[Windguy]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

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]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

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]

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 !

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

WOW, you got that one right ! Totally agree !

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

Parents need to held accountable to a point. They were terrible parents and it cost 4 families unimaginable heartache

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[JMintzer]

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.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Windguy

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.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.