I was infuriated when the walking, talking, bag of human feces who gave birth to the shooter testified: ““I’ve asked myself if I would have done anything differently and I wouldn’t have”.
I hope the judge treats that as a complete lack of remorse and smacks her with a hefty prison sentence.
seriously!! how 'bout “not buy a gun”?!
that answer was beyond, way beyond belief.
I can’t help feeling we’re setting a dangerous precedent here. I mean maybe these parents missed some gigantic red flags, I don’t know, but do we really know how much the kid begged his parents for help? Or did he just write it all down in his journal? Journals are supposed to be private.
People can be very tight-lipped about their mental state, particularly involving depression. I know my folks had no clue about my panic attacks or death wishes. A lot of anguished people don’t put out a lot of signs that something is badly wrong.
Maybe these parents were egregiously neglectful about their son’s mental health. But maybe some other parents might be truly unaware that their child is a lethal time bomb. It took some time for the Unabomber’s brother to catch on to what his brother was doing.
I’m just worried that this is the first step towards routinely handing out prison sentences to relatives of the infamous.
I agree with you on general principle, but the facts in this particular case are quite damning, starting with the parents buying him the gun in the first place.
That, and (as it has been portrayed in the media) her flippant attitude about it all. “I gotta teach you how not to get caught LOL” and the “I wouldn’t change anything” comment. What a effing scumbag. The school calls you in because your kid has drawn seriously violent images with a gun (that you just got for him) and you refuse to do anything at all the school is asking you to do? We’ll check back with you in 60 years to see if you’d change anything by then - that’ll be a good long time to think about it. (sorry - I am just sorta mad about this whole case).
Story about the verdict:
The prosecution argued Jennifer Crumbley is responsible for the deaths because she was “grossly negligent” in giving a gun to her son Ethan, who was 15 at the time, and failing to get him proper mental health treatment despite warning signs. Over a week of testimony, law enforcement officials, school employees, shooting victims and those who knew Jennifer Crumbley testified for the prosecution.
Really? They bought their 15 year old a freaking handgun! The dangerous precedent is buying a 15 year old a firearm.
If those relatives don’t do stupid shit, they would easily avoid prison.
There are a number of dangerous things these parents did, and I agree that buying the gun in the first place was incredibly stupid.
Next level down in stupidity is that the mother took the son to the range, and upon return stated she locked the gun in the car because she relied on her husband to secure it properly.
For fucksakes, my 6 year old knows how to open my car, if he has the keys. And any adult with any brain at all knows how to secure a gun. I don’t even use one, but I know to put the fucking thing in a gun safe, ideally with the mag dropped out, and certainly not “one up”.
Is this not just general knowledge? She took the kid to a range, I would assume some measure of gun safety is applied there. Why not extrapolate that to gun safety at home?
That sounds suspiciously like the argument, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind being searched.”
We’re not. If anything, we are beginning to set a useful precedent here. You buy a weapon, you’re responsible for it. You give a weapon to a troubled kid and he uses it on other kids, you’re responsible for it. You want to be a big shot and own a gun, you own the responsibility for the safe ownership of that gun. If you are incapable of safely owning a gun, don’t own a gun.
Maybe if we put enough of these irresponsible gun owners in jail, other gun owners will see themselves, and change their behavior. If not, then at least those who helped arm murderers get to see the inside of a prison.
in an interview Jury foreperson: Jennifer Crumbley was last adult with gun. That ‘hammered it home’. (msn.com), ms crumbley did not secure the gun.
No, not even close to that argument. They bought a 15 year old a gun, didn’t secure it, and then that 15 year old used it to murder and would a lot of people. How is this not their fault?
It would’ve been nice if your argument were true and someone looked into this before that gun was used to murder.
Let me clarify. I’m not trying to defend these two moronic parents. It’s just that I think this verdict could open up the path to criminally charging people for passive behaviors. Or for literally doing nothing.
Say some kid is caught up in a gang sweep. Should the parents be arrested for not doing background checks on who the kid is hanging out with? Suppose a kid overdoses. Should the parents be charged for not regularly searching the kid’s room for drugs?
I don’t think we should have a society that resembles the finale of Seinfeld.
I’ve often mused about the idea of licensing not only with regards to guns, but with regards to gun safes.
Show you have a safe suitable for storage of the weapon you are purchasing. The safe must meet certain specifications. If the gun isn’t on you, it’s in the safe (in a safe in your home, in a safe in your car, but otherwise secured). And absolutely hold people legally accountable if their gun is stolen and it’s known it wasn’t secured. That’s what responsible gun owners do anyway, right? Right?
I’m sure it would be just as contentious as gun licensing, but the idea pops into my head whenever I read reports about unsecured weapons.
I don’t intend to spark a debate here, my idea isn’t any more detailed than what I’ve written here. Just an idle thought on the subject.
THEY
BOUGHT
THE
GUN
Isn’t the primary problem with school shootings that differentiates the US from almost every other country on Earth that immature and mentally unwell people have access to guns and can thus kill people quickly and easily? According to both prosecutor and jury, the key fact that led to conviction was his parents’ role in providing access to a weapon.
The only precedent I see being set here is that people are responsible for the consequences of recklessly and negligently allowing their children to access weapons. If you have a problem with that, present an argument against it. All this other slippery slope stuff is irrelevant nonsense.
Let me clarify. THE PARENTS BOUGHT THE GUN. Capeesh? Please don’t make passive arguments, you are making them in bad faith.
A mentally disturbed person could certainly get access to an automobile and go on a joyride and mow people down on purpose. But I guess I’m less worried about someone actively training this person to drive when it’s already known that they are dangerous. Because although America certainly loves its autos, it hasn’t yet devolved into the fetishization that we have with guns.
There are going to be a spate of laws passed now in many states to ENSURE that this doesn’t happen again. Not the school shooting, but that the parents would be charged. The gun fetishizers will pass laws so that anyone buying and providing a gun to a criminal or insane person is never charged with anything. Watch and see.
Nothing within reason, even unto death, is going to stop this gun fetish people have. All I can do is hate it and oppose those who have it.
So why aren’t school shooters using this method to murder their classmates already? Could it conceivably be because a gun that is designed to kill is a much more effective way of killing people than a car?
But at least this brings us to the heart of the issue here, that any sensible effort to restrict gun ownership or to hold people responsible for the consequences of gun ownership will no doubt be resisted tooth and nail.
The second sentence is the key. There are many other ways to kill people, but those ways aren’t backed by a cult of fetishists.