There were threads mentioning this case in 2021, closed for veering off topic. I didn’t read that thread nor have I closely followed this case. There was a shooting and the mother was charged with involuntary manslaughter on a “gut decision” which was controversial. Critics have said this will badly affect marginal cases; proponents say someone needs to show responsibility. Article has thousands of comments. Let’s try this again. Free (hopefully) link below to recent happenings.
This discussion is intended to only highlight issues related to the parental role.
Old news (and thread involving more issues locked for going off topic):
Note: Apologies if covered elsewhere, but did a reasonable search.
I’m unsure why you’re calling it “on a gut decision”. Why was it not a decision based on the facts of the case?
Not my characterization (and offered neutrally without judgement). These are apparently the descriptive words used by the person who made the decision in an interview shortly after so doing.
Only when and if the son/child is a minor, and only a lesser charge. Both of which happened here.
But why did the father/husband get off with no charges?
He’s been charged and will be tried separately.
If you load a gun, and aim it at a person, and pull the trigger, the gun’s not responsible; you are.
These people loaded their son, aimed him at people, and pulled the trigger.
Article Excerpt
Michigan jurors, after 11 hours of deliberations, found Jennifer Crumbley guilty of involuntary manslaughter on Tuesday for the gun rampage committed by her teenage son, who carried out the state’s deadliest school shooting more than two years ago.
The trial became a lightning rod for issues of parental responsibility, in a time of frequent cases of gun violence carried out by minors. It was the most high-profile example of prosecutors seeking to hold parents responsible for violent crimes committed by their children.
Ms. Crumbley, 45, was convicted on four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each of the four students who were shot to death by her son at Oxford High School on Nov. 30, 2021. The son… who was 15 at the time, used a pistol to kill [four others]. Seven other people were injured. The gun was a gift from his parents.
“We all know that this is one of the hardest things you’ve ever done,” Judge Cheryl Matthews of the Oakland County Circuit Court told jurors at the courthouse in Pontiac, Mich., immediately after the verdict was read.
…Ms. Crumbley faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison after being convicted of all four counts. Sentencing is scheduled for April 9…. The son, who pleaded guilty to 24 charges including first-degree murder, [was sentenced last year] to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He did not testify in his mother’s trial.
Ms. Crumbley’s husband… will be tried separately in March.
In the last few months, parents whose children carried out gun violence in other states have pleaded guilty to charges of [reckless conduct] or [neglect, part of a push by some prosecutors to hold parents accountable when they are suspected of enabling deadly violence by their children.
it seems that the fact of (illegally?) gifting a minor a gun was vital to the shooting …
so it does make sense … just like if a gun-shop had sold him the gun (again, illegally) … they’d be on the hook as well, I assume.
And people continue to buy the cute little pink and blue 22 rifles when they have babies.
It will never cease to amaze me.
The parents are guilty. Guilty of bad parenting. Guilty of not knowing their sons mental state. Guilty of paying money to gift him a weapon. Therefore guilty of crimes committed, resulting in deaths.
100% responsible.
Even after the school tried to tell them. There are also records of texts of the mom telling him that the important thing was not to get caught, and IIRC, there was even a meeting where the school wanted to search his bag where he had the gun but the parents refused permission.
I’m not exactly sure what this suggests. A pink/blue 22 for a baby impresses me as a silly gesture. But my son sure had a 22 before he entered high school, after he had mastered his bow and arrow and BB gun.
I think these parents were responsible for essentially creating a nuisance/public hazard - failing to protect others from a potentially hazardous situation they knew of and contributed to.
Had they not bought him the gun and he found other means of killing people what amount of responsibility would they have?
I don’t think the son would have killed so many people as easily or frightened whole classrooms behind closed doors with a knife, a club or a stone. The big advantage of guns is that they kill at bigger distances than other weapons, and with higher accuracy.
But had the parents bought the child a bowie knife and had he killed one or two people with it the question should still be put to a jury, and I would hope they attribute some responsability to the parents. It of course depends a lot on the particular circumstances, including the mental problems of the child and how the parents reacted in view of those.
From what I have read about the parents, their child, and his mental problems the parents reacted wrongly at every turn. The question is which degree of legal responsability (civil and penal) do parents have for the consequences of something they don’t want to see or know about evident mental problems their child is experiencing that put him, them and others in danger.
I would personally say: a very high degree. Others may say something about constitutional rights, amendments and freedoms and disagree with me. I don’t understand those arguments, but they seem to be meant in earnest.
And had they prevented him from killing in any way at all, and all of his victims had just coincidentally had aneurisms a few minutes later, what then?
We can debate what-ifs all day, but in the timeline we live in, the decision points the parents chose to branch off directly and predictably lead to people dying.
It takes little time to debate this point that is very relevant to the environment we live in. If the sum total of the parent’s actions makes them guilty what happens if any particular action is removed? If their son found the keys to a family car, drove it off and fatally struck someone with it are they still as responsible?
It’s more than just providing him with the gun. He had told his parents that he was having disturbing thoughts and wanted help, and they didn’t get him any. When the school found him in possession of something that set off alarm bells (I don’t remember what it was) the parents were called in for an immediate conference, and asked to take him home because he needed to “de-stress,” or something, and the parents refused. That was either the day of or the day before the shooting.
This didn’t come out of the blue-- the kid was crying for help, and the parents ignored him-- the school begged them to listen, and they still refused-- and then they gave him a gun.
He wasn’t old enough by law to own, or operate, a weapon and his parents bought and gifted him one. After clear indicators in both his actions and words, that he was struggling with personal issues.
They, adults, chose those actions and responses. It seems remarkably clear to me that they are both guilty of negligence of their disturbed child and breaking firearm safety/acquisition regulations.
A predictably deadly combination. The justice system over decades was cool with ‘making an example of’ and ‘sending a strong message’, regarding any misstep, when sentencing a black youth offender.
This case seems to scream for ‘sending a strong message’, in my opinion.
What the school found were disturbing hand-drawn images of gun violence and violent thoughts. Confronted with this, the mom texted the boy something like “LOL, learn to hide it better”. The parents refused to let the boy’s backpack be searched – which is where the gun was concealed.
I would have been shocked at an acquittal.