Posted on 02/06/2024 10:55:49 AM PST by CFW
he mother of a shooter who killed four students at a high school in Oxford, Mich., in 2021 was found guilty Tuesday on all charges of involuntary manslaughter.
Jennifer Crumbley, 45, had pleaded not guilty to four involuntary manslaughter counts, and the jury found her guilty after 10 hours of deliberation, per CNN.
Her son, Ethan Crumbley, was sentenced to life in prison in December after he pleaded guilty in 2022 to two dozen charges, including terrorism and first-degree murder.
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
Sucks.
The shooter was not old enough to buy or possess a gun in Michigan. The parents are directly responsible for him having a gun. They bear at least some of the responsibility for the murders.
Bad verdict. This can lead to bad case law.
Civilly liable? Without question. Criminally guilty?
I don’t see it.
“Jennifer Crumbly faces up to 15 years in prison for her role in the shooting.”
I suspect the dad will be seeing much more time
Exactly! If you’re going to buy a gun for your underaged kid, try to determine exactly how crazy they are before you buy them one. If they’re mass murdering crazy, don’t do it.
“The shooter was not old enough to buy or possess a gun in Michigan. The parents are directly responsible for him having a gun. They bear at least some of the responsibility for the murders.”
Civilly, yes; criminally, no.
I followed the trial. The defense counsel brought up a good point: She argued that if a parent bought a cell phone for his or her teenager, and that teenager used that phone to send pornographic content that was illegal, would the parent also be seen to have committed the crime? No.
“ Prosecutors said she was “grossly negligent” in giving a gun to her son, who was 15 at the time, and not helping him obtain mental health treatment despite showing warning signs. ”
I’m not sure 15 years is long enough for the damage he did
I agree. I don’t see how this is much different from prosecuting gun merchants for what people do with guns, or a liquor store for a customer driving drunk.
Release the pharmaceuticals the child was prescribed. This is the common denominator and the parents are just the scapegoats.
I think the parents can make the defense that if schools can gender transition without parents, then the school is solely responsible.
It’s illegal for a 15 year old to have that weapon. Don’t be so stupid
This is not any easy call. I wouldn’t want to be on that jury. According to the article, the mom gave the kid a gun. But how? And why? The article is short on details.
Let’s say some stupid parent lets a too young (and rather unstable) kid drive. The kid takes the car on his own one day, and deliberately runs over and kills a pedestrian. Is the parent guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
This case was a political case: The object was to criminalize gun ownership.
I got my first rifle at age 11. So did most of my friends. Times sure have changed.
She gave him the gun, despite him having clear signs of mental illness (which she never got him help for)
As Leaning Right has said, it’s very complicated. Like you, I’m concerned with how far the precedent set will be stretched for further political purposes.
(Whatever happened with Hunter Biden’s gun issue?)
Sticky claim. What about supplying under age child with alcohol?
Is that punished in Michigan?
Also, there is still a difference in that a cellphone doesn’t have a constitutional amendment protecting a right to ownership.
These were not responsible parents or gun owners by any stretch. They essentially straw-purchased a gun for their highly emotionally disturbed son, and seemed to do everything to feed his fantasies rather than get him psychiatric help. Her behavior, indifference, and lack of taking any sort of responsibility was the reason for the verdict.
“It’s illegal for a 15 year old to have that weapon. Don’t be so stupid.”
No, it’s not. It’s illegal for the kid to have it in public, except under certain restrictions.
The kid took the gun from a private residence (it is legal for a 15-year old to possess a gun under those circumstances; it’s when he or she takes it out in public that he or she may run afoul of the law, depending on — again — the circumstances).
I don’t want hear hypothetical examples that were legal items used wrongly compared to a deadly weapon given to a kid. It doesn’t work that way. Kids aren’t supposed to have deadly weapons. Period. If you don’t know that be ready to face prison
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.