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

In this particular case the judge from the article makes a convincing argument, but generally speaking, you’re correct.

 

You made it as a part of your conclusion. As such its a main part. And you're the one trying to not discuss what you said. Not me.

 

Absolutely NOTHING. But you said something about Amending the the 2nd Amendment. Unnecessary, as the link demonstrates.

If you want to discuss the 2nd A, that's where you do it. Or you open your own thread.

 

well at least you're admitting that your post has "absolutely NOTHING" to do with your original reply

You brought up banning guns.. so yeah the 2nd amendment stops you, and your original "a parent wont believe their kid is a mass murder is the BEST argument to ban guns" is not going to do anything to amend the 2a..

 

Is it your argument that parent's who have not broken a State or Federal Statute should be subject to criminal sanction, Mr. I don't care what law they broke? Assuming it even is Mr., the way you prattle on about guns...

 

Why don't you share with the class what qualifies as 'irresponsible storage'?

 

Mah boyz a guuud boy, ain't no way he done did dis...

Wonder how many times, cumulatively, those in this thread have heard that phrase or something virtually identical? Do parents have blinders when it comes to their kids? (Not a rhetorical question, I don't have any, so I can't relate...)

 

I'm not defending anybody. I don't know enough about this case to have an opinion. I'm asking what the law(s) may be that they may have violated, nothing more. You read too much into my responses at times. Generally speaking, I do not favor any law that puts Person A in legal jeopardy for Person B's behavior, but I do understand that when it comes to children, sometimes things aren't quite so clear-cut.

But if you can't even tell me what they did that they shouldn't have, or didn't do that they had a duty to do, then you are just talking out of your ass. Which is not abnormal.

 

In this particular case a 15 year old child was able to get access to, and use his parents firearm to murder 4 people. That's irresponsible gun storage on the parents part.

In today's world a 15 year old should not be able to acquire a "family" firearm and use it, for any reason, without his/hers parents knowledge and supervision. I don't think they are arguing that they knew he had it and was allowed to keep it unsupervised. That would certainly be judged irresponsible, I would hope.

 

Wasn't a family firearm.... was the teens, only being "stored" by the parents.... wink wink...

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/et...o-buy-gun-used-in-oxford-high-school-shooting

 

Well, exactly. In any case, the parents are responsible for the use of firearms by their minor children. I don't know Michigan law but I wounder if it's even legal for a 15 year old to "own" a firearm there.

EDIT

It appears you have to be at least 18 to buy a pistol in Michigan.

 

OK... But did he get access to it because it was sitting on the living room table, loaded and unsupervised, or did he steal it? And if he stole it, was it in a locked room, container, or etc., or just on a side table or whatever. I'm trying to understand where the line is between 'irresponsible storage' and that which is not. Aside from don't own a firearm at all, period, ever, end of story.

 

You don't have to know Michigan law, it's against Federal law for anyone under 18 to own a firearm. State laws will come into play when it comes to the question I asked above. But I wasn't so much asking a legal question, but for an opinion.

 

Which is why the parents bought it for him as his Christmas gift...

"Ownership" is a nebulous term in this case... The kid believed it was his and he could get to it when he wanted to...

Frankly, while I've seen this case devolve into yet another gun thread, that's not the main focus of this case or thread. It's essentially a failure to do the bare minimum of parenting....

 

I don't think that matters. I think the law would find the parents irresponsible, IF their minor child was able to take a firearm from the home unsupervised.

 

OK, solely IMHO, Firearms should be secured against use by minor children ... without exception. And, to your point, if you can't assure that, then, yes, it's time to question whether you should have firearms at all.

 

Actually it's not nebulous, even if the firearm was "considered to be the child's weapon", legal ownership still resides with the parent that bought it.

I agree these parents failed their child and they failed society. And, if it matters, they failed themselves.

This is a terrible tragedy for all involved, one that could and should have been avoided. I keep going back to the mothers admonition about not getting caught and can only assume that her cavalier attitude is indicative of a lack of proper parenting on her part.

 

Nebulous was perhaps the wrong word... .substitute non relevant...

 

You are not wrong. Yet, the fact remains that people who have no business even babysitting OPKs are having their own, and in many cases, a lot of them. It is the source of 90% (a SWAG) of the criminal problems in the country, and if all such pregnancies were terminated or never happened, we would all be better off.

So, the issue of civil rights... Do you have an absolute right to breed? Well, no, in some cases severely mentally disabled persons have been sterilized or otherwise prevented from doing so, or at least I've seen such stories on the nooz. How far does the rights of society to not be harmed have to be pushed to the point that it outweighs the right of a person to breed at will?

I have no idea, and to my knowledge, aside from what I mentioned about the severely mentally handicapped (which is a distant outreaching exception to the normal rules and can be discounted), it's something our society nor laws have never contemplated. If you are in prison, even having sex is, with some exceptions, illegal. Those exceptions (conjugal visits) vary by State, and possibly by crime. Not something I know much about, so I'll just leave it with this: Generally speaking, prisoners are not allowed, legally, to breed.

Does that extend beyond prison? Can we make that part of the terms of parole? Can we impose age or income restrictions? All good questions that I'm not even going to pretend I have answers to. But solving this single problem will make most other societal issues go away, so... It's something that probably needs to be discussed, no?

That graphic does precisely what it is intended to do... Stick a thumb into the eye of those who would see those birthrights (some would say god given) infringed or done away with. I'm one who says they exist even in the absence of the 2A, but it's existence does put a major hurdle in front of those who would do so. It also serves to mock States like NY, NJ, and CA who do not honor those rights, a problem that soon will no longer exist after the final few straggling cases go to SCOTUS where they will inevitably say, 'Did y'all not hear us the first time???', when speaking of Heller and Bruen, of course.

Once those States have laws like Florida's, or even more lenient, which we do have a few things that need to be addressed, like open carry, where we are only one of five States that doesn't generally allow it.

Then, images like the one you objected to (which was protected political speech in the first place) will be obsolete.

 

I would bet you $100 that none of those 'daily shootings' around wherever it is you live (they don't happen daily here, at least not stranger on stranger) were done by a legal carrier, now were they? In fact, and this is something you no doubt know, but concealed carriers are the single most safe demo in the country, committing 1/6th the amount of crimes than even LEOs do. So, yeah, it ain't the ones legally carrying you have to worry about, despite what Janet Reno had to say way the hell back in 1984.

 

You're post skirts madness but not by much. AND, points out the ultimate madness of the RIGHT; joy in demeaning and antagonizing EVERY one and EVERY thing that doesn't see things their way.

 

Well, I think there is a very large difference between being left on the living room table with no supervision, and being in a safe or otherwise unavailable. I have also not seen any laws or charges posted, and one person responded that it didn't even matter.

To me, if you are going to put someone's freedom in legal jeopardy, what law they are supposed to have broken is quite important. We don't just make stuff up as we go.

 

I listed the laws that these parents seem to be in violation of. But, you are correct that before they are penalized and punished it must be demonstrated that THEY were negligent and NOT sabotaged by an unruly and persistent child. And, you are correct, that that has not been proven. But, we do have the admonition of his mother that, rather than straighten up, he would be well advised to "Not get caught". Though in and of themselves, her words are not sufficiently damning to condemn her and her husband, they do display a house hold mindset that is lacking in proper discipline.

It will be interesting to see what comes out in the trial and how they are judged.

 

I demean everyone and thing that reduces freedom. Which is why the idea of restricting breeding is a bit abhorrent to me, but the fact that it alone is the source of so very many problems is... well, problematic. On the one hand, it does reduce freedom. On the other, it solves... pretty much everything. So, which is more important in that extreme scenario? And this one, unlike so many other hypotheticals, is very real. But, also very hypothetical, because in the real world, it won't even get debated or discussed. Then again, if you had asked me just two years ago if the idea of exposing 4-year-olds to sex ed would be controversial, I would have laughed.

 

I'm not inclined to humor your mania with further discussion.