[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by GWilliams

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

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Sandy Hook parents sued the gun manufacturer...

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

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

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]

Originally Posted by Windguy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Wondering

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]

Originally Posted by PugMom

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]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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: 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??