Posted on 02/08/2024 12:03:58 PM PST by CFW
A mother has been found legally responsible for her son's crimes. Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter after her son, Ethan, took a gun to school and shot up his classmates, killing four of them. This is the first time that a parent has been held directly responsible for the crimes of their minor child. Mrs. Crumbley may have been a bad mom, of which there are many across the US. She's the first mom ever in the US to be convicted for her child's crime in this way.
Does the verdict against her spell trouble for the bad moms of all the teen killers in the United States? Prosecutors in the Michigan case claimed that Mrs. Crumbley did not prevent her 15-year-old son from harming others. Moms of violent 15-year-olds across the country can for sure relate. Her son Ethan is in prison for the rest of his life and now she faces 60 years in prison, essentially a death sentence for the middle-aged mom, for his crimes.
The verdict sets a shocking precedent for the parents of violence-prone children. Will all parents who have violent children be held accountable for that violence? Will only the parents of school shooters be held accountable? Or perhaps only the white parents of school shooters from basic middle-class families whose parents should know enough to take them to therapy?
[snip]
Children aged 15 are legally able, in many states, to obtain abortions, birth control, prescriptions, sex change drugs, medical care, without parental consent or awareness. Teens are given personal responsibility for countless actions, yet when it comes to this teen and this mom, she is meant to be personally accountable for his actions by failing to take actions prosecutors now claim would have helped Ethan.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
To those who are saying that this situation is unique and that the law will not be used to punish parents for the sins of their offspring are ignoring two very important things.
1) Once a legal precedent is set it will be used more and more eventually until the original conditions and reasons for the precedent are forgotten.
2) Never, never forget the power hungry left and that it will not leave any legal pebble un-turned should they decide that someone has to be punished.
Case in point happening today with Trump. The left is screeching that Trump should be barred (jailed if possible, executed preferred) from office because ‘convicted of sedition’ is not specifically stated in the Articles being used to keep his name off the ballot. In their minds conviction is unnecessary because of the lack of that stated condition. Of course they willfully ignore the fact that the framers did not specifically make that statement because ‘due process’ is an implied requirement for conviction.
Little DaJuawn was jest startin’ to turn his life around.
Back in the day...
Jeremiah 31:29
"In those days, No longer will anyone go around saying, "Sour grapes eaten by parents leave a sour taste in the mouths of their children."
No sir!
It'll be turned around the OTHER way!!
I think that is in the bible, not the Constitution.
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
You can’t be serious. Parents are supposed to arrange for their mentally ill schizophrenic sons to be stoned by the town elders? No. How about this country have a mental health system that can put the mentally ill young men in a facility where they can be treated and fed, and clothed instead of living homeless under bridges and feeling as though there is no way out except shooting everybody?
ALL NEW TERRITORY
Serious as a heart attack!
If it's legal to suck the brain of out an unborn human, it sure as HELL ought to be 'legal' to do the rock thingy!
Nay.
Michigan has legal avenues for dealing with out of control minors...
Did his mother available herself of any of them?
What did mom know and when did she know it?
What did the state know and when did it know it?
Yes, all states have juvenile detention centers for juveniles who are charged with crimes and found guilty of crimes in juvenile court. This kid wasn’t. This kid was a mental case. There is nothing for those of us who have kids that are schizophrenic. We are told to deal with it. We take them to psychiatrists, to psychologists, they don’t cooperate, our lives become living hells, there are no residential lockdown mental health facilities to help out so the family can go on living as a normal family with the mentally ill person getting treated. It happened to me and it happened to two of my friends. Luckily in my situation and in the situation of both of my friends, our mentally ill sons (in one case it was a daughter) did not shoot anyone. But you read in the news every day about the mentally ill shooting people. And the guy was on the radar. Just no help to be had. Now in all three situations, the adult children are living useless untreated miserable lives. Our country can do better than this.
It seems to me that the demand came from the parents of the victims, so that indicates that the key is there; This is where we should start. Victims of physical assault or robberies should sue the parents of juvenile delinquents.
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.