Back in May 2023, Serbia experienced something the country had never seen before.
A 13-year-old boy named Kosta Kecmanovic walked into Vladislav Ribnikar primary school in Belgrade carrying two handguns that belonged to his father. He shot and killed a security guard and nine students. Another five students and a teacher were wounded. The attack lasted just over two minutes, with the shooter firing 66 rounds before surrendering to police.
Seven of the students killed were girls and one was a boy. A girl who was critically wounded later died at the hospital.
For Serbia, this was unthinkable.
The country has a long history with guns, especially because of weapons left over from the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. Serbia has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world when illegal weapons are included. But despite that, mass shootings were extremely rare and school shootings were basically unheard of.
Then, one happened.
And Serbia’s response was immediate.
The government announced a review of firearm licenses, tighter enforcement on gun storage, and a temporary halt on new gun permits. Police said they could conduct checks to make sure firearms were being stored properly.
A gun amnesty program was also launched, allowing people to surrender weapons without facing punishment. Thousands of firearms were turned in, including illegally owned guns and other weapons. The government also pushed for tougher penalties related to illegal weapons possession and trafficking.
The response was not perfect. Serbia has its own political problems, and many citizens criticized the government’s handling of the tragedy. Protests followed, with people demanding accountability from government officials.
But one thing was clear.
The country looked at the shooting and asked how it happened.
That question eventually led to the shooter’s parents.
Since Kecmanovic was only 13 years old when he carried out the attack, he could not be criminally prosecuted under Serbian law. Instead, he was placed in a psychiatric institution for minors.
That left the legal system to examine the responsibility of the adults around him.
In 2024, his parents, Vladimir and Miljana Kecmanovic, were convicted. His father received a lengthy prison sentence for failing to properly secure the guns used in the shooting, along with other charges related to abuse and neglect. His mother was convicted of neglect and abuse of a minor.
However, an appeals court later overturned the convictions because it found problems with the reasoning behind the ruling and ordered a retrial.
The retrial reached a similar conclusion.
This past week, a Serbian court sentenced Vladimir Kecmanovic to 14 years and six months in prison. His wife received a sentence of two years and 11 months.
The father was found responsible for failing to properly secure the handguns that his son used. Prosecutors argued that he allowed his son access to firearms and had even trained him in handling the guns. The father had previously claimed that his son did not know the combination to the gun safe, but prosecutors argued that the weapons were still not secured in a way that prevented access.
This is where the story becomes especially interesting when compared to the United States. Because it took Serbia one school shooting to have a serious conversation about whether a parent should face consequences for allowing a child access to guns.
In the U.S., we have had thousands of gun-related tragedies, including decades of school shootings, before seeing a similar legal argument gain traction. It took the 2021 Oxford High School shooting in Michigan for a prosecutor to charge parents in connection with their child’s school shooting.
In that case, James and Jennifer Crumbley were convicted of involuntary manslaughter after their son used a gun they bought him to kill four students at Oxford High School in Michigan. Prosecutors argued that the parents ignored warning signs and failed to prevent access to the weapon.
Before Oxford, prosecutors rarely charged parents in school shooting cases.
So, why did it take so long?
After every school shooting, we ask how the shooter got the gun. But too often, the conversation stops there.
The gun does not appear out of nowhere. It doesn’t load itself, nor does it make its way into a backpack without someone failing to prevent it.
That doesn’t mean every parent should be blamed for the actions of their child. But when an adult’s decisions allow access to a weapon used in a tragedy, then there is a legitimate question about responsibility.
Serbia is not some perfect example of how to handle gun violence. It has its own challenges, and no country has an easy answer.
But the country looked at its first school shooting and decided that doing nothing was not an option.
Meanwhile, the United States has experienced school shootings for decades and has often struggled to even have the conversation.
Maybe the lesson from Serbia is not that every country should copy its laws, but that we have to be willing to ask the harder questions.
Like who had the ability to stop a shooting before it happened.
(Sources)
Leave a Reply