General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums#BREAKING The Oakland county prosecutor will bring charges against the parents of the Oxford high...
Last edited Fri Dec 3, 2021, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)
Link to tweet
EDIT:
Link to tweet
Botany
(70,510 posts)They could have told about the 9 mm automatic they had just bought and all of that bloodshed
could have been prevented. They were both gun nuts and Trumpers too.
Baitball Blogger
(46,720 posts)KS Toronado
(17,247 posts)Beakybird
(3,333 posts)MagickMuffin
(15,943 posts)That would be my guess. But you'll find out soon enough.
Michigan doesn't have a safe storage law.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Criminally negligent homicide - variously referred to as "manslaughter" or "involuntary homicide" under different state codes - is a homicide that results from criminally negligent behavior.
Criminal negligence occurs when one does not exercise due care concerning a risk with a strong likelihood of resulting in death or injury.
A "safe storage law" has nothing to do with the duty of care required of a parent having a child with known issues and who does not take appropriate measures to keep that child from committing exactly the sort of mayhem which was reasonably foreseeable in the absence of those measures.
That has utterly nothing to do with the presence or absence of a safe storage law or regulation. Giving a firearm to your lunatic teenager who is inclined to shoot up the school is criminally negligent. Moreover, I don't believe it is unlikely to find out that a parent has a DUTY to know whether their lunatic teenager may be so inclined BEFORE giving them a firearm.
The parents supplied an instrumentality of mass murder to their lunatic child. It is unlikely that a jury is going to find that they did not know or have a duty to know their child was a nutjob.
Turbineguy
(37,337 posts)can they be expected to know their child is a lunatic?
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Regardless of what sort of people they might happen to be, the standard in these sorts of analyses is whether a person of ordinary reasonableness and prudence would have left a gun where this child can get at it. Obviously, we are going to learn more about the circumstances under which the child obtained or was even perhaps given the gun.
ck4829
(35,077 posts)So people can have like little libraries on their curbs but with guns instead of books?
LeftInTX
(25,363 posts)There are few laws regulating gifts and private sales, so this is entirely possible.
Theoretically gun sales are supposed to go through firearms check, but there is the gun show and gift loophole.
There are laws regarding firearm distribution to minors in states, so maybe that would fall under that law. In most states, it is OK for a minor to possess a firearm in the presence of guardian..(For hunting etc)
When I was a freshman in HS, the boys in my neighborhood were duck hunting. I was with them. That was the first and only time I fired a real firearm. We were both 14. This was in 1970 in Wisconsin. I think the gun was a .22 shotgun. There are different laws for different firearms however.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)It was a gun they gave to their son as a present a few days earlier.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)target shooting and buy gun either for him or buy guns and allow access to him...the parents should be locked up in all these cases and then sued into penury.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)we have dead kids as a result of this sort of belief...I do not see what they did is any different than a person giving or selling another person a gun that is used in a crime. My friend is a cop in Newtown ( I went to High School in that area)...and let me just say that he told me the 30 kids gunned down by another lunatic teen whose dear Mommy bought him a gun (of course she was his first victim) were practically evaporated...they had to use dental records and DNA...first graders for God sakes. So, I don't really care what these imbecilic parents are charged with. It will never be enough. And I hope they spend some time in jail and are sued into bankruptcy.
LeftInTX
(25,363 posts)However, I'm thinking the parents may have known that there son was in possession of a firearm. This would be different than a safe storage law.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)They are not going to be charged with violation gun storage regulations, if any.
They are going to be charged with criminally negligent homicide - under whatever title that sort of homicide is denominated under the laws of Michigan.
yardwork
(61,622 posts)The rights of gun owners are way out of proportion to everybody else's rights in this country. And I know many gun owners who agree that things are out of balance. Way too many irresponsible people running around with weapons of mass destruction and everybody walking on eggshells because of the gun lobby. Enough.
Wounded Bear
(58,662 posts)Gross negligence?
We should have laws requiring safe storage and handling of firearms. Now, they are state based. Not sure what laws apply in this case.
Ray Bruns
(4,098 posts)louis-t
(23,295 posts)demmiblue
(36,858 posts)Beakybird
(3,333 posts)Scottie Mom
(5,812 posts)Cal crim law definition is gross negligence causing death.
hlthe2b
(102,283 posts)(and will be) prosecuted.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)by even owning guns when they have a disturbed kid in their house feel when they are jailed and left penniless.
bucolic_frolic
(43,173 posts)Did they know their son was in posssession? Or were they just negligent in not keeping it locked up? And what did they discuss in their meeting with school officials? From what I read I'm expecting defiance in the face of authority at all points, which the kid carried forth.
Orange Buffoon
(188 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,173 posts)I would suspect whatever impression they left will be difficult to hide behind, even if they weren't explicit. They are parents, they couldn't possibly have put him up to it.
Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)obamanut2012
(26,079 posts)There is nothing wrong with that. Lawyer up and keep quiet, let the cops and DA do their work.
Having said that, I hope the parents don't walk in free air again for many decades, and their son gets the help he needs and stays locked up for many years.
No one should ever be shamed for not cooperating with the cops if they are arrested, no matter what crime they did.
LeftInTX
(25,363 posts)As a matter of fact, that is standard legal advice
LizBeth
(9,952 posts)meeting, if there was any talk of shooting up school then I can see the parents being addressed if gun is sitting at home available and the parents took no action to investigate or ensure it was secure. Just curious what the start of all this was about.
plimsoll
(1,670 posts)I'm pretty sure the good people of Oakland county have adequate numbers of folks who hold the second amendment sacred to insure a mistrial.
And this is steps beyond sarcasm, but I'm sure that kid felt threatened. He needs a good go fund me page. I'm sure a church group somewhere will support him.
louis-t
(23,295 posts)Demsrule86
(68,582 posts)rot in jail...and as always in these situations, I am forced to conclude that these parents and others love their guns more than their kids. How sad is that?
orleans
(34,053 posts)patphil
(6,180 posts)But, even if the parents haven't broken any laws, they could still be subject to a wrongful death suit.
What is it with underage kids and semi-automatic weapons in Michigan anyway?
johnthewoodworker
(694 posts)said before; go to court, cry on the stand, judge lets you get home for dinner.
budkin
(6,703 posts)They are freedom loving Americans!
DeeDeeNY
(3,355 posts)Bettie
(16,110 posts)that boy is 15 years old. The parents have made him who he is.
wnylib
(21,479 posts)several threats of violence at various schools which, given the timing, appear to be either copycat actions or kids using the threat to close schools. Several schools have closed down due to these threats. One of them is in western NY state.
I was thinking today about how school shootings were not a thing when I was in school. I remember one boy in my junior high math class who set off a firecracker from his desk. Startled the hell out of us. The teacher immediately walked over to him and took him out of the classroom. Don't know what happened to the kid, but we never saw him in school again.
In today's school atmosphere, the kids would have assumed that the sound was a gunshot and would have fled screaming. The teacher would not have dared go near the kid, but would have got kids out of the room as quickly as possible. I sat near the back of the room, two seats away from the firecracker kid. If it had been a gun, I would probably not have escaped being shot.
Traildogbob
(8,746 posts)The hundreds of Millions of dollars poor in to defend the parents of a child slaughterer. With daily appearances on Fox News and the prolife network. Medals of Honor for all these 3 patriots. FreeDumb fighters. Free to kill in the name of Jesus and pro life.
oldsoftie
(12,548 posts)demmiblue
(36,858 posts)Link to tweet
demmiblue
(36,858 posts)gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)Caliman73
(11,738 posts)I am not an attorney, but I think that it is a good strategy.
The parents will either have to take the heat for the kid, who will still get a significant consequence. OR The parents will have to throw the kid under the bus to save their own skins, cementing in most people's minds, what shitty horrible people they are.
Parents are the primary teachers of their children, at very least, prior to middle school. Research shows that parental influence fades around the time that children hit early adolescence, where friends and popular culture begin to make more inroads into a young person's decision making. Still, while parents can't know every single thing that their children are up to, they should definitely be checking up on them to make sure there isn't a problem with drugs & alcohol, bullying, risky sex, violence, etc...
The kid was posing and bragging about the gun on Facebook. Given that the gun was bought on Friday after Thanksgiving, the kid was waving it around on social media, then he took it to school and shot people, I would argue that a reasonable parent should have known that there was something wrong.
Given what we know about the mom, they can argue she was encouraging of the son's attitudes toward firearms. I am sure more will be found.
blogslug
(38,001 posts)It begins at approximately the 30 minute mark:
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
elias7
(4,006 posts)People act as if the goalposts have not moved. When I was in college circa 1980ish, there was the coalition to ban handguns. Semi-automatic weapons and other weapons of war did not exist, school shootings did not exist. What right does a citizen have to carry around an AR-15 in public? Seriously, when did that happen?
I would just wish once that a gun humper could finally come out and say that after all this, maybe its time to rethink the whole gun thing, that maybe its time to ban such ludicrous killing weapons for the greater good of humanity, who have pretty much shown they cannot be trusted with this technology.
Your policy plan is comprehensive and well thought out if we were dealing with handguns and shotguns and the firearms and sensibility you grew up with. I would counter that such weapons as those that exist today do not belong in the hands of private citizens.
Cha
(297,275 posts)struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)James David Dickson
George Hunter
The Detroit News
... McDonald said Ethan Crumbley was with father James when the father bought the Sig Sauer Model SP 2022 9 mm semi-automatic pistol at Acme Shooting Goods in Oxford on Nov. 26.
On Nov. 29, the day before the shooting, a teacher at Oxford High School reported Ethan was searching for ammunition on his phone, she said. The school reached out to Jennifer Crumbley, but never heard back from the parents, the prosecutor said.
Jennifer texted Ethan .. LOL, Im not gonna get mad at you, you have to learn to not get caught ...
After a teacher found a disconcerting note and drawing, the Crumbleys were summoned to the school. But by the time they got there, Ethan had allegedly crossed out some of the notes ...
The note in question featured a drawing of a semi-automatic weapon, McDonald said. It said: The thoughts wont stop, help me ...
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2021/12/03/oxford-high-school-shooting-suspect-parents-prosecutor-charges/8850273002/
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)Updated: Dec. 03, 2021, 4:13 p.m.
Published: Dec. 03, 2021, 3:54 p.m.
A fugitive team is searching across the state for the parents of the teen accused in the Oxford High School shooting ...
They were supposed to turn themselves into authorities Friday, Dec. 3 with the help of their attorney, but did not.
Sheriffs administrators said the attorney on Friday morning said she would make arrangements for their arrest should warrants be issued against them. About noon Friday, Oakland County prosecutors issued warrants for four counts of involuntary manslaughter ...
https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/12/fugitive-team-searching-for-parents-of-alleged-oxford-high-school-shooter.html
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)By Jessica Dupnack and FOX 2 Staff
Published December 3, 2021 2:56PM
Updated 4:22PM
... The Crumbleys were supposed to turn themselves in with their attorney on Friday but they stopped communicating and cooperating with their attorney and are now on the run.
The FBI and US Marshals are assisting with the search.
Evidence ranging from text messages, the purchase of a firearm, and a meeting before the tragedy unfolded all factored into the charges directed toward the parents.
"The parents were the only individuals in the position to know the access to weapons," McDonald said Thursday. The gun "seems to have been just freely available to that individual" ...
https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/be-on-the-lookout-order-issued-for-james-jennifer-crumbley-parents-of-accused-oxford-high-school-shooter
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)By Jay Croft, Aya Elamroussi and Steve Almasy, CNN
Updated 4:30 PM ET, Fri December 3, 2021
... authorities said the parents are missing.
But .. two attorneys who say they are representing the couple released a statement that said the Crumbleys had left town for their safety and are returning for an arraignment.
"On Thursday night we contacted the Oakland County prosecutor to discuss this matter and to advise her that James and Jennifer Crumbley would be turning themselves in to be arraigned," the statement from attorneys Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman said. "Instead of communicating with us, the prosecutor held a press conference to announce charges."
The statement added: "They are not fleeing from law enforcement despite recent comments in media reports" ...
Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard earlier told CNN that law enforcement had not talked with James and Jennifer Crumbley ...
"If they think they are going to get away, they are not" ...
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/us/michigan-oxford-high-school-shooting-superintendent-message/index.html
packman
(16,296 posts)Parents have to realize their part/responsibilities in giving a minor a gun
robbob
(3,531 posts)It is going to be interesting (horrifying? totally predictable?) to see the RW gun nut media figures rushing to defend the right of parents to buy weapons of mass destruction for their obviously trouble teenagers. Will these parents come off as the new heroes to the reThugs in the battle to save the 2nd amendment?
Lets hope a few more on the fence voters will finally be so sickened by the vileness of the GOP that theyll help vote them out of office. I mean, how can ANY rational parent of teenage kids be ok with what these 2 did? Much less listen to far right media clowns and politicians try to defend them and their choice. Buckle up
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...they may have had a case, barely, of "we didn't know." But by running, it will be used against them in the trial, and it will point toward willful knowledge and willful desire to escape justice. The jury is going to nail them all. Without a doubt.