I’m interested on how this plays out for the parents.
Prosecutors file charges against parents of 15-year-old suspect in Michigan school shooting
Prosecutors file charges against parents of 15-year-old suspect in Michigan school shooting
OT: Michigan School Shooting
- Thread starter LongfellowDrew
- Start date
I don't know, you have to think that kids don't turn psycho overnight. There should have been signs. They are probably negligent in some way.
While I agree that we should be holding parents responsible for their kids behaviors and actions, this sets a very interesting precedent. Can we start arresting single mothers or absentee fathers for every drive-by some 15 year old commits in the inner cities? Or when a group of teenagers beats up a random subway passenger? This strikes me as setting a precedent that in 3-5 years liberals will be screaming about being unfairly applied to minorities.
I think that’s why they are being charged. There were discussions and issues before that gun was purchased by a parent.
If the parents didn't make a reasonable effort to secure the guns, that's on them. I am 2A all the way and I'll shoot any politician that tries to destroy my constitutional rights granted to me-- but a gun isn't a toy. It should always be treated with respect. It appears these folks didn't do that.
I may not see things the same way as clob94 wrt using a weapon, but I completely agree with him on the role of the parents and holding them legally accountable. More than any other measure, holding irresponsible parents accountable for the actions of their kids will go a long way towards the common end goal of eliminating meaningless violence.
Involuntary manslaughter is the correct charge here. Note that you have a heinous crime and a pissed off prosecutor working with what appear to be undisputed facts (purchase of the gun, unsecured firearm, and the parents awareness that this was a possibility).
I agree that there are other situations - those noted above along with recent looting and smash-and-grabs - in which it’s possible parents could be charged under some criminal statute. Unfortunately, there are very weak DAs in those cities. If the perpetrators of the crimes are not being charged, the parents certainly won’t.
Last edited:
McDonald said James Crumbley bought the gun four days before it was used in the shooting. His son Ethan was with him and later posted on social media about the gun, calling it "my new beauty."
Jennifer Crumbley also posted about the gun on social media, calling it "his new Christmas present," McDonald said.
If this is true they deserve time!
Jennifer Crumbley also posted about the gun on social media, calling it "his new Christmas present," McDonald said.
If this is true they deserve time!
Up to 15 years is the sentence for manslaughter under the Michigan statute.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(1s...eg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-321
What gets me is that they were all at the school shortly before the shooting because of behavior?
Are the parents now on the land? Hearing different reports.
Are the parents now on the land? Hearing different reports.
I agree the conduct of the parents was horrible and they are at minimum civilly liable for their actions. I don’t agree with the manslaughter charges because they’re just too overly broad. Criminal statutes are meant to be straightforward and unambiguous. There’s no room in criminal law for creativity. If these charges remain, then you need to also bring in the school for also failing to take action.
This type of prosecution opens the door for other gross negligence cases. Suppose parents allow their kids to enjoy the house to themselves and throw a party while they spend the weekend out of town. The parents even provide the kids all the liquor for the party. The kids proceed to get drunk and high and later they kill someone due to drunk driving. Very bad conduct by the parents but typically these cases against the parents are not criminally prosecuted. Civil liability most definitely. They would stand to lose most or all of their viable assets above any liability insurance that is applicable.
This type of prosecution opens the door for other gross negligence cases. Suppose parents allow their kids to enjoy the house to themselves and throw a party while they spend the weekend out of town. The parents even provide the kids all the liquor for the party. The kids proceed to get drunk and high and later they kill someone due to drunk driving. Very bad conduct by the parents but typically these cases against the parents are not criminally prosecuted. Civil liability most definitely. They would stand to lose most or all of their viable assets above any liability insurance that is applicable.
It’s a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? If the facts clearly support a criminal case, then I support it. But, as you pointed out, this may not be a direction we want to head, particularly without a strong set of facts.
It’s a tough call for sure. Maybe the Michigan statute they are using has specific language to address these kinds of issues. On the other hand, now it appears the parents skipped their arraignment and are now fugitives. Big mistake. Now that’s a definite criminal charge. Dumbasses should’ve just hired a decent lawyer.
Yes, in your scenario as well, the parents should be held liable if they did not secure the weapon and did not act responsibly. I am assuming that in your scenario this "kids" are not adults legally.
You can’t fix stupid.
“The parents of a teen accused of killing four students in a shooting at a Michigan high school were caught early Saturday, several hours after a prosecutor filed involuntary manslaughter charges against them, officials said.”
“The parents of a teen accused of killing four students in a shooting at a Michigan high school were caught early Saturday, several hours after a prosecutor filed involuntary manslaughter charges against them, officials said.”
I think depending on the law in the state it happened the host is liable. It’s called a Social Host Liability Law but there’s a lot of ifs, ands, and buts involved. Like you said it’s pretty hard to get criminaly charged. Unless you’re an adult hosting a sex party and serving alcohol to minors while recording.
Last edited:
Facts matter. It’s one thing to bring an indictment based on direct evidence (video or audio recordings, photos, etc) of the crime taking place. It’s another to bring a criminal charge based on circumstantial evidence and hope the jury convicts. I agree with Dr that, as a matter of policy, we should leave those cases to the civil courts.
I think in the case of Crumbley they have evidence based off what I’ve read. Now that they’ve ran just makes things even more clear.
In such cases of utter stupidity, I am perfectly ok with justice being done through some creativity in the law. Anyone sympathizing with the parents needs to have their heads examined
Careful, "creativity in the law" can be a slippery slope...
I am NOT trying to defend the parents or justify their zctions.
Believe me, I have zero sympathy for the parents. If there’s a criminal statute that applies to their actions then throw the book at them. I think the proper remedy to hold them accountable in this scenario is through civil liability. If the prosecutor keeps the criminal charges against the parents it opens the door to a place we may not want to go.
So the DA, whom it appears is very progressive and anti-gun, is trying for a landmark case. Suing the gun companies didn't work- suing the bullet makers didn't work. So this DA is trying to break new ground by holding the parents criminally responsible.
The same parents that were charged by the DA and then emptied their bank account ($4000) and tried to flee into Canada--- yes, while their child was sitting in jail, these two model parents try and run off to Canada-- effectively abandoning their son-- and get arrested hiding in a freaking warehouse.
Now, I don't know about you, but with parents like that-- it's no wonder the kid turned out the way he did. Some people simply shouldn't breed.
So now we've got a DA that has already poisoned the jury pool with comments about the parents to the press-- so a fair criminal trial at this point would be impossible. That alone is grounds for having the charges dropped. But civil court? What blood can you squeeze from this turnip? They're broke. They went on the lamb with $4k. They bailed on their own kid.
This is a dangerous game that the DA is playing. One misstep and she will be drummed out of office and possibly lose her license.
The same parents that were charged by the DA and then emptied their bank account ($4000) and tried to flee into Canada--- yes, while their child was sitting in jail, these two model parents try and run off to Canada-- effectively abandoning their son-- and get arrested hiding in a freaking warehouse.
Now, I don't know about you, but with parents like that-- it's no wonder the kid turned out the way he did. Some people simply shouldn't breed.
So now we've got a DA that has already poisoned the jury pool with comments about the parents to the press-- so a fair criminal trial at this point would be impossible. That alone is grounds for having the charges dropped. But civil court? What blood can you squeeze from this turnip? They're broke. They went on the lamb with $4k. They bailed on their own kid.
This is a dangerous game that the DA is playing. One misstep and she will be drummed out of office and possibly lose her license.
There will be hundreds of gang shootings and murders in Detroit or Chicago this weekend, and they would NEVER go after any of the parents. They're going after these parents because of the culture/class that they want them to represent.
Announcing the charge before getting them in custody is highly unusual. That means they were practically giddy to make the announcement, which means they want to send a political message. Any parent who lets their kids grow up with guns is a potential target if these charges are allowed to stick.
Announcing the charge before getting them in custody is highly unusual. That means they were practically giddy to make the announcement, which means they want to send a political message. Any parent who lets their kids grow up with guns is a potential target if these charges are allowed to stick.
Well that should have taken care of it 🙄Just read that his mom sent a text saying don’t do it.
I think they are going after th e parents more because of skin color rather than "culture/class". Better supports the progressive libtard narrative.
(although the photos of the parents would lead one to believe they might have all the culture/class of your average coonass lsu fan)
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
JD the Boss and the GOAT take turns putting Zelensky in his place.- Latest: Akina Matata
