Michigan school shooting verdict in

[Mij]

This is an exceptionally good discussion on a regrettably tragic incident.

I can't have a fair opinion on this woman's negligence without viewing all of the evidence in context for myself. I have a lot of questions about things like holding parents responsible for a kid's diary entries.

The jury foreperson focused on my main concern: free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old. Three types of people should not have access to firearms.

1. Violent felons
2. Those who are mentally deranged
3. Unsupervised minors

In today's world, a parent shouldn't allow free access to a firearm by a 15-year-old.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...rson-oxford-high-school-shooting/72498959007/

I certainly understand your trepidation, but please understand that there are a lot of us still around that took our guns to school. Run your traps on the way to school, small game hunting walking home.

Not that long ago everyone that could drive (to school) had a gun rack in the back window of their truck. It was a right of passage to manhood.

I don’t believe age is the factor, it’s a societal change that’s an issue. JMO of course.

 

[Libertarian01]

That's this case.

If I remember correctly someone on the school staff also returned his backpack the gun was in after making some comment along the line of, is there a gun in there it's pretty heavy. This is after they found drawings of a bloody scene and people being shot as well.

A lot of warnings were ignored all around.

Thanks.

What threw me was my presumption that the parental units would be charged together, not separately. So when talking about the mommy unit I thought it was another case.

Doug

 

[Usmccookie]

I agree 100% WHEN the school is aware. I forget the case but there was one where the principal confronted the parents and asked them to get him mental health help. The parents said "NO." The principal should not have made it a request.

In almost every case where the school administration is involved they should also be held accountable. They have taken on the responsibility of protecting all of the people under their watch.

Regards,

Doug

I’m a little late to the party but,

I’m a bit conflicted on this point on hold info the school accountable.

On one hand, I see your point and it’s valid, on the other where do we draw the line between what the school is supposed to do vs allowing the kids to be raised by their parents.

I Can se this argument changing depending on which political issue we are speaking on.

For example, and only an example …
If a parent is against the COVID vaccine, does the school have the authority and obligation to vaccinate the student?

 

[BJHay]

I certainly understand your trepidation, but please understand that there are a lot of us still around that took our guns to school. Run your traps on the way to school, small game hunting walking home.

Not that long ago everyone that could drive (to school) had a gun rack in the back window of their truck. It was a right of passage to manhood.

I don’t believe age is the factor, it’s a societal change that’s an issue. JMO of course.

I'm plenty old enough to remember that. DeMolay ran the shooting team for my high school. I was 16 and drove my '67 Firebird to the NG armory range in South Bend every week with my .22 semi-auto in the trunk (sometimes in the back seat).

Times have changed and kids have changed. Parents and teachers have been joined by the internet as the primary influencers for kids. Back in the day an arrant shot likely wouldn't have been a big deal if nobody was hurt. Today, I think the results would be different.

If I recall Indiana doesn't allow those under 18 to possess a firearm these days.

 

[chipbennett]

If I recall Indiana doesn't allow those under 18 to possess a firearm these days.

It depends on the circumstances. There are several under which it is perfectly lawful for someone under 18 to possess a firearm.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If I recall Indiana doesn't allow those under 18 to possess a firearm these days.

I think you may be confusing "possess a firearm" with "carry a handgun in public".

 

[Libertarian01]

I’m a little late to the party but,

I’m a bit conflicted on this point on hold info the school accountable.

On one hand, I see your point and it’s valid, on the other where do we draw the line between what the school is supposed to do vs allowing the kids to be raised by their parents.

I Can se this argument changing depending on which political issue we are speaking on.

For example, and only an example …
If a parent is against the COVID vaccine, does the school have the authority and obligation to vaccinate the student?

There are issues with this topic, not limited to the slippery slope argument.

And this is where people get p****d off at lawyers when asked a question and the lawyers answer, "It depends..."

In THIS case AS I UNDERSTAND IT, the kid drew a picture of a school shooting, asked for help, and complained of mental health issues. The principal called the parents in for a conference asking them to get him some counseling, and they said, "No."

Were I the principal in this case I would have told the parents (maybe in nicer words), "You kid has an issue. I am NOT allowing him back into this school until you prove to me that he has received appropriate counseling AND the appropriately licensed counselor has written a letter deeming him safe. PERIOD."

In this case the principal did not do this. As I see it the principal had a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to all of his students. As Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility." I am afraid that too many school administrators are, like many others, afraid to exercise power and authority out of fear of lawsuits. In this case that fear dissuaded a responsible party (the principal) from using his power to protect his staff and students.

How many students today are held back a year, or two (2), or three (3)? Not as many as 75 years ago. How many kids get an "F?" Not as many as 75 years ago. In both I'm statistically speaking. Today teachers are pressured to pass kids that should not be passed. First, pressured by administrators who are afraid of sensitive parents suing over ridiculous claims. Second, by administrators who don't want to lose federal money due to not making good enough grades.

If the principal knew absolutely nothing then I would not find any reason to hold him accountable. In this case he did, and that is why I think he should be judged by a jury of his peers. Let a case be brought and the jury determine if he was guilty or not.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I've just applied for three (3) separate jobs at Fort Wayne Community Schools. This topic may well concern me.

 

[Usmccookie]

There are issues with this topic, not limited to the slippery slope argument.

And this is where people get p****d off at lawyers when asked a question and the lawyers answer, "It depends..."

In THIS case AS I UNDERSTAND IT, the kid drew a picture of a school shooting, asked for help, and complained of mental health issues. The principal called the parents in for a conference asking them to get him some counseling, and they said, "No."

Were I the principal in this case I would have told the parents (maybe in nicer words), "You kid has an issue. I am NOT allowing him back into this school until you prove to me that he has received appropriate counseling AND the appropriately licensed counselor has written a letter deeming him safe. PERIOD."

In this case the principal did not do this. As I see it the principal had a moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to all of his students. As Spiderman says, "With great power comes great responsibility." I am afraid that too many school administrators are, like many others, afraid to exercise power and authority out of fear of lawsuits. In this case that fear dissuaded a responsible party (the principal) from using his power to protect his staff and students.

How many students today are held back a year, or two (2), or three (3)? Not as many as 75 years ago. How many kids get an "F?" Not as many as 75 years ago. In both I'm statistically speaking. Today teachers are pressured to pass kids that should not be passed. First, pressured by administrators who are afraid of sensitive parents suing over ridiculous claims. Second, by administrators who don't want to lose federal money due to not making good enough grades.

If the principal knew absolutely nothing then I would not find any reason to hold him accountable. In this case he did, and that is why I think he should be judged by a jury of his peers. Let a case be brought and the jury determine if he was guilty or not.

Regards,

Doug

PS - I've just applied for three (3) separate jobs at Fort Wayne Community Schools. This topic may well concern me.

I definitely appreciate your take. I got read up on this case. My wife is a true crime fanatic cans this case came to her.

Some of the details in this case were beyond crazy. Mothers affair, the kid begging for a year for help with his schizophrenia. She buys him a gun hoping he’d off himself and the parents grab their money and take off for the Canadian border.. wow, just wow.

I see what you’re saying concerning the principal. He was aware of the kids problems. Called the parents. The mom told him to eff off. Sent him back to school.

I guess the “it depends “ is as good of an answer as there is. But it does make a hell of an argument for charter and private schooling.

 

[chipbennett]

By the way, if you're wondering why all the social media crazies are all of a sudden caterwauling about Kyle Rittenhouse again, it's because their hive mind came up with this awesome (in their minds) analogy between this mother and Rittenhouse's mother. They're spouting off that if this mother was convicted, then so should Rittenhouse's mom have been arrested/convicted for "driving him across state lines with an illegal rifle to attack a protest".

The expected back-and-forth hilarity has ensued.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'm surprised to not see the discussion revolve around the fact that the kid used a gun that his parents failed to properly secure. And, my definition of "failed to properly secure" is any time a minor child gets ahold of any gun that I own, no matter how they accomplish that.

I'm not saying that the kid's parents in this case had no responsibility to be more aware of and more proactive toward their child's apparently downwardly spiraling mental health condition, I'm saying that I would feel differently about the parent's culpability if there were no guns in their house and the kid used a gun that they didn't know that he had.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm surprised to not see the discussion revolve around the fact that the kid used a gun that his parents failed to properly secure. And, my definition of "failed to properly secure" is any time a minor child gets ahold of any gun that I own, no matter how they accomplish that.

I'm not saying that the kid's parents in this case had no responsibility to be more aware of and more proactive toward their child's apparently downwardly spiraling mental health condition, I'm saying that I would feel differently about the parent's culpability if there were no guns in their house and the kid used a gun that they didn't know that he had.

I think that discussion isn't happening because the general consensus of everyone participating in this thread agree that the mother was legally culpable and that the verdict was just?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm surprised to not see the discussion revolve around the fact that the kid used a gun that his parents failed to properly secure. And, my definition of "failed to properly secure" is any time a minor child gets ahold of any gun that I own, no matter how they accomplish that.

I'm not saying that the kid's parents in this case had no responsibility to be more aware of and more proactive toward their child's apparently downwardly spiraling mental health condition, I'm saying that I would feel differently about the parent's culpability if there were no guns in their house and the kid used a gun that they didn't know that he had.

I think the 'failed to properly secure' is kind of a side show given the actual facts in this case. If he was a 17 y/o thug who jimmied a locked gun box while mom was at work, I think the conversation would be radically different and that no charges would have ever been considered. Still a juvenile accessing a gun, but completely different than actively providing a gun to a juvenile complaining of hallucinations, etc.

While there has been a, sometimes maddening, lack of consistency in charging decisions, typically some level of mental capacity argument has been present. Either the child is so young as to not understand the finality of a trigger pull (say, a 4 year old finds daddy's gun on the night stand and puts one through his chest lemon squeezing the gun, kids often pull the trigger with both thumbs and the gun pointing toward them to get the grip strength needed out of their little hands to get it to go off) or some level of mental illness. Combined with careless or neglectful storage. Under a sofa cushion where the child plays, on the night stand, etc. I've yet to see charges on even the lousiest of gun boxes that were defeated...but I've yet to see an actual child defeat one.

 

[Old Road Dog]

I keep thinking of 14 year olds arrested for Carjacking/Robbery/Shootings who it turns out has 4 "priors" when I think about "parental responsibility" or irresponsible Prosecutors.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Sentencing handed down today, 10-15 years for both mom and dad. Credit for time already served.

"Parents are not expected to be psychic, but these convictions are not about poor parenting. These convictions confirm repeated acts, or lack of acts, that could have halted an oncoming runaway train -- about repeatedly ignoring things that would make a reasonable person feel the hair on the back of their neck"

Michigan guidelines call for a 7 year sentence, but the judge thought that wasn't enough.

"Considering the guidelines, what those guidelines do and do not account for, and the objectives of sentencing, the severity of the circumstances in this case and defendant's total lack of remorse warrant a sentence that exceeds the applicable guidelines range," prosecutors continued. "A sentence of 10 to 15 years' imprisonment is proportionate to these offenses and this offender."

Jennifer and James Crumbley, parents of Michigan school shooter, sentenced to 10 to 15 years for manslaughter

Jennifer and James Crumbley, the parents of Oxford High School mass shooter Ethan Crumbley, were sentenced to 10 to 15 years Tuesday.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Ark]

This is pretty infuriating when Indy just gave a cop killer time served.

When you're white you get more time than cop killers for shootings you didn't even commit.

 

[DragonGunner]

This is pretty infuriating when Indy just gave a cop killer time served.

When you're white you get more time than cop killers for shootings you didn't even commit.

Well by the news the last several years there seems to be a strong lack of justice in the courts, depending on who owns the particular court.

 

[chipbennett]

This is pretty infuriating when Indy just gave a cop killer time served.

When you're white you get more time than cop killers for shootings you didn't even commit.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I take no issue with the sentences for the parents in this case. The judge who gave time served needs to be run out on a (proverbial) rail.