He was 6, in his first-grade class in Newport News, Virginia. He pointed a handgun at his teacher, police say, and then he pulled the trigger. And across the nation, people … didn’t quite know how to react.
Even in a country where gun violence is sadly commonplace, the story of a small boy with a gun is reverberating in a big way. There has been finger-pointing. Confusion. Floundering for answers. Mass grappling with deeply uncomfortable feelings. And questions: How could something like this possibly happen? Where in the national consciousness do we put it?
“It is almost impossible to wrap our minds around the fact that a 6-year-old first-grader brought a loaded handgun to school and shot a teacher,” Mayor Phillip Jones said that day, Jan. 6. “However, this is exactly what our community is grappling with today.”
It’s not just his community, though, and it wasn’t just that day. This is a country full of people who know exactly what they think about everything, and say so. Yet many are throwing their hands up at this. In a land awash in hot takes, it’s a head-scratcher. A heart-scratcher, even.
“I never thought elementary students being the shooter was a possibility we would ever see,” says Kendra Newton, a first-grade teacher in Florida.
That may be because it sits outside what people are accustomed to. Jennifer Talarico, a psychology professor at Lafayette College in Easton, Pennsylvania, believes the case hits differently in part because it violates society’s expectations for both school shootings (of which there were two others elsewhere in the country that day) and childhood itself.
“Sadly, we have schemas, we have rubrics, we have archetypes for school shootings in this country. We have a sort of script for these things,” said Talarico, who has studied how people remember indirectly experienced events. “Using the phrase ‘school shooting’ as a shorthand leads us to develop that story in our heads, and when the facts of the case are so different … that is what is surprising.”
Americans typically view childhood as an encapsulation of the best of our society and values, Talarico says — innocence, fun, joy, love. Anything that challenges that deep-seated view unearths complicated questions about the culture and community in which a child is being raised — whether it be local culture and community or the entire nation.
“That’s some hard self-reflection,” she says. “That is why the story is resonating with people.”
Americans are left struggling with a scenario that doesn’t fit into any bucket. But as jarring as that may feel, there’s a danger in trying to force the incident into a familiar framework, says Marsha Levick, chief legal officer and co-founder of the Juvenile Law Center.
She believes Americans have become “so stuck in a place of punishment” that they have lost the ability to have conversations outside those boundaries. By labeling the shooting with the loaded word “intentional,” Newport News Police Chief Steve Drew is inviting people to view it as a criminal act, Levick asserts.
“That is ludicrous. It is absurd. It is utterly inconsistent with science and what we know about human development and child development,” she says. “Let’s own that. This was not a criminal act.”
Levick would like law enforcement to acknowledge that “this is not our lane,” as it did more than two decades ago in one of the few cases from the recent past that bears some resemblance to the Virginia shooting. When a 6-year-old boy shot and killed a classmate in Michigan in 2000, Genesee County Prosecuting Attorney Arthur Busch didn’t go after the boy, but after those who provided access to the gun.
In an interview last week, Busch said he’s been surprised by the repeated use of “intentional” by Newport News police.
“It was like fingernails on a chalkboard when I heard the police say it was intentional,” he said. “We don’t call it intentional when it’s a 6-year-old. … He’s not old enough to have intent.”

Apnews