Why wasn’t shooter stopped ahead of time?

People are outraged.

They want to know why a troubled kid like the one who shot up a Florida school could not be stopped ahead of time before acting in a horrific and violent way?

Many are turning to government to solve the problem. But what they don't realize is that government is part of the problem. Let me give you an example:

Years ago, one of the schools where I worked was asked to accept a new student. The 17-year-old had a background of trouble and violence. He also had special needs. Looking at his record showed a history of misdemeanors, along with two alleged felonies that had not been adjudicated at that point.

Needless to say, because of our concern for student and staff safety, we were reluctant to accept him. But the district hierarchy insisted we do so and left us no choice. We were assured everything would be fine.

But after a few weeks, tragedy struck. The young man in a fit of rage bashed an aide in the head with a chair, leaving her permanently injured and with a lifelong disability.

So why did the district make that decision? Governmental laws, rules and regulations were the culprit. You see, legislators are famous for playing the role of the good guys by creating all kinds of mandated programs to meet all kinds of needs. However, there's just one problem. Often, they fail to fully fund what they require.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1973 states that every student is entitled to a “free and appropriate public education.”

Sounds good, but there's a catch. While Congress back in the 1970s pledged to fund 40 percent of the average cost to educate a special needs child, it has never met half of that goal. Today, the federal share is about 16 percent. So the obvious question becomes: Who picks up the difference for a “free and appropriate public education?” Is the district off the hook?

The answer is no. That money must now come from state and local school district budgets. Federal “underfunding” and mandates essentially take away from other important classroom services.

Sometimes, private programs necessary to meet the specialized needs of a handful of public school kids can cost a district as much as $100,000 annually — and that's just for one child! That's about nine times more that what is spent for a regular education student.

Now you can see why the administration gambled on the case. They hoped that things would go smoothly and that the district could save potentially several hundred thousand dollars it did not have. Obviously, they took a chance and lost.

But despite the callousness of the injurious act, it was still a wise financial decision. The only loss to the district was the aide earning a minimal salary. She most likely could not sue because all district employees have workers' compensation insurance. The perpetrator ended up as ward of the California Youth Authority.

We now live in a country where federal and state bureaucratic laws, rules and regulations are so cumbersome, they often cross purposes with each other. This particular story is an example as to why complicated restrictions can leave students and staff in harm's way.

Another issue being debated today is the false belief that somehow, someone or some agency can predict who’s going to become the next mass shooter.

While mental health experts can say who is more likely to engage in violent behavior, no one can say for sure who will actually do so. For every Nikolas Cruz, there are scores of others with aggressive profiles who will not act in the same way.

So what's the answer? It’s not an easy one. Needless to say, governmental regulations with common sense would certainly help. But I would also suggest that the acts of individuals like Cruz are really an overall reflection of a national culture that has evolved from one of inclusiveness, cohesiveness and cooperation to one of divisiveness, hostility and obstructionism.

Until we as a society are willing to face our present attitudinal flaws, I really don’t expect much to change anytime soon.