How do you feel about this? It is my understanding that they knew the kid was kinda crazy, and still bought him a gun as a gift. Is this really a reason to throw them in jail for 10 years? It wasnt illegal for him to own a gun as I understand it

Well, I can see it both ways. If you supplied a disturbed adult with a weapon knowing odds were fairly high that could have a deadly outcome for the public given the history of that person, the liability would seem to be the same. There is the issue of legal adulthood regarding culpability and legal age to purchase and /or possess certain firearms depending on the state.

Forum Troll said:

---

Fine by me. These people were absolutely complicit and enabling.

---

How so? Honest question as I haven't followed this case at all.

Gross negligence under the circumstances parenting a 15 year old. All for making parents accountable in such a situation.

Quote:

---

Prosecutors say Jennifer Crumbley had a duty under state law to prevent her son, who was 15 at the time, from harming others. She was accused of failing to secure a gun and ammunition at home and failing to get help to support Ethan Crumbley's mental health.

The four guilty verdicts one for each student slain at Oxford High School were returned after roughly 11 hours of deliberations.

---

Is failure to secure a gun and ammunition a crime in MI? If so, then I can see her being culpable. I'm guessing it's most definitely NOT a crime to not get "support" for your child's mental health.

It wouldn't take long to start charging parents for the drunk driving accidents of their kids. You could take a step further if the child took alcohol from the parents fridge or liquor cabinet

HTownAg98 said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

I feel like this could open Pandora's Box with parents being charged for the crimes of their crotch goblins...which I'm not that opposed to given the youth these days.

But, I also think it is BS since the shooter was charged as an adult.

---

This is where I have heartburn with it. If the kid is charged as an adult, how can you logically say the parents are responsible to some degree?

---

This puzzled me as well. I've been watching along with Uncivil Law (a Youtube lawyer). The way he's explained it is the shooter is a minor charged as an adult and therefore is still a minor in terms of his parents' alleged culpability.

He doesn't think the court properly instructed the jury based on the appellate court's earlier ruling in the case but neither attorney team seems to have caught it.

Edit: I was responding in general...the OP was being specific. Reply removed.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

So will we start applying the same standard to other violent crimes committed by teenagers?

---

ie. gangbangers, parents of illegals who committ crimes

Quote:

---

A big issue for appeal here is that they used accounts from Ethan's diary which were introduced to show his parents ignored his mental health issues. He wrote that they wouldn't help him. The problem is the judge let the state present those written statements without letting the defense call him as a witness. It was all hearsay. Teenagers write all sorts of crap in their diaries that is overemotional and isn't in line with reality.

---

Agree that was very likely to be ruled reversible error. No way to cross a diary.

At first it sounds like a good idea because of the gross negligence/ complicity here as well as the end result, but I could see this turn into a slippery slope especially with our politicized judiciary carrying this over into other parts of the law.

I'll reserve judgment until I see it being equally applied as well to the vast majority of minors committing assaults, batteries, burglaries, home invasions, murders, and other violent crimes and the demographics and political leanings of said group.

I'll wait and see if this is a good idea.

Owlagdad said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

So will we start applying the same standard to other violent crimes committed by teenagers?

---

ie. gangbangers, parents of illegals who committ crimes

---

Ding ding ding….THIS!!

What burned them was not only did they buy him the gun, they continued to allow him to have access to it after learning he had fantasies of shooting people.

What's the value to society by imprisoning the parents for a decade?
What are the taxpayers going to get in return?
Are these two going to be better parents when they get out?

tysker said:

---

What's the value to society by imprisoning the parents for a decade?
What are the taxpayers going to get in return?
Are these two going to be better parents when they get out?

---

Its about feelings and feeling like something was done, even if its useless

HTownAg98 said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

I feel like this could open Pandora's Box with parents being charged for the crimes of their crotch goblins...which I'm not that opposed to given the youth these days.

But, I also think it is BS since the shooter was charged as an adult.

---

This is where I have heartburn with it. If the kid is charged as an adult, how can you logically say the parents are responsible to some degree?

---

They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and their actions certainly seem to fit the definition in my very amateur reading of the definition? Their son being an adult has no bearing.

"The first type of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant recklessly OR negligently commits an act that results in the death of another person. Recklessness usually means that the defendant was aware of the risk that they were creating, while negligence usually means that the defendant was not aware of the risk but reasonably should have been aware of it."

DEFINITION

74OA said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

I feel like this could open Pandora's Box with parents being charged for the crimes of their crotch goblins...which I'm not that opposed to given the youth these days.

But, I also think it is BS since the shooter was charged as an adult.

---

This is where I have heartburn with it. If the kid is charged as an adult, how can you logically say the parents are responsible to some degree?

---

They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and their actions certainly seem to fit the definition in my very amateur reading of the definition? Their son being an adult has no bearing.

"The first type of involuntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant recklessly OR negligently commits an act that results in the death of another person. Recklessness usually means that the defendant was aware of the risk that they were creating, while negligence usually means that the defendant was not aware of the risk but reasonably should have been aware of it."

DEFINITION

---

I get it. Can you be charged if you know your son drives too fast?

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

So will we start applying the same standard to other violent crimes committed by teenagers?

---

It's (D)ifferent in the urban areas.

I believe MI uses a gross negligence standard:

(1)Gross negligence means more than carelessness. It means willfully disregarding the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act. In order to find that the defendant was grossly negligent, you must find each of the following three things beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2)First, that the defendant knew of the danger to another, that is, [he / she] knew there was a situation that required [him / her] to take ordinary care to avoid injuring another.

(3)Second, that the defendant could have avoided injuring another by using ordinary care.

(4)Third, that the defendant failed to use ordinary care to prevent injuring another when, to a reasonable person, it must have been apparent that the result was likely to be serious injury.

https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/jury-instructions/criminal/current/criminal-jury-instructions-responsive-html5.zip/Criminal_Jury_Instructions/Crim_Jury_Ch_16/M_Crim_JI_16.18_Gross_Negligence.htm?rhtocid=_16_19

HTownAg98 said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

I feel like this could open Pandora's Box with parents being charged for the crimes of their crotch goblins...which I'm not that opposed to given the youth these days.

But, I also think it is BS since the shooter was charged as an adult.

---

This is where I have heartburn with it. If the kid is charged as an adult, how can you logically say the parents are responsible to some degree?

---

Because they gave him the gun knowing that he had mental issues. They didn't lock the gun up or attempt to secure it in any meaningful way. When they were called into a meeting with the school about his drawings and notes about needing help and shooting people, they failed to notify the school that he had access to a gun matching his drawings. School officials asked if they could take him home for the day, but they left him because they were, "too busy." IIRC, the mom went to be with her firefighter side piece.

He pulled the trigger, but without their complete disregard for his mental state and basic gun safety, this wouldn't have happened. It's very similar to people being culpable for the actions of a dog or other animal you know is violent or aggressive and fail to secure. It's obviously different because this kid is not an animal, but it's the same principle of culpability through contributing negligence.

As for him being tried as an adult, that's kind of irrelevant. He could be reasonably expected to have an adult level of understanding of his crimes, considering his age and notes/drawings. That's why he gets tried as an adult. His parents still bear a lot of responsibility for him as a minor, especially when it comes to regulating his access to a gun in their house. He can't just go out and buy that weapon, so they bought it for him and failed to secure it.

As a father of a high-risk child (adoption), this indeed opens Pandora's Box.

We've been talking about it in our support communities.

All children now, when they show even the slightest propensity for violent behavior, become a major threat to the parents and other children well-beyond what it would have been before.

Now, the parents can go to jail. This will be abused- the slippery slope is no longer a fallacy.

I foresee a future where very few children will be adopted after infancy, because almost all of them have attachment disorders which can cause violent propensity.

All at-risk children with violent propensities (and even those not at-risk) will be turned over to the state in the name of protecting the family well-before the need truly arises.

I understand the factors in this case that look like terrible parenting, but the abuse that will come of this will be unbearable.

Now do the administration of the school. They were damn near just as negligent.

The parents displayed classical negligence and thus punished accordingly. Now do these kid's parents that are allowing their kids to loot retail in mob style. Give massive community service and fines to both the criminal and the worthless parents.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

So will we start applying the same standard to other violent crimes committed by teenagers?

---

Lots of crime committed by POC in cities. Are we really going to lock up the mother?