The son was caught searching for ammunition on his phone.
The mom texted him “LOL, I’m not gonna get mad at you, you have to learn to not get caught”.
Later, he killed and injured kids at his school.
During the shooting the mom texted him “Don’t do it.” (and not, for example, “Shooting at your school? Are you safe?”
Charged with manslaughter.
Fled and a manhunt ensued.
So are these charges justified do you think, or is this just a needless persecution of gun owners?
Personally, while I have not read the applicable statutes, I think it is entirely justified and demonstrates why gun owners should be responsible for their injury and death caused by their firearms when they act irresponsibly with them. The particularly damning thing for me is the “Don’t do it” text. This implies to me that the parents suspected that if there was a shooting it was probably their child doing the shooting, and therefore had some inkling that perhaps he would go on a shooting spree.
(I just saw they’ve actually been caught a short while ago)
I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. But even the scenario I had originally assumed, that the father had purchased the gun for himself and not properly secured it, I would consider criminally negligent with an emotionally disturbed teenager in the house.
But they bought the gun for their emotionally disturbed 14 year old son, who gave off multiple warning signs that he could be capable of this? Throw the book at them.
Can that be used against you? I was under the impression that an argument of “Only the guilty run” could not be made. Certainly, it looks bad in the public eye.
Also, it appears they’ve hired an attorney for themselves, but left their son to the public defender.
Not sure these guys are going to be in the running for Parents of the Year.
Since the link I posted does not contain this information.
" The parents of Ethan Crumbley purchased the handgun used in apparently as a Christmas gift for their son on Black Friday, and stored it improperly, said Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald at a news conference midday Friday."
Seems like the charges are totally justified. My guess is it’s a pretty easy conviction too since the school was basically begging the to remove their son and get him help and their response was to pour gas on the fire.
It sounds like school officials also bear a substantial proportion of blame for the shootings. After his drawing came to light, no one bothered to search his possessions, and just let him back into class?
“Ethan Crumbley was removed from the classroom and his parents were called to the school, McDonald said. By the time a counselor obtained the drawing, the teen had allegedly altered it, McDonald said.”
“At the meeting, James and Jennifer Crumbley were shown the drawing and were advised that they were required to get their son into counseling within 48 hours,” she said. “Both James and Jennifer Crumbley failed to ask their son if he had his gun with him or where his gun was located and failed to inspect his backpack for the presence of the gun, which he had with him.”
Side note: the ABC story refers to the gun as a “semi-automatic handgun” at least three times in the story, to heighten the angst. The reporter(s), as is typical, seem unaware that the overwhelming majority of handguns in the U.S. (and around the world) are semi-automatics.
Did the school know of the existence of the gun itself? The parents, of course, did, but with their attitude of “don’t get caught”, I can see them neglecting to inform the school. “Counseling within 48 hours” is a fairly short timetable by most standards, assuming that they didn’t know of a truly immediate threat.
Then again, I’m seeing sources that some of the other students had enough of a timetable that they deliberately stayed home that day, and if multiple students knew, it’s likely that the school did (or should have) as well.
Sounds like a “win-win” for pro-gun groups to me. If they search his personal belongings just because he drew a picture they cry “Infringement of rights!”, and if they don’t the school gets the blame.
Most schools nowadays have a “Code of Conduct” that students must sign, giving the school the right to search bags, lockers, etc. without a warrant, and so far as I know, the courts have consistently upheld this (though the school is legally on much shakier ground without such a prior agreement).
