> neither the child nor the mum should have been there to begin with. The onus is on her. [...] She chose to gamble her and her kid's future

At first level this seems simplistic. Then, it seems inconsistent with «happily dropping them for school» - can somebody explain...

Edit: and the "simplistic" perspective is outside the gross understatement of "«should not have been there» hence «only to be shot»"... Which again makes no sense without all the relevant information (hopefully).

Edit: maybe the poster could elaborate on which details exactly he believes justified the events.