On May 3, 2023, a 13-year-old boy carried out a mass shooting at Vladislav Ribnikar Elementary School in Belgrade, Serbia, killing nine students and one school security guard and wounding six others. The boy took two of his father's pistols from a safe in the family apartment, brought them to the school in his backpack, and opened fire in a hallway and then a classroom. He fired 66 rounds during the attack, 50 of which struck victims. The entire massacre lasted 2 minutes and 1 second.

The boy had planned the attack two to three weeks in advance. He searched the internet for information about a previous mass shooting in Colorado and used it as inspiration. He drew a sketch of the school, wrote a list of 15 classmates marked as "primary targets," and mapped out six classrooms and a floor plan. He ultimately discarded the list and did not follow it during the attack. He also based his plan on the video games Call of Duty and Valorant, and told a friend before the shooting how interesting it would be if terrorists came into the school.

The boy had been diagnosed with mental health problems, nerve issues, and loss of consciousness as early as 2017, when he was eight years old. At that time, doctors recommended that his parents consult a psychologist and work with the boy on therapies. The parents, who are a medical doctor and a doctor of science in biology, did not follow through on this recommendation, and no further intervention occurred.

Instead of receiving psychological support, the boy was given access to firearms by his father. Vladimir Kecmanovic trained his son in handling air rifles and actual firearms at a practical shooting club, an activity designed to simulate real combat situations for members of special units and military professionals. The boy was taught how to hold a weapon, how to breathe while shooting, and how to load a Czech submachine gun. Surveillance footage from the shooting range showed the boy firing a pistol, and when a magazine clip hit him in the forehead, his facial expression did not change.

The boy also consumed pornographic content involving animal abuse and misogynistic material. He considered himself a psychopath and searched online about whether it is possible to love animals while being one. Messages exchanged between the boy and his mother, Miljana Kecmanovic, revealed a hostile relationship. The boy wrote things like "I hate you," and his mother responded with insults. She also wrote that he shamed the family. The boy had been transferred to a different school shift at his mother's request, but he told a friend he wanted to return to the first shift, which the judge later said indicated the problem was deeper than the school environment.

Because the shooter was under the age of criminal responsibility, he was placed in a psychiatric institution rather than prosecuted. His parents faced charges of neglecting and abusing a minor, with the father also charged with a serious offense against public safety for failing to store firearms safely and for training his son to handle guns.

The case first went to trial in 2024, when the father received a long prison sentence and the mother was cleared of illegal firearms possession but convicted of neglect. However, the Appellate Court in Belgrade ordered a retrial in November 2025, ruling that the original verdicts contained unclear and contradictory reasoning. The retrial began in January 2026.

During the retrial, the chief prosecutor argued that convictions for both parents would help provide answers about how Serbian society responded to one of the most tragic events in the country's peacetime history. Defence lawyers for the couple argued that the charges had not been proven and that no expert evidence had been presented to show the boy had been neglected.

In the retrial, Vladimir Kecmanovic was found guilty of a serious offense against public safety and of neglecting and abusing a minor. Miljana Kecmanovic was found guilty of neglecting and abusing a minor. Vladimir was sentenced to 14 years and 6 months in prison, and Miljana was sentenced to 2 years and 11 months. A shooting range instructor, Nemanja Marinkovic, who had been sentenced to 15 months for false testimony, had his sentence modified to one year to be served at home. The court ordered the confiscation of all weapons, including two pistols, air rifles and pistols, a large quantity of ammunition, and 5,800 diabolo pellets. Miljana Kecmanovic's ban on communicating with her son was extended.

The chief public prosecutor of the Higher Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgrade announced that the prosecution would appeal the severity of the sentences. The defense can appeal the verdict in its entirety. Lawyer Stefan Corda, representing the victims' families, stated that only the prosecution and defense can appeal and expected a resolution by the end of the year. Andjelko Acimovic, father of victim Angelina, said he was extremely satisfied with the verdict and praised the judge.

The parents of the victims delivered emotional final words in court. Ana Bozovic's mother, Ninela Radicevic, said the criminal charges against the parents felt like a decorative sentence and that the only path to justice was a trial for mass murder. She said the parents never admitted wrongdoing or asked for forgiveness. Andrija Cikic's mother, Suzana Stankovic Cikic, a psychologist by profession, said the parents confused education with caring for a child and that there was no meaningful communication in the family for days at a time. She said the parents ignored a doctor's recommendation for a specialist examination and that Miljana shouted "Shame on you" at her during the proceedings. Ema Kobiljski's mother, Nina Kobiljski, said the killer was unable to understand basic concepts like friendship, love, happiness, and family before therapy, and expressed concern for her surviving child after seeing footage of a six-year-old child training to shoot at a human silhouette. Mara Andjelkovic's mother, Dragana Andjelkovic, said her daughter had six gunshot wounds and no chance of survival, and called the parents direct accomplices. Katarina Martinovic's mother, Miljana Martinovic, said the accused concealed important facts and that no sincere remorse was ever expressed. Katarina's sister, Natalija Martinovic, said her sister carried cookies and books to school that morning while the killer carried pistols and bullets. Dragan Vlahovic's sister, Radica Vlahovic, said their 88-year-old father no longer recognizes his daughters due to dementia, which spares him from facing the daily loss of his son.

Vladimir Kecmanovic said in his final statement that he carried grief and sorrow and would carry the weight of mourning for the rest of his life, calling the event a "black swan phenomenon" that could not have been predicted. Miljana Kecmanovic said she felt moral responsibility as a mother and expressed her deepest condolences and empathy.

After the tragedy, President Aleksandar Vucic announced ten measures to improve safety, including placing police officers in every school in Serbia, a complete disarmament through weapons permit reviews, stricter penalties for illegal possession, banning minors from shooting ranges, forming councils for peer violence prevention and internet safety, and introducing mandatory drug testing in schools. However, most of these measures were never fully implemented. Police presence in schools has been inconsistent, legislative changes regarding minors' access to shooting ranges have not come into force, and mandatory drug testing remained only a proposal. Some stricter conditions for hunting weapons and increased penalties for unauthorized possession were introduced, but their effectiveness is considered questionable.

The president also stated that the Ministry of Justice would consider lowering the age of criminal responsibility below 14, but no changes were made. The parents of the victims submitted a formal initiative to lower the age threshold for violent offenses, including crimes against life and body, abuse and torture, domestic violence, killing and abusing animals, and violent behavior. They also proposed special parental responsibility for serious crimes committed by children who cannot be held criminally responsible. The Working Group for Amendments to the Criminal Code rejected this initiative without explanation.

Professor of law Vanja Bajovic has pointed out that the current legal framework leaves victims in a difficult position, as they cannot seek satisfaction through criminal proceedings and must instead pursue lengthy civil cases against the offender's parents. She also noted that existing laws do not explicitly prohibit minors from entering shooting ranges or firing firearms, though the Draft Amendments to the Criminal Code had proposed criminalizing the training of minors to use firearms.

The shooting was one of two mass gun attacks that struck Serbia in May 2023. Two days after the school attack, a separate gunman killed nine people in a drive-by shooting near Belgrade. The events were extremely rare in Serbia, where school shootings had been virtually unheard of. Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, and the Serbian government responded with a gun amnesty program and stricter firearms laws.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (belgrade) (serbia)

This article reports on a criminal sentencing and a past school shooting. For most readers, it does not provide a clear action to take. There are no steps to follow, choices to make, tools to use, or resources to contact. The subject is a completed court case and a historical event, so a reader cannot act on it in any direct way. The article offers no practical instruction for someone who finishes reading and wants to do something.

The article has limited educational depth. It tells what happened at the school, how many people were hurt, how many bullets were fired, and what sentences the parents received. It also mentions that the original verdicts were called unclear and contradictory. However, it does not explain how Serbian juvenile law works, what the appeals process involves, what conditions count as neglect in this legal system, or why the mother’s sentence is so much shorter than the father’s. The numbers are given, but the article does not explain how the investigation was done, how the bullets were counted, or what safety changes followed in a reliable way. The information stays at the level of events and results, not systems or causes.

Personal relevance is limited for most readers. The events are specific to Belgrade and to one family. For people in Serbia, especially those with children in school, the story may feel more immediate, but even then the article does not explain what practical changes parents or students should look for or demand. For readers elsewhere, the relevance is indirect. It may raise concern about school safety or gun storage, but it does not connect those concerns to any concrete action in the reader’s own life, community, or country.

The article does not serve a clear public service function. It does not warn about a current threat, explain how to report warning signs, or give safety guidance for schools or families. It does not tell readers what to do if they are worried about a child’s behavior, how to store firearms more safely, or where to seek help. It mainly reports what happened and what sentence was given, without turning that into public information that helps people act responsibly now.

There is no practical advice in the article. No steps, checklists, or realistic instructions are provided. Because there is no guidance at all, the problem is absence rather than quality. A reader who wants to respond in a practical way will not find anything to use in the article itself.

Long term impact is weak for the average reader. The article captures one moment in a legal process. It does not help a person plan ahead, build habits, or develop skills for understanding future cases. Once the appeals are finished and the news moves on, this article offers little lasting benefit unless the reader already knows how to analyze legal systems or school safety policies. It does not teach how to compare court rulings, how to evaluate whether a sentence fits the crime, or how to think about prevention beyond general shock.

Emotionally, the article may create sadness, fear, or anger. The description of children being killed at school and the detail about 66 bullets fired in just over two minutes can be very disturbing. At the same time, the article does not offer constructive framing or suggestions for where to learn more or how to respond. The effect is to inform about a tragedy and a trial outcome without helping the reader process it in a useful way or turn concern into informed action.

The language is not extremely clickbait style, but it does use some dramatic word choices. Phrases like “shot dead nine children and a security guard” and “fired 66 bullets in two minutes and one second” are stark and shocking. The description of the event is factual, yet the level of detail is intense and designed to disturb. The article does not sensationalize with wild claims, but it does rely on the horror of the event to hold attention, without adding the depth or guidance a careful reader would need.

The article misses many chances to teach or guide. It could have explained what warning signs adults sometimes miss when a child is moving toward violence, how secure gun storage reduces risk, or how ordinary people can support safer schools. It could have described how to find reliable local information about school safety policies, how to talk to children about frightening news, or how to compare different news reports of the same case. Instead, it leaves the reader with a set of facts and emotional impact, without a method for making sense of them or applying the lessons elsewhere.

Even though the article itself is not directly useful, a reader can still take sensible steps when faced with news about school violence, gun access, or youth risk. One helpful approach is to focus on prevention in your own home and community by paying attention to safe storage of any firearms, keeping them locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition, and making sure children cannot access them. If you are a parent or caregiver, it also helps to talk with children about scary news in a calm way, ask how they feel, and reassure them about the safety measures in place at their school. Another useful habit is to learn what your child’s school does for safety, such as lockdown procedures, counseling support, and how they handle threats or warning behavior. When you hear about a case like this in the news, it helps to compare several independent news sources and notice where they agree and where they differ, because intense stories are sometimes reported with errors or strong framing. It also helps to pay attention to patterns instead of only one event, by asking whether the coverage focuses on blame, on prevention, or on political arguments. For people who want to reduce the risk of violence in general, supporting or volunteering with local programs that work with youth, promote mental health, or teach conflict resolution can be a practical way to act on concern. These steps are simple and widely applicable, and they can turn passive reading into more thoughtful understanding and better long term judgment about safety, responsibility, and community action.

The text says the father was charged with "a serious offence against public safety for training his son to handle guns and failing to store them safely." This phrase uses strong words like "serious offence" and "training his son to handle guns" to make the father's actions sound very bad. The word "training" suggests he taught his son on purpose, which adds blame. This helps the reader see the father as fully at fault. The bias here is that the words push strong feelings of anger toward the father without explaining his side.

The text says the boy "fired 66 bullets in two minutes and one second." This number is very exact and is meant to shock the reader. It makes the event sound even more terrible than just saying "he shot many times." The detail helps the reader feel horror and sadness. The bias is that the number is picked to make the reader feel more upset, not just to share facts.

The text says "Mass gun attacks were extremely rare in Serbia and school shootings were unheard of at the time of the attack." The phrase "unheard of" is a strong way to say something never happened before. It makes the event sound even more shocking and unusual. This helps the reader feel that Serbia was a safe place before, which may not be fully true. The bias is that the words make the event seem more exceptional than it might be.

The text says "Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, and the Serbian government responded with a gun amnesty and tougher laws." This sentence puts the government's response right after the protests, which makes it look like the government acted because of the people. The order of the words suggests the protests caused the new laws. The bias is that this setup makes the government look responsive and good, without saying if the laws were enough or came too late.

The text says the mother "received a sentence of two years and 11 months for neglect." The father got 14 years and six months. The text does not explain why the mother got so much less time. This difference could make the reader think the father was more at fault, but the text does not say why. The bias is that the text leaves out the reason for the big gap, which could hide how the court saw each parent's role.

The text says "Because the shooter was under the age of criminal responsibility, he was placed in a psychiatric institution rather than standing trial." This sentence uses plain words to explain why the boy was not tried. It does not say if this was fair or right, just that it happened. The bias is that the text accepts this fact without question, which could hide debate about whether the boy should have faced trial.

The text says "A lawyer representing the families of the victims described the trial as a 'long fight' that would continue in the court of appeal." The phrase "long fight" makes the trial sound hard and tiring for the victims' families. It helps the reader feel sorry for them and see them as struggling. The bias is that this quote pushes sympathy toward the victims' families without showing the other side's view.

The text says the court of appeal "ruled that the reasons behind the original verdicts were unclear and contradictory." The words "unclear and contradictory" make the first trial sound messy and wrong. This helps the reader feel that the retrial was needed and fair. The bias is that the text uses these words to make the court of appeal look reasonable, without explaining what the original reasons were.

The text says "Both the defence and prosecution have lodged appeal against the new sentences." This sentence shows that both sides are unhappy, which makes the situation seem balanced. But the text does not say why each side is appealing. The bias is that the text looks fair by showing both sides, but it hides what each side really wants.

The text says the boy "took two handguns from his father's safe, put them in his backpack, and went to Vladislav Ribnikar elementary school in Belgrade." This sentence uses active voice to show exactly what the boy did. It does not hide who did what. The bias is that the text is clear here, but the detail about the father's safe points blame at the father for not keeping the guns locked away.

The text about the Belgrade school shooting carries many feelings that work together to shape how the reader understands the story. One of the strongest feelings is sadness, which appears throughout the description of what happened. The text says the boy "shot dead nine children and a security guard" and that "another girl died later in hospital." These words are very heavy and are meant to make the reader feel deep sorrow for the children and the security guard who lost their lives. The sadness is very strong here because the victims were young children at school, which makes the event feel even more unfair and heartbreaking. This sadness serves to make the reader care about what happened and to feel that this was a terrible tragedy that should never have happened.

Another strong feeling is fear, which comes through in the detail that the boy "fired 66 bullets in two minutes and one second." This very specific number is meant to shock the reader and make them feel afraid, because it shows how fast and how much danger there was in a very short time. The fear is also present in the fact that this happened at an elementary school, a place where children are supposed to be safe. The text says "Mass gun attacks were extremely rare in Serbia and school shootings were unheard of at the time of the attack." The phrase "unheard of" makes the reader feel that something completely unexpected and frightening happened, something that people in Serbia never thought could happen to them. This fear serves to make the reader feel that the world became less safe because of this event, and it helps explain why so many people were upset and went into the streets to protest.

Anger is another feeling that runs through the text, especially when it talks about the father. The text says the father was charged with "a serious offence against public safety for training his son to handle guns and failing to store them safely." The word "training" makes it sound like the father taught his son on purpose how to use guns, which is meant to make the reader feel angry at the father for putting his son and other people in danger. The phrase "failing to store them safely" also carries anger because it suggests the father did not do something he should have done, and because of that, children died. The anger here is strong and serves to make the reader blame the father and feel that he deserves the 14-year sentence he received.

A feeling of injustice appears when the text compares the father's sentence of 14 years and six months to the mother's sentence of two years and 11 months. The text does not explain why there is such a big difference, which can make the reader feel confused or upset about whether the punishment is fair. This sense of injustice is quieter than the other feelings, but it is still there, and it serves to make the reader wonder if the court treated both parents fairly or if one was blamed more than the other without a clear reason.

A feeling of frustration comes through in the description of the legal process. The text says the court of appeal ruled that the reasons behind the original verdicts were "unclear and contradictory," and that both the defence and prosecution have appealed the new sentences. The word "unclear" suggests that the first trial was not done well, and "contradictory" makes it sound like the court did not make sense. This frustration is meant to make the reader feel that the legal system is slow and confusing, and that even after a retrial, no one is happy with the result. The lawyer for the victims' families called the trial a "long fight," which adds to this frustration by making the process sound exhausting and never-ending. This feeling serves to make the reader feel tired of the whole situation and to understand why the families of the victims might feel worn out and unsatisfied.

A small feeling of hope appears at the end of the text, where it says "Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, and the Serbian government responded with a gun amnesty and tougher laws." This part of the text shows that people did something about what happened, and that the government made new rules to try to stop this from happening again. The hope here is quiet and careful, not loud or joyful, because the tragedy cannot be undone. But it serves to show the reader that people came together and that some action was taken, which can make the reader feel that change is possible even after something terrible.

The writer uses several tools to make these feelings stronger. One tool is the use of very exact numbers, like "66 bullets in two minutes and one second" and "nine children and a security guard." These numbers are not round or general, which makes them feel more real and more shocking. Another tool is the order in which the information is given. The text starts with the sentencing, then goes back to describe the shooting, then explains the legal process, and ends with the protests and new laws. This order pulls the reader through the story step by step, building sadness and fear first, then anger at the parents, then frustration with the court, and finally a small sense of hope. The writer also uses strong words like "shot dead," "serious offence," and "unheard of" instead of softer words, which makes the feelings more intense. The phrase "long fight" from the lawyer is another tool, because it turns the legal process into something personal and tiring, which helps the reader feel the frustration of the families. The writer does not use a personal story from one victim or family member, which keeps the text more factual, but the details about the children and the school still create strong feelings because the reader can imagine what it would be like to be a child at school and have something so dangerous happen.

All of these feelings work together to guide the reader toward seeing the event as a terrible tragedy caused by adults who did not keep guns safe, and toward feeling that the legal process has been slow and frustrating for everyone involved. The sadness and fear make the reader care about the victims, the anger makes the reader blame the father, the frustration makes the reader feel that justice has been hard to achieve, and the small hope at the end shows that people tried to make things better. The writer does not tell the reader what to think, but the feelings built into the text push the reader to see the story in a certain way, as a sad and frightening event where the adults failed and the children paid the price.