Do you think the Crumbley parents are legally innocent?

Bound4Glory wrote:

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

There are reports that the father went home after the meeting, realized the gun wasn't there, and didn't contact the school.

How could they possibly know that? You're believing lynch mob hysteria put out from one party that is doing whatever they can to avoid fingers being pointed at by themselves.

No way, man. If some guy makes an unsupported allegation that "there are reports" of something, its totally reasonably to not only believe the existence of such reports, but everything alleged to be in them, whatever that may be.

i think the school staff made a poor decision in not insisting the kid leave the school. they subconsciously weighed the probabilities. they’ve heard about school shootings in the news but decided the wrath of the parents and potential lawsuit was more likely than the kid shooting up the school. but i don’t think they are liable. but if parents were held accountable for their kids behavior, it would be a game changer for society.

Almost all of the "facts" in this case are coming from just two sources: The Oxford Community School District and the County Prosecutor. And all of those facts seem to deflect blame away from the School District and onto the parents. Doesn't that seem just a little suspicious?

Who here can think for themself?

too easy wrote:

but if parents were held accountable for their kids behavior, it would be a game changer for society.

Yes, that would be a game changer. Society would start to imprison people based not on whether they were guilty of some crime, but whether their imprisonment achieves some dubious perceived social goal. Sounds like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, China, etc.

Bound4Glory wrote:

Since when does one party in a gruesome mass murder have the right to refuse the State Attorney General from investigating themselves?

The AG retains the right to investigate criminally, and has said as much. What you refer to is an internal investigation (which is likely pointless as it is toothless).

Your politicalization of this issue has led to a peculiar stance.

testosteronedoesit wrote:

Your politicalization of this issue has led to a peculiar stance.

This is the least political issue in the news right now. Both Democrats and Republicans want to lynch the parents (all based on a narrative provided entirely by one of the potentially guilty parties: School District).

If the Michigan AG investigated the issue and pointed blame at the school district, not the parents, that would change the narrative. So it's not pointless.

Bound4Glory wrote:

testosteronedoesit wrote:

Your politicalization of this issue has led to a peculiar stance.

This is the least political issue in the news right now. Both Democrats and Republicans want to lynch the parents (all based on a narrative provided entirely by one of the potentially guilty parties: School District).

If the Michigan AG investigated the issue and pointed blame at the school district, not the parents, that would change the narrative. So it's not pointless.

The parents deserve a large amount of blame. If I'm the D.A, I'm going after them and the wort case of them only having to spend a year in jail waiting for trial, would be better than nothing.

Noyankee wrote:

well this wrote:

And their only crime was not appearing for the arraignment.

Their crime was not securing a gun they own. That’s why they sell safes folks, and the parents are going down…unless they can prove fault with the safe manufacturer. Extremely unlikely.

Not a crime, but nice try.

well this wrote:

Do you think that they may have been bad parents but didn't break any laws and are just being singled out by antigun liberals?

Hard to say. I think there were definite signs, but I'm not sure there is really any evidence that they violated the law.

Usually I can see a case a prosecutor has decided to charge and I can decide: Better to be prosecutor or better to be criminal defense attorney.

If weapons are locked and kid breaks lock(s), parents are never charged. Even when weapons are not locked, rarely are parents are charged.

For home defense, what is the purpose of locking weapons? Both of my grandmothers died about 4 years before September 11th, 2001. One of my grandmothers had a small revolver and a small semiautomatic with her at all times. Flew with them too. She never locked up her pistols. She would tell you, "What's a pistol going to do for me in the safe?"

Please explain how you equate the Oakland County prosecutor's office with "antigun liberals."

Plus the "Thumb"

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The parents deserve a large amount of blame. If I'm the D.A, I'm going after them and the wort case of them only having to spend a year in jail waiting for trial, would be better than nothing.

Maybe. But the problem, which nobody seems to get, is that you're making your judgment based solely on facts coming from the other clearly responsible party: The School District. They have a strong incentive to point the finger at someone else. There's no way at this point to know what "facts" are true.

Bound4Glory wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The parents deserve a large amount of blame. If I'm the D.A, I'm going after them and the wort case of them only having to spend a year in jail waiting for trial, would be better than nothing.

Maybe. But the problem, which nobody seems to get, is that you're making your judgment based solely on facts coming from the other clearly responsible party: The School District. They have a strong incentive to point the finger at someone else. There's no way at this point to know what "facts" are true.

Their disturbed kid using a gun they purchased for him to murder people, are "facts" damning enough to warrant punishment for the parents. I'm not an attorney but if the parents can be convicted, they deserve it.

Whether the school will have liability is an entirely different issue.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Their disturbed kid using a gun they purchased for him to murder people, are "facts" damning enough to warrant punishment for the parents.

How do you know that? Did the parents say the gun was a gift for their son? Did the parents say they say they left possession of the gun with their kid?

You're repeating a narrative that was crafted by people who are trying to avoid responsibility for a mass murder.

If the parents are going to be blamed, the school admins are just as guilty. They allowed him to go back to class. Yes, the parents could have taken him home but school admin could have suspended him on the spot.

I don't know what will happen in court. Any tribe that would not somehow render these parents powerless to ever commit, or aid and abet(as they did), such a sickening thing as this mass killing, does not deserve to exist.

They aided and abetted the crime through gross negligence due to moral perversion. I don't care what the gun law is.

Banish them somehow, life in prison if that's the best you have.

daytripper wrote:

the school teacher, principal and guidance counselors did nothing to prevent the attack; a kid can be suspended for making some offensive remark, the school should have suspended him, and also searched him, searched his backpack and his locker, the school did nothing; the parents are worthless pieces of crap, they should be charged if they broke any law, same for the school people

There is a ton of pressure on school administrators not to discipline kids especially at the cost of school time. Keep in mind that they are government workers and therefore drones. Besides that, some of them love these policies. What I am getting at is don't mistake this for individual incompetence when it's policy.

FoulPlay wrote:

They aided and abetted the crime through gross negligence due to moral perversion.

The parents purchased a gun. This happens millions of times per year. Their child, who up to that point had a squeaky clean record, stole the gun without their knowledge. Where is the gross negligence?

Now consider the school officials. They knew he was searching for ammo. They saw he violent drawings. They discussed it among themselves. Yet they still refused to suspend him and instead let him roam the halls with a gun in his backpack. Now they're refusing to let the State Attorney General investigate the shootings. Sounds like they have a lot more to hide that we don't know about.

One could reasonably expect parents to have a hard time objectively judging their child in this situation. What excuse did the school officials have?