I'm ok with this as long as the start charging the FBI for doing the exact same thing to innocent people. But i digress.

They also sent him back to school when he was threatening to shoot up the place.

School has some culpability in letting him come back.

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

Harmless error coming in 3…2…1.

TAMU1990 said:

---

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?

---

Are the mothers giving them the guns? If yes, then we should!

BQ78 said:

---

They also sent him back to school when he was threatening to shoot up the place.

School has some culpability in letting him come back.

---

State gets immunity!

AtticusMatlock said:

---

The state alleged that not only did the parents know he had mental disturbances, they ignored them, purchased him the firearm, and kept it in a place where he could easily access it. One of the things the state and judge both brought up in sentencing was that they were not being charged for merely being bad parents or because their son did something horrible but rather they were charged because of their extreme level of negligence.

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.

---

There isn't much difference between this negligence and what we see daily in the cities of this country.

If your kid's a nut bag don't buy him/her a gun. It's not real hard.

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?

---

It's about deterrence and sending a message to other parents to be less sh**ty, take responsibility, and actually parent. Now, I know it's not always that black and white, but there needs to be some level of accountability if your dependents are breaking the law. I don't know if this is always the answer, but something needs to happen.

There's a big parenting problem in this country where a lot of these issues come from.

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?

---

Probably other parents not doing the same thing? It's one thing to be a ****ty parent, but it's something else entirely to be a ****ty parent and give your known homicidal kid a gun and walk away.

Now do the parents of the 13 YO in SA that shot a man for his car.

AgsMnn said:

---

Now do the parents of the 13 YO in SA that shot a man for his car.

---

Not familiar with that one.

They give him the gun and know he's looney tunes?

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?

---

Maybe the value is to make other parents be more responsible

2040huck said:

---

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

---

I have no idea what this post is about but based on facts in the quote above, I am NOT ONBOARD with this.

He can legally own it.

I don't feel the least bit sorry for these awful people, whose gross negligence absolutely resulted in the deaths of these students

However, I'm very concerned with the public policy implications and that this case law isn't well thought out yet.


Under exactly which conditions are parents responsible for their children's independent criminal decisions?


Again, I'm for it - but we need to be precise

Then...

Every kid I've ever worked with going back to 2000 has parents/guardians complicit in their crimes.

Every parent that has taught their child violence and abuse is complicit in their crimes.

Every parent that has taught their child drug and alcohol use/dependence is complicit in their crimes.

Every parent that has exposed, encouraged and/or enabled criminal behavior is complicit in their crimes.

Every parent that has taught gang affiliation and involvement is complicit in their crimes.

Every parent that has turned a blind eye to their child's illicit and/or illegal behavior is complicit in their crimes.

Every teacher/administrator that minimizes a child's illicit and/or illegal behavior is complicit in their crimes (thinking of the 2021 rape that occurred in Virginia by a boy with a known history of deviant and delinquent behavior and the 2022 1st grader, also in Virginia, that shot his teacher and was also known to have behavioral problems and, the day of the shooting, reportedly had a handgun which was ignored)

Side note, I've worked with juvenile felons (that is twenty and older) who have served significantly less time for actual murder than these parents will receive.

Edit: why stop there - every politician passing policy encouraging and enabling crime (smash and grab, retail theft, street takeovers, riots, criminal justice reform - no bail, early release, reduced sentence, treatment vs incarceration, etc. etc. etc.) is complicit.

if a supreme court judge can't tell us what a woman is, how can parents tell if their kids are crazy (not professional). This is how they get you to turn in family members in the near future, when they mention they want to throw the democrats out of office. Not a good leap when the kids was tried as an adult.

Lost in this discussion is that the parents seemingly showed zero remorse through the trials based on accounts I've seen. They might have gotten lighter sentences had they shown an ounce of humanity.

If you believe this:

Quote:

---

Every kid I've ever worked with going back to 2000 has parents/guardians complicit in their crimes.

---

Then it is very evident you have not bothered to read the facts of this case.


I think this is a very tough issue. Definitely room for reasonable people to disagree on what the crime, if any should be.

But can we please stop all the histrionics that ignore this particular fact pattern?

BrazosDog02 said:

---

2040huck said:

---

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

---

I have no idea what this post is about but based on facts in the quote above, I am NOT ONBOARD with this.

He can legally own it.

---

Not as a minor in Michigan. His parents must own it, but they can allow him to use it. What they did is buy and effectively give it to him, though they maintained "ownership" of it and supposedly kept it secure.

Im Gipper said:

---

If you believe this:

Quote:

---

Every kid I've ever worked with going back to 2000 has parents/guardians complicit in their crimes.

---

Then it is very evident you have not bothered to read the facts of this case.


I think this is a very tough issue. Definitely room for reasonable people to disagree on what the crime, if any should be.

But can we please stop all the histrionics that ignore this particular fact pattern?

---

I've bothered to read several links to the news stories that have all said the same thing, that is indifferent and absent parents ignoring their child's behavior. Or is it solely the purchasing of a firearm? What about parents who didn't buy their child a gun, but ignore that they are in their possession? What about parents of kids who record their illegally owned firearms on social media and not only ignore it, but promote it?

Anyway, if you've managed to read beyond my first sentence you might have surmised, ever so slightly, who I've worked with, since 2000, what behaviors they have exhibited and what the parents have, similarly, not only ignored but enabled.

Edit: Maybe more explanation is necessary. If parents are held responsible for negligence in their children's behavior and allowing access to a weapon which causes harm; then what about parents who, through their actions, teach their children to do harm? The Crumbley's provided the gun. The parents of the children I have worked with engendered a lifestyle perpetuating a cycle of crime, violence, abuse, and death. What about the child that commits suicide through use of an unsecured gun and the parents were dismissive of mental health concerns? Hopefully, I've better explained my thought process.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

2040huck said:

---

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

---

I have no idea what this post is about but based on facts in the quote above, I am NOT ONBOARD with this.

He can legally own it.

---

Not as a minor in Michigan. His parents must own it, but they can allow him to use it. What they did is buy and effectively give it to him, though they maintained "ownership" of it and supposedly kept it secure.

---

Ok. Then I chance my stance. I havnt even heard of this situation and thus don't know any facts. From what you say, they are responsible as well.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You can't say on one hand that the parents have some sort of a duty that, when breached, rises to the level of gross negligence then on the other hand try him as an adult. He's either a minor with respect to all his actions or he's not. The state shouldn't be able to pick and choose what parts of the law he's a minor on and what parts he's an adult on. That's the definition of an unconstitutionally vague statute.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You can't say on one hand that the parents have some sort of a duty that, when breached, rises to the level of gross negligence then on the other hand try him as an adult. He's either a minor with respect to all his actions or he's not. The state shouldn't be able to pick and choose what parts of the law he's a minor on and what parts he's an adult on. That's the definition of an unconstitutionally vague statute.

---

Being tried as an adult does not actually make him an adult, and it certainly doesn't make him an adult before the fact. Him being tried as an adult after a crime does not somehow erase or excuse their negligence as adults in securing a firearm from him as a minor before that crime and enabling his ability to commit that crime in the first place. He can be treated like an adult for his crime by the court and they can still be treated like his parental guardians because they were in fact his parental guardians. One has no bearing on the other.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

BrazosDog02 said:

---

2040huck said:

---

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

---

I have no idea what this post is about but based on facts in the quote above, I am NOT ONBOARD with this.

He can legally own it.

---

Not as a minor in Michigan. His parents must own it, but they can allow him to use it. What they did is buy and effectively give it to him, though they maintained "ownership" of it and supposedly kept it secure.

---

Ok. Then I chance my stance. I havnt even heard of this situation and thus don't know any facts. From what you say, they are responsible as well.

---

He had issues and they knew it. In the weeks leading up to the shooting, his mom even googled treatments for depression. They "bought him" a gun anyway. His dad kept it in a lockbox with the default 000 combination. They never even opened the trigger lock it came with. They knew that he had access to it.

They were called to the school the day of the shooting and shown these drawings/notes that he had made:





They didn't think to tell anyone that he had access to a handgun and ammunition. They also couldn't be bothered to take him home at the school's request. School decided it wasn't enough to actually suspend him for and force the issue because they were just drawings and not explicit threats. His mom said she couldn't leave work, which her boss later contradicted. She was also more than capable of skipping out to **** her sidepiece and go on sexcapades, so the, "I have to work," excuse really hold no water. His dad was doing DoorDash deliveries and couldn't stay home either.

No. This is charging another person for a crazy crime.

There's no sanity present and you can't blame another for something that can't be corrected

Will this apply to black parents too?

2040huck said:

---

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

---

Still awaiting the headline "Black Parents affected most."

This is a good thing. Parents need to be held responsible to a point for the behavior and actions of their children. If it is shown due to action or negligence that parents contributed to these acts, they need to be held accountable.

So since this was related to a violent crime are the parents getting hard time in maximum security?

So if a kid takes a kitchen knife (that I buy) and have in the kitchen to school and stabs someone to death I'm now liable and could face jail time. WTF??

How about this. Your kid high school plays baseball and you bought the bat. Kid proceeds to beat another kid in a multiple kid brawl at the high school and someone's kid dies. Parent is now liable for jail time after purchasing said bat?

The precedent that this sets going forward is potentially devastating. Here is my point. When you take the responsibility off of the killer and place it somewhere else then it's an issue.

To quote Chris Rock " It was the movies it was the video games. What ever happened to crazy???"

The only reason this is happening is because it involved a firearm. Any other weapon used and it would be nothing.
How many parents buy kids cell phones then said kids kill a family from texting while driving? We have laws to not text while driving…. same as laws to not murder.
How many parents buy kids fast cars and said kids kill a family from a car wreck while racing? We have traffic laws in place to prevent that as well.
Nope….. this is all about it being a firearm… fooling yourself if you think anything else.

How many times lately have the parents, police, schools, and friends known the mass shooter had issues before they committed the crime? Seems like a lot so if you open it up to the parents that will open it up to others. Issue is where do you stop? And sadly how much will politics play into all of this?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

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.

---

agree. If I knowingly gave a a drunk person there keys whom consumed large amounts of alcohol that I provided at my home and the went and killed someone, it's partially on me.

Now if I took there keys and refused to give them back, called Uber, etc. (did everything in my power to keep them out of their car) then they used a back up set of keys (or there phone) to start there car and leave, that's not my fault.

If the parents had locked the gun in a safe and he broke it open, then that's on the kid.

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm curious about this part. If the prosecution is asserting the defendant is mentally disturbed, how is what that mentally disturbed person wrote in a diary used as credible evidence for anything?

Logos Stick said:

---

Will this apply to black parents too?

---

And grandparents as well. The percentage of households in which the black father is not in the home exceeds other races and I suspect the brushes with the law for the offspring in those situations does as well. It often transcends generations. Are those parents and grandparents creating an environment that causes higher incidences of crime? Is the black father guilty because he wasn't in the home to parent his own children?