire in a special-needs classroom—killing 3 kids and a teacher. She now says he was “a good boy,” she saw no signs, and she’s sorry. But the public record shows she knew about the behavioral challenges for years and still put a shotgun in his hands. For this same reason she should be charged— the same way the Crumbley’s did. How does that decision make sense? What changed between the NEST years and August 2026 that made arming him seem reasonable? Or did she just ignore the history that was already on record? You can literally see something is off with him by just looking at him. Parents of special-needs kids deal with real struggles. Trust me I know. Handing a teenager with that background a long gun isn’t one of the solutions. You are knowingly putting an entire community/public at risk.