If you overserve someone alcohol you can be held liable. I see no difference in this case.
If you overserve someone alcohol you can be held liable. I see no difference in this case.
pure romance wrote:
If you overserve someone alcohol you can be held liable. I see no difference in this case.
That wasn't always the case so if charges against the parents do move forward this case certainly has the potential to set a precedent.
Casting a wide net is usually reserved for civil law - looking for deep pockets - maybe this will set a precedent for criminal law regarding these specific types of events.
This article suggest that the school's admin might very well be charged - as they had the right to search the bag and the locker and choose not to:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/06/us/michigan-oxford-high-school-shooting-monday/index.htmlwell this wrote:
And their only crime was not appearing for the arraignment.
The party of law and order.
If you think you shouldn't be charged with one crime, you can run away from your arraignment.
If you think an election was stolen, you can kill cops in the capital building.
If you think a black man was robbing a construction site in your neighborhood, you can chase him down and just shoot him.
You're all punitive freaks when black people torch a shoe store with no one inside.
Then you're "hang on, wait a minute" consitutional scholars when white people give their spaz kid a HANDGUN when they know, for sure, that he fantasizes about killing people at his school.
Here's the thing:
NRA nutbar folks always talk about "responsible gun owners" as if all gun owners are responsible ones, but they NEVER point a finger at someone like these Crumbleys and single them out as "irresponsible gun owners".
Was the gun in a safe?
Was the ammo separate from the gun?
It appears NO in both cases, PLUS apparently it was a gift for their underage kid.
I am FOR gun ownership, and not just 1800s-style guns either. Modern shotguns, handguns (even ones that will easily kill a person), rifles. I'm NOT for fully automatic weapons, and if you want to try to get nitpicky with me and argue that they aren't really any different from semi-automatic weapons, then I will side with getting rid of those too.
With owning a gun SHOULD come SERIOUS responsibility, and from what we have heard so far (I'm open to the idea that we likely do not know all the details yet), these parents do NOT seem like they were responsible, and because of that, as of NOW, I DO side with saying they deserve serious legal trouble and likely imprisonment.
HOWEVER, I also believe in the rule of law, so we shall see what the justice system says about them.
Wow, for such a controversial topic, I’m truly impressed with the civility of this thread. Just when it seems like it will deteriorate, good discussion continues. Well done LR.
Hucklebuck, Ali wrote:
As a fairness matter, the Crumpley's lives were shattered by what their son did and all the consequences of that. Bringing these novel kinds of charges... seems like hitting someone when they are down, just for the district attorney's own media publicity.
Umm. I doubt they were shattered. I doubt were thinking about their son at all, only how to save themselves from their own culpability. Charging someone for aiding and abetting a murder of four innocent people is most definitely not "hitting someone when they are down".
When he needed them most, they ran. They ran away. And left their son to rot in jail, suffering his own fate.
bugattiaron wrote:
Hucklebuck, Ali wrote:
I'm skeptical of the legal theory that are being charged under, and skeptical of the district attorney's motives in charging them. As a fairness matter, the Crumpley's lives were shattered by what their son did and all the consequences of that. Bringing these novel kinds of charges just based on various statements, most of them by the school officials/counselors who are trying to cover their own mistakes, seems like hitting someone when they are down, just for the district attorney's own media publicity.
There are a LOT of facts that none of us know yet (and yet in the posts above, many posters assume they know it all -- e.g., "the gun wasn't secured"). What is being reported in the usual media sources -- sources that we know from unfortunate past experiences are often wrong and biased --- is nothing more than a flawed summary of what the district attorney said at that publicity stunt of a press conference. We won't know what really happened, and the timeline in which it happened, for many months/years. Of course, by then most of the media has embalmed its story and the public has already made up their mind (like many posters in this thread).
No, the Crumpley's lives were shattered by a horrible situation that they perpetuated and enabled. All preliminary evidence points to the fact that there warning signs and red flags for months leading up this. His parents and school administrators ignored the signs. His parents got him a gun as a gift. If you doubt that they got it for him, his mother posted a picture of the gun on social media calling it his Christmas present. When a teacher raised alarm at him searching for ammunition on the internet, his parents didn't respond to voicemails or emails from the school, and his mother texted him regarding the incident "LOL I'm not mad, you just have to learn to not get caught". When his parents were called into school regarding a disturbing drawing in his notebook, they refused to remove him from school and put him into counseling. They then left school without him and less than three hours he opened fire on his fellow students. If you hear this and think that the parents are in any way innocent, you're completely delusional.
Sure thing boss, but for the reasons I mentioned above, I don't think we are at the stage just yet where we can label those who disagree with us, or are at least waiting for more facts to become available, as "completely delusional."
I'll note for the record, that you don't even seem to have accurately summarized the flawed media summary, and you've also begun the spin injection - "refused to remove him from school" as if the parents, and not the school, make those determinations. If your entire point is that they are guilty because they bought him a gun, and knew he was looking for ammunition for it (hardly surprising for a recent gift), then string them up, I guess. Shades of strict liability.
reckless parenting wrote:
Hucklebuck, Ali wrote:
As a fairness matter, the Crumpley's lives were shattered by what their son did and all the consequences of that. Bringing these novel kinds of charges... seems like hitting someone when they are down, just for the district attorney's own media publicity.
Umm. I doubt they were shattered. I doubt were thinking about their son at all, only how to save themselves from their own culpability. Charging someone for aiding and abetting a murder of four innocent people is most definitely not "hitting someone when they are down".
When he needed them most, they ran. They ran away. And left their son to rot in jail, suffering his own fate.
A lot of assumptions in there. All of them too wildly speculative, biased, dumb and/or boring to respond to.
Hucklebuck, Ali wrote:
reckless parenting wrote:
Umm. I doubt they were shattered. I doubt were thinking about their son at all, only how to save themselves from their own culpability. Charging someone for aiding and abetting a murder of four innocent people is most definitely not "hitting someone when they are down".
When he needed them most, they ran. They ran away. And left their son to rot in jail, suffering his own fate.
A lot of assumptions in there. All of them too wildly speculative, biased, dumb and/or boring to respond to.
Lets see what are not assumptions:
(1)These were gun people. They embraced and relished in the gun culture.
(2) Because Crumbley was raised in the gun culture and his parents provided and gave him easy access to guns he was more likely to turn to guns address what ever distorted emotional issues that he had.
(3) The family took pleasure in defying rules (maybe specifically those dealing with limits on gun use) and authority. The, "I'm not mad at you for searching for bullets, just don't get caught", the bragging about buying the son a gun, the parents not showing up for arraignment.
(4) The parents had that no one is going to tell us what to do attitude, They never took what the school said seriously. They probably thought, these teachers don't know anything, they are just libs against gun. (This last part is a bit of assumption but clearly they didn't take the warning from the school seriously.)
Parents are guilty of something along the lines of reckless endangerment. They should see jail time.
Yes. They were awful parents but they didn't break the law. If this kid was such a danger and showed most imminent signs of danger, his school should have called the police to have him removed. Bad things happen in life and this is one of many.
reckless parenting wrote:
Yes, they should be charged with a crime. It will be up to the legal system to prove guilt or innocence.
They bought a gun FOR the kid. Then, one of two situations occurred. Either they didn't secure the gun properly so he couldn't access it. Or they knew he had unrestricted access to it and didn't think that was a problem.
If your kid is drawing about killing people, you should be alarmed, or at least concerned. There is a report that when they heard about the shooting at school, the mom texted the kid saying, "please don't do it." This is after the shooting had already started.
They knew. They knew and did nothing about it. They knew and bought the murder weapon and allowed access to it.
How do you know the "please don't do it" text wasn't a plea to not self-slaughter?
You don’t usually flee if you’re innocent.
Moo G wrote:
Yes. They were awful parents but they didn't break the law. If this kid was such a danger and showed most imminent signs of danger, his school should have called the police to have him removed. Bad things happen in life and this is one of many.
The kid didn't outright threaten anyone. The parents were against suspension. Yes the kid had all the signs of being disturbed but without the outright threat.
I would agree with the police having the right to risk violating a persons rights based on suspicion without overt threat, but not everyone and the law agree with that approach.
RedditisBetter wrote:
nike shill wrote:
Actually the more and more I read, the more I believe the school administration should have prevented this. The parents still have a hand in this, but all the signs were there that a school should have picked up on.
Parents get a pass? The created him, raised him , had 24/7 access to him.
School gets blame? Minimal access and legal obligations? Was the school allowed to 'force' the parents to take the kid home on the day of the shooting.
Hope the parents get drilled and if school violated any direct policies they are held responsible as well.
I wasn't absolving the parents of anything, I was just placing more blame on the school, without removing any for the parents. As far as I know, schools have the right to search anything a student brings on campus as long as their is a reasonable suspicion of a threat or wrongdoing. The 4th doesn't apply in schools. The kid was clearly a threat, and should've been searched. Doesn't make the scumbag parents angels, it just means the school should've done something more in my opinion.
khvlu wrote:
reckless parenting wrote:
Yes, they should be charged with a crime. It will be up to the legal system to prove guilt or innocence.
They bought a gun FOR the kid. Then, one of two situations occurred. Either they didn't secure the gun properly so he couldn't access it. Or they knew he had unrestricted access to it and didn't think that was a problem.
If your kid is drawing about killing people, you should be alarmed, or at least concerned. There is a report that when they heard about the shooting at school, the mom texted the kid saying, "please don't do it." This is after the shooting had already started.
They knew. They knew and did nothing about it. They knew and bought the murder weapon and allowed access to it.
How do you know the "please don't do it" text wasn't a plea to not self-slaughter?
That's a reasonable assumption too. The main point is she knew he had the gun. Even if she wasn't 100% sure it was him, she was sure enough to assume it was him and send a message. The most likely scenario in her mind was that it was her son that was the active shooter.
How do you reach that conclusion unless you already have some suspicion that your kid is capable of such an act ... and you know that he had access to the gun ... and that it's likely he has it with him?
pure romance wrote:
If you overserve someone alcohol you can be held liable. I see no difference in this case.
They never go after the parents in these cases but they are now...dont you think there may be something to it worth exploring? You are an NRA card carrying horrible parent and buy a handgun for mentally distressed young teen with issues, you might be a redneck...or at least guilty of a crime. This holds true for many crimes where you aid the criminal. If you just replaced the word parent, with friend, wouldnt you think they had some culpability? Yes you would, not a stretch. Nobody shoots random people dead that has any sense of worth.
Stanely wrote:
Yes, they are innocent.
Tone deaf, but innocent.
Just like handing the car keys and the kid plows through a sidewalk, can't control someone else's actions.
Plenty of blame: from the 2nd Amendment to politicians, to the school administration to the parents to society.
Your analogy probably proves you wrong.
If parents buy a car and tell the world that they bought it FOR the kid, and the kid posts that it was bought FOR him, and the kid was there when it was bought FOR him, and if the parents GIVE the kid the keys and tell him to do as he pleases, and he then drives through a crowd, the parents are liable if the kid is twelve years old (or any age that is underage to drive the car).
That's a better analogy.
The parents bought a gun FOR a kid who is too young to possess the gun.
The parent of every kid that posts a 'gang' picture on social media should be liable for any violence he commits. This includes all the white inner city kids in chicago, detroit, and ny.
Also every man who fathers a child and never stays around to raise him and teach him right needs to see jail time for any act the child commits before he is 18.
In N Korea if you break the law the entire family is considered guilty of the crime, it's time to get control like this
The second amendment has nothing to do with whether they are responsible.
If your child is a known danger and you recklessly or negligently entrust them with something dangerous, then you can be responsible.
"Yes, my child is a wack job and has threatened kids at school with physical harm, but I nevertheless let him/her have ____"
It doesn't matter whether _____ is a gun, a knife, a car, or even a five gallon canister of gasoline-- you can still be prosecuted.