The Mom’s statement after sentencing leans heavily into, ‘this could now happen to any one of you!’ No one is safe!
Um, I think not!
It does make a legal precedent, I think.
I mean in their case, they were clearly negligent. But now over zealous DAs could start prosecuting parents for any crimes their kids do.
Near as I can tell (admittedly I have not paid close attention) neither parent has expressed any remorse over what happened. Maybe 10 years in a prison cell will give them time to reflect but I am not hopeful they will.
That’s exactly the talking points conservative media was making.
The counterpoint was there were unique facts in this case which prompted the prosecution. Something unlikely to be abused by other prosecutors unless they, too, have a really tight case to make. Something more than you have a gun and a kid.
I agree. But a precedent is a precedent.
I am fine with the new precedent if it means people who say “Yeah, I bought my troubled kid a gun and I didn’t secure it properly and he went out and shot people. So what? Not my fault!” get sent to prison. And if you are a parent who thinks that way, yeah, this could happen to you, so STFU and secure your effing gun!
Edit: That’s not directed at you, @DrDeth.
Maybe the good precedent outweighs the bad. Now, for maybe the first time very clearly, we’ve established “buy a gun for your obviously psychotic kid who then shoots people up, be held responsible.” This case needed to be made. If it entails some small risk that some parent down the road has to face an overzealous prosecutor for a lesser crime, so be it.
ETA: or, what he said. ^^^
Is it really a precedent? I’m not a lawyer, so I wonder if we’re misusing this term of art. Is there really any novel application of the law? Is it really a precedent if it occurs in a rare and stupendously obvious set of facts related to a reasonable level of care, if the law is clear?
Just wondering, really don’t know.
Well, yes and no. I mean, it is a fact that this court issued this verdict in this specific fact situation.
But it is not binding on any other court. That verdict is not anything that any other court - in Michigan or elsewhere - is bound to follow. It merely can be cited as persuasive for any other court deciding another case. So it would be up to the next prosecutor to try to persuade the court that there is enough similarity between this case and - say, holding parents responsible for their kids vandalism or whatever.
As a very general matter, a state court trial ruling is of extremely limited persuasive value in a different state’s courts.
I think the general idea that if you know your kid is troubled, and you provide them the necessary tools to commit harm, and fail to supervise, you might be liable - would be considered persuasive in certain situations. I would have imagined that this is not the first case ever in which parents have been held liable for their kids’ actions, but I am no expert.
I don’t have your experience, but that was my reaction. Is this truly ground-breaking, except in a trivially narrow way? It didn’t seem so.
Parents have been prosecuted for their children’s crimes before.
In December, a Virginia mother was given a two-year prison sentence for felony child neglect after her 6-year-old son brought a gun to his Newport News elementary school and shot his first-grade teacher. In a separate prosecution, the mother pleaded guilty to using marijuana while owning a firearm and for making false statements about her drug use.
In a separate prosecution that may have laid the groundwork for the Crumbley case, an Illinois father pleaded guilty to misdemeanor reckless conduct on charges that stemmed from a shooting carried out by his son at a 2022 Highland Park Independence Day parade, which left seven people dead. That case centered on how his son, who was 19 at the time, obtained a gun license.
At the time of the massacre, the gunman was too young to apply for a firearm license so his father sponsored his application despite knowing his son had a history of behaving violently. Several months before the attack, a relative reported to police that the teenager had a large collection of knives and had threatened to “kill everyone.”
In the Highland Park case, the state prosecutor was explicit: The father’s guilty plea, he said, should be a “beacon” to others that parents can be held accountable for the actions of their children.
Nitpick. They are not being held liable for their son’s crimes, but their own.
The difference is that the Crumbleys were convicted of involuntary manslaughter. They weren’t convicted of felony child neglect or misdemeanor reckless conduct. As the article you linked to says
Crumbley is the first parent to be held directly responsible for a school shooting carried out by their child, turning on its head a bedrock legal principle : People cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.
But, again, they aren’t being held responsible for the actions of others. They’re being held responsible for their own actions. Their own actions resulted in a situation which any reasonable person would know would be likely to cost lives. They knew that, and took those actions anyway. Partly as a result of their actions, lives were lost. That’s textbook manslaughter.
Yes and no. They absolutely were convicted based on their own actions. But it’s also true that their actions would not have constituted the crime they were convicted of without their son’s crimes. Just like if two people rob a store and one shoots and kills the salesclerk, they are both guilty of murder. The non-shooter because of his actions in participating in the robbery - but he can’t be guilty of murder if the other person didn’t shoot.
If your child is playing baseball with someone and hits a ball through a window isn’t is normal that the parents need to pay to replace that window?
A nit definitely worth picking. And I readily acknowledge my lack of expertise. But as you quoted, I intentionally said, “for their kids’ actions.”
I AM reasonably expert at covering my ass! 
Not in my state - in my state parents are generally only responsible if the child over the age of 10 willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully destroys property. Playing baseball isn’t any of those things.
According to this, it seems like parents are only liable for the child’s willful acts in most states. But even then, the parents responsibility is limited to paying for the damages - if the kid maliciously threw the ball through the window , the parent isn’t guilty of vandalism ( criminal mischief in NY)
Yes.
Here is a cite
It was a historic verdict. Never before had a parent in the US been found criminally responsible for manslaughter after their child committed a mass shooting.
On Tuesday, both parents were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison, the maximum sentence carried by the charges, in an emotionally charged hearing where families of the victims spoke.
While the sentencing represents the end of the current proceedings, those who cheered the outcome — and those who warned against the legal precedent it set — have said the Crumbley cases are likely to reverberate for years to come.
“You have a painful crime. You have a legal novelty and an unprecedented action. And then you have this social thing in which we’re all interested, all coming together in one case,” Ekow Yankah, a law professor at the University of Michigan, told Al Jazeera.
Civil liability is entirely different than criminal liability.
I mean, I agree, the Crumleys deserved punishment.
Indeed. But it goes to the notion that society is ok with holding the parents accountable for what their children do.
Is their kid murdering someone with a gun they bought them so different from them breaking a window? Mom and dad have to pay for the window but are off the hook for murder?