The Sandy Hook parents sued the gun manufacturer...

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

that's a really good point

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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??