Michigan school shooting verdict in

BehindBlueI's · Feb 7, 2024

OneBadV8 said:
So if the kid commits suicide, we lock up the parents?

if the kid steals a car, and gets in a wreck that kills others, we lock up the parents?

How many people here took their parents cars on a small joy ride when they were underage and their parents weren't home?

Suicide: If the child is mentally incapable of making a decision and was provided a weapon, yes, we do. That's exactly the sort of thing Neglect causing death covers.

Steals a car: No. Not the same as either the hypothetical above or the case under discussion. Now if the parent taught the child to hotwire cars, gave them a USB drive that lets them steal Kias, then dropped them off at the dealership they would likely be charged as an accessory.

A 'joy ride' is a red herring and has no bearing on a case revolving around a mentally unstable child provided access to a weapon and denied mental health care, then sent out into the wider world. In your alternative version, civil liability would still be there, though, right? If some 13 year old hit you and totaled out your vehicle would you sue the 13 year old or his parents? Or would you shrug and say he was the only one behind the wheel so he'll have to pay damages?

OneBadV8 · Feb 7, 2024

BehindBlueI's said:
Suicide: If the child is mentally incapable of making a decision and was provided a weapon, yes, we do. That's exactly the sort of thing Neglect causing death covers.

Steals a car: No. Not the same as either the hypothetical above or the case under discussion. Now if the parent taught the child to hotwire cars, gave them a USB drive that lets them steal Kias, then dropped them off at the dealership they would likely be charged as an accessory.

A 'joy ride' is a red herring and has no bearing on a case revolving around a mentally unstable child provided access to a weapon and denied mental health care, then sent out into the wider world. In your alternative version, civil liability would still be there, though, right? If some 13 year old hit you and totaled out your vehicle would you sue the 13 year old or his parents? Or would you shrug and say he was the only one behind the wheel so he'll have to pay damages?

I'm not saying they aren't responsible or to be held accountable in some way, I'm just saying it's a broad brush and this could be a slippery slope in future litigation. Government isn't exactly known for using previous decisions in narrow scope when there is an agenda. And the more they reference it, the more it erodes and covers much broader areas.

chipbennett · Feb 7, 2024

TheGrumpyGuy said:
So the answer is to keep your children locked in a cage until they turn 18, then immediately kick their ass to the curb - gotcha

Demolishing straw men is fun!

BehindBlueI's · Feb 7, 2024

OneBadV8 said:
I'm not saying they aren't responsible or to be held accountable in some way, I'm just saying it's a broad brush and this could be a slippery slope in future litigation. Government isn't exactly known for using previous decisions in narrow scope when there is an agenda. And the more they reference it, the more it erodes and covers much broader areas.

What, exactly, is the broad brush here? Are we supposed to ignore a very specific set of facts that lead to culpability because someone somewhere at sometime *may* try to expound on that in a way we don't agree with? Or should we decide each case on the facts of that case?

OneBadV8 · Feb 7, 2024

BehindBlueI's said:
What, exactly, is the broad brush here? Are we supposed to ignore a very specific set of facts that lead to culpability because someone somewhere at sometime *may* try to expound on that in a way we don't agree with? Or should we decide each case on the facts of that case?

We can prosecute for Neglect, correct? And maybe that sentence should be directly related to the outcome of the "event". I just think personally (and I'm fine being wrong, it happens daily) it's a jump to go directly to involuntary manslaughter. :dunno:

You want to prosecute for Neglect of a dependent resulting in X which gets X years because of the severity, fine.

But how does the parent, not involved directly in the deaths become Involuntary Manslaughter?

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results either from recklessness or criminal negligence or from the commission of a low-level criminal act such as a misdemeanor. Involuntary manslaughter is distinguished from other forms of homicide because it does not require deliberation or premeditation, or even intent. Since these mental states are not required, involuntary manslaughter is the lowest category of homicide.

BehindBlueI's · Feb 7, 2024

OneBadV8 said:
We can prosecute for Neglect, correct? And maybe that sentence should be directly related to the outcome of the "event". I just think personally (and I'm fine being wrong, it happens daily) it's a jump to go directly to involuntary manslaughter.

That, to me, is the better argument. Not the lack of culpability or the "it's a way to get to all gun owners" argument, but if the correct charge was used.

To that: Short answer: I don't know.

Longer answer: I'm not familiar with MI law nor do I care enough to do the level of research that would be required to have a good base of prior case law on where involuntary manslaughter begins and ends there. I'm sure there will be an appeal and we'll find out if they agree with the jury. Remember crimes have accessory charges, meaning you don't have to be the one who did the act if you provided material support. At least in Indiana (again, don't know MI) you're convicted of the same crime even if you're a "conspiracy to commit" or "attempted" sort of defendant. I would think that's the issue at hand here, involuntary doesn't require you to want to do the thing, just to do the thing in a negligent manner. If you negligently provide support for a negligent crime by someone you have legal care and custody of, is that enough? Apparently the prosecutor and jury thought so, but maybe the appeals court won't...so I don't know.

I would suggest it doesn't happen daily, though, for the exact reason this isn't a broad brush. It's not applicable to most crime, even by juveniles. There's a difference between a **** head incorrigible youth the parents simply can't control or a one time display of childish idiocy vs what we had here.

In Indiana, you could charge neglect but not neglect causing death, as the dependent didn't die and the code is specific on that point.

OneBadV8 · Feb 7, 2024

BehindBlueI's said:
That, to me, is the better argument. Not the lack of culpability or the "it's a way to get to all gun owners" argument, but if the correct charge was used.

To that: Short answer: I don't know.

Longer answer: I'm not familiar with MI law nor do I care enough to do the level of research that would be required to have a good base of prior case law on where involuntary manslaughter begins and ends there. I'm sure there will be an appeal and we'll find out if they agree with the jury. Remember crimes have accessory charges, meaning you don't have to be the one who did the act if you provided material support. At least in Indiana (again, don't know MI) you're convicted of the same crime even if you're a "conspiracy to commit" or "attempted" sort of defendant. I would think that's the issue at hand here, involuntary doesn't require you to want to do the thing, just to do the thing in a negligent manner. If you negligently provide support for a negligent crime by someone you have legal care and custody of, is that enough? Apparently the prosecutor and jury thought so, but maybe the appeals court won't...so I don't know.

I would suggest it doesn't happen daily, though, for the exact reason this isn't a broad brush. It's not applicable to most crime, even by juveniles. There's a difference between a **** head incorrigible youth the parents simply can't control or a one time display of childish idiocy vs what we had here.

In Indiana, you could charge neglect but not neglect causing death, as the dependent didn't die and the code is specific on that point.

Yeah, that’s where my hang up was and the broad brush was for applying involuntary manslaughter.

I could see the path to accessory to commit or something else. Appreciate the responses and information provided. I learned things more better today :thumbsup:

Twangbanger · Feb 7, 2024

If the gun-owning right wing community's response to this event is for parents to go full Bart Simpson and say, "Itz a tragedy / thoughts n prayers / prosecute my minor son / Not my problem man?"

Then you better get ready for a whole crap-ton of the Village raising your child for you. Which I thought we didn't want. Because society is not going to accept that.

Old Road Dog · Feb 7, 2024

Destro said:
The counselor at the school said he didn't search the backpack because he didn't believe he had reasonable suspicion to believe there was a gun in it, and the search would have been unlawful.

I hope this Counselor can sleep at night. The choice looks like it came down to a "possible" Lawsuit or 4 Dead Kids..and one report said he thought the backpack "felt heavier" than normal..Now is there such a thing as a "pat down" of a suspicious backpack without actually opening it? If an outline of a gun or knife was felt should allow for opening of the object?

Old Road Dog · Feb 7, 2024

TheGrumpyGuy said:
So the answer is to keep your children locked in a cage until they turn 18, then immediately kick their ass to the curb - gotcha

I'm thinking of the stories about 14 year olds arrested for Carjacking and it's later determined they have 1/2 dozen "priors".

HoughMade · Feb 7, 2024

Old Road Dog said:
I hope this Counselor can sleep at night. The choice looks like it came down to a "possible" Lawsuit or 4 Dead Kids..and one report said he thought the backpack "felt heavier" than normal..Now is there such a thing as a "pat down" of a suspicious backpack without actually opening it? If an outline of a gun or knife was felt should allow for opening of the object?

Damned Constitution.

Mij · Feb 7, 2024

HoughMade said:
Damned Constitution.

Yes I know it’s purple

Ark · Feb 7, 2024

Lumpy76 said:
Now do the parents (parent) of inner city gang bangers.

Never gonna happen.

She got rolled for this because she was a white woman.

Hoosierdood · Feb 7, 2024

I think this case really came down to negligence on the parents part.

Parents cannot and should not be responsible for every bad decision a child makes. I did some really dumb stuff when I was a kid. Even spent some time in juvenile detention. Not my parents fault because they did everything they could do to raise me right. I just made poor choices.

This case is different. The parents did not do what was needed to raise their kid right. On top of that, they willingly chose to disregard warnings about their sons mental status, provided him with a weapon that was not properly kept out of reach without supervision, and were clearly negligent in getting him the help he needed. They bear some responsibility in this.

A kid who makes bad choices, or gets in with the wrong crowd is one thing. A kid who is exhibiting cries for help and whose parents choose to put their heads in the sand and then gift him tools to fulfill his dark fantasies is an entirely different scenario.

bobzilla · Feb 7, 2024

TheGrumpyGuy said:
So the answer is to keep your children locked in a cage until they turn 18, then immediately kick their ass to the curb - gotcha

That is totally not the answer. The answer is to not have kids you can't care for. It's pretty simple, we know how babies are made. We know how to not make them.

CombatShooter · Feb 7, 2024

The parents knew he had a mental illness, therefore should have kept him from firearms. Enabling him is like becoming an accomplice to whatever he may do and implicate the parents in the crime. Which it did and the mother was found guilty, father probably will be also.
This is called Accomplice Liability.
I believe the jury made the right call.

chipbennett · Feb 7, 2024

HoughMade said:
Damned Constitution.

Asking because I legitimately don't know: how far are 4A-protected rights to be secure in one's person/effects without search/seizure extended to students inside a school? I know that other constitutionally protected rights have certain limitations within the school.

Judamonster · Feb 7, 2024

chipbennett said:
Asking because I legitimately don't know: how far are 4A-protected rights to be secure in one's person/effects without search/seizure extended to students inside a school? I know that other constitutionally protected rights have certain limitations within the school.

I feel that there is a difference in school staff looking for a firearm to prevent them from entering a school, and police searching and trying to charge them with a crime.

BehindBlueI's · Feb 7, 2024

chipbennett said:
Asking because I legitimately don't know: how far are 4A-protected rights to be secure in one's person/effects without search/seizure extended to students inside a school? I know that other constitutionally protected rights have certain limitations within the school.

It's lessened but not removed. The answer as to where the line is drawn is always fuzzy, but here you have someone who's not in law enforcement, who's likely not well trained or versed in case law, and doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. In hindsight, maybe secure the backpack and call a parent if you think you can't search it yourself, or seek consent from the parent? Children can't consent or not consent to a search, that is case law for sure, and even good faith arguments don't overcome that. I was part of such case law as a street cop early in my career. In short:

Burglary suspect believed to have gone in an apartment.
Person answers door. Provides identification that they are an adult (19 y/o).
Signs a consent to search.
Stolen property found in apartment.

Evidence later suppressed because the person who gave consent was actually 16 or 17 (don't recall any longer). The fact they lied, that we had no reason to suspect they weren't who they said they were, and that we acted on good faith was irrelevant to the court. Only the fact a juvenile can't provide consent was relevant.

So I honestly can't blame them for getting it wrong, especially with normalcy bias. How many parents would have jumped in the school's ass for searching their kid wrongfully?

Judamonster said:
I feel that there is a difference in school staff looking for a firearm to prevent them from entering a school, and police searching and trying to charge them with a crime.

There is. But the 4th amendment doesn't stop at the school door nor does it not apply to juveniles. It's different, but not removed.

chipbennett · Feb 7, 2024

BehindBlueI's said:
It's lessened but not removed. The answer as to where the line is drawn is always fuzzy, but here you have someone who's not in law enforcement, who's likely not well trained or versed in case law, and doing the best they can with the knowledge they have. In hindsight, maybe secure the backpack and call a parent if you think you can't search it yourself, or seek consent from the parent? Children can't consent or not consent to a search, that is case law for sure, and even good faith arguments don't overcome that. I was part of such case law as a street cop early in my career. In short:

Burglary suspect believed to have gone in an apartment.
Person answers door. Provides identification that they are an adult (19 y/o).
Signs a consent to search.
Stolen property found in apartment.

Evidence later suppressed because the person who gave consent was actually 16 or 17 (don't recall any longer). The fact they lied, that we had no reason to suspect they weren't who they said they were, and that we acted on good faith was irrelevant to the court. Only the fact a juvenile can't provide consent was relevant.

So I honestly can't blame them for getting it wrong, especially with normalcy bias. How many parents would have jumped in the school's ass for searching their kid wrongfully?

There is. But the 4th amendment doesn't stop at the school door nor does it not apply to juveniles. It's different, but not removed.

To be clear: I wasn't implying agreement/disagreement with wherever the line is. I was just asking, because I didn't know.

In this specific scenario (so, perhaps not applicable to any other conceivable scenario), what was important was preventing the student from using a gun to harm other students/teachers, not securing a prosecution/conviction of the student. So, a teacher searching the bag and finding the gun would have accomplished that.

(That's beside the point of, say, the teacher searching the bag and finding some different sort of contraband - drugs, etc., which would be fruit of the poisoned tree and all that.)

Michigan school shooting verdict in

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

Grandmaster

Stay Picky my Friends

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Stay Picky my Friends

Grandmaster

Stay Picky my Friends

Grandmaster

Plinker

Plinker

Grandmaster

Permaplinker (thanks to Expat)

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Mod in training (in my own mind)

Plinker

Grandmaster

Marksman

Grandmaster

Grandmaster

Log in

Site Supporter

Forum statistics