Crumbley Sentencing

[retiredguy123]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

[mbene]

If you watched any of the proceedings and saw the evidence presented on how they ignored his cries for help, you had to know he really should have been in treatment for his mental health. Then, knowing his state of mind, your reaction is to buy him a gun, they really contributed to the killings by their actions.

[phylt]

If you watched any of the proceedings and saw the evidence presented on how they ignored his cries for help, you had to know he really should have been in treatment for his mental health. Then, knowing his state of mind, your reaction is to buy him a gun, they really contributed to the killings by their actions.

We watched some of the sentencing. A 'slippery slope' as some legal analysts said.

BUT - yikes in this case, in THIS case it surely was correct for the parents to serve time.They both ignored serious mental issues with their son right up to the day of the shooting. Even bought HIM the gun that he used, several days before. Texts between the son and parents, right up to the shooting were so damning. And both of the parent's statements at the end were all about THEM, and little about the victims. If there is ANY case ripe for sentencing liable parents - THIS IS IT!!!

I always think of the VICTIMS - not the aggressors and convictees.

[manaboutown]

If the same standards were applied in Baltimore City perhaps half the adult population would be in prison.

They certainly are culpable of something but this is beyond the pale. They need to appeal. They'll probably end up bankrupt.


They should have hired O.J.'s lawyer, what's his name, Johnnie Cochran.

[ThirdOfFive]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?
I think...you're talking about Michigan.

[retiredguy123]

So, these parents should go to jail, but the parents of a 13 year old who commits a murder at 2am should not be charged with any crime?

[retiredguy123]

I think...you're talking about Michigan.
I said Michigan.

[LuvNH]

Does this open the door for the parents of the children that were killed in various terrible school massacres to follow suit and sue.

[Pondboy]

So, these parents should go to jail, but the parents of a 13 year old who commits a murder at 2am should not be charged with any crime?

The boy was “unwell”. Yet the parents bought him a gun. There was a direct link. Your 2 AM accusation has a lot of voids and is too general to make a comparison.

Hopefully the beginning of some long needed “Common Sense Gun Laws”.

[Dusty_Star]

I said Michigan.

I think that was his point.

[fdpaq0580]

Parents are, supposedly, responsible for their children. If you buy your child a weapon and they use it to commit a crime, imo, you are guilty of aiding and abetting, at least. If your child is ill, mentally or physically, and you don't know it, you have failed as a parent.

[fdpaq0580]

So, these parents should go to jail, but the parents of a 13 year old who commits a murder at 2am should not be charged with any crime?

I think they should. Hold parents accountable.

[retiredguy123]

I think they should. Hold parents accountable.
I don't disagree, but there are hundreds of juveniles committing murders, but these are the only parents being held accountable. It should be evenly enforced. Also, this murderer was tried as an adult, so, the state argued that he was acting as an adult, not as a juvenile. He is either an adult, or he is a child. You can't have it both ways. If he is an adult, how can you blame the parents for his actions?

[fdpaq0580]

I don't disagree, but there are hundreds of juveniles committing murders, but these are the only parents being held accountable. It should be evenly enforced. Also, this murderer was tried as an adult, so, the state argued that he was acting as an adult, not as a juvenile. He is either an adult, or he is a child. You can't have it both ways. If he is an adult, how can you blame the parents for his actions?

Yes you can. Imo, if you or I give another adult a gun and they commit murder, you or I might find ourself in court as an accessory. We didn't commit the murder, but we facilitated it. Don't give or loan stuff if there is the slightest question about its use and/or the trustworthiness of the individual involved.

[dhdallas]

The parents deserve every bit of the prison sentences. Anyone failing to secure their firearm from unauthorized use should be charged as an accessory if that firearm is used in the commission of a crime. The Crumbleys were wantonly negligent.

[Eg_cruz]

We watched some of the sentencing. A 'slippery slope' as some legal analysts said.

BUT - yikes in this case, in THIS case it surely was correct for the parents to serve time.They both ignored serious mental issues with their son right up to the day of the shooting. Even bought HIM the gun that he used, several days before. Texts between the son and parents, right up to the shooting were so damning. And both of the parent's statements at the end were all about THEM, and little about the victims. If there is ANY case ripe for sentencing liable parents - THIS IS IT!!!

I always think of the VICTIMS - not the aggressors and convictees.
Great points agree

[Kelevision]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

Is a 15 year old allowed to purchase a gun legally? No. Did his parents purchase the gun to give to him? Yes all while knowing he’s mentally unstable. Who should be responsible for the gun? The person it’s registered to. That’s the problem. It’s a responsibility to own a gun. I’ve seen too many times small children shooting and killing siblings, parents, friends etc because the gun owner didn’t have the gun stored properly. There should absolutely be consequences for the registered gun owner.

[Susan1717]

I agree with the parents being held accountable but, being from Chicago and witnessing so much inner city crime, I do agree that the same rules should apply when applicable. This “hypocrytical soft on crime with not being held accountable” stuff is making the crimes escalate.

[Lyarham]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

They knew their son had mental problems and they bought him a gun. Yes they are partially responsible

[msilagy]

I think it set a precedent! This may be used in connection with facts they can prove. To compare kids wandering around big cities is not a fair comparison. What would the prosecution prove in that case against the parents. No hard facts. The fact that his parents bought him a gun and didn't secure it, the parents and the school never searched his backpack is really an issue. The parents fled and hid planning to leave the US - GUILTY!

[DDToto41]

Each state has their own laws and penalties for crimes committed. If more states followed Michigan's leadership maybe the crime by juveniles would drop.

[Cuervo]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

I believe you answered your own question in your question. "Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing". These kids in Chicago, New York, Baltimore are in most cases living in poor and broken homes, their parents are not buying them guns. These two knew their son had problems and they buy him a gun, that is either stupidity or total disregard of safety for others. Even if they didn't care about others in his mental condition, he could have easily had used the gun on himself. These people should never had become parents.

[Taltarzac725]

A small step in the right direction. Negligent parenting at its worst. But the cases should be judged with a heavy emphasis on the facts in each case. And a huge bow to equity.

[MikeN]

I think parents that don’t get involved and pay attention to all the warning signs in their child’s life and the child commits a heinous crime like Ethan did should be held responsible

[Mrmean58]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?
I think this sentence of the parents sends a message to all those parents you describe who don't know what their kids are or what they are doing. Civic leaders in all those cities you called out have been pleading for some time for parents to wake up and be responsible parents to help stop the unnecessary crimes by juveniles. Parents need to either put in the time parenting or they too can do time for their kids actions. I'm in support of this decision.

[jimbomaybe]

They knew their son had mental problems and they bought him a gun. Yes they are partially responsible
Exactly , knowingly allowing some who is mentally unstable access to or much worse providing a deadly weapon makes you culpable, it is understandable that the emotional attachment one feels for their children can blind them , but there are limits,

[Mrmean58]

Yes you can have it both ways. There are numerous cases where one adult is convicted of a crime and other adults are convicted as accomplices. The "non charging" of other teens in murders has more to do with the many liberal DAs than it does anything thing else.

[bowlingal]

retiredguy....if they were your children or grandchildren, you would feel different I'm sure

[Accidental1]

A planned school shooting and gang violence are hardly equal.

[Girlcopper]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?
Theyre lucky that’s all they got. They are just as if not more responsible for all this than their son. They helped him get the tools needed to kill people knowing he had mental issues. Shame on them.

[ffresh]

So, these parents should go to jail, but the parents of a 13 year old who commits a murder at 2am should not be charged with any crime?

I didn't follow the trial but we have to remember that each state has its own laws, which could account for the different approach to the same crime. School shootings are a particularly sensitive topic, as well! It does seem incongruent though to have him tried as an adult and then hold someone else accountable too. I suppose the case was made that they were "accessories before the fact". Sending threatening text messages (father) to the prosecutor probably didn't ingratiate him to the court either :shrug:

FredF

[Windguy]

So, these parents should go to jail, but the parents of a 13 year old who commits a murder at 2am should not be charged with any crime?

Do the parents of kids in gangs (which is what you are talking about) actively enable their children as these parents did?

[MandoMan]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

You may be right to suggest that all these parents should face criminal charges. With the right to bear arms (and purchase them) comes the responsibility of bearing them safely and not misusing them. With the right to bear children should be the duty to bring them up in the way they should go so they will not depart from it. The failure to do that may be nationwide, though most raise their children well. It’s hardest in neighborhoods with the highest crime rates, but it’s true that this is where the worst parents are found. It is terrifying for parents to have a child who is mentally unstable. This happens even to the best parents, though. Of course, the best parents seek help, and they don’t buy their kids guns.

[ThirdOfFive]

Each state has their own laws and penalties for crimes committed. If more states followed Michigan's leadership maybe the crime by juveniles would drop.
No. And yes.

I know it never happens quite the way it should in America but laws, to be most effective, should be applied equally across-the-board. The unfortunate reality is that the high-profile cases, particularly if those cases are in the sights (no pun intended) of the social crusaders among us, get often overwhelming media attention. Maybe, deservedly so...but how many juveniles died by gun violence on the part of other juveniles in 2020 in Detroit? Or Flint? Or Muskegon Harbor? Or Benton Heights? Or... and in those instances, how many parents were held to account for what their kid(s) did?

And why not?

I'm all for holding parents responsible for the misdeeds of their children. The way things are going it seems as if it would be the ONLY way to make a dent in juvenile crime. But to say that Michigan is setting an example would be a valid claim ONLY if Michigan is holding parents responsible across-the-board for the misdeeds of their children.

But they're not.

[Windguy]

Parents need to either put in the time parenting or they too can do time for their kids actions. I'm in support of this decision.
It might be difficult for parents working three minimum-wage jobs to pay rent, clothe, and feed their children to spend more time with them. I assure you that such parents love their kids and would love to be with them more, but time on the job and exhaustion make that impossible. Should they quit one of their jobs and maybe be evicted for not paying rent on time?

Most parents in the inner-city aren’t actively enabling their kids to commit crimes as these two did.

[waterflower]

Understand what controls the (il)legal maritime law system. >B.A.R.=British Accreditation Registry.
State of Washington just removed the requirement of graduating law students to take the B.A.R. exam. Things will change. SLOWLY

[airstreamingypsy]

So, these parents should go to jail, but the parents of a 13 year old who commits a murder at 2am should not be charged with any crime?

So, to you, the parents who have been told their son has mental problems, should go out and buy him a gun and keep it unsecured, and tell him to not get caught at school... should not face consequences since some 13 year old somewhere also committed a crime?

[banjobob]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?
I agree more parents should be held accountable for their delinquent childrens crimes.

[Normal]

I agree more parents should be held accountable for their delinquent childrens crimes.

Parents in some states cannot use corporal punishment. If you tie their hands, can you then hold them accountable? Dr. Spock wasn’t that great of a disciplinarian, Glasser wasn't exactly a Dr. Dobson either. Raising kids is not a cookie cutter situation. I’m for whatever works.

[retiredguy123]

So, to you, the parents who have been told their son has mental problems, should go out and buy him a gun and keep it unsecured, and tell him to not get caught at school... should not face consequences since some 13 year old somewhere also committed a crime?
"Some 13 year old somewhere"? There are hundreds of juveniles committing murders every year. Yet, none of their parents have ever been sent to prison.

[Normal]

"Some 13 year old somewhere"? There are hundreds of juveniles committing murders every year. Yet, none of their parents have ever been sent to prison.

One 13 year old can be totally responsible with a firearm, another not. It’s poor judgment in the case you have brought up. Maybe the parents were mountain people wanna bees transplanted to the urban world? The Montana wilderness is much different than Detroit. Some do live in the Old Disney 60s mentality you know.

[Robojo]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

Political motivation.

[Robojo]

The boy was “unwell”. Yet the parents bought him a gun. There was a direct link. Your 2 AM accusation has a lot of voids and is too general to make a comparison.

Hopefully the beginning of some long needed “Common Sense Gun Laws”.

AND this is why they were charged. Political motivation

We don't need gun laws.

[Wondering]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?
Tell that to the FAMILIES OF THE STUDENTS WHO WERE MURDERED. Get off your stereo typing bandwagon of so called crime in major US cities. You are parroting false propaganda. Do some legitimate fact checking on current crime statistics in the US. "Polly want a cracker!"

[Dilligas]

I don't disagree, but there are hundreds of juveniles committing murders, but these are the only parents being held accountable. It should be evenly enforced. Also, this murderer was tried as an adult, so, the state argued that he was acting as an adult, not as a juvenile. He is either an adult, or he is a child. You can't have it both ways. If he is an adult, how can you blame the parents for his actions?
So far…..this will crack open the door for other cases

[Harold.wiser]

They are responsible for ignoring their son's pleas for help, not getting him proper psychiatric care, purchasing him a hand gun, and not properly securing the gun.
They definitely deserve to be held accountable, the extent of which will be debated for quite some time.

[GATORBILL66]

WOW! Now any parent or even grandparent could be charged with a child's crime just for being related to the child.

[Normal]

WOW! Now any parent or even grandparent could be charged with a child's crime just for being related to the child.

Basically, yes. It’s time to crack down on the inner city gang neighborhoods.

[PurePeach]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

Gotta start somewhere and when a kid asks for help and dad says, “get over it,” then buys him a 9mm Sig Sauer, and he texts mom that he just got caught in class looking for ammo on line and she responds “seriously?” and asks him if he showed them a picture of his new gun, they deserve to go to jail. :spoken:

[JP]

They are culpable but so are a whole bunch of other people that never see any punishment. Seems like overkill to justify a cause.

[fdpaq0580]

A planned school shooting and gang violence are hardly equal.

Often producing the same result.

[Normal]

Michigan is full of wilderness that includes great hunting, dangerous predators and wide open spaces. It also is home to Detroit and a somewhat adequate police presence. A state law would do little because of the disparity of Wolverine land where everyone wears orange in November and the recital appointments in urban Battle Creek. The real problem was the judgement by the parents. Were they living in another section of Michigan, they would have been acquitted. You can’t live in Detroit and act like you are from upstate.

[fdpaq0580]

WOW! Now any parent or even grandparent could be charged with a child's crime just for being related to the child.

Slow down. No need to panic. Each case will be charged according to the facts.

[GWilliams]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

As long as they do the same to judges and politicians who allow repeat offenders and career criminals on the street.

[Windguy]

WOW! Now any parent or even grandparent could be charged with a child's crime just for being related to the child.

That’s not what is happening and you know it.

They weren’t charged because they were related, but because they enabled his horrendous crime.

[Red Rose]

The Crumbleys deserve more time behind bars than what they got. They never showed any remorse toward the victims and their families. Plus, they supplied the gun to their son who they knew was unstable, never addressed the problem to get him help and refused to take him home that day. They should have taken the responsibility and gotten him help right away that day. They had so many opportunities to do the right thing, but they didn’t care.

[JMintzer]

AND this is why they were charged. Political motivation

We don't need gun laws.

Slight correction...

We don't need MORE gun laws... Just enforce the ones we already have on the books...

[RedChariot]

It's about time parents are held accountable for the actions of their children. Going forward the child's behavior should be reviewed and what actions did the parents take to address the child's issues. Parents who have done nothing and ignored these issues should be prosecuted. I wonder if in the past if anyone who lost their child in a school shooting civilly sued the parents of the shooter.

[JMintzer]

Tell that to the FAMILIES OF THE STUDENTS WHO WERE MURDERED. Get off your stereo typing bandwagon of so called crime in major US cities. You are parroting false propaganda. Do some legitimate fact checking on current crime statistics in the US. "Polly want a cracker!"

Nice emotional argument that has nothing to do with the facts to which you responded...

"So called crime in major US cities"... Bwahahaha!

[JMintzer]

Slow down. No need to panic. Each case will be charged according to the facts.

https://media.tenor.com/p54UKZMskZoAAAAM/jonah-jameson-laugh.gif

[JMintzer]

As long as they do the same to judges and politicians who allow repeat offenders and career criminals on the street.

https://i.gifer.com/7CCG.gif

[JMintzer]

It's about time parents are held accountable for the actions of their children. Going forward the child's behavior should be reviewed and what actions did the parents take to address the child's issues. Parents who have done nothing and ignored these issues should be prosecuted. I wonder if in the past if anyone who lost their child in a school shooting civilly sued the parents of the shooter.

The Sandy Hook parents sued the gun manufacturer...

Which is just as silly as suing Ford because of a drunk driver...

[Pugchief]

Each state has their own laws and penalties for crimes committed. If more states followed Michigan's leadership maybe the crime by juveniles would drop.

Michigan is hardly the example to be holding the rest of the nation to. Now Florida on the other hand......

[Pugchief]

You may be right to suggest that all these parents {of gangbangers} should face criminal charges. With the right to bear children should be the duty to bring them up in the way they should go so they will not depart from it.

Interesting social experiment potential: These gangbangers have no regard for their own future. Most have the expectation that they will be dead or in prison by the time they are 35. So they don't care. Now maybe if they had to be concerned about their mother ending up in prison because of their actions, they would think twice before pulling the trigger.

[Pugchief]

Understand what controls the (il)legal maritime law system. >B.A.R.=British Accreditation Registry.
State of Washington just removed the requirement of graduating law students to take the B.A.R. exam. Things will change. SLOWLY

What does any of this, particularly the bolded, have to do with this case?

[Pugchief]

Slow down. No need to panic. Each case will be charged according to the facts.

If only. Unfortunately, each case is charged according to the agenda.

[PugMom]

Is a 15 year old allowed to purchase a gun legally? No. Did his parents purchase the gun to give to him? Yes all while knowing he’s mentally unstable. Who should be responsible for the gun? The person it’s registered to. That’s the problem. It’s a responsibility to own a gun. I’ve seen too many times small children shooting and killing siblings, parents, friends etc because the gun owner didn’t have the gun stored properly. There should absolutely be consequences for the registered gun owner.

i think you hit a key part of this equation, -the gun was NOT locked up. add that to a kid asking for help (on his math test, yet) and you had a lethal combination. yes, the parents hold some responsibility for denying the boy help, but i can't help but wonder like some here have, is this going to be a new precedent? and if so, we're going to see the jails filled with sorrowful parents.

[PugMom]

It might be difficult for parents working three minimum-wage jobs to pay rent, clothe, and feed their children to spend more time with them. I assure you that such parents love their kids and would love to be with them more, but time on the job and exhaustion make that impossible. Should they quit one of their jobs and maybe be evicted for not paying rent on time?

Most parents in the inner-city aren’t actively enabling their kids to commit crimes as these two did.

that's a really good point

[PugMom]

The Crumbleys deserve more time behind bars than what they got. They never showed any remorse toward the victims and their families. Plus, they supplied the gun to their son who they knew was unstable, never addressed the problem to get him help and refused to take him home that day. They should have taken the responsibility and gotten him help right away that day. They had so many opportunities to do the right thing, but they didn’t care.

i would think they didn't want to loose time @ work. one of them would've had to take the day off, & spend time with a kid they already had no time for.

[PugMom]

Tell that to the FAMILIES OF THE STUDENTS WHO WERE MURDERED. Get off your stereo typing bandwagon of so called crime in major US cities. You are parroting false propaganda. Do some legitimate fact checking on current crime statistics in the US. "Polly want a cracker!"

wow, a tad uptight, are we? your comment comes off as bullying another poster

[terenceanne]

It's a Slippery Slope and potential can of worms opened up here. This case was murder but it's only a matter of time before overzealous DA's and lawyers try to get parents blamed for all sorts of crimes down the road. Can't happen? keep watching. The stories will start to flow soon enough.

[ThirdOfFive]

i think you hit a key part of this equation, -the gun was NOT locked up. add that to a kid asking for help (on his math test, yet) and you had a lethal combination. yes, the parents hold some responsibility for denying the boy help, but i can't help but wonder like some here have, is this going to be a new precedent? and if so, we're going to see the jails filled with sorrowful parents.
Lost in all the hyperbole here is one very significant fact. The Crumbleys were NOT convicted of any gun crime. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter under Michigan Penal Code 950.321 (criminally negligent homicide) which is defined under that statute as "Unintentionally killing another person that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI)". The penalty is a maximum of up to 15 years in prison, a fine of $7,500.00, or both. The Crumbleys got socked with the maximum. The kid got put away for life.

But...what if the method of death was NOT a firearm? What if the Crumbley kid, who for the sake of argument we assume did not have a driver's license and was thus not legally able to drive, had snatched the car keys without the parents' knowledge and taken four friends joyriding, resulting in an accident that killed the four of them but left him relatively unscathed? Still parental neglect. Still four dead kids. Still just as chargeable under the statute as the Crumbleys were.

Even in the off chance that they WERE charged had their son killed with a car rather than a gun, would it have made national news to the extent that the actual case did?

If the answer as anything but yes, then the conclusion is unavoidable. The merits of the case notwithstanding, the reason for all the media hype and public hysteria was not the act used, but the tool. And hysteria makes for poor law.

[retiredguy123]

Lost in all the hyperbole here is one very significant fact. The Crumbleys were NOT convicted of any gun crime. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter under Michigan Penal Code 950.321 (criminally negligent homicide) which is defined under that statute as "Unintentionally killing another person that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI)". The penalty is a maximum of up to 15 years in prison, a fine of $7,500.00, or both. The Crumbleys got socked with the maximum. The kid got put away for life.

But...what if the method of death was NOT a firearm? What if the Crumbley kid, who for the sake of argument we assume did not have a driver's license and was thus not legally able to drive, had snatched the car keys without the parents' knowledge and taken four friends joyriding, resulting in an accident that killed the four of them but left him relatively unscathed? Still parental neglect. Still four dead kids. Still just as chargeable under the statute as the Crumbleys were.

Even in the off chance that they WERE charged had their son killed with a car rather than a gun, would it have made national news to the extent that the actual case did?

If the answer as anything but yes, then the conclusion is unavoidable. The merits of the case notwithstanding, the reason for all the media hype and public hysteria was not the act used, but the tool. And hysteria makes for poor law.
I agree. If they committed a gun crime, then charge them with that, not manslaughter. They didn't kill anyone.

[Joe Mack]

Apply the same standard to shootings in Chicago, Philly, NYC etc and I'd be ok with it. This verdict says a few things, none of them good.

[PugMom]

excellent post from 3rdof5! allow me to go a step further: :posting: i watch a LOT of court-tv and ended up seeing quite a bit of evidence, photos, etc. mostly everytime they showed a pic of ethan, the poor kid looked like he needed a hot shower with plenty of soap. i'm not trying to be mean, i know teenage boys are not the neatest animal of the world, but somewhere along the way, it's the parents job to guide the boy into routine hygiene. my point is: people with mental issues let personal care go, among other factors. you can tell by the kid's appearance the parents were lacking in those duties, and leads me to believe they were seriously negligent in other areas as well. this may explain why instead of dealing with their son, they bought him a gun. why? what positive acts did they think would be accomplished? did mom think they could bond over a shooting gallery? idk--thoughts??

[Windguy]

Lost in all the hyperbole here is one very significant fact. The Crumbleys were NOT convicted of any gun crime. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter under Michigan Penal Code 950.321 (criminally negligent homicide) which is defined under that statute as "Unintentionally killing another person that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI)". The penalty is a maximum of up to 15 years in prison, a fine of $7,500.00, or both. The Crumbleys got socked with the maximum. The kid got put away for life.

But...what if the method of death was NOT a firearm? What if the Crumbley kid, who for the sake of argument we assume did not have a driver's license and was thus not legally able to drive, had snatched the car keys without the parents' knowledge and taken four friends joyriding, resulting in an accident that killed the four of them but left him relatively unscathed? Still parental neglect. Still four dead kids. Still just as chargeable under the statute as the Crumbleys were.

Even in the off chance that they WERE charged had their son killed with a car rather than a gun, would it have made national news to the extent that the actual case did?

If the answer as anything but yes, then the conclusion is unavoidable. The merits of the case notwithstanding, the reason for all the media hype and public hysteria was not the act used, but the tool. And hysteria makes for poor law.

There is a HUGE difference between guns, which are specifically designed to kill people and a car whose primary purpose is transportation. Guns should be locked up. Car keys should not.

[DonnaNi4os]

Clearly these parents ignored warning signs and warnings from the school. Why the school didn’t take further steps is worrisome. It is sad all around but especially for three lives lost forever and for their loved ones…not to mention the trauma it left with those who witnessed the shootings.

[Pairadocs]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?

Of course it's inconsistent ! But there are a number of factors that effect the "inconsistency". You and I may not agree with these, but never the less they exist. Among them are: The parents of "wandering" teens in large cities are often VERY difficult to locate believe it or not. Uninvolved parents often report unlisted and non working phones number of school administrations, and OFTEN even report non existent, or outdated, addresses. Add to this that young men and women involved in the gang lifestyle do NOT attend school on a regular basis, so locating the parents is not as easy as in the Michigan case. Yes, the Michigan couple was "hiding" in some sense, but both worked and had a CLEAR trail for authorities to track down, they had a valid home address, the father had a fire arm permit, they had working phone numbers, their son WAS registered with a legal name and address and did attend school on a regular basis, and so on. Tracking down teens who do NOT fit this profile is not easy, not at all. Add to that, it's been decades since, as a society, we held school attendance and constant vigilance as a PRIMARY goal. Mandatory 12 years of schooling is only a suggestion in our present culture, and there certainly are no sworn truant officers that my mother AND grandmother told me about being so fearful of, they never even considered "skipping" out of even a single class when they were in school ! Their parents were easy to locate, as were all parents in our city of about 130,000. Yes, the enforcement is inconsistent and the problem will continue most likely, until we the people STOP blaming everything on "the politicians" or the "federal government", and make safety of our youth, and make parents responsible for their (minor) children's behavior as it once was in our culture, and still is in a number of cultures. It's just not a priority in ours at present. I will add, as I watched the entire trial on TV, then the sentencing, I thought, IF they would hold a few more parents responsible int he future, would the "tide begin to change", would our population LIKE the idea and begin to demand it ? ??

[retiredguy123]

Of course it's inconsistent ! But there are a number of factors that effect the "inconsistency". You and I may not agree with these, but never the less they exist. Among them are: The parents of "wandering" teens in large cities are often VERY difficult to locate believe it or not. Uninvolved parents often report unlisted and non working phones number of school administrations, and OFTEN even report non existent, or outdated, addresses. Add to this that young men and women involved in the gang lifestyle do NOT attend school on a regular basis, so locating the parents is not as easy as in the Michigan case. Yes, the Michigan couple was "hiding" in some sense, but both worked and had a CLEAR trail for authorities to track down, they had a valid home address, the father had a fire arm permit, they had working phone numbers, their son WAS registered with a legal name and address and did attend school on a regular basis, and so on. Tracking down teens who do NOT fit this profile is not easy, not at all. Add to that, it's been decades since, as a society, we held school attendance and constant vigilance as a PRIMARY goal. Mandatory 12 years of schooling is only a suggestion in our present culture, and there certainly are no sworn truant officers that my mother AND grandmother told me about being so fearful of, they never even considered "skipping" out of even a single class when they were in school ! Their parents were easy to locate, as were all parents in our city of about 130,000. Yes, the enforcement is inconsistent and the problem will continue most likely, until we the people STOP blaming everything on "the politicians" or the "federal government", and make safety of our youth, and make parents responsible for their (minor) children's behavior as it once was in our culture, and still is in a number of cultures. It's just not a priority in ours at present. I will add, as I watched the entire trial on TV, then the sentencing, I thought, IF they would hold a few more parents responsible int he future, would the "tide begin to change", would our population LIKE the idea and begin to demand it ? ??
Thanks. I agree with what you said. But, the inconsistency in this case is so blatant that I consider it a travesty. These parents were sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison for something that almost every other parent who does the same thing are not even charged. They should have had a better lawyer.

[mikemalloy]

No. And yes.

I know it never happens quite the way it should in America but laws, to be most effective, should be applied equally across-the-board. The unfortunate reality is that the high-profile cases, particularly if those cases are in the sights (no pun intended) of the social crusaders among us, get often overwhelming media attention. Maybe, deservedly so...but how many juveniles died by gun violence on the part of other juveniles in 2020 in Detroit? Or Flint? Or Muskegon Harbor? Or Benton Heights? Or... and in those instances, how many parents were held to account for what their kid(s) did?

And why not?

I'm all for holding parents responsible for the misdeeds of their children. The way things are going it seems as if it would be the ONLY way to make a dent in juvenile crime. But to say that Michigan is setting an example would be a valid claim ONLY if Michigan is holding parents responsible across-the-board for the misdeeds of their children.

But they're not.
Michigan has a law that holds parents responsible for property damage intentionally done by their children. This case is not a first in Michigan where parents have been held responsible for the actions of their children.
Perhaps if the parents of the kids who commited the slaughter in Colombine had been in some way held responsible, some of the school shootings that have happened since would have been avoided. I think that the people of Oakland County Miching where I precticed law for 40 years decided that enough was enough.

[Pairadocs]

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 !

[Pairadocs]

https://i.gifer.com/7CCG.gif

WOW, you got that one right ! Totally agree !

[Pairadocs]

The Sandy Hook parents sued the gun manufacturer...

Which is just as silly as suing Ford because of a drunk driver...

Yes ! Exactly ! It's a completely illogical association ! Like someone beats at spouse with a golf club, and the spouse dies as a result. Sue Calloway OF COURSE ! They should not even be allowed to make such dangerous (and aggravating I might add !) implements.

[Pairadocs]

If you watched any of the proceedings and saw the evidence presented on how they ignored his cries for help, you had to know he really should have been in treatment for his mental health. Then, knowing his state of mind, your reaction is to buy him a gun, they really contributed to the killings by their actions.

Watching the entire trial it was clear, that while they did occasionally do things as a family, their priority was definitely their horses and the amount time, money, veterinarian bills, boarding, and all the other expenses were lesser priorities. When they read the text messages from their son to his parents in count; "PLEASE come home, where ARE you, please answer, I'm scared, the voice won't stop in my head". And, "please come home, there are strange people doing things in the house". Pretty much sealed their fate by NOT answering, yet, if their veterinarian called, or the owner of the stable where they boarded their horses... picked up immediately !

[Kelevision]

Lost in all the hyperbole here is one very significant fact. The Crumbleys were NOT convicted of any gun crime. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter under Michigan Penal Code 950.321 (criminally negligent homicide) which is defined under that statute as "Unintentionally killing another person that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI)". The penalty is a maximum of up to 15 years in prison, a fine of $7,500.00, or both. The Crumbleys got socked with the maximum. The kid got put away for life.

But...what if the method of death was NOT a firearm? What if the Crumbley kid, who for the sake of argument we assume did not have a driver's license and was thus not legally able to drive, had snatched the car keys without the parents' knowledge and taken four friends joyriding, resulting in an accident that killed the four of them but left him relatively unscathed? Still parental neglect. Still four dead kids. Still just as chargeable under the statute as the Crumbleys were.

Even in the off chance that they WERE charged had their son killed with a car rather than a gun, would it have made national news to the extent that the actual case did?

If the answer as anything but yes, then the conclusion is unavoidable. The merits of the case notwithstanding, the reason for all the media hype and public hysteria was not the act used, but the tool. And hysteria makes for poor law.



Circumstances in this case are different and they decided based on that. They gave an underage kid a gun and let him do with it what he wanted and took zero responsibility as a parent.

on Nov, 27 his mother, Jehn posted a photo on Instagram, the day she got him the gun, It showed a paper target riddled with holes. “Mom & son day testing out his new Xmas present…

Three days later, on Tuesday, November 30, Ethan, went into the boys’ bathroom between class, took the SIG Sauer out of his backpack and walked down the long, curved hallway, shooting at his schoolmates.

But the one thing that really disturbs me is this. The parent had just given him the gun 3 days ago……….On the morning of the shooting, Oxford High School staff called Jennifer and James Crumbley to come to the school and discuss their son's drawings of a gun and bullet-riddled body on a math worksheet. The parents and son attended a meeting with a school counselor that lasted less than 15 minutes, and after they left one of the first things Jennifer Crumbley did was send a message asking after the health of her horse…. Not where’s the gun we just gave him….. not a mention about that to anyone….this is the time they should’ve said, we just got him a gun, check his backpack and locker……. Or, we’re taking him home with us now.

Ethan Crumbley sent his mother a text message stating "I love you" about two hours after the meeting concluded. Per the text record, Jennifer Crumbley didn't respond until later that afternoon, after she received news that there was an emergency at the high school.

“I love you too,” she said. “You OK? Ethan don’t do it.”

Then there’s this…..

“I actually asked my dad to take me to the doctor yesterday, but he just gave me some pills and told me to ‘suck it up,'” the then-15-year-old sent to his friend. He also said his mother "laughed at" him when he asked to see a doctor.

Wagrowski later testified that Jennifer Crumbley searched for "clinical depression treatment options" the day before the shooting took place, but that on the same day she laughed off news that Ethan Crumbley had gotten in trouble for looking up images of bullets at school.

“Lol I’m not mad, you have to learn not to get caught,” Jennifer Crumbley told her son.

In this particular situation, if the parents didn’t give him the gun, those kids would be alive.

[Jhrath7@gmail.com]

Today, James and Jennifer Crumbley were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison for involuntary manslaughter for negligence in connection with the 4 murders committed by their son, Ethan, who was 15, in Michigan. I understand that they were probably negligent and could have done more to prevent their son from committing the crimes. But, they didn't commit the murders. I would also point out that Ethan was charged and sentenced as an adult, not a juvenile.

What about the hundreds of juveniles who walk around with illegal handguns and commit murders in cities like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and other cities every day. Some of these murderers are as young as 13 years old, they are out on the streets after midnight, and their parents have no idea where they are or what they are doing. In most of these cases, law enforcement doesn't even think about arresting or charging the parents with any crime at all. To me, this sounds like a very inconsistent and unfair legal system regarding arrest and prosecution. What do you think?
Parents need to held accountable to a point. They were terrible parents and it cost 4 families unimaginable heartache

[PugMom]

Clearly these parents ignored warning signs and warnings from the school. Why the school didn’t take further steps is worrisome. It is sad all around but especially for three lives lost forever and for their loved ones…not to mention the trauma it left with those who witnessed the shootings.

i agree, they should've had him removed from school, & checked out @ local hosp

[JMintzer]

Lost in all the hyperbole here is one very significant fact. The Crumbleys were NOT convicted of any gun crime. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter under Michigan Penal Code 950.321 (criminally negligent homicide) which is defined under that statute as "Unintentionally killing another person that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (such as DUI)". The penalty is a maximum of up to 15 years in prison, a fine of $7,500.00, or both. The Crumbleys got socked with the maximum. The kid got put away for life.

But...what if the method of death was NOT a firearm? What if the Crumbley kid, who for the sake of argument we assume did not have a driver's license and was thus not legally able to drive, had snatched the car keys without the parents' knowledge and taken four friends joyriding, resulting in an accident that killed the four of them but left him relatively unscathed? Still parental neglect. Still four dead kids. Still just as chargeable under the statute as the Crumbleys were.

Even in the off chance that they WERE charged had their son killed with a car rather than a gun, would it have made national news to the extent that the actual case did?

If the answer as anything but yes, then the conclusion is unavoidable. The merits of the case notwithstanding, the reason for all the media hype and public hysteria was not the act used, but the tool. And hysteria makes for poor law.

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[JMintzer]

There is a HUGE difference between guns, which are specifically designed to kill people and a car whose primary purpose is transportation. Guns should be locked up. Car keys should not.

"Kill People"?

Interesting... Millions of deer hunters and sport shooters may think otherwise...

Oh, and to use the (ridiculous) argument used earlier... Try telling that the the parents of the dead children killed in a car accident...

[Larry P.]

Michigan is full of wilderness that includes great hunting, dangerous predators and wide open spaces. It also is home to Detroit and a somewhat adequate police presence. A state law would do little because of the disparity of Wolverine land where everyone wears orange in November and the recital appointments in urban Battle Creek. The real problem was the judgement by the parents. Were they living in another section of Michigan, they would have been acquitted. You can’t live in Detroit and act like you are from upstate.

But they are not from Detroit, they are from Oxford, a rural community 42 miles north of Detroit. Guns are very prevalent in Oxford as it is a hunting community yet the parents were still convicted. Leave Detroit out of your arguments, it is not relevant at all to this case.

[Topspinmo]

One 13 year old can be totally responsible with a firearm, another not. It’s poor judgment in the case you have brought up. Maybe the parents were mountain people wanna bees transplanted to the urban world? The Montana wilderness is much different than Detroit. Some do live in the Old Disney 60s mentality you know.


Agree Detroit much worse.

[Dgodin]

Most of your argument is Whataboutism. Well, maybe the parents of thosenother juveniles should be charged.

What is relevant to the crumbly case is that the parents were found negligent. They were neither responsible parents or responsible gun owners.The evidence presented by the prosecution must have been compelling to the jury.

[nancymiller217@yahoo.com]

i agree, they should've had him removed from school, & checked out @ local hosp

Agree they should have, but then what? The most they can do is a 72 hour hold. Few places you can get a in-patient treatment, and they are super expensive. And Teenagers are renowned for being overdramatic.

These parents handled it very wrong. But there is no manual that tells you when your kid is normal, just a little screwed up, or majorly screwed up.

[Normal]

Most of your argument is Whataboutism. Well, maybe the parents of thosenother juveniles should be charged.

What is relevant to the crumbly case is that the parents were found negligent. They were neither responsible parents or responsible gun owners.The evidence presented by the prosecution must have been compelling to the jury.


I have an issue with the prosecutor. How can a perpetrator be tried, convicted and sentenced as an adult, but then not be an adult when the parents are brought in for their trial? Which is it? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I wouldn’t go so far as to give these parents the parent of the year award, and I do see a conflict in the legal system’s conflation use for convenience.

[fdpaq0580]

I have an issue with the prosecutor. How can a perpetrator be tried, convicted and sentenced as an adult, but then not be an adult when the parents are brought in for their trial? Which is it? You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I wouldn’t go so far as to give these parents the parent of the year award, and I do see a conflict in the legal system’s conflation use for convenience.

Yes you can. Buy cake. Eat it. I do it often.
Kids are tried as adults often when committing heinous crimes. An adult (parent) may be charged with crimes for aiding the criminal in some manner. That is what happened. Not that hard to understand, imho.

[4litehous]

When parents are held accountable for their children's actions- there will be a lot fewer issues!!!

[fdpaq0580]

If only. Unfortunately, each case is charged according to the agenda.

Agenda? You wouldn't be suggesting a conspiracy, would you?

[fdpaq0580]

When parents are held accountable for their children's actions- there will be a lot fewer issues!!!

Would be parents, take notice! You are responsible for the person you create.

[Normal]

Yes you can. Buy cake. Eat it. I do it often.
Kids are tried as adults often when committing heinous crimes. An adult (parent) may be charged with crimes for aiding the criminal in some manner. That is what happened. Not that hard to understand, imho.

It’s called”grinding the axe” then grinding it again. It’s subjective.

[mcpeters]

These POS parents are 100% liable along w the school. Especially w the evidence (drawings w suspicious writing) that was presented to the parents at the school mtg. Ethan’s backpack, locker, etc should have been checked. At the very least, he should have been sent home and had a mandatory psych check. This conviction is setting precedent for other parents who don’t want to take responsibility for their kids. Schools too need to take action. Hell, nowadays they will send your kid home for swearing. Don’t you think Ethan should have been sent home w an investigation?!
I’m totally OK w these negligent POS parents, who were in hiding and going to flee, getting 10-15yrs!

Born and raised in Michigan! 💙💛

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

They are responsible for ignoring their son's pleas for help, not getting him proper psychiatric care, purchasing him a hand gun, and not properly securing the gun.
They definitely deserve to be held accountable, the extent of which will be debated for quite some time.

They didn't ignore his pleas for help. They intentionally and willfully dismissed them. They KNEW he had major emotional issues. They KNEW he was suffering from depression. They KNEW he needed mental health care. They KNEW he wanted to cause harm to people. So instead of just - ignoring it - or getting him help, they fed his sickness by buying him a 9mm semi-automatic gun.

They gave him permission to kill people, which they knew he had been at least thinking of doing. She told him not to get caught in the school - so she knew he was planning on it. She told him "don't do it" which means she knew he was going to use that gun.

She didn't call 911, or the police, or a therapist, or even the school principal. She didn't ignore it. It's almost as though his parents were proud that their boy was growing up to be just like his parents (who both had criminal histories).

They -literally- put that gun in his hand. So yes - they are responsible in part for the murders.

[Sandy and Ed]

We watched some of the sentencing. A 'slippery slope' as some legal analysts said.

BUT - yikes in this case, in THIS case it surely was correct for the parents to serve time.They both ignored serious mental issues with their son right up to the day of the shooting. Even bought HIM the gun that he used, several days before. Texts between the son and parents, right up to the shooting were so damning. And both of the parent's statements at the end were all about THEM, and little about the victims. If there is ANY case ripe for sentencing liable parents - THIS IS IT!!!

I always think of the VICTIMS - not the aggressors and convictees.
Agree. In this case. Can’t create too hard and fast of a rule. As far as the sentence, it was harsh but they won’t be serving that much time.

[Sandy and Ed]

As long as they do the same to judges and politicians who allow repeat offenders and career criminals on the street.
That is an exceptionally good point you raise. Are not they contributing to future crimes by allowing repeat offending criminals to walk again and again??

[Normal]

That is an exceptionally good point you raise. Are not they contributing to future crimes by allowing repeat offending criminals to walk again and again??

The school is certainly culpable. They had a large meeting about the boy and guns, wanted to send him home and never thought to search his backpack? There certainly have been a lot more student searches on a lot less grounds. If they thought it was so bad, why didn’t they pull him for in school suspension? He could have been doing work in the office.

[Bwanajim]

To me the bigger question is why is this happening? We never had mass shootings in schools back in the 50s and 60s, in fact we had rifle teams in Texas and even New York. When I went to high school in the 70s me and my buddies took our shotguns to school to go shooting after. We didn’t shoot anybody. In most cases it’s a breakdown of the family unit and no father in the home.

[DDToto41]

Does this open the door for the parents of the children that were killed in various terrible school massacres to follow suit and sue. This was not brought by the parents of the slain students but by the District Attorney. If you would of followed the reports from the beginning you would of known that the parents were found hiding in a old building and planning to leave the country. If more parents were held accountable there would be a lot less juvenile delinquency.