Quote:
Originally Posted by GATORBILL66
WOW! Now any parent or even grandparent could be charged with a child's crime just for being related to the child.
|
No, no not at all. What the verdict "says" is only that parents have a responsibility to the degree possible, for their own children. For instance, if a parent has had indications of serious mental, interpersonal, or adjustment problems, it's just like medical conditions. If a minor, the parent is responsible to getting appropriate help. If a child/youth IS under care for some mental or physical abnormality, or the friends, church, scouts, school, etc. has brought this to the parent's attention, AND the parents make the decision to purchase a fire arm for the child/youth, or even if a grandparent decides to purchase and give that at risk child a weapon, the they can/might be held responsible, but again, a jury would have to hear ALL the evidence. So don't automatically deduce from this particular case, that you, or anyone can "automatically" be held responsible for any/all acts of a minor. It's like a research "study" where they tell you "a study have shown ______ works better than any other product to clean your floors". To believe such a claim, you would have to look up the actual study, find ALL the variables, look at what standard deviation the study authors used, see HOW MANY participants were in the experimental group, the control group, and such things as was historical data use also for comparison...ALL of that, or, the words "a study show" mean absolutely nothing, and this type of parent responsibility case is similar. You have to know ALL the variables to come to a decision/conclusion about responsibility !