I think it’s likely that the DA got some calls from gun grabbers complaining about the kid escaping from justice, and may have overreached here. But maybe Michigan law applies specifically to this kind of situation.
It's the nature of "involuntary" and "negligence" lines of reasoning to NOT have a specific definition.
The state of the parent's mind isn't relevant in this case - the jury will be asked to render a judgment about what the hypothetical reasonable person would do (is this conduct criminal?), faced with exactly the same circumstance. Maybe the jury splits like FR does, hence no conviction. But there are lots of facts we do not know, and prosecution always cherry picks the best facts for its case. Another word for "adversarial process" is "spin." Do not expect fundamental honest, rather what amounts to "legal honesty," which bears no resemblance to actual honesty.
I think it's a tough case, the parents have to know or should have known the consequences.
It is a very easy stretch to take this into boys driving recklessly resulting in death of another. Where does failure to restrict the boy cross the line into criminal? Very fact intensive.
-- I think it's likely that the DA got some calls from gun grabbers complaining about the kid escaping from justice --
DA's a generally nanny types. I don;t think she'd need a call from anybody - but sure, I bet she got PLENTY! If we go after the parents, gun ownership will be come less common. I don't think that logic holds water, most people do their own calculus, and the truly dimwitted are ignorant of the law anyway.
Gangbanger's parents? You are right in the crosshairs. There is no reason the threshold should be multiple deaths, or schools A single homicide, and DA should be looking at parents too. What did they know, and what did they do?