This author comes off a bit as a radical who objects to the existence of firearms. The heated language and lack of consideration to the pitfalls and perils of this very new brand of criminal liability does not lead me to believe he is a good faith actor.
Did you consider the very well known phenomenon of hindsight bias? There is a reason that with police use of force Graham vs. Connor established that you have to judge an officers actions based off of what they knew at that exact moment. Not off of your opinion after the fact with all the time in the world to mull things over aka your hindsight. Would she still be liable maybe, but this wasn’t even mentioned as a consideration in the article.
What if the new form of criminal liability is extended? Why isn’t the school principal in prison? He didn’t call 911. By this logic he could go to prison too. This also tosses out a bedrock principle of criminal law. Actus Reus which refers to performing a criminal action. Standing idly by has never been a crime since it is not an act. One must do something illegal. Now we are criminalizing inaction which fairly unheard of. Go read through the criminal code of every state. You will find actions. Theft, Rape, Murder, Burglary, Assault, Robbery, Identity Theft… The list goes on and on. All of these things are actions not inactions.
So now that we’re criminalizing inaction will we send the droves of people to jail who we see in online videos standing idly by as a violent assault is happening? What if some makes and off hand comment “i’m about to go crazy” and its taken as hyperbole but isn’t. Does everyone who heard it get locked up? This is a new precedent that was just created. Don’t assume it will never expand.
Will we be legally mandating obligatory behaviors?
This article was very lacking on a serious turn we are taking in criminal law. Don’t be so transparently blinded by emotion.
Should every crime committed by an illegal alien require the president who refuses to enforce border laws be charged as an accessory or accomplice? Particularly now that they have no immunity.
They do understand that but they also know they control the media, acadamia, business, the administrative state, and most branches of government and so they assume they'll be protected.
No one should be prosecuted without an existing applicable codified criminal statute. There isn’t one here. This is a dangerous slope to proceed on. Hopefully, this will be appealed. Yes, the parents have some civil liability here, but criminally prosecuting without a defined crime is unconstitutional. Why didn’t the school permanently suspend the child? Do they not have some culpability here. Maybe they should be prosecuted without a relevant statute. Hate the parents of you like, hate guns if you like, but abusing the justice system to lock up negligence is wrong.
Federal law prohibits, except in certain limited circumstances, anyone under 18 years of age from knowingly possessing a handgun, or any person from selling, delivering, or otherwise transferring a handgun to a person under 18. A knowing violation of the prohibition against selling, delivering, or otherwise transferring a handgun to a person under the age of 18 is, under certain circumstances, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
If you read the statute closely nobody violated that statute. He never sold, delivered or transferred the gun to anyone. The father owned the gun. Millions of fathers buy guns that they allow their kids to use legally.
Agreed. I am disapointed in this article. It fails to really look at the issue from all angles. It also fails to mention that the son was tried as an adult. How do you prosecute the child as an adult, but then claim it was the parents fault? I expect better journalism from The Free Press than a biased opinion piece that has no basis for the claim, "I guarantee you these shootings will decline."
for me, I look at the legal system and how it is being abused of late, to release felons, using guns to commit crimes, back onto the street. If anything seems like it can be controlled, it is NOT putting criminals, esp with multiple histories of gun use, back on the street.
Taking this view, why not then hold the courts/ judges/juries/attorneys, liable for their action in releasing a known offender and/or chronic offender back onto the streets, with clear or historic knowledge, that they will offend again. IF this re-offense results in homicide or murder, then the courts are also culpable and should face the music as this mom has been found guilty of. Would that "stop the killing and shootings", maybe so.
I don't like what the mom and dad did, or how her history of raising her child was presented. But as gun advocates say, and I believe, the gun did not shoot the person(s), it is the one who pulled the trigger who is guilty of the deed, and they alone pay the price.
This decision is a clear path to "more/increased victimhood". Pretty soon, a criminal could say," I'm not responsible, I was brought up wrong" and maybe get off....or pass the buck to someone else.
The article was definitely intellectual weak sauce. I was thinking the same thing, if The Free Press typical article comes down to this I won't be a subscriber any more.
I do at least appreciate that when they emailed it, they included an article from the other point of view. But, it is still a little odd that they would allow such a poorly argued point of view to be published, even if it is an opinion piece.
I am not a lawyer so I don’t really know much about law. I have noticed that how the law views things and how people see things, especially after the fact, is quite different. And rarely do people have all the facts. Having said that. This conviction seems like a rat hole. Do we hold parents of a serial killer accountable? Clearly a lot of them had bad parents, most serial killers seem to come from bad households. How serial rapist? How about any 13 year old who says something stupid then jumps in a car and kills someone?
Teens are not known for their well thought out behavior.
Re your 13 year old analogy - if the kid too young to drive were to say something stupid (violent?) and you as the parent hears it, and then you give him the keys to the car? Isn't that pretty close to what happened to this mother who knew her kid had issues, but had no problem with him having access to a weapon?
No to the instances you posit where it's a question of responsibility for the spouse. Whereas responsibility for a child has always been part of being a parent.
How so? The kid was charged as an adult. So that means that the kid is responsible for his actions, not his parents. Otherwise, one conviction or another should be overturned.
I completely disagree and frankly you’re the one who sounds like a radical. It’s insanity to me that her actions and negligence DIRECTLY contributed to the deaths of innocent people and yet people think it’s an overreach. A 15 YEAR OLD DOESN’T NEED A HANDGUN — MOST KIDS WHO ARE 15 can’t drive a car, can’t drink, can’t smoke but you want to give them a weapon whose SOLE purpose is destruction in one form or another
Perhaps you can make that argument — that’s a different debate all together. I would argue her actions go way beyond just negligence as she gave a 15 year old with blatant mental issues a gun. What did she think was going to happen??? Negligence would be if you left your gun out and your kid took it.
But you are making your judgements based on hindsight. Do you think this mother would have participated in getting a gun for her son if she had any idea that he was going to do anything remotely like what he did?
You must not have kids, or esp. teenagers. Teens as a group have always had "mental issues", and the modern social world has certainly made that worse.
In hindsight, of course the parents made terrible decisions. But most parents don't see reality when it comes to their own offspring. They are hopeful, and they overlook most bad behavior because most kids behave badly until they grow up and learn to act differently.
Put yourself in her shoes for a moment. You don't want to think your kid is all that screwed up. You get called to the school to discuss a troubling drawing that your son drew. Sure, it is troubling. But teens do stupid and troubling things all of the time. You don't have a lot of money. You don't have any expertise in mental illness. And the school officials sitting in front of you are not expelling him, so clearly they think that he is Ok to remain in the school in his current state. And if the school official with their PhD or MS degree and years of experience think the teen is Ok to remain at school, why would you think differently?
I dunno, for one, if my kid has been exhibiting some disturbing behavior over the past few years involving claims of "demonic possession" in the home and other bizarre things, I probably wouldn't have bought him a gun for Christmas. That's just me. But beyond that -whatever "good things you want to believe about your kid" and "inexperience with mental health disorders", if I'm called into a school meeting because my kid is doodling about mass murders and literally writing "help me" all over it, I might put two and two together about that gun gift I got him and might have, I dunno, checked for the whereabouts of that gun? Even if I left him in school outside of the request of the school? I might have asked to look in his bag for it, or barring that, gone straight home to verify "his gun" was in the unlocked location I put it in? Sorry - it's 100% the actions of the Crumbley's on the day of that led to this, even if they were 100% negligent and stupid leading up to it, if they had just checked for the fucking gun when they were called into that meeting involving a very obvious depiction of "son + gun" they wouldn't be facing these charges.
"But most parents don't see reality when it comes to their own offspring. They are hopeful, and they overlook most bad behavior..."
This in a nutshell. This perfectly describes my sister and her attitude toward her now 21-year old son that has recently caused some issues in our extended family. She knows he's a fuck-up, but she still always defends him when he fucks up again.
It even goes beyond that. The primary reason that Jennifer Crumbley was convicted was her actions (or lack of, really) on the day of the murders: the Crumbleys were called to the school because their son was "doodling" depictions of basically a school shooting riddled with "help me" and other "red flag" messaging. The parents, knowing their kid had access to a gun, displayed an array of negligent behaviors: they didn't take their son home (as was recommended), and whatever the lame excuse her defense proffered that they thought he was "safer" at school, OK, they *still* didn't offer to check his bag, and following that, they didn't go straight home and look for that gun to make sure it was in the "secure" (ha) location. They did none of that. They gaslit the school officials about their son's "well being" and then went back to doing whatever the hell it was they did during the day without even thinking "Hey - troubled son doodling about guns and mass shooting at school maybe we should make sure THE GUN WE GAVE HIM is at home, eh?"
Even if they blew past every red flag that "normal" parents should have had about not purchasing him the gun in the first place and leaving it around for him to access any time without supervision - *if* on the day they were given every opportunity to circumvent this tragedy by if they had taken him home as advised, searched the bag at the school or home after, or verified the gun was at the home, Jennifer Crumbley would not be facing prison time today.
And for all that, I still think the school bears some responsibility for not insisting on that bag search or a qualified mental health pick up - if the parents refused, they should have called authorities given the evidence they had at that time to deal with it.
Maybe there is something special about this case that makes the parents more culpable. Is it because it was a school shooting? What about absent or inattentive parents whose minor children are involved in carjacking, armed robberies, etc.? Are we going to track down all of those parents and hold them responsible for their horrible parenting?
I think the prosecution and the ruling set a terrible precedent, which of course if uniformly enforced, would lead to cries of racial discrimination. It is obvious which demographic groups are committing most urban violent crimes.
Yes probably (the higher profile school shooting than "regular" gun crime), but I really think it was because there was such a direct causal line between parental neglect and inaction on the day of the shooting following what should have been a pretty clear red alert warning about the potential for the shooting. The Crumbleys were presented with a situation where their son was doodling some disturbing images that happened to involve the very recent purchase of the gun they gifted him with and yet completely failed to investigate the gun's whereabouts immediately, let alone in addressing the fact of their son's emotional well-being and his potential threat to the safety of the school given the depictions he made of enacting violence with that gun. The mom literally wink-winked at her son about "don't get caught" *after* the meeting, as if it was just some funny prank that he happened to doodle an explicit act of a mass shooting riddled with "help me" all over it, versus he got caught playing Candy Crush during class.
I don't think the Crumbley's would have been prosecuted like this if they had just done the minimal of searching for that gun immediately upon leaving the school meeting (even if they left him there) and found the gun was missing from the home and then immediately alerted the school and authorities. Or at the least not criminally prosecuted.
I think the precedent will be over the degree in which it is demonstrated that the parent/guardian in charge of the gun had some level of pre-knowledge about whether their child and the gun posed a serious risk and did nothing to remove access to that gun or intervene with the child/notify authorities if they had possession of it. The Michigan laws as they stand wouldn't have been able to prosecute the Crumbleys for simply purchasing a gun that they allowed their son to use (as they did), the prosecution was about how they failed to intervene when they were given a clear warning sign that Ethan was intending to use that gun for bad purposes (as well as the few years of evidence that they also were aware their son was experiencing some pretty profound emotional disturbances that should have informed their response on that day of the shooting to intervene rather than dismiss, the Crumbleys in this case did have that knowledge of their son's history of emotional disturbances that the school did not - and they also failed to disclose that to the school at the time of this meeting).
I think this precedent will be narrow enough to funnel out other cases where the purchase and possession of the gun was otherwise legal, and that the parents weren't reasonably informed enough of their child's malignant intentions to have rationally acted in response to. Consider it the difference between parents who know their child has been consuming alcohol they purchased in the home and allowed their minor child to imbibe, and yet gives them the keys to the family car that was later involved in a DWI accident, versus parents who have allowed their kids to use the family car and the kid goes outside of the home to consume alcohol outside of parental supervision and consent and gets into the same accident. I think we would agree the parents in the first example have legal liability versus the parents in the second example. In both cases, the parents allowed the kid to use the car, but only in one case did the parents have knowledge that the kid was not legally sober to use the car, let alone facilitated their usage. I dunno best example I could come up with off the top of my head : /
Seems like it was a gift on behalf of both parents, and she did take him to practice shooting with it, so she definitely wasn't not a part of it, and it was she who texted her son after the first school contact about his mass murder "doodles" to "wink wink don't get caught k".
No, but the foreperson of the jury stated she was the last adult to have custody of the gun, therefore, securing the gun was her responsibility. The prosecution did not provide evidence of how the gun came to be in ECs possession- as such, the jury could reasonably infer JC did not secure the gun.
Morality and legality aren't the same. Our legal system allows for a lot of moral misbehavior because punishing it would lead to much worse outcomes. In a free society, the legal system is limited on purpose for this very reason. Your reasoning begins with obviously wrong moral conduct, and then someone will eventually use it for something less obvious, and eventually you end up in Iran, which literally has morality police.
The question is whether he actions were reasonably likely to result in the outcome. I think that’s a clear NO. She clearly had poor representation. If she had been wealthy there is NFW she’s found guilty. This is plain and simple an injustice.
How far do we pull out? If guns had never been invented this wouldn’t have happened. Should we go after gun makers now for gun deaths? That’s obviously laughable.
The person responsible for these deaths is the person who pulled the trigger.
There are instances of exactly these sorts of “laughable” lawsuits against gun manufacturers for mass shootings. I googled to check it out. I agree with you that this is utterly ridiculous and an abuse of the judicial system. The only person responsible for the shooting is the gunman. No one else.
This is the same empty argument as the "nobody needs an assault weapon" used by gun control advocates. Who are you to determine who needs what? And more to the point, in a free country, people are free to have an abundance of things that may be dangerous that they don't need.
CNA: I agree completely. Reading through all these posts, most are saying, “Yes but…look over here (at gangs, at school culpability, at Presidential immunity (!!!), at woke attitudes…at ANYTHING but the actual facts of what the parents DID (not what they failed to do, that was later). They gave a 15 year-old who they knew to be disturbed a gun!
Here’s a suggestion: have every PTA meeting in the country set up a blown-up photo of Mrs Crumbley being led away in shackles. Say if you like that you disagree with the verdict, but as Joe Nocera said, it sure will get their attention. Look, this is just like the recent plagiarism controversy: just don’t do it. Don’t buy 15 year olds guns; don’t leave your own guns lying around - lock them up and keep the keys where the kids can’t find them. This is not THAT hard.
Agreed. Granted an application of law such as this opens up a huge can of worms. At the same time there must be at least a minor amount of responsibility exercised by the parent. If the kid obtained a gun in a way the parents didn't know about it that might be a different story.
I got my first when I was eight. A shotgun. By the time I was this kids age I had several including a 22 target pistol. I agree that these parents are miserable excuses for parents. But there is n9 general rule here.
Many of us are trained to firearms at a young age by responsible parents and are none the worse for it.
It would be more fruitful to try to understand how we are creating psychic wrecks of children. The kids are obviously not alright.
We all hope there is something we can do to decrease school shootings. And there are certainly some, like reduce the amount of semi-automatic guns available. But, projecting these tragic events onto parents is indeed a slippery slope and can not be "guaranteed" to reduce these events as the author suggests. A resourceful 15 year old can always find a way to get guns in a country with as many as ours. Being a bad mother/father is not associated with children killing others on purpose. And comparing parents who leave a gun available for young children to discover and accidentally use to hurt themselves or others is a very different class of gun injury than a mentally ill teenager taking a gun and purposefully shooting his classmates. Holding parents responsible for leaving a gun available for young children is indeed negligence given how much publicity and methods of keeping that gun safe from their hands that are available. Understanding your teenager is going to kill is completely different and frankly impossible since most, even mentally ill ones, don't. And using an example of a 21 year old killer is not useful.
most impactful way to reduce school shootings, have armed resource officers and willing teachers, carry guns.
Take down "Gun Free Zone" signs, and post, this is a "Protected / Gun Zone" -- If you carry or attempt to use a firearm on these premises, you will be shot. (something like this).
94% of all mass shootings occur in Gun Free Zones....
If a child is below the age of being legally able to own a gun themselves, then the parents need to take responsibility for when and where the child has access to that gun. If the parent takes them to a shooting range or hunting, great, but then the parent should take the gun once they get home and lock it in a gun safe.
You make a very interesting point about several things - particularly about hindsight bias and the principal being potentially liable. Why didn't he say this child simply cannot stay in school and release him for the day? Was he not permitted to do this without the parent coming to get him? Where i think we may be seeing this differently is that i thought the entire concept of negligence often relies upon inaction (failure to feed your child too many times and you can be charged with criminal negligence). Do you feel this would be a more appropriate avenue than involuntary manslaughter for cases like this?
The principal cannot just kick the kid out for a day w/o notifying parents. I think that he could isolate the kid in a room watched by staff and tell parents the kid stays there until he is picked up.
what about notifying the parents and then sending the kid home if they refuse to come and get their child? do they still have to hang onto the child til the end of the school day? im thinking of a scenario in which a child is suspended, and the parents refuse to retrieve him - what is a school to do at that point?
appreciate that information. i don't work in a school and my children are all too young for me to have knowledge of how public schools work with these things these days. back in the early aughts when i was in high school, it was a whole different landscape it seems.
all the levers of authority have been removed from the teachers and principals etc. They operate in fear for their jobs/or civil suit, due to all the restrictions placed on them re punishment or the like, of todays children. we are too soft and it is showing. Bring back the paddle and ruler...
Exactly. The author comes off as a fanatic and in my comments I ask if the parents of ANY child felon/criminal should be convicted and imprisoned for raising a monster. I mena, of your 14 year old carjacks and murders an Uber driver, shouldn't you be held liable for "gross negligence" in parenting as well?
Gee, maybe. Many kids who commit crimes are the product of irresponsible parents, such as those who produce children but have no intention of being around to raise them.
If this same child was drawing pictures of slashing the neck of an Uber driver, and documented as mentally unwell, and the parents then bought him a switchblade and called him an uber - then perhaps they should.
Inaction by an individual is already punished where there is a duty expected from that individual. For example, if you go to your doctor and complain of increasing chest pain after minimal exertion, and the doctor does nothing. Two days later you have a massive heart attack. The doctor doesn't get away scot-free: he is professionally liable, and also under civil law for the tort. So I guess the question we must ask ourselves is whether parents have a duty of care towards their children?—and we already believe that they do. But there are limits to the vicarious liability engendered here, and traditionally parents are held responsible for crimes committed by their children when they are minors. Once a child has reached the age of criminal responsibility, he is liable to be punished under criminal law, not the parents, though they may be liable to civil action. Perhaps the issue here is that America is rather unusual in this respect—28 states have no minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is why you often see children being "tried as an adult" when there is public or media demand. See the map of international standards on this Wikipedia page:
Not the same thing. Medical doctors are professionals with licensed expertise in diagnosing heart attacks. Parents have no expertise, nor does anyone else, in accurately predicting whether a child will kill. This is hind sight bias at its worse.
There is literally no way that a parent or anyone else can predict a child killer. It is a rare occurrence that is random and diagnosed post event. Just like there is no way anyone can predict an adult killer. The real issue is how little help we can give mentally ill people. Drugs can help, but have serious side effects. There is some evidence that electroshock therapy can help in a small percentage of cases, but again with significant side effects.
I agree, however, the P argued based on the facts here one could. She relied on the drawings that specifically cried for “help”, combined with dad buying a 15 year old the gun and leaving it unprotected. I believe there was mental health issues too, which may have resulted in the parents being held to a higher standard.
OTOH, if it was so fcuking foreseeable, why’d nobody search his backpack or wherever the kid hid the gun.
I think it’s obvious the lady had atrocious representation. The first argument is if the kid is so mentally ill, how is it reasonable to determine what he might do?! That’s why there may have been a higher need of care taken by the parents to lockup and hide the gun.
Agreed, 99.9% of mentally ill children don't kill thereby making it unpredictable. If licensed professional therapist and MDs don't have any ability to predict, then how can we expect parents too?
A parent can take a gun from an underage child and lock it in a gun safe when they're not present to supervise the child's gun usage. It would be one thing if the kid stole a kitchen knife or even broke into a safe and stole the gun but the parents GAVE the gun to the kid and did a terrible job of supervising when and where the kid had access to that gun.
Really? No way? the kid drew a gun and a bleeding body THAT DAY. His mother knew this. She knew of his problems. Got him a gun. Idk about the future legal ramifications but this woman and the boy's father are clearly liable for the kid's shootings, IMHO. and btw, I am pro-2A.
If so, isn’t the school also responsible for not adequately checking his bags or wherever he hid the gun? Also, I don’t think it was reasonably foreseeable. There are thousands of kids who have mental issues with guns in their house and they don’t shoot other classmates.
I had thought about this. Teachers and Medical Professionals . etc are legally mandated mandatory reporters of child abuse. The difference there is it is focusing on professionals in an occupational field. The liability also isn’t criminal. You could permanently be barred from the occupation though.
She acted like she bought him a BB gun. Not responsible for securing it, not sure where it was.
Not sure she can take off work even though he’s suicidal.
Is this really the way a responsible parent acts? Of course the dad is equally culpable. They had no business buying their teenager a pistol. These types give gun owners a bad name.
Which Michigan now specifically has in statute. But, to address your point, a mother could be charged with manslaughter if she left a car running, and her minor child shifted it into drive and killed somebody. That’s not in a statute, but it is criminally negligent, not a civil liability. I don’t see the difference.
Obviously, the judge allowed it in this case, but it will be appealed, I’m sure.
Right -- the jury's rationale in putting Derek Chauvin away was that he didn't do enough to save Floyd's life. As if there was anything he could have done. Wrong on so many levels.
The problem is school shootings, David. School shootings by teenage kids, at the very same age most Americans would say should not have the right to change their gender - why? Because they are too young. If they're too young to have that responsibility, nor to drink, or barely drive, or to vote, or live alone - then how the hell can their parents entrust them with a weapon? And an unsecured one at that? A parent has to take care of her or his kid. End of story. That means making sure that the kid doesn't go out and kill someone. As in DON'T GIVE YOUR CHILD A GUN!!
Valid points but not feeding your kids is a crime and it’s an inaction, not an action. Her behavior that day was criminally negligent. The dad as well. That’s not a gift you leave poorly hidden, it’s one that should come with training and lectures on responsibility (or not come at all if your son isn’t ready).
There’s nothing in this piece that makes the writer sound Iike a “radical who objects to the existence of firearms.” All he’s saying is that applying a degree of criminal liability to parents who are neglectful and don’t take precautions to control their kid’s access to lethal weaponry. (Let alone BUYING IT for them.) Period. Actually, the radical idea is that culpability doesn’t exist outside of the very narrowest of definitions even as it pertains to providing minors with weapons. And frankly, if these kinds of case persist and win, it’s because culpability exists right alongside your 2nd amendment. Sorry.
Are you from a family that hunts or engages in competition shooting? You can hunt before the age of 18 in Washington State with a firearm. I have know someone that has purchased a shotgun for their son so he could go duck hunting with him. Its not this sinister action that you are imagining. If the parent is guilty if something it would be improper storage of a firearm. Which is an act vs. jailing her for something someone else did. This person keeps their guns locked in a safe.
I see a lot of people who have no relationship with firearms getting very spun up because they don’t understand a culture they are not apart of.
Right, but after you're done hunting or shooting at a range with your kid, you should take the gun from the kid and put it in a gun safe or otherwise secure it in some way.
Will we be convicting the families of gang members for their inaction in the face of habitual violent behavior? I think that "equal application of the law" just took another giant step backward.
The author is really naive to think that passing a federal law to hold parents responsible for their kids violent action is in anyway a good solution, particularly the way the state, the schools and medical profession now cut parents out of so many decisions about their child.
There may be cases where the parents should be held accountable for a minor gangbanger but the comparison to this case only works under limited cases. In this case the mother and father had clear signs that their child was exhibiting troubled behavior. They provided easy access to a firearm (a handgun none the less) and they did not intervene when the school pointed out troubling behavior.
If a 15 gangbanger is encouraged into the gang life by his/her parents and the parents supply him with a firearm I would say yes charge them with involuntary manslaughter if the 15 year old shoots up a house party and kills someone.
I don't think the writer of this article showed any sign of focusing on the race, color, creed or gender. Living nearby where this happened, I can tell you neither did the prosecutor.
I'm not referring to what the writer said about this case in the article. But based on the writer's clear biases, it's safe to say that he would not want the approach of this prosecutor applied broadly to parents who know their children are a danger to others but do nothing.
A couple people have commented that under this kind of law parents of violent gang members should also be sent to prison. But we know that will never happen. If you're white and in a school shooting situation you'll be charged. But if you are black or Latino and your child is a gang member there's no way any DA or prosecutor would bring charges. They're victims too remember.
Once again I would say it depends on senario. A parent who is a gang member and encourages his children to join the gang and supplies them with easy access to weapons should be prosecuted like this. A parent who despite the best efforts has there kid join a gang or engage in criminal activity, no that parent should not be prosecuted in this manner.
What if the parents know they are part of a violent gang, have commited previous crimes and are still at large. If parents don't call the police about their child who is a danger to others, then they should be charged, according to the author.
I'm saying this is the same. They bought something foolishly, not illegally, and they're being punished worse than those that buy gun illegally for gang members.
Good point. To me this story the article described is an abdication of parental responsibility - the parents actively gave their visibly distressed child access to a weapon, and one they actually gave them. In the example of a mother of a 15 year old kid in a gang and she knows he’s got a .38 but has lost control of him and he’s hardly home - she isn’t involved as the parents here were. They actually gave their kid the means to commit his crime.
Is that written in the law? That this theory of culpability includes only giving the minor a gun? Sounds like the manslaughter theory is completely made up and now, various commentators think it should be made up only to include guns.
It's an interesting argument—one that those who insist on the paramount importance of parental rights should grapple with. (Including me!)
But, alternatively, I'm curious how Mr. Nocera feels about states with transgender affirmation laws that essentially nullify parental rights if a minor child insists on a gender transition without their parents' consent.
How does this work? Parents are liable for their children shooting others, but cannot prevent their child from undergoing irreversible and damaging surgery? How does the latter square with parental rights?
I think this likely should apply to trans cases. Why? if the trans person wants to maintain the secondary sexual characteristic associated with their “new” gender they must continually take huge doses of hormones. And yes these hormones must be prescribed on an ongoing basis by a medical doctor.
Lo & behold side effects including anger & violent action are very well documented and clearly displayed & highlighted on common web sites such as drugs.com. The first big clear warning of a side effect of testosterone is that it causes aggression.
I think of the “she-to-he” trans teen in West Virginia that went in and shot up all the school kids. No doubt those murders were at least partially testosterone driven.
And as to female hormones that the “he-to-she” trans must take, I can personally vouch that even low dose prescription estrogen birth control pills can make you nuts. Much higher doses are required to lose body hair, change voices etc
So yes if I had a child or any family member shot by a trans, I would demand the doctor and medical facility be held liable for the aggressive murdering actions of their patients. These side affects are well know and should be anticipated. And there has been more than one case.
However, as to parental responsibility I know how difficult it is to get any support to intervene with a person entering psychosis. In Washington State where mental health care has been inexcusably, repeatedly ignored by our governor Inslee of 12 years, it can take weeks to get someone to come out and even do “an assessment” despite daily desparate calls. And calls to local police (if they haven’t been defunded) yield concern and knowledge , but often their hands are tied because of the high bar for involuntary commitment in this state
I’ve read accounts of many parents begging for help because they know their kids are unstable and pose a threat. Also a hallmark of untreated schizophrenia is that the mentally ill person thinks they are fine. This case is particularly sad because the young man was self aware and was apparently begging for help to deal with his uncontrolled violent thoughts and no one responded. His punishment of life in prison seems overly brutal.
I agree dealing with a teen is very difficult these years. Laws in this state prevent parents from getting their kids medical records and on the terms say so parents are precluded from sitting in when the doctor is talking to the minor child. And at least in this state (a democratic progressive he’ll hole), public school staff routinely go a long way to hide teen behavior and choices from parents. So a parent might truly not know.
"I think of the “she-to-he” trans teen in West Virginia that went in and shot up all the school kids. No doubt those murders were at least partially testosterone driven."
Leslie, if you have a link on this event, please post. I couldn't find it. Thanks.
I looked up shootings -yes I was thinking of the Nashville Covenant School shooting. Sorry for my poor recollection of events.
The onset of organic teen mental illness and violent psychosis can be sudden and hard to predict. But drug induced outbreaks (hormones, strong legal pot, fentanyl or whatever) are increasingly commonplace and sadly, they should be anticipated.
Terribly violent video games & various media where shooting is presented as a normal justifable response to any irritating situation contribute to the mix as do the video games and movie that falsely depict girls and women as having warrior prowess equal to men.
Off on a tangent, but the ludicrous 1st place wins of xy trans athletes achieved when competing against xx female athletes falls into this category. I am appalled by the narcissitic delusional attitude of these athletes when they stand on the top box and accept the 1st place awards as a legitimately earned victory. Yet worse are the sport sponsors who stand by and pretend that these hormone and surgically altered athletes are equivalent to their xx female counterparts. The possible reasons? Sports authorities: a) are equally delusional; or b) are capable of the same impressive pretense described in the fable "The Emperor's New Clothes", or c) in wanting to retain their livelihood or avoid the devastating rebuke of today's cancel culture, they've resigned themselves to supporting this falsehood in the same manner as citizens did after behavioral rehab (torture) suffered during Mao's & Lenin's violent cultural revolutions. You pick.
Why not prosecute the school employee that found the drawing and didn't search the backpack or remove the kid? This is horrible precedent as parents cannot control or know all kids action. Some kids are sociopathic and others same parents are well adjusted. This is a wicked and unjust. If there was a law about firearm storage or something the parent violated then a charge for that sure. But this act by a jury is hateful, vindictive and unfair. Any parent on the jury could be next. What about the unlocked beer in the fridge. Your kid drives drunk are you in jail for manslaughter??
Why didn’t the school officials urge the parents to do an emergency involuntary psych hold which is standard procedure for a serious suicide threat? The school may also have the power to initiate the hold due to a suicide threat.
Searching the backpack should have also been a priority in the case of a perceived suicide threat. If a student can legally deny a backpack search under these circumstances, the law needs to be changed.
No no no no….I called officials twice when my adult kid has made suicide threats. Cops went to his apartment and said, nope he’s fine. It takes a lot more to involuntarily commit a person. I say this with complete exasperation.
With school officials backing up a parent's demand, there may be a better out come with a minor and the ability to 5150. At the very least, it should have been recognized that this child's struggles could not be resolved by a day at home and a 5150 should have been requested. The denial of a 5150 would have made this trial a mockery.
With heavy heart, I agree that your experience with an adult child is the norm in far too many case in the US. Why a parent who hears the threat is not considered an authority and a knowledgable resource about their child's health is ridiculous. The delays and denials in providing intervention have very heart wrenching results.
Wishing you and your son all the strength and courage to find the help needed to live a good life.
When my father-in-law's new wife went off the deep end, we discovered that it is very, very difficult to get an involuntary commitment. Even if 99% of the people who interact with the crazy person can easily see that they are crazy, unless they are *proven* to be a threat to themselves or others, they can't be committed involuntarily.
This is why mentally ill people end up in prison instead of in a mental hospital. By the time it could be *proven* they're a threat, they have already committed a violent crime.
We literally are watching him "circle the drain." You just have to sit idly by while they sink further into madness. It's unbelievable. There needs to be reforms.
IME those mental health holds fail unless the person has blue chip insurance. Or the person can just say, "Nope, I was just kidding and I feel fine." Not to say the school/parents shouldn't have tried. I'll bet they wish now that they had called But I also understand why people feel like there's no point based on prior experience.
Ethically and legally, the school has a huge obligation when a student threatens self harm or harm to others. The school's administration has a great deal of knowledge but not in mental health, they should have called in the "experts" to make and assume the responsibility for deciding the next step.
In school situations where the person is a minor, there is less autonomy in deciding treatment. Unfairly, there is often more weight given to a school staff than a parent and a parent agreeing with the school administration is even more powerful. If the police were called, would that have increased the probability of the backpack being searched and the gun removed?
People witnessing a cardiac arrest will often start CPR even though studies indicate that it only increases the survival rate by 10% . The odds are stacked against them and yet people will do chest compressions in a hope to save a person. Why not make the 911 call for a mental health crisis even if the odds for a successful intervention are stacked against the caller?!
WTF!? Seriously!? Is personal responsibility completely out the window? Are you ready to throw the half parents of Chicagos southside into prison for the acts thier children did as gang members? This person has obviously never raised a child through adulthood. I don’t care how good a parent you think you are, when puberty starts to kick in around age 11-12, you loose them. This article is not based in parental reality, it’s based in parental utopia.
Do you have any idea how many 15 year olds come from broken families that have guns and do not kill anyone? The intention to kill lies with the person who uses the gun. So you're saying lock up all the parents of gang bangers. What about baseball bats? Should we arrest the parent that gave their kid a baseball bat that the kid used to bash someone's head in? You can teach your child to be responsible, that doesn't mean they will be. We need to stop coddling children and let them know at a very young age, decisions have consequences. 2+2 doesn't equal 5; if the other team plays better, you loose; let kids play on the play ground and get hurt; let kids get into fights when they are young so they learn how to better communicate. Parents should be punished for breaking the law, not for being bad parents.
Parents of gang bangers yes - if they give guns to their kids. A baseball bat, Matthew, is to play baseball with. The fact that it can be used to kill someone is secondary to it's primary use - to hit a ball. Then again, if there's an argument and the parent gives a baseball bat to his angry kid to hit another kid and kills him - he should be held criminally responsible. What the hell is it with guns anyway? Most people on this thread think it's just fine to give a fifteen year old, a disturbed one at that, a weapon expressly designed to kill someone - but the kid has yet to drive a car because he's too young, can't drink because he's not 21, can't vote since he's not eighteen. And parents are fine with that. But having a gun? Why not?
Why is the parent of a gang banger only liable if they bought the gun? If they *knew* the child was in possession of a gun and didn't take it away or call the police, why shouldn't they be equally liable?
sorry we will have to disagree. I don't own a gun, but have no problem with those that do. This is about personal responsibility and consequences for actions. Children are taught at an early age there are no consequences for their actions and everything they do is good. Kids have had guns and other forms of weapons (clubs or bats) since the dawn of time. The weapon is not the problem. Poor choices are the problem. A kid that wants to kill will use a bat if they can't get a gun. Perfect parents can still end up with killers as children; and dysfunctional drug attic parents can turn out a child who turns out to be a model citizen.
Yes, we will have to disagree. A gun has only one purpose. And if a parent gives a tool like that to a young person who does not have the maturity to even get behind the wheel of a car - then that parent is responsible. The weapon is indeed the problem. Would you feel comfortable knowing a 14 yr old kid visiting your house to see your son was packing? Would you trust him? Would you even let him in? Come on.
Actually Yes, I do trust them. Although I do not own a gun, my sons and many of their friends do. I know many people, young and old, who carry.... which brings us back to personal responsibility, which I think you are calling maturity. There are adults I don't want to see behind the wheel of a car, let alone own carry a gun or baseball bat. Age is not a magical number that makes someone responsible or mature. A weapon is an inanimate object with no will of its own. Whether a person is 10 or 40, a gun can do no harm. A gun can actually do good in the hands of a responsible person regardless of age. But an irresponsible person, filled with hate and malice, can choose to do harm.... when I was very young, a kid I knew used the hunting knife he got for Christmas to kill his girlfriend. This messed up kid then asked his father if he could borrow the chain saw. He used that chain saw to dismember the body. The parents bought the kid the knife and then gave him the chainsaw.... We need to stop blaming inanimate objects for human actions. I am old. I know kids that came from terrible homes that are extraordinary people, and kids that had all the privilege in the world who are despicable humans . I do not feel safe around despicable humans no matter what they have in their hand. Much appreciate your push back. It has provided some good perspective.
This is a tough subject, and to me it's far from cut and dry, but I agree with the outcome in this one particular case. The actions of the mother were egregious. My firearms are never unsecured, and I'd never allow one to leave my home without both my consent and full knowledge of what it was to be used for. That's just good sense, which was absent here. Being responsible with firearms starts with being responsible.
I agree. I don't think every schooI shooting should have the parents charged, but this was egregious. I do think we need to charge the smaller crimes around these events until people realize that they do need to pay attention to why they are being asked to help that friend.
By never unsecured I assume they are locked in a safe and useless in an emergency. I also assume you don't have kids because if you did you'd know how utterly sneaky they are. Cigarette's, liquor, guns, and the occasional taking of the car keys to joy ride at night with your friends all occured without parental knowledge.
A dear friend has a son who was given drugs by a mom across the street. He became a delivery boy taking everything from honey oil and cocaine to fentanyl to the homes of the SF Bay Area rich.
He put her in a headlock when she tried to stop him stealing her car. He broke windows to get in when she locked him out.
I was involved in that boy's life. He'd been a good kid. I knew he needed a man in his lif. But, I told her he needed something, and she barred me from his life, saying, "NOT MY CHILD!"
We never restricted the kids from candies. There are cookie jars, chocolate jars and carbonated drinks as well as beer and spirits easily available. We don't have overindulgence with our kids or grandkids. We did have one addiction problem with one of our girls but in time she figured out how to solve that as I did. If you make a thing taboo some people will be drawn to that thing.
Personal responsibility can be taught. If you slip up at least the foundation is there.
With regards to firearms they should be out of reach from the younger children but accessible to the older kids in case of emergency. If the parent(s) have taken the time to train the children and the children are aware of the lethality of the tool that is sufficient. Do you lock away your food preparation tools? A firearm is no different. Well unless we're discussing carving a roast.
I don’t have a fire arm, but everyone I know who does views that right as an obligation and a responsibility to take care to secure the fire arm at all time, along with many other important safety protocols. So it then seems to me that if a parent failed in such obligations and responsibilities, that they should be held accountable in some manner.
Parents are responsible for their children’s torts. But if you charge the kid as an adult that assumes he’s responsible for himself. I don’t think you can have it both ways
What I thought, too, Unwoke. He's either an adult or a child, and since they charged him as an adult, the prosecutor's "novel legal theory" goes out the window. I hope this is reversed on appeal.
No lawyer would take a tort case against her. She's "bomb and bulletproof" because she has little money.
I totally agree with you though. If the kid is charged as an adult, she's clear. He made the decisions.
I think a decent lawyer could get both convictions overturned. The kid because he couldn't possibly be an adult if his mother's responsible. And her because she can't be responsible if he's an adult.
“I thought at the time that if prosecutors tried them criminally, these horrible accidents surely would decline. I still believe that“
Really Joe? And where do we draw the line? Should we incarcerate all the single moms procreating gang bangers in South Chicago? Why don't we first punish DAs that let repeat CONVICTED felons loose on the public again and again, until they finally murder someone?
You can believe whatever you want but in the case of Ms. Crumbly, what would her taking her son out of school for a day accomplished? Would the state have institutionalized him? Before answering that, tell me why they haven’t institutionalized the scores of deranged homeless wandering around New York streets and subways, pushing old ladies in front of trains?
Maybe Mrs. Crumbly was a bad parent. But when we start locking people up for the actions of others it’s only a matter of time before some agenda driven prosecutor uses the same ruse to go go after his “enemies” Especially if one of them is leading a senile sock puppet in presidential polls.
And. “If other prosecutors pick up on the Crumbley case and begin charging parents of school shooters with involuntary manslaughter, I guarantee you these shootings will decline.”
This idea is like believing that if murder is prosecuted it will decline. There's some effect, but the murder rate by people working as prison guards is roughly the same as the murder rate of the general population. And if anyone should know, it's them.
Prosecutions based on "novel legal theory" are a road to hell. This is a despicable piece of journalism based on raw emotion. The entire judicial system, particularly the criminal side, is based on juries NOT being enflamed by emotions. With good reason. Strikingly the author, more accurately the ranter, hits where the blame lies, the legislature. But gives it a free a pass. Typical. And the decimation of Crimo is nuts - the "child" was 21 and had owned the gun 7 years prior to the shooting. But if you are going to blame others for the egregious acts of individuals, put your money where your mouth is and call for the release of the Nashville shooter's manifesto so we can see what role trans played in the death of 5 elementary students, teachers and staff. Or the most recent one.
oof, I think we need to take a giant step back on this one. Sounds like these parents did not do much if anything to stop their son from his downward spiral, but they were his actions. I could get behind the dad's charge, since he bought his son a firearm, but I feel like I need more of the story. But, I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Are you going to charge the single ethnic-minority mother for negligent homicide or accessory when her son does the same thing? Are you going to charge the parents of a gender-confused child when they shoot their schoolmates because they've been bullied?
Possibly criminalizing negligence in securing firearms could be a good thing, but I think I still need to be convinced of this. Parents also run over their toddlers backing out of the driveway; are you going to charge them with negligent homicide because they didn't look in their rearview mirror? What about parents that DO lock up their firearms, but their teenage kid finds the keys? Are you going to tell them that it's their fault still?
Something about this article does not sit right with me. Maybe it's the extrapolation from this school shooting to all school shootings to all gun deaths. I'm just not convinced this is going to stop school shootings. If the kid hates their parents enough, it might be more incentive. ("I'll go do this thing and then the world will see how terrible you are as a parent and then you'll be sorry!")
Exactly right. When the DA called her approach a "novel legal theory" I thought, that's not good. If the/a law gets written in such a manner that this type of prosecution is legitimate/codified then it would be more acceptable to me,,,at least from the standpoint of allowing me to voice my approval or disapproval via the ballot box. But having a DA expand the definition of a law this much is bad precedent.
Yeah, I read the other article the FP linked to, and it was a lot more reasonable to me. It also points out details in this narrative that make it more complicated (of course). This just really doesn't feel like blind justice, it feels like avenging or something.
Just to play devils advocate, if you’re saying you can see why it’s reasonable to charge a parent with a crime their child committed (aka the dad for providing the gun), then what does being an ethnic minority parent or parent of a gender confused child have to do with it? The answer would be, if it’s good enough to charge this guy, then it’s good enough to charge ethnic minority mom or parent of bullied gender dysphoric kid. Right?
No they're good questions. My argument is a little slippery-slopey, I'll admit that, too. I'll connect my thoughts a bit more below:
- Maybe someone could say that this mom has too many kids and/or not enough time to dedicate to raising a difficult child, so she should have given them up before they became so isolated. Or maybe she had a boyfriend that abused her child and she knew about it but didn't remove him from the situation and the kid went on a rampage. This second example is not a good parenting decision, but the hypothetical shooting is still the kid's actions. Maybe the family is Muslim and the child is influenced by extremism online. The parent encourages it, though, because they mistakenly think the child is just getting more involved in their faith. (You could use another religion, this is just a minority religion in America.)
- Let's say the gender-confused child's parents did not encourage a medical transition, or if you're in another area of the country, maybe they strongly encouraged it. The parents' bad decision to encourage/not encourage their child's transition could have exacerbated their mental illness and been the catalyst for the child to turn violent.
- Also, I'm not convinced that the dad should be prosecuted. After learning a bit more, it sounds like they all went shooting together as a family from time to time. This story does not seem as clean as it did at first
These are extreme examples, but I think it's scary that future DAs can look at this case and say "precedent - 'bad' parenting can be prosecuted for their child's crimes". Thanks for your comment!
Really good points. If you want to watch great analysis of the trial, you can watch Lawyer You Know. He has created a great forum for people to share their views.
The author's argument is: are they guilty of violating a law? No, but we should prosecute them anyway because "it's the right thing to do". This is the logic of the KKK and every other lawless mob through history. It's evil.
It basically opens the door to much more lawyering, lawsuits and other prosecutions that we don't need. How about we focus on the actual crimes being committed today and prosecute those actions?
I’m shocked by this article in the FP. Convicting someone of manslaughter who did not even kill anyone - holding someone accountable for a crime they didn’t commit - is an extremely dangerous path to go down. ‘It will help prevent other school shootings’ is not reason enough to justify such a breach of freedom and fairness. (And besides that, it’s also just your guess!). Bad move , FP. This article doesn’t become you.
They tried Ethan as an adult. To me, they shouldn't be able to have it both ways... If the parents are criminally negligible, then Ethan should have been tried as a juvenile or vice versa.
Michigan tried Ethan Crumbley as an adult, then prosecuted his mother for providing inadequate childcare. Is he an adult or a child? Is he responsible for his own actions or is someone else? I would say the state can’t have it both ways, but apparently they can.
I expect this verdict to be appealed and reversed. The law is not whatever prosecutors want it to be.
The idea that punishment reduces crime has been proven wrong for centuries. If it did, by now, there would be very little crime. No one who considers committing a crime, thinks about the punishment.
Totally agree Herr - although as we are witnessing in many urban areas, criminals do respond to incentives. If the law in California states that anything I shoplift under $950 will not be prosecuted, then I'm basically incentivized to steal. As a criminal they may not consider the punishment rather what they can get away with.
Exactly. If I were going to be a criminal, I would defininately move to Calif. I'd only need 1 crime a week to support myself. $49,500 a yr., tax free, for working a couple of hrs. a week isn't bad. If I wanted to be greedy, I could also apply for unenployement, plus whatever else Calif. is offering.
Not true that people who commit crimes don't think about punishment. They do. They know they violate the law. They either: just don't care, are willing to risk it, think they won't get caught (often true), are driven by compulsion (like this kid), don't see prison as that bad compared to their life, or are under the influence of drugs.
The son of my friend told me in no uncertain terms that he was going to be a top gangster and had to kill people to get there. (Career path.) This is like Whitey Bulger. He said he was going to kill cops if they got in his way.
No, it didn't work out like that. He learned that other people, including other gangsters have an opinion and are themselves experienced in changing the behavior of boys like him.
This author comes off a bit as a radical who objects to the existence of firearms. The heated language and lack of consideration to the pitfalls and perils of this very new brand of criminal liability does not lead me to believe he is a good faith actor.
Did you consider the very well known phenomenon of hindsight bias? There is a reason that with police use of force Graham vs. Connor established that you have to judge an officers actions based off of what they knew at that exact moment. Not off of your opinion after the fact with all the time in the world to mull things over aka your hindsight. Would she still be liable maybe, but this wasn’t even mentioned as a consideration in the article.
What if the new form of criminal liability is extended? Why isn’t the school principal in prison? He didn’t call 911. By this logic he could go to prison too. This also tosses out a bedrock principle of criminal law. Actus Reus which refers to performing a criminal action. Standing idly by has never been a crime since it is not an act. One must do something illegal. Now we are criminalizing inaction which fairly unheard of. Go read through the criminal code of every state. You will find actions. Theft, Rape, Murder, Burglary, Assault, Robbery, Identity Theft… The list goes on and on. All of these things are actions not inactions.
So now that we’re criminalizing inaction will we send the droves of people to jail who we see in online videos standing idly by as a violent assault is happening? What if some makes and off hand comment “i’m about to go crazy” and its taken as hyperbole but isn’t. Does everyone who heard it get locked up? This is a new precedent that was just created. Don’t assume it will never expand.
Will we be legally mandating obligatory behaviors?
This article was very lacking on a serious turn we are taking in criminal law. Don’t be so transparently blinded by emotion.
Should every crime committed by an illegal alien require the president who refuses to enforce border laws be charged as an accessory or accomplice? Particularly now that they have no immunity.
I do like the concept of munchausen moms being convicted for the destruction of their children's lives when they facilitate "gender affirming care."
Wow. Two comments into the Crumbley article to get to trans issues. Possibly a new TFP commentariat record?
Tell me you use pronouns without telling me your pronouns.
Tell me your pronouns are mono/mania without telling me your pronouns.
Tell me you don't have a daughter wrapped up in this and that you're just a judgemental asshole. Oh wait you just did.
Munchausen moms are committing actions though, which is very different from being convicted for inaction
It's all enabling, but fair point.
I could get behind that concept.
No, and unless I’m missing something that has never happened lol.
No but apparently now it could. And until the supremes rule, presidents have no immunity anymore.
Leftists never understand that shit they do to others, could bounce back on them.
They do understand that but they also know they control the media, acadamia, business, the administrative state, and most branches of government and so they assume they'll be protected.
What a head scratcher. According to this author.... Probably yes.
No, it’s called governmental immunity.
Actually since now the president is not immune, no one is immune.
No one should be prosecuted without an existing applicable codified criminal statute. There isn’t one here. This is a dangerous slope to proceed on. Hopefully, this will be appealed. Yes, the parents have some civil liability here, but criminally prosecuting without a defined crime is unconstitutional. Why didn’t the school permanently suspend the child? Do they not have some culpability here. Maybe they should be prosecuted without a relevant statute. Hate the parents of you like, hate guns if you like, but abusing the justice system to lock up negligence is wrong.
ATF I 5300.2 — Youth Handgun Safety Act Notice
Download ATF I 5300.2 — Youth Handgun Safety Act Notice (96.77 KB)
Federal law prohibits, except in certain limited circumstances, anyone under 18 years of age from knowingly possessing a handgun, or any person from selling, delivering, or otherwise transferring a handgun to a person under 18. A knowing violation of the prohibition against selling, delivering, or otherwise transferring a handgun to a person under the age of 18 is, under certain circumstances, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
He wasn’t charged under fed law. He was charged in State courts.
OK, but why? Seems it would have been a slam dunk if they had used the federal statute.
If you read the statute closely nobody violated that statute. He never sold, delivered or transferred the gun to anyone. The father owned the gun. Millions of fathers buy guns that they allow their kids to use legally.
Great then prosecute her under this law. Not for the murder itself.
Agreed. I am disapointed in this article. It fails to really look at the issue from all angles. It also fails to mention that the son was tried as an adult. How do you prosecute the child as an adult, but then claim it was the parents fault? I expect better journalism from The Free Press than a biased opinion piece that has no basis for the claim, "I guarantee you these shootings will decline."
all good points and many more to be made,
for me, I look at the legal system and how it is being abused of late, to release felons, using guns to commit crimes, back onto the street. If anything seems like it can be controlled, it is NOT putting criminals, esp with multiple histories of gun use, back on the street.
Taking this view, why not then hold the courts/ judges/juries/attorneys, liable for their action in releasing a known offender and/or chronic offender back onto the streets, with clear or historic knowledge, that they will offend again. IF this re-offense results in homicide or murder, then the courts are also culpable and should face the music as this mom has been found guilty of. Would that "stop the killing and shootings", maybe so.
I don't like what the mom and dad did, or how her history of raising her child was presented. But as gun advocates say, and I believe, the gun did not shoot the person(s), it is the one who pulled the trigger who is guilty of the deed, and they alone pay the price.
This decision is a clear path to "more/increased victimhood". Pretty soon, a criminal could say," I'm not responsible, I was brought up wrong" and maybe get off....or pass the buck to someone else.
take care
The article was definitely intellectual weak sauce. I was thinking the same thing, if The Free Press typical article comes down to this I won't be a subscriber any more.
I do at least appreciate that when they emailed it, they included an article from the other point of view. But, it is still a little odd that they would allow such a poorly argued point of view to be published, even if it is an opinion piece.
Excellent point.
I am not a lawyer so I don’t really know much about law. I have noticed that how the law views things and how people see things, especially after the fact, is quite different. And rarely do people have all the facts. Having said that. This conviction seems like a rat hole. Do we hold parents of a serial killer accountable? Clearly a lot of them had bad parents, most serial killers seem to come from bad households. How serial rapist? How about any 13 year old who says something stupid then jumps in a car and kills someone?
Teens are not known for their well thought out behavior.
Re your 13 year old analogy - if the kid too young to drive were to say something stupid (violent?) and you as the parent hears it, and then you give him the keys to the car? Isn't that pretty close to what happened to this mother who knew her kid had issues, but had no problem with him having access to a weapon?
Where does this end?
- Shouldn't a spouse be criminally liable? If a wife gets drunk and kills someone is the husband liable for vehicular manslaughter?
- If a lunatic husband shoots or stabs someone to death isn't it his wife's fault now too?
- If Joe's wife were to poison a neighbor, shouldn't he go to prison?
- If you think any of those make sense, then if a husband kills his wife, isn't it her fault that she didn't stop it?
- What about drug dealing? If Joe's kid deals drugs isn't he responsible and should go to prison?
- What if Joe's wife gives drugs to some neighborhood boys? (Pretty common in Berkeley, CA.)
No to the instances you posit where it's a question of responsibility for the spouse. Whereas responsibility for a child has always been part of being a parent.
They tried and convicted Ethan as an ADULT. How is that consistent with your take?
But if it takes a village...
Different situation with a spouse, a person over the age of majority.
How so? The kid was charged as an adult. So that means that the kid is responsible for his actions, not his parents. Otherwise, one conviction or another should be overturned.
I completely disagree and frankly you’re the one who sounds like a radical. It’s insanity to me that her actions and negligence DIRECTLY contributed to the deaths of innocent people and yet people think it’s an overreach. A 15 YEAR OLD DOESN’T NEED A HANDGUN — MOST KIDS WHO ARE 15 can’t drive a car, can’t drink, can’t smoke but you want to give them a weapon whose SOLE purpose is destruction in one form or another
charge her with negligence then, not manslaughter. She didn't kill anyone.
Okay, then "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".
Perhaps you can make that argument — that’s a different debate all together. I would argue her actions go way beyond just negligence as she gave a 15 year old with blatant mental issues a gun. What did she think was going to happen??? Negligence would be if you left your gun out and your kid took it.
But you are making your judgements based on hindsight. Do you think this mother would have participated in getting a gun for her son if she had any idea that he was going to do anything remotely like what he did?
You must not have kids, or esp. teenagers. Teens as a group have always had "mental issues", and the modern social world has certainly made that worse.
In hindsight, of course the parents made terrible decisions. But most parents don't see reality when it comes to their own offspring. They are hopeful, and they overlook most bad behavior because most kids behave badly until they grow up and learn to act differently.
Put yourself in her shoes for a moment. You don't want to think your kid is all that screwed up. You get called to the school to discuss a troubling drawing that your son drew. Sure, it is troubling. But teens do stupid and troubling things all of the time. You don't have a lot of money. You don't have any expertise in mental illness. And the school officials sitting in front of you are not expelling him, so clearly they think that he is Ok to remain in the school in his current state. And if the school official with their PhD or MS degree and years of experience think the teen is Ok to remain at school, why would you think differently?
I dunno, for one, if my kid has been exhibiting some disturbing behavior over the past few years involving claims of "demonic possession" in the home and other bizarre things, I probably wouldn't have bought him a gun for Christmas. That's just me. But beyond that -whatever "good things you want to believe about your kid" and "inexperience with mental health disorders", if I'm called into a school meeting because my kid is doodling about mass murders and literally writing "help me" all over it, I might put two and two together about that gun gift I got him and might have, I dunno, checked for the whereabouts of that gun? Even if I left him in school outside of the request of the school? I might have asked to look in his bag for it, or barring that, gone straight home to verify "his gun" was in the unlocked location I put it in? Sorry - it's 100% the actions of the Crumbley's on the day of that led to this, even if they were 100% negligent and stupid leading up to it, if they had just checked for the fucking gun when they were called into that meeting involving a very obvious depiction of "son + gun" they wouldn't be facing these charges.
"But most parents don't see reality when it comes to their own offspring. They are hopeful, and they overlook most bad behavior..."
This in a nutshell. This perfectly describes my sister and her attitude toward her now 21-year old son that has recently caused some issues in our extended family. She knows he's a fuck-up, but she still always defends him when he fucks up again.
"She" didn't give the gun to her son.
It even goes beyond that. The primary reason that Jennifer Crumbley was convicted was her actions (or lack of, really) on the day of the murders: the Crumbleys were called to the school because their son was "doodling" depictions of basically a school shooting riddled with "help me" and other "red flag" messaging. The parents, knowing their kid had access to a gun, displayed an array of negligent behaviors: they didn't take their son home (as was recommended), and whatever the lame excuse her defense proffered that they thought he was "safer" at school, OK, they *still* didn't offer to check his bag, and following that, they didn't go straight home and look for that gun to make sure it was in the "secure" (ha) location. They did none of that. They gaslit the school officials about their son's "well being" and then went back to doing whatever the hell it was they did during the day without even thinking "Hey - troubled son doodling about guns and mass shooting at school maybe we should make sure THE GUN WE GAVE HIM is at home, eh?"
Even if they blew past every red flag that "normal" parents should have had about not purchasing him the gun in the first place and leaving it around for him to access any time without supervision - *if* on the day they were given every opportunity to circumvent this tragedy by if they had taken him home as advised, searched the bag at the school or home after, or verified the gun was at the home, Jennifer Crumbley would not be facing prison time today.
And for all that, I still think the school bears some responsibility for not insisting on that bag search or a qualified mental health pick up - if the parents refused, they should have called authorities given the evidence they had at that time to deal with it.
Maybe there is something special about this case that makes the parents more culpable. Is it because it was a school shooting? What about absent or inattentive parents whose minor children are involved in carjacking, armed robberies, etc.? Are we going to track down all of those parents and hold them responsible for their horrible parenting?
I think the prosecution and the ruling set a terrible precedent, which of course if uniformly enforced, would lead to cries of racial discrimination. It is obvious which demographic groups are committing most urban violent crimes.
Yes probably (the higher profile school shooting than "regular" gun crime), but I really think it was because there was such a direct causal line between parental neglect and inaction on the day of the shooting following what should have been a pretty clear red alert warning about the potential for the shooting. The Crumbleys were presented with a situation where their son was doodling some disturbing images that happened to involve the very recent purchase of the gun they gifted him with and yet completely failed to investigate the gun's whereabouts immediately, let alone in addressing the fact of their son's emotional well-being and his potential threat to the safety of the school given the depictions he made of enacting violence with that gun. The mom literally wink-winked at her son about "don't get caught" *after* the meeting, as if it was just some funny prank that he happened to doodle an explicit act of a mass shooting riddled with "help me" all over it, versus he got caught playing Candy Crush during class.
I don't think the Crumbley's would have been prosecuted like this if they had just done the minimal of searching for that gun immediately upon leaving the school meeting (even if they left him there) and found the gun was missing from the home and then immediately alerted the school and authorities. Or at the least not criminally prosecuted.
I think the precedent will be over the degree in which it is demonstrated that the parent/guardian in charge of the gun had some level of pre-knowledge about whether their child and the gun posed a serious risk and did nothing to remove access to that gun or intervene with the child/notify authorities if they had possession of it. The Michigan laws as they stand wouldn't have been able to prosecute the Crumbleys for simply purchasing a gun that they allowed their son to use (as they did), the prosecution was about how they failed to intervene when they were given a clear warning sign that Ethan was intending to use that gun for bad purposes (as well as the few years of evidence that they also were aware their son was experiencing some pretty profound emotional disturbances that should have informed their response on that day of the shooting to intervene rather than dismiss, the Crumbleys in this case did have that knowledge of their son's history of emotional disturbances that the school did not - and they also failed to disclose that to the school at the time of this meeting).
I think this precedent will be narrow enough to funnel out other cases where the purchase and possession of the gun was otherwise legal, and that the parents weren't reasonably informed enough of their child's malignant intentions to have rationally acted in response to. Consider it the difference between parents who know their child has been consuming alcohol they purchased in the home and allowed their minor child to imbibe, and yet gives them the keys to the family car that was later involved in a DWI accident, versus parents who have allowed their kids to use the family car and the kid goes outside of the home to consume alcohol outside of parental supervision and consent and gets into the same accident. I think we would agree the parents in the first example have legal liability versus the parents in the second example. In both cases, the parents allowed the kid to use the car, but only in one case did the parents have knowledge that the kid was not legally sober to use the car, let alone facilitated their usage. I dunno best example I could come up with off the top of my head : /
His father bought the gun. He’s culpable. She isn’t.
Seems like it was a gift on behalf of both parents, and she did take him to practice shooting with it, so she definitely wasn't not a part of it, and it was she who texted her son after the first school contact about his mass murder "doodles" to "wink wink don't get caught k".
make up your mind. was she negligent? no? then charge her with what?
"It’s insanity to me that her actions and negligence DIRECTLY contributed to the deaths of innocent people"
Did his mother give him a gun?
No, but the foreperson of the jury stated she was the last adult to have custody of the gun, therefore, securing the gun was her responsibility. The prosecution did not provide evidence of how the gun came to be in ECs possession- as such, the jury could reasonably infer JC did not secure the gun.
🎯
Morality and legality aren't the same. Our legal system allows for a lot of moral misbehavior because punishing it would lead to much worse outcomes. In a free society, the legal system is limited on purpose for this very reason. Your reasoning begins with obviously wrong moral conduct, and then someone will eventually use it for something less obvious, and eventually you end up in Iran, which literally has morality police.
The question is whether he actions were reasonably likely to result in the outcome. I think that’s a clear NO. She clearly had poor representation. If she had been wealthy there is NFW she’s found guilty. This is plain and simple an injustice.
How far do we pull out? If guns had never been invented this wouldn’t have happened. Should we go after gun makers now for gun deaths? That’s obviously laughable.
The person responsible for these deaths is the person who pulled the trigger.
There are instances of exactly these sorts of “laughable” lawsuits against gun manufacturers for mass shootings. I googled to check it out. I agree with you that this is utterly ridiculous and an abuse of the judicial system. The only person responsible for the shooting is the gunman. No one else.
"A 15 YEAR OLD DOESN’T NEED A HANDGUN".
This is the same empty argument as the "nobody needs an assault weapon" used by gun control advocates. Who are you to determine who needs what? And more to the point, in a free country, people are free to have an abundance of things that may be dangerous that they don't need.
They're free to have them, but not necessarily free from consequences.
CNA: I agree completely. Reading through all these posts, most are saying, “Yes but…look over here (at gangs, at school culpability, at Presidential immunity (!!!), at woke attitudes…at ANYTHING but the actual facts of what the parents DID (not what they failed to do, that was later). They gave a 15 year-old who they knew to be disturbed a gun!
Here’s a suggestion: have every PTA meeting in the country set up a blown-up photo of Mrs Crumbley being led away in shackles. Say if you like that you disagree with the verdict, but as Joe Nocera said, it sure will get their attention. Look, this is just like the recent plagiarism controversy: just don’t do it. Don’t buy 15 year olds guns; don’t leave your own guns lying around - lock them up and keep the keys where the kids can’t find them. This is not THAT hard.
Agreed. Granted an application of law such as this opens up a huge can of worms. At the same time there must be at least a minor amount of responsibility exercised by the parent. If the kid obtained a gun in a way the parents didn't know about it that might be a different story.
I got my first when I was eight. A shotgun. By the time I was this kids age I had several including a 22 target pistol. I agree that these parents are miserable excuses for parents. But there is n9 general rule here.
Many of us are trained to firearms at a young age by responsible parents and are none the worse for it.
It would be more fruitful to try to understand how we are creating psychic wrecks of children. The kids are obviously not alright.
It was the father who gave the kid a gun.
Yes and his trial is next hopefully he get more time than she did.
We all hope there is something we can do to decrease school shootings. And there are certainly some, like reduce the amount of semi-automatic guns available. But, projecting these tragic events onto parents is indeed a slippery slope and can not be "guaranteed" to reduce these events as the author suggests. A resourceful 15 year old can always find a way to get guns in a country with as many as ours. Being a bad mother/father is not associated with children killing others on purpose. And comparing parents who leave a gun available for young children to discover and accidentally use to hurt themselves or others is a very different class of gun injury than a mentally ill teenager taking a gun and purposefully shooting his classmates. Holding parents responsible for leaving a gun available for young children is indeed negligence given how much publicity and methods of keeping that gun safe from their hands that are available. Understanding your teenager is going to kill is completely different and frankly impossible since most, even mentally ill ones, don't. And using an example of a 21 year old killer is not useful.
most impactful way to reduce school shootings, have armed resource officers and willing teachers, carry guns.
Take down "Gun Free Zone" signs, and post, this is a "Protected / Gun Zone" -- If you carry or attempt to use a firearm on these premises, you will be shot. (something like this).
94% of all mass shootings occur in Gun Free Zones....
If a child is below the age of being legally able to own a gun themselves, then the parents need to take responsibility for when and where the child has access to that gun. If the parent takes them to a shooting range or hunting, great, but then the parent should take the gun once they get home and lock it in a gun safe.
You make a very interesting point about several things - particularly about hindsight bias and the principal being potentially liable. Why didn't he say this child simply cannot stay in school and release him for the day? Was he not permitted to do this without the parent coming to get him? Where i think we may be seeing this differently is that i thought the entire concept of negligence often relies upon inaction (failure to feed your child too many times and you can be charged with criminal negligence). Do you feel this would be a more appropriate avenue than involuntary manslaughter for cases like this?
The principal cannot just kick the kid out for a day w/o notifying parents. I think that he could isolate the kid in a room watched by staff and tell parents the kid stays there until he is picked up.
The local police department said if they had been notified of the teens statements they would have removed him from school.
what about notifying the parents and then sending the kid home if they refuse to come and get their child? do they still have to hang onto the child til the end of the school day? im thinking of a scenario in which a child is suspended, and the parents refuse to retrieve him - what is a school to do at that point?
appreciate that information. i don't work in a school and my children are all too young for me to have knowledge of how public schools work with these things these days. back in the early aughts when i was in high school, it was a whole different landscape it seems.
you are right Didit,
all the levers of authority have been removed from the teachers and principals etc. They operate in fear for their jobs/or civil suit, due to all the restrictions placed on them re punishment or the like, of todays children. we are too soft and it is showing. Bring back the paddle and ruler...
rich
Exactly. The author comes off as a fanatic and in my comments I ask if the parents of ANY child felon/criminal should be convicted and imprisoned for raising a monster. I mena, of your 14 year old carjacks and murders an Uber driver, shouldn't you be held liable for "gross negligence" in parenting as well?
Gee, maybe. Many kids who commit crimes are the product of irresponsible parents, such as those who produce children but have no intention of being around to raise them.
If this same child was drawing pictures of slashing the neck of an Uber driver, and documented as mentally unwell, and the parents then bought him a switchblade and called him an uber - then perhaps they should.
Inaction by an individual is already punished where there is a duty expected from that individual. For example, if you go to your doctor and complain of increasing chest pain after minimal exertion, and the doctor does nothing. Two days later you have a massive heart attack. The doctor doesn't get away scot-free: he is professionally liable, and also under civil law for the tort. So I guess the question we must ask ourselves is whether parents have a duty of care towards their children?—and we already believe that they do. But there are limits to the vicarious liability engendered here, and traditionally parents are held responsible for crimes committed by their children when they are minors. Once a child has reached the age of criminal responsibility, he is liable to be punished under criminal law, not the parents, though they may be liable to civil action. Perhaps the issue here is that America is rather unusual in this respect—28 states have no minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is why you often see children being "tried as an adult" when there is public or media demand. See the map of international standards on this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_criminal_responsibility
Not the same thing. Medical doctors are professionals with licensed expertise in diagnosing heart attacks. Parents have no expertise, nor does anyone else, in accurately predicting whether a child will kill. This is hind sight bias at its worse.
The real question is whether the actions of the parents were reasonably likely to result in the outcome. Was it foreseeable? THAT is the question.
There is literally no way that a parent or anyone else can predict a child killer. It is a rare occurrence that is random and diagnosed post event. Just like there is no way anyone can predict an adult killer. The real issue is how little help we can give mentally ill people. Drugs can help, but have serious side effects. There is some evidence that electroshock therapy can help in a small percentage of cases, but again with significant side effects.
I agree, however, the P argued based on the facts here one could. She relied on the drawings that specifically cried for “help”, combined with dad buying a 15 year old the gun and leaving it unprotected. I believe there was mental health issues too, which may have resulted in the parents being held to a higher standard.
OTOH, if it was so fcuking foreseeable, why’d nobody search his backpack or wherever the kid hid the gun.
I think it’s obvious the lady had atrocious representation. The first argument is if the kid is so mentally ill, how is it reasonable to determine what he might do?! That’s why there may have been a higher need of care taken by the parents to lockup and hide the gun.
Agreed, 99.9% of mentally ill children don't kill thereby making it unpredictable. If licensed professional therapist and MDs don't have any ability to predict, then how can we expect parents too?
A parent can take a gun from an underage child and lock it in a gun safe when they're not present to supervise the child's gun usage. It would be one thing if the kid stole a kitchen knife or even broke into a safe and stole the gun but the parents GAVE the gun to the kid and did a terrible job of supervising when and where the kid had access to that gun.
Really? No way? the kid drew a gun and a bleeding body THAT DAY. His mother knew this. She knew of his problems. Got him a gun. Idk about the future legal ramifications but this woman and the boy's father are clearly liable for the kid's shootings, IMHO. and btw, I am pro-2A.
If so, isn’t the school also responsible for not adequately checking his bags or wherever he hid the gun? Also, I don’t think it was reasonably foreseeable. There are thousands of kids who have mental issues with guns in their house and they don’t shoot other classmates.
I had thought about this. Teachers and Medical Professionals . etc are legally mandated mandatory reporters of child abuse. The difference there is it is focusing on professionals in an occupational field. The liability also isn’t criminal. You could permanently be barred from the occupation though.
I could see her being convicted for parental negligence perhaps, but manslaughter is ridiculous and a slippery slope indeed.
However now that we as a society are punishing people for the actions of their ancestors this result isn’t the least surprising🤦♂️
She acted like she bought him a BB gun. Not responsible for securing it, not sure where it was.
Not sure she can take off work even though he’s suicidal.
Is this really the way a responsible parent acts? Of course the dad is equally culpable. They had no business buying their teenager a pistol. These types give gun owners a bad name.
That's civil liability, not criminal. Not without a statute that specifically says it.
Which Michigan now specifically has in statute. But, to address your point, a mother could be charged with manslaughter if she left a car running, and her minor child shifted it into drive and killed somebody. That’s not in a statute, but it is criminally negligent, not a civil liability. I don’t see the difference.
Obviously, the judge allowed it in this case, but it will be appealed, I’m sure.
Here, her legally adult son shifted the car into drive and killed 4 people...
Also, if the mother is negligent, then the father is negligent as well. Or are women suddenly expected to fight with fathers over weapons?
Son was 15 when crime occurred. Not an adult but tried as an adult. Not the same.
Father is equally (or more) culpable, as mentioned in the post above.
Right -- the jury's rationale in putting Derek Chauvin away was that he didn't do enough to save Floyd's life. As if there was anything he could have done. Wrong on so many levels.
The problem is school shootings, David. School shootings by teenage kids, at the very same age most Americans would say should not have the right to change their gender - why? Because they are too young. If they're too young to have that responsibility, nor to drink, or barely drive, or to vote, or live alone - then how the hell can their parents entrust them with a weapon? And an unsecured one at that? A parent has to take care of her or his kid. End of story. That means making sure that the kid doesn't go out and kill someone. As in DON'T GIVE YOUR CHILD A GUN!!
Valid points but not feeding your kids is a crime and it’s an inaction, not an action. Her behavior that day was criminally negligent. The dad as well. That’s not a gift you leave poorly hidden, it’s one that should come with training and lectures on responsibility (or not come at all if your son isn’t ready).
No, it’s not inaction. It is a conscious decision to not do something. Completely different t. Apples meet oranges.
so strange - i literally made the EXACT same point about not feeding your children before reading your comment. great minds lol
There’s nothing in this piece that makes the writer sound Iike a “radical who objects to the existence of firearms.” All he’s saying is that applying a degree of criminal liability to parents who are neglectful and don’t take precautions to control their kid’s access to lethal weaponry. (Let alone BUYING IT for them.) Period. Actually, the radical idea is that culpability doesn’t exist outside of the very narrowest of definitions even as it pertains to providing minors with weapons. And frankly, if these kinds of case persist and win, it’s because culpability exists right alongside your 2nd amendment. Sorry.
Are you from a family that hunts or engages in competition shooting? You can hunt before the age of 18 in Washington State with a firearm. I have know someone that has purchased a shotgun for their son so he could go duck hunting with him. Its not this sinister action that you are imagining. If the parent is guilty if something it would be improper storage of a firearm. Which is an act vs. jailing her for something someone else did. This person keeps their guns locked in a safe.
I see a lot of people who have no relationship with firearms getting very spun up because they don’t understand a culture they are not apart of.
Right, but after you're done hunting or shooting at a range with your kid, you should take the gun from the kid and put it in a gun safe or otherwise secure it in some way.
Exactly, don’t prosecute people this way. Make improper storage of a firearm a felony.
If a kid cracks a safe… well it is what it is at that point. Nobody was being negligent.
I received my first firearm at around 10 years ol, if I remember correctly and DEFINITELY before I was 14.
Will we be convicting the families of gang members for their inaction in the face of habitual violent behavior? I think that "equal application of the law" just took another giant step backward.
The author is really naive to think that passing a federal law to hold parents responsible for their kids violent action is in anyway a good solution, particularly the way the state, the schools and medical profession now cut parents out of so many decisions about their child.
Exactly. If a 15 year old gangbanger shoots up a house party, I'm guessing this author wants his / her parents or legal guardians imprisoned as well?
Meanwhile, a man who stabs a stranger non-fatally can be released the next day on his own recognizance, no bail.
There may be cases where the parents should be held accountable for a minor gangbanger but the comparison to this case only works under limited cases. In this case the mother and father had clear signs that their child was exhibiting troubled behavior. They provided easy access to a firearm (a handgun none the less) and they did not intervene when the school pointed out troubling behavior.
If a 15 gangbanger is encouraged into the gang life by his/her parents and the parents supply him with a firearm I would say yes charge them with involuntary manslaughter if the 15 year old shoots up a house party and kills someone.
I'm pretty sure that the writer of this article does not want that, unless the gangbanger is white.
I don't think the writer of this article showed any sign of focusing on the race, color, creed or gender. Living nearby where this happened, I can tell you neither did the prosecutor.
I'm not referring to what the writer said about this case in the article. But based on the writer's clear biases, it's safe to say that he would not want the approach of this prosecutor applied broadly to parents who know their children are a danger to others but do nothing.
A couple people have commented that under this kind of law parents of violent gang members should also be sent to prison. But we know that will never happen. If you're white and in a school shooting situation you'll be charged. But if you are black or Latino and your child is a gang member there's no way any DA or prosecutor would bring charges. They're victims too remember.
Once again I would say it depends on senario. A parent who is a gang member and encourages his children to join the gang and supplies them with easy access to weapons should be prosecuted like this. A parent who despite the best efforts has there kid join a gang or engage in criminal activity, no that parent should not be prosecuted in this manner.
If they give them the gun they used we sure as hell should be.
What if the parents know they are part of a violent gang, have commited previous crimes and are still at large. If parents don't call the police about their child who is a danger to others, then they should be charged, according to the author.
If the parents know they are about to commit a crime and do not alert the police to stop it they should be prosecuted as accessories.
Straw purchases are rarely prosecuted, and even then they'd be prosecuted as illegal purchases, not manslaughter.
So? How is this different.
I'm saying this is the same. They bought something foolishly, not illegally, and they're being punished worse than those that buy gun illegally for gang members.
"give them a gun" is the only source of culpability? Why? Nothing else counts as manslaughter?
I was thinking the exact same thing.
One can only hope!
I didn’t read the comments before posting, and this is exactly what I said!
You might be right if the families of gang members were to give their 14 year olds handguns to play with their friends..
But I don't think these gang kids get their guns that way.
What if the parent(s) know that the kid who is a gangbanger has a gun (but didn't give it to them)?
Good point. To me this story the article described is an abdication of parental responsibility - the parents actively gave their visibly distressed child access to a weapon, and one they actually gave them. In the example of a mother of a 15 year old kid in a gang and she knows he’s got a .38 but has lost control of him and he’s hardly home - she isn’t involved as the parents here were. They actually gave their kid the means to commit his crime.
Is that written in the law? That this theory of culpability includes only giving the minor a gun? Sounds like the manslaughter theory is completely made up and now, various commentators think it should be made up only to include guns.
Good idea
It's an interesting argument—one that those who insist on the paramount importance of parental rights should grapple with. (Including me!)
But, alternatively, I'm curious how Mr. Nocera feels about states with transgender affirmation laws that essentially nullify parental rights if a minor child insists on a gender transition without their parents' consent.
How does this work? Parents are liable for their children shooting others, but cannot prevent their child from undergoing irreversible and damaging surgery? How does the latter square with parental rights?
I think this likely should apply to trans cases. Why? if the trans person wants to maintain the secondary sexual characteristic associated with their “new” gender they must continually take huge doses of hormones. And yes these hormones must be prescribed on an ongoing basis by a medical doctor.
Lo & behold side effects including anger & violent action are very well documented and clearly displayed & highlighted on common web sites such as drugs.com. The first big clear warning of a side effect of testosterone is that it causes aggression.
I think of the “she-to-he” trans teen in West Virginia that went in and shot up all the school kids. No doubt those murders were at least partially testosterone driven.
And as to female hormones that the “he-to-she” trans must take, I can personally vouch that even low dose prescription estrogen birth control pills can make you nuts. Much higher doses are required to lose body hair, change voices etc
So yes if I had a child or any family member shot by a trans, I would demand the doctor and medical facility be held liable for the aggressive murdering actions of their patients. These side affects are well know and should be anticipated. And there has been more than one case.
However, as to parental responsibility I know how difficult it is to get any support to intervene with a person entering psychosis. In Washington State where mental health care has been inexcusably, repeatedly ignored by our governor Inslee of 12 years, it can take weeks to get someone to come out and even do “an assessment” despite daily desparate calls. And calls to local police (if they haven’t been defunded) yield concern and knowledge , but often their hands are tied because of the high bar for involuntary commitment in this state
I’ve read accounts of many parents begging for help because they know their kids are unstable and pose a threat. Also a hallmark of untreated schizophrenia is that the mentally ill person thinks they are fine. This case is particularly sad because the young man was self aware and was apparently begging for help to deal with his uncontrolled violent thoughts and no one responded. His punishment of life in prison seems overly brutal.
I agree dealing with a teen is very difficult these years. Laws in this state prevent parents from getting their kids medical records and on the terms say so parents are precluded from sitting in when the doctor is talking to the minor child. And at least in this state (a democratic progressive he’ll hole), public school staff routinely go a long way to hide teen behavior and choices from parents. So a parent might truly not know.
"I think of the “she-to-he” trans teen in West Virginia that went in and shot up all the school kids. No doubt those murders were at least partially testosterone driven."
Leslie, if you have a link on this event, please post. I couldn't find it. Thanks.
Are you sure they are not referring to the Covenant School shooting in Nashville, TN on March 27, 2023?
I think you’re right that the poster is thinking if the incident in Nashville.
I looked up shootings -yes I was thinking of the Nashville Covenant School shooting. Sorry for my poor recollection of events.
The onset of organic teen mental illness and violent psychosis can be sudden and hard to predict. But drug induced outbreaks (hormones, strong legal pot, fentanyl or whatever) are increasingly commonplace and sadly, they should be anticipated.
Terribly violent video games & various media where shooting is presented as a normal justifable response to any irritating situation contribute to the mix as do the video games and movie that falsely depict girls and women as having warrior prowess equal to men.
Off on a tangent, but the ludicrous 1st place wins of xy trans athletes achieved when competing against xx female athletes falls into this category. I am appalled by the narcissitic delusional attitude of these athletes when they stand on the top box and accept the 1st place awards as a legitimately earned victory. Yet worse are the sport sponsors who stand by and pretend that these hormone and surgically altered athletes are equivalent to their xx female counterparts. The possible reasons? Sports authorities: a) are equally delusional; or b) are capable of the same impressive pretense described in the fable "The Emperor's New Clothes", or c) in wanting to retain their livelihood or avoid the devastating rebuke of today's cancel culture, they've resigned themselves to supporting this falsehood in the same manner as citizens did after behavioral rehab (torture) suffered during Mao's & Lenin's violent cultural revolutions. You pick.
In all fairness it should be the same. Make damn sure your kid doesn't get the gun in the case, and make sure he stays a boy..
Ouch.
Why not prosecute the school employee that found the drawing and didn't search the backpack or remove the kid? This is horrible precedent as parents cannot control or know all kids action. Some kids are sociopathic and others same parents are well adjusted. This is a wicked and unjust. If there was a law about firearm storage or something the parent violated then a charge for that sure. But this act by a jury is hateful, vindictive and unfair. Any parent on the jury could be next. What about the unlocked beer in the fridge. Your kid drives drunk are you in jail for manslaughter??
Why didn’t the school officials urge the parents to do an emergency involuntary psych hold which is standard procedure for a serious suicide threat? The school may also have the power to initiate the hold due to a suicide threat.
Searching the backpack should have also been a priority in the case of a perceived suicide threat. If a student can legally deny a backpack search under these circumstances, the law needs to be changed.
No no no no….I called officials twice when my adult kid has made suicide threats. Cops went to his apartment and said, nope he’s fine. It takes a lot more to involuntarily commit a person. I say this with complete exasperation.
With school officials backing up a parent's demand, there may be a better out come with a minor and the ability to 5150. At the very least, it should have been recognized that this child's struggles could not be resolved by a day at home and a 5150 should have been requested. The denial of a 5150 would have made this trial a mockery.
With heavy heart, I agree that your experience with an adult child is the norm in far too many case in the US. Why a parent who hears the threat is not considered an authority and a knowledgable resource about their child's health is ridiculous. The delays and denials in providing intervention have very heart wrenching results.
Wishing you and your son all the strength and courage to find the help needed to live a good life.
When my father-in-law's new wife went off the deep end, we discovered that it is very, very difficult to get an involuntary commitment. Even if 99% of the people who interact with the crazy person can easily see that they are crazy, unless they are *proven* to be a threat to themselves or others, they can't be committed involuntarily.
This is why mentally ill people end up in prison instead of in a mental hospital. By the time it could be *proven* they're a threat, they have already committed a violent crime.
We literally are watching him "circle the drain." You just have to sit idly by while they sink further into madness. It's unbelievable. There needs to be reforms.
IME those mental health holds fail unless the person has blue chip insurance. Or the person can just say, "Nope, I was just kidding and I feel fine." Not to say the school/parents shouldn't have tried. I'll bet they wish now that they had called But I also understand why people feel like there's no point based on prior experience.
Ethically and legally, the school has a huge obligation when a student threatens self harm or harm to others. The school's administration has a great deal of knowledge but not in mental health, they should have called in the "experts" to make and assume the responsibility for deciding the next step.
In school situations where the person is a minor, there is less autonomy in deciding treatment. Unfairly, there is often more weight given to a school staff than a parent and a parent agreeing with the school administration is even more powerful. If the police were called, would that have increased the probability of the backpack being searched and the gun removed?
People witnessing a cardiac arrest will often start CPR even though studies indicate that it only increases the survival rate by 10% . The odds are stacked against them and yet people will do chest compressions in a hope to save a person. Why not make the 911 call for a mental health crisis even if the odds for a successful intervention are stacked against the caller?!
Re your last sentence; if you see your 15 year old kid drunk, and you give him the car anyway - and he hits someone and kills them? Then yes.
There's a nuance here. She bought a gun for a mentally disturbed child, ignored a sea of warning flags, and he shot up a school.
If this was a normal parent I'd agree with you, but she was criminally negligent and kids died. She should be held accountable.
The father was the one who bought the gun and it will be interesting to see if they go after the father as hard as they did the mother.
Did the 15 yo have a diagnosis of mental illness? If he did and the gun was bought for him than this should be a major criminal violation.
WTF!? Seriously!? Is personal responsibility completely out the window? Are you ready to throw the half parents of Chicagos southside into prison for the acts thier children did as gang members? This person has obviously never raised a child through adulthood. I don’t care how good a parent you think you are, when puberty starts to kick in around age 11-12, you loose them. This article is not based in parental reality, it’s based in parental utopia.
I would say that personal responsibility would include not giving your fifteen year old a weapon that could kill someone.
Do you have any idea how many 15 year olds come from broken families that have guns and do not kill anyone? The intention to kill lies with the person who uses the gun. So you're saying lock up all the parents of gang bangers. What about baseball bats? Should we arrest the parent that gave their kid a baseball bat that the kid used to bash someone's head in? You can teach your child to be responsible, that doesn't mean they will be. We need to stop coddling children and let them know at a very young age, decisions have consequences. 2+2 doesn't equal 5; if the other team plays better, you loose; let kids play on the play ground and get hurt; let kids get into fights when they are young so they learn how to better communicate. Parents should be punished for breaking the law, not for being bad parents.
Parents of gang bangers yes - if they give guns to their kids. A baseball bat, Matthew, is to play baseball with. The fact that it can be used to kill someone is secondary to it's primary use - to hit a ball. Then again, if there's an argument and the parent gives a baseball bat to his angry kid to hit another kid and kills him - he should be held criminally responsible. What the hell is it with guns anyway? Most people on this thread think it's just fine to give a fifteen year old, a disturbed one at that, a weapon expressly designed to kill someone - but the kid has yet to drive a car because he's too young, can't drink because he's not 21, can't vote since he's not eighteen. And parents are fine with that. But having a gun? Why not?
Why is the parent of a gang banger only liable if they bought the gun? If they *knew* the child was in possession of a gun and didn't take it away or call the police, why shouldn't they be equally liable?
sorry we will have to disagree. I don't own a gun, but have no problem with those that do. This is about personal responsibility and consequences for actions. Children are taught at an early age there are no consequences for their actions and everything they do is good. Kids have had guns and other forms of weapons (clubs or bats) since the dawn of time. The weapon is not the problem. Poor choices are the problem. A kid that wants to kill will use a bat if they can't get a gun. Perfect parents can still end up with killers as children; and dysfunctional drug attic parents can turn out a child who turns out to be a model citizen.
Yes, we will have to disagree. A gun has only one purpose. And if a parent gives a tool like that to a young person who does not have the maturity to even get behind the wheel of a car - then that parent is responsible. The weapon is indeed the problem. Would you feel comfortable knowing a 14 yr old kid visiting your house to see your son was packing? Would you trust him? Would you even let him in? Come on.
Actually Yes, I do trust them. Although I do not own a gun, my sons and many of their friends do. I know many people, young and old, who carry.... which brings us back to personal responsibility, which I think you are calling maturity. There are adults I don't want to see behind the wheel of a car, let alone own carry a gun or baseball bat. Age is not a magical number that makes someone responsible or mature. A weapon is an inanimate object with no will of its own. Whether a person is 10 or 40, a gun can do no harm. A gun can actually do good in the hands of a responsible person regardless of age. But an irresponsible person, filled with hate and malice, can choose to do harm.... when I was very young, a kid I knew used the hunting knife he got for Christmas to kill his girlfriend. This messed up kid then asked his father if he could borrow the chain saw. He used that chain saw to dismember the body. The parents bought the kid the knife and then gave him the chainsaw.... We need to stop blaming inanimate objects for human actions. I am old. I know kids that came from terrible homes that are extraordinary people, and kids that had all the privilege in the world who are despicable humans . I do not feel safe around despicable humans no matter what they have in their hand. Much appreciate your push back. It has provided some good perspective.
This is a tough subject, and to me it's far from cut and dry, but I agree with the outcome in this one particular case. The actions of the mother were egregious. My firearms are never unsecured, and I'd never allow one to leave my home without both my consent and full knowledge of what it was to be used for. That's just good sense, which was absent here. Being responsible with firearms starts with being responsible.
The problem here is precedent and the slippery slope that will be exploited by zealots in the legal system.
Yes. What about a spouse? What about a roommate?
🪒🛎️
I agree. I don't think every schooI shooting should have the parents charged, but this was egregious. I do think we need to charge the smaller crimes around these events until people realize that they do need to pay attention to why they are being asked to help that friend.
By never unsecured I assume they are locked in a safe and useless in an emergency. I also assume you don't have kids because if you did you'd know how utterly sneaky they are. Cigarette's, liquor, guns, and the occasional taking of the car keys to joy ride at night with your friends all occured without parental knowledge.
It depends on how they are raised. So you must be talking about your kids and not mine. As for the rest, you are welcome to find out.
🤣🤣🤣
Not MY kid!!
A dear friend has a son who was given drugs by a mom across the street. He became a delivery boy taking everything from honey oil and cocaine to fentanyl to the homes of the SF Bay Area rich.
He put her in a headlock when she tried to stop him stealing her car. He broke windows to get in when she locked him out.
I was involved in that boy's life. He'd been a good kid. I knew he needed a man in his lif. But, I told her he needed something, and she barred me from his life, saying, "NOT MY CHILD!"
Can happen to anyone.
We never restricted the kids from candies. There are cookie jars, chocolate jars and carbonated drinks as well as beer and spirits easily available. We don't have overindulgence with our kids or grandkids. We did have one addiction problem with one of our girls but in time she figured out how to solve that as I did. If you make a thing taboo some people will be drawn to that thing.
Personal responsibility can be taught. If you slip up at least the foundation is there.
With regards to firearms they should be out of reach from the younger children but accessible to the older kids in case of emergency. If the parent(s) have taken the time to train the children and the children are aware of the lethality of the tool that is sufficient. Do you lock away your food preparation tools? A firearm is no different. Well unless we're discussing carving a roast.
YMMV
Ouch.
Ooooh, wow you really got me there.
I don’t have a fire arm, but everyone I know who does views that right as an obligation and a responsibility to take care to secure the fire arm at all time, along with many other important safety protocols. So it then seems to me that if a parent failed in such obligations and responsibilities, that they should be held accountable in some manner.
And your kid lies you go to uail
Dear Mr. Steffem, I'm guessing you meant to type prison/jail?
Seems obvious
Sort of.
Parents are responsible for their children’s torts. But if you charge the kid as an adult that assumes he’s responsible for himself. I don’t think you can have it both ways
What I thought, too, Unwoke. He's either an adult or a child, and since they charged him as an adult, the prosecutor's "novel legal theory" goes out the window. I hope this is reversed on appeal.
No lawyer would take a tort case against her. She's "bomb and bulletproof" because she has little money.
I totally agree with you though. If the kid is charged as an adult, she's clear. He made the decisions.
I think a decent lawyer could get both convictions overturned. The kid because he couldn't possibly be an adult if his mother's responsible. And her because she can't be responsible if he's an adult.
Torts are civil law, not criminal. There is a massive difference between the payment of $$ and incarceration.
“I thought at the time that if prosecutors tried them criminally, these horrible accidents surely would decline. I still believe that“
Really Joe? And where do we draw the line? Should we incarcerate all the single moms procreating gang bangers in South Chicago? Why don't we first punish DAs that let repeat CONVICTED felons loose on the public again and again, until they finally murder someone?
You can believe whatever you want but in the case of Ms. Crumbly, what would her taking her son out of school for a day accomplished? Would the state have institutionalized him? Before answering that, tell me why they haven’t institutionalized the scores of deranged homeless wandering around New York streets and subways, pushing old ladies in front of trains?
Maybe Mrs. Crumbly was a bad parent. But when we start locking people up for the actions of others it’s only a matter of time before some agenda driven prosecutor uses the same ruse to go go after his “enemies” Especially if one of them is leading a senile sock puppet in presidential polls.
And. “If other prosecutors pick up on the Crumbley case and begin charging parents of school shooters with involuntary manslaughter, I guarantee you these shootings will decline.”
Really...He can guarantee that?
Magical thinking.
You're not supposed to ask that sort of question. Just BELIEVE the "experts" like Mr. Nocera.
Should we incarcerate all the single moms procreating gang bangers in South Chicago?
I kind of wish yes.
This idea is like believing that if murder is prosecuted it will decline. There's some effect, but the murder rate by people working as prison guards is roughly the same as the murder rate of the general population. And if anyone should know, it's them.
Prosecutions based on "novel legal theory" are a road to hell. This is a despicable piece of journalism based on raw emotion. The entire judicial system, particularly the criminal side, is based on juries NOT being enflamed by emotions. With good reason. Strikingly the author, more accurately the ranter, hits where the blame lies, the legislature. But gives it a free a pass. Typical. And the decimation of Crimo is nuts - the "child" was 21 and had owned the gun 7 years prior to the shooting. But if you are going to blame others for the egregious acts of individuals, put your money where your mouth is and call for the release of the Nashville shooter's manifesto so we can see what role trans played in the death of 5 elementary students, teachers and staff. Or the most recent one.
Yes Lynne! Very blunt and very accurate.
Thank you Elizabeth.
Emotionally this argument is very very attractive.
From a legal standpoint though, I find the Reason piece to have the better argument.
Many people in authority failed Ethan Crumbley. Do we prosecute them all?
oof, I think we need to take a giant step back on this one. Sounds like these parents did not do much if anything to stop their son from his downward spiral, but they were his actions. I could get behind the dad's charge, since he bought his son a firearm, but I feel like I need more of the story. But, I think this sets a dangerous precedent. Are you going to charge the single ethnic-minority mother for negligent homicide or accessory when her son does the same thing? Are you going to charge the parents of a gender-confused child when they shoot their schoolmates because they've been bullied?
Possibly criminalizing negligence in securing firearms could be a good thing, but I think I still need to be convinced of this. Parents also run over their toddlers backing out of the driveway; are you going to charge them with negligent homicide because they didn't look in their rearview mirror? What about parents that DO lock up their firearms, but their teenage kid finds the keys? Are you going to tell them that it's their fault still?
Something about this article does not sit right with me. Maybe it's the extrapolation from this school shooting to all school shootings to all gun deaths. I'm just not convinced this is going to stop school shootings. If the kid hates their parents enough, it might be more incentive. ("I'll go do this thing and then the world will see how terrible you are as a parent and then you'll be sorry!")
Exactly right. When the DA called her approach a "novel legal theory" I thought, that's not good. If the/a law gets written in such a manner that this type of prosecution is legitimate/codified then it would be more acceptable to me,,,at least from the standpoint of allowing me to voice my approval or disapproval via the ballot box. But having a DA expand the definition of a law this much is bad precedent.
Yeah, I read the other article the FP linked to, and it was a lot more reasonable to me. It also points out details in this narrative that make it more complicated (of course). This just really doesn't feel like blind justice, it feels like avenging or something.
Great points Rachel!
Just to play devils advocate, if you’re saying you can see why it’s reasonable to charge a parent with a crime their child committed (aka the dad for providing the gun), then what does being an ethnic minority parent or parent of a gender confused child have to do with it? The answer would be, if it’s good enough to charge this guy, then it’s good enough to charge ethnic minority mom or parent of bullied gender dysphoric kid. Right?
No they're good questions. My argument is a little slippery-slopey, I'll admit that, too. I'll connect my thoughts a bit more below:
- Maybe someone could say that this mom has too many kids and/or not enough time to dedicate to raising a difficult child, so she should have given them up before they became so isolated. Or maybe she had a boyfriend that abused her child and she knew about it but didn't remove him from the situation and the kid went on a rampage. This second example is not a good parenting decision, but the hypothetical shooting is still the kid's actions. Maybe the family is Muslim and the child is influenced by extremism online. The parent encourages it, though, because they mistakenly think the child is just getting more involved in their faith. (You could use another religion, this is just a minority religion in America.)
- Let's say the gender-confused child's parents did not encourage a medical transition, or if you're in another area of the country, maybe they strongly encouraged it. The parents' bad decision to encourage/not encourage their child's transition could have exacerbated their mental illness and been the catalyst for the child to turn violent.
- Also, I'm not convinced that the dad should be prosecuted. After learning a bit more, it sounds like they all went shooting together as a family from time to time. This story does not seem as clean as it did at first
These are extreme examples, but I think it's scary that future DAs can look at this case and say "precedent - 'bad' parenting can be prosecuted for their child's crimes". Thanks for your comment!
Really good points. If you want to watch great analysis of the trial, you can watch Lawyer You Know. He has created a great forum for people to share their views.
Thanks, Michelle - I'll check that out!
Excellent points
If these parents didn't give their kid a gun, they would not have been charged.
The author's argument is: are they guilty of violating a law? No, but we should prosecute them anyway because "it's the right thing to do". This is the logic of the KKK and every other lawless mob through history. It's evil.
It basically opens the door to much more lawyering, lawsuits and other prosecutions that we don't need. How about we focus on the actual crimes being committed today and prosecute those actions?
I’m shocked by this article in the FP. Convicting someone of manslaughter who did not even kill anyone - holding someone accountable for a crime they didn’t commit - is an extremely dangerous path to go down. ‘It will help prevent other school shootings’ is not reason enough to justify such a breach of freedom and fairness. (And besides that, it’s also just your guess!). Bad move , FP. This article doesn’t become you.
However egregiously wrongheaded the editorial is, I’m fine with them publishing it, if only to see the response of the readers. It’s quite telling.
Fair enough.
They tried Ethan as an adult. To me, they shouldn't be able to have it both ways... If the parents are criminally negligible, then Ethan should have been tried as a juvenile or vice versa.
Michigan tried Ethan Crumbley as an adult, then prosecuted his mother for providing inadequate childcare. Is he an adult or a child? Is he responsible for his own actions or is someone else? I would say the state can’t have it both ways, but apparently they can.
I expect this verdict to be appealed and reversed. The law is not whatever prosecutors want it to be.
The idea that punishment reduces crime has been proven wrong for centuries. If it did, by now, there would be very little crime. No one who considers committing a crime, thinks about the punishment.
Totally agree Herr - although as we are witnessing in many urban areas, criminals do respond to incentives. If the law in California states that anything I shoplift under $950 will not be prosecuted, then I'm basically incentivized to steal. As a criminal they may not consider the punishment rather what they can get away with.
Exactly. If I were going to be a criminal, I would defininately move to Calif. I'd only need 1 crime a week to support myself. $49,500 a yr., tax free, for working a couple of hrs. a week isn't bad. If I wanted to be greedy, I could also apply for unenployement, plus whatever else Calif. is offering.
Yes and no. People think about the LIKELIHOOD of punishment. Severity of punishment has little effect.
Not true that people who commit crimes don't think about punishment. They do. They know they violate the law. They either: just don't care, are willing to risk it, think they won't get caught (often true), are driven by compulsion (like this kid), don't see prison as that bad compared to their life, or are under the influence of drugs.
The son of my friend told me in no uncertain terms that he was going to be a top gangster and had to kill people to get there. (Career path.) This is like Whitey Bulger. He said he was going to kill cops if they got in his way.
No, it didn't work out like that. He learned that other people, including other gangsters have an opinion and are themselves experienced in changing the behavior of boys like him.
Exactly