Parents of Michigan high school shooter Ethan Crumbley will go to trial, judges rule

Days before the shooting, a teacher allegedly saw Ethan Crumbley researching ammunition in class, and the school contacted his parents but they didn't respond, according to prosecutors. But Jennifer Crumbley did text her son, writing, "lol, I'm not mad at you, you have to learn not to get caught," according to prosecutors.​

https://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-m...hooter-ethan-crumbley-trial/story?id=98072544

The behavior of these parents was clearly criminal. But I think the precedent is very important. Parents NEED to pay more attention to the warning signs. And not be so quick to encourage kids, especially those with mental health issues, easy access to guns.

Of course, this will do very little given that it's so easy for kids to go on a shooting spree. But any little bit of legal action that helps stop the growth in our gun epidemic we have been seeing since the Scalia legislation granting an individual right to own firearms (aka "Heller"), helps.

 

an already flawed OPINION is relegated to the toilet with such a specious bunch of BS. you seem to fail to comprehend that the issue is not what is granted to us but what powers were GIVEN to the government and banning firearms as not one of them

 

This ruling could cause a lot of parents to be accused of manslaughter.

 

Bad parents can be worse than no parents.

These people suck.



And when idiots breed, they breed idiots:

 

Neither was banning the word "gay". And yet, here in Florida... Oops! Off-topic.

 

I think so. It will probably only succeed in very clear cases like this one with a very steep burden of proof. But it might encourage other parents to be more careful.

 

I'm not saying the parents don't seem like scum, they do, but is it ILLEGAL for them to tell the kid "don't get caught" (after it happened)? Did they encourage him to do the shooting?
Imagine, your kid gets drugged or something without knowing, goes crazy, kills a bunch of people and YOU should take the fall for it? I dunno, seems strange to me. I know that isn't the case here, but i feel this could be a slippery slope thing for all future shootings of which maybe the parents did do the right thign but the kid went nuts anyway

 

I'm not against the idea of bringing the parents to trial but if so, this needs to be done for all crimes by minors. In the big cities with high crime and/or murders, if it's committed by a person under legal age, are those parents also brought to trial in those cases?

 

that's purely a state issue involving education which has nothing to do with this. But thanks for avoiding the point I make which essentially concedes it

 

good question, almost every mope I had to deal with as a DOJ prosecutor was from piss poor parents. irresponsible breeding causes most of the criminals in this country

 

Heller was a CITY issue involving the life of PEOPLE. That didn't stop SCOTUS from using it to legislate for the whole country.

Anyway... not the topic of this thread.

 

I don't know the details of the law on this, but maybe the prosecutor is trying to connect the parents to the crime in a way similar to a bank robber driver is charged with murder if a killing occurs.

Don't know just guessing on what the prosecutor is trying.

 

FYI good parents can have bad children and vice versa.

 

I am not sure there was fair. And it brings up questionable legal principles.

The parents are being held responsible for what the child did, because people are looking for people to blame.
The child isn't being seen as completely to blame because they were so young.

Gun rights supporters probably should push back on this, but probably don't think it is worth doing.

It sets the precedent that the gun is to blame, rather than the person.
This is like imposing a form of "gun control" on the parents. Which is why gun control proponents are viewing this case with glee.
The child was not a toddler.

 

DC is federally governed. Nice try but the federal government didn't have the proper power to do such an idiotic thing. If things were run properly, the people who passed that law would be sued into the poor house under Bivens and or 42 USC 1983

 

They essentially want to create a strict liability crime though in this case the parents are hard to defend. In Cincinnati, the son of one of the city's most highly regarded attorneys and citizens, saw one of his sons beat the other to death with a baseball bat. The murderer had issues but had been treated with top therapists. It was out of the blue. So you are right about good people having bad kids.

 

You know very well it was not "clearly criminal". Not in the totally obvious unquestionable sense. Although of course, in your opinion, you think it should be seen as illegal.

 

I'd say D.C. is kind of a grey zone in the Constitution. Although that's off topic.

Also off-topic, but another compromise might to be to raise the purchase age to 21 for larger caliber semi-automatic guns. Though I don't see either side being willing to make that compromise, they each are trying to grab more.

It is "very easy" for bad things to happen. But we can't put everyone in pink padded rooms. There is a trade-off between individual liberties and "safety".

 

Nobody is going to believe their kid is a mass murderer.

 

On paper, this might seem like a good idea but it might a bad precedent that we'll be arresting and then jailing parents for their kids committing murder. Much as it's the parent's job to keep track of their kids, they simply can't be with them or know what's on their mind 100% of the time, especially moody angsty teenagers.

 

raising the age is one of those silly ideas that sound good-to anyone who really doesnt understand things. BTW AR 15s are small caliber semi auto rifles

 

The states are federally governed also.

 

Really? That's scary. I would expect especially gun advocates to acknowledge that it is. Except those who would justify this level of criminal negligence.

 

You don't have to believe your kid is a mass murderer to realize that there is something wrong. However, I don't completely disagree with you. And this is the reason why the "mental health" argument gun advocates used to sponsor (apparently not anymore) is... not wrong, but weak. You have just provided the best argument to prove that we need to BAN guns.

 

lol thats the "best argument"? so basically the 2nd amendment is in no danger of being amended if thats the best you have.. at least you're finally realizing the futility of your argument