A groundbreaking verdict

[Jazzy]

Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the teenager who killed four students at an Oxford, Michigan, high school in 2021, was found guilty Tuesday of all four counts of involuntary manslaughter in a novel legal case that stood as a test of the limits of who’s responsible for a school shooting.

Read more

---

Hopefully this verdict will wake some careless parents up and they will start making sure any guns in their house are very secure. In almost all of the teenage shootings, the gun was brought from home. If those guns had been securely locked up, none of those shooting would have happened. That includes the little boy that shot his teacher. He was able to get a gun at home. I hope this continues to happen to parents when their child gets a gun from home to commit a crime every time until parents start paying attention.

In your opinion: Should she have been found guilty of all four counts of involuntary manslaughter? (Why/Why Not)

 

[tango]

If you have kids in the house you should adequately secure guns to make sure the kids can't get at them without permission. The obvious question is what happens if/when the kids figure out where the keys to the cabinets are.

When my wife and I were fostering we had to keep our guns well secured, but at the same time it was accepted that we may need fast access to them. Our family worker specifically checked our storage and where I kept the keys. I could lay my hands on the keys very fast but if you didn't know where they were the chances are you wouldn't find them in a hurry. It also helped that we never fostered anyone tall enough to reach the keys even if they did know where they were and as a rule we didn't even let the kids know that there were guns in the house.

For future use I think I'd use a safe with security other than a key. Maybe a biometric safe or, more likely, one where you press buttons in sequence so it's all but impossible to watch.

 

[Lees]

Read more

---

Hopefully this verdict will wake some careless parents up and they will start making sure any guns in their house are very secure. In almost all of the teenage shootings, the gun was brought from home. If those guns had been securely locked up, none of those shooting would have happened. That includes the little boy that shot his teacher. He was able to get a gun at home. I hope this continues to happen to parents when their child gets a gun from home to commit a crime every time until parents start paying attention.

In your opinion: Should she have been found guilty of all four counts of involuntary manslaughter? (Why/Why Not)

It's a stupid verdict that appeases stupid people. Anyone determined to do a mass shooting is not going to be deterred by parental gun locks.

You say you 'hope this continues to happen'. Well and good. Let's look at the ramifications and apply them to other crimes of negligence. For this does, or should, set a precedent.

Take the Biden administration and its ignoring the Border crisis. How many people have been robbed, raped, and killed by illegal immigrants due to Biden's negligence? He and his administration should be up on charges and headed for a jury trial.

Take the appeals court and overturning a verdict of guilty. Then the one who was found guilty and set free, kills someone. The appeals court, everyone who set on it, should be charged with negligent homicide.

Take a judge who throws out a case based on a simple technicality, though evidence is there to prove the guilt of one. And the criminal goes out and does it again. The judge should be charged and found guilty with whatever crime the criminal did.

What if someone stole your car because you left the keys in it? Then they robbed a bank and killed two security guards. Well, because you were so negligent, you are now guilty of a bank robbery and a double murder.

Oh, but that is different you will say. Of course it is....

As I said, it's a stupid verdict for stupid people who will never agree to it's application to them.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

If she were any other color besides white, would she still have been convicted? I'm really curious about how race plays a role in verdicts.

 

[NewCreation435]

I have not followed this case, but I do think parents bear more responsibility for their kids actions

 

[Lees]

If she were any other color besides white, would she still have been convicted? I'm really curious about how race plays a role in verdicts.

I doubt it. Race always plays a role. You make a good point.

Just wait and see how this precedent is applied to the black race now. How many black youths in the inner city gangs were abandoned by their sorry parents? Let's round up all those sorry black parents and throw them in jail whose children constantly kill people. We don't have enough prisons for that. Can't wait to see that come up.

But of course they won't do that because 'black lives matter'. Plus, it's February. And because 'black lives matter', blacks will riot and burn and loot, if it goes against any of a black race.

Lees

 

[Lamb]

I doubt it. Race always plays a role. You make a good point.

Just wait and see how this precedent is applied to the black race now. How many black youths in the inner city gangs were abandoned by their sorry parents? Let's round up all those sorry black parents and throw them in jail whose children constantly kill people. We don't have enough prisons for that. Can't wait to see that come up.

But of course they won't do that because 'black lives matter'. Plus, it's February. And because 'black lives matter', blacks will riot and burn and loot, if it goes against any of a black race.

Lees

The news is afraid to even speak the word "gangs".

 

[Lees]

The news is afraid to even speak the word "gangs".

Not surprising when the police are afraid of gangs. I wonder how many neighborhoods in this country the police are afraid to go into, if they do go in at all.

Of course they always go into the white neighborhoods. It's safer and the majority of whites still have a sense of law and order and have a certain respect for the police.

Strange to me how it is that those people of color, so 'rich in culture' we are told, have the greatest crime ridden neighborhoods. You just can't change the Leopards spots.

I saw on TV the other day a program that blamed the decline of shopping malls in America on the internet sales. I don't believe that. I believe it is because gangs of 'people of color' started roaming the malls threatening and committing crimes. No one felt safe. So the people quit coming and ordered online instead. Sales fall off and the mall dies.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[Josiah]

I have mixed feelings....

On the one hand, yeah - parents need to be PARENTS. Too often, parents have relinquished their role.

On the other hand, parents can only do so much. Children have a will of their own... and may have their own mental and social issues to which the parents are not at fault. And they are influenced by society, their school, their peers, the media (including film, TV, internet), and more - NOT JUST their parents.

I think of a family I know. GOOD parents, excellent parents. Active Christians, well-educated, high and good values. They have two kids (both adults now).... one is now married and with kids, an outstanding person. The other is in jail for drug dealing and attempted murder... he has a LONG history of problems (even as a kid). SAME parents. SAME home. SAME church. SAME schools. Very different, indeed opposite results.


.

 

[tango]

I have mixed feelings....

On the one hand, yeah - parents need to be PARENTS. Too often, parents have relinquished their role.

On the other hand, parents can only do so much. Children have a will of their own... and may have their own mental and social issues to which the parents are not at fault. And they are influenced by society, their school, their peers, the media (including film, TV, internet), and more - NOT JUST their parents.

I think of a family I know. GOOD parents, excellent parents. Active Christians, well-educated, high and good values. They have two kids (both adults now).... one is now married and with kids, an outstanding person. The other is in jail for drug dealing and attempted murder... he has a LONG history of problems (even as a kid). SAME parents. SAME home. SAME church. SAME schools. Very different, indeed opposite results.


.

From what I saw it looked like the issue was parental negligence rather than "your kids did something bad, it must be your fault".

One flip side of the whole issue of parental responsibility is the way schools are increasingly taking it upon themselves to not inform parents. The whole transgender issue being an classic example - if parents are denied information about what their child is dealing with how can they be expected to support their child or even be aware that their child might be dealing with some stuff they need to consider? I also remember a case in which a teenage girl was taken for an abortion by a school counsellor and her parents weren't told (the same parents who would have to provide consent for her to receive pretty much any other medical treatment). So you've got a young woman dealing with all the emotional trauma of a teenage pregnancy, then an abortion, and all the while the parents are kept in the dark about what's going on. But apparently they are then held responsible if she does something drastic because, well, you know, reasons.

I think it is reasonable to expect certain standards from parents, which would include taking basic precautions like keeping guns adequately secured. On the other hand we can only take so many rights away from parents before we have to accept that some of their responsibilities transfer with those rights.

 

[Albion]

From what I saw it looked like the issue was parental negligence rather than "your kids did something bad, it must be your fault"...

I think it is reasonable to expect certain standards from parents, which would include taking basic precautions like keeping guns adequately secured. On the other hand we can only take so many rights away from parents before we have to accept that some of their responsibilities transfer with those rights.

The parents declined to send their kid to some sort of psychological counseling (which any alert person should be wary of doing) and may have thought that buying him a gun and taking him to one of those ranges for target practice would satisfy the (not entirely unusual) interest in target shooting, marksmanship, etc. The mother said she was convinced that it was not in him to start murdering people. She apparently was wrong about that, but it's not an absurd judgment.

So, the bottom line here IMO is not that she was prosecuted but what the charge and the sentence should have been. The popular opinion seems to be that 'throwing the book' at her as an accomplice in an act of murder is warranted.

 

[tango]

The parents declined to send their kid to some sort of psychological counseling (which any alert person should be wary of doing) and may have thought that buying him a gun and taking him to one of those ranges for target practice would satisfy the (not entirely unusual) interest in target shooting, marksmanship, etc. The mother said she was convinced that it was not in him to start murdering people. She apparently was wrong about that, but it's not an absurd judgment.

So, the bottom line here IMO is not that she was prosecuted but what the charge and the sentence should have been. The popular opinion seems to be that 'throwing the book' at her as an accomplice in an act of murder is warranted.

I'd certainly agree with being wary of psychological counselling. It can be beneficial as long as it's done properly, with a view to a goal other than figuring out what cocktail of mind altering drugs to use.

That said it does seem a bit of an odd combination to specifically decline psychological counselling for the child but then buy him a gun and give him unfettered access to it.

It's not an absurd judgment to believe your child isn't going to murder people but if psychological counselling is suggested as a desirable solution to whatever was going on it does seem like a curious judgment to not secure the gun. I wouldn't say it was unreasonable to allow the kid practise target shooting under appropriate supervision.

Maybe it's easier to see with the benefit of hindsight. I can't help thinking that the whole thing is a somewhat nasty mix of a popular desire to throw the book at someone - anyone - to try and shut down gun ownership by whatever means it takes, and parents who made some judgments that look suboptimal to say the least.

 

[Albion]

I'd certainly agree with being wary of psychological counselling. It can be beneficial as long as it's done properly, with a view to a goal other than figuring out what cocktail of mind altering drugs to use.

That said it does seem a bit of an odd combination to specifically decline psychological counselling for the child but then buy him a gun and give him unfettered access to it.

It's not an absurd judgment to believe your child isn't going to murder people but if psychological counselling is suggested as a desirable solution to whatever was going on it does seem like a curious judgment to not secure the gun. I wouldn't say it was unreasonable to allow the kid practise target shooting under appropriate supervision.

Maybe it's easier to see with the benefit of hindsight. I can't help thinking that the whole thing is a somewhat nasty mix of a popular desire to throw the book at someone - anyone - to try and shut down gun ownership by whatever means it takes, and parents who made some judgments that look suboptimal to say the least.

Generally speaking, we seem to be in accord on this matter. I would only comment that poor judgment on the part of the parent--but not a decision that's completely unthinkable--wouldn't seem to justify prosecuting that parent in the way that it was done in this case. And that's not to say that she or the father should have been excused from any and all charges.

 

[tango]

Generally speaking, we seem to be in accord on this matter. I would only comment that poor judgment on the part of the parent--but not a decision that's completely unthinkable--wouldn't seem to justify prosecuting that parent in the way that it was done in this case. And that's not to say that she or the father should have been excused from any and all charges.

It's alarming if poor judgment becomes tantamount to involuntary manslaughter. Certainly a spectacularly poor judgment that leads to murder shouldn't necessarily be immune from that possibility. Naturally as third party observers who have little more than what the media cares to report it's hard to form an objective conclusion whether the parents in this particular case simply made a really bad judgment call or were criminally negligent.

The only part that strikes me as glaring is the idea that psychological counselling was apparently refused but the child was still allowed access to the gun. Even then it's hard to know whether that's the whole story behind it all.

As you say, I think we are more or less in agreement on this one.