It is strange that at one school a kid can get perp-walked for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun, and this melonhead gets caught with a manifesto basically titled How I Plan To Murder People Today and doesn’t even get detention.

Lock up the whole family.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Wow, lots of very good comments. Have maybe a simple question, Just What Can Our Society EXPECT with all the VIOLENT video games that are pushed on kids and adults??? Also what is the “ Age of Reason” or whatever its called where you live? Sadly FAR TO MANY kids are completely adsorbed by video games they have lost connection with reality. Doubt this? Just look at everybody on their “ devices” cell phones or whatever.

Why Didn't the school officials inquire if the Crumbley's had any firearms at home that the son may have access to?
Or at least check to see why the backpack was a little heavier than it should be?
Rob

I knew we'd get around to blaming the school eventually.

The coming lawsuits from the dead and injured families will sort that and much more out.


Looks like the DA is looking at the schools role in this fiasco.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...62tkSBD20-xuWN


You can be assured the school administrators and staff have lawyered up.

__________________
Sure you did

Well, of course. The state/county or whatever will have more insurance coverage than any semi-deadbeat parent, so where else would you blame shop?

__________________
Release the Kraken

I can see it now - every time a kid goes to see the principal they get interrogated about firearms, drugs, mental health, etc., to help schools with CYA.

That’s the Grosskreutz rule.

__________________
Sure you did

Did you add that last line as sarcasm or humor? It works as either...

This is exactly the reason why we get orders for lab work, scans, and tests of all types every time you go to the doctor. We are a litigious society, and as such "prevention" is just another tool to avoid the inevitable lawsuit.

Several years ago, Florida tried the route of "tort reform" and limiting awards against doctors because the increasing number of lawsuits for supposed malpractice were driving insurance costs through the roof and many physicians could no longer afford to practice here. What was the result? Unsurprisingly, absolutely nothing changed.

As for the school board and administrators in the Crumbley case, they may be covered under "sovereign immunity" as part of the government so any liability on their part (and subsequent award against them if they lose in court) may already be severely limited.

The story has different sides, it can't allow me say too much

I don't trust any media.

I'll wait for the trial and the jury verdict.

__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me.

Incredible stupidity not to show up.

Really limits possibilities.

__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me.

When the kid was there with his parents why was no attempt made to search him?

As a parent I would have. If they found the gun we would dealt with the consequences. Which would have been far less than four kids being murdered.

You could have even pulled him out of school to search him.

No SRO?

__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me.

We have two kids.

My Son four years Marines. Infantry and Security Forces. Graduated College after the Marines. Took him five years because he worked full time while he went to school.

My Daughter dropped out of high school. Drugs and alcohol. A regular at county. 2 DUIs and a long list of criminal charges with some felonies. 48 years old she is finally sober and has it together. I'm relieved and thankful she's sober now. Tremendous wreckage in all our lives. Never give up on your kids.

You would never know they grew up in the same home.

__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me.

From what I read, Michigan doesn't have a secure storage law. I also read that despite that the gun was locked away and the suspect managed to get it anyway.

If either or both of those are true, there doesn't appear to be a predicate crime with which to charge the parents.

OTOH, employees of the school may have some culpability. They were alarmed enough to call the parents to come to the school. Once they parents declined to take their son home, the school had the option to call child protective services and the sheriff's department. They did neither and let the kid go back into his classroom. In most states children under 16 can be referred to CPS for service. In my state at least school employees are mandated reporters.

No one in the school thought to look in the kids backpack. No one in the school thought to search the kids locker to see what he had in there.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

If it goes that far.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

From what little I know, and I know very little about search and seizure law, a search of the backpack would have been reasonable and allowed without a warrant
Public Schools :: Fourth Amendment -- Search and Seizure :: US Constitution Annotated :: Justia

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

What were they thinking.? There going to be examples for not locking guns up.

__________________
Plant garlic in the fall

There are approximately 330 million people in the U.S. Not surprisingly, a few of them are morons. Unfortunately, we have legislators that write laws for the lowest common denominator (which assumes we are all morons).

We need to quit allowing the criminals and morons to define what rights we can have.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

At his age....... is the shooter in his state an adult or minor ?

Did his parents give a minor a weapon ?

If a minor........ did the adults have a lock placed on the weapon ?

Was the weapon, empty or kept loaded..?

One big can of worms..................

Yeah, a boatload of big ugly worms that have ruined a whole bunch of lives.

__________________
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

A gun purchased and given to another (who can legally possess it, iffy in this case) as a gift is not a straw purchase.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

'Legally Possess' is the operative term in this instance. Nothing 'Iffy' about it. The person who received this 'gift' is a minor, thus making this transaction 100% (Federally) unlawful and conidered a 'straw purchase'.

__________________
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

100% incorrect . . .

May a parent or guardian purchase firearms or ammunition as a gift for a juvenile (less than 18 years of age)? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

The way it appears to me is regardless if they called this firearm a "gift" or if they intended for only their son to use it, the parents maintained custody and control - and ownership - of the weapon. I think that would eliminate the possibility of it being a straw purchase, and it continues to make the storage and security of said weapon their responsibility.

Good luck with that in court.

Agreed. My usual response in the real world to suppositions like posed earlier was always “Call your first witness . . . “

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Having spent the last 15 years among the "challenged" of a Title 1 High School, all the blame and "causes" are readily apparent:
1) Parents (or guardians) are "entitled" and have passed it to offspring.
2) Media have glorified "instant fame"(or infamy, to sick minds it's the same).
3) Nuclear family structure is gone and not coming back. It's hard to feel "valued" when every important adult has abandoned you to "find themselves."
4) No sense of "community" where hurting the folks around us would involve Jim, George, Tommy, Sue, Michelle. Heck, we don't even have a "common language" so it's hard to communicate.
5) Social "stress." Bullying, sexual pressure/identity issues. Coupled with financial and social insecurity it's a recipe for disaster.
There are more but I'm not sure if I have already broken some rules. Joe

__________________
Wisdom chases me; I'm faster

Andrew McCarthy had some good comments on the case.

Michigan has no child access prevention law, despite legislative attempts.

Thus the parents can't be charged with that.

The prosecutors are making it up as they go along with a charge of "Involuntary Manslaughter."

If the parents are going to be charged, so should the school personnel who let him go back to school.

Link goes back to his Fox News interview,

Your World (clip) - AIR.TV

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Well then, I stand corrected...in my orthopedic shoes.

__________________
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

This thread reminds me why we have trials and not executions.��

__________________
Sure you did

OTOH, I wonder if the defense will motion for dismissal of charges due there not be a real crime committed by the parents?

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Maybe. Lots of people would just love to see them prosecuted for something like maybe a past due cable bill. 🤣

__________________
Sure you did

There's a lot of what would consider malicious prosecution going on these days.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

It seems a lot of these shootings were perpetrated by a person who was on the “Radar” of school authorities or even law enforcement. It’s high time they start charging all those responsible with maximum sentences.
It’s time to make schools pay for their cover up games.

This case is a lot like Sandy Hook. Parents buy 15yr old idiot a 9mm and turn him loose on public. Parents should get heavy sentences and school officials involved should get meaningful sentences and barred from employment in public school system.

In Sandy Hook, the mother bought the AR and kept it locked in a safe. The son killed her, got into the safe and took the gun and ammunition out.

Unlike MI, CT has a safe storage law, but that didn't stop the kid from getting the gun and killing people.

As with the FL shooting, this kid was well known to the school system as being a trouble maker. The school system hid that knowledge under the guise of patient confidentiality and a nebulous fear of getting sued by the kid or parents.

All of this "Troubled youth, but don't involve the police BS" plays a large part in the uptick of these shootings. Until the politicians change the laws, nothing else will change.

That said, the number of school "active shooters" in the US is still low compared to many other countries.

Last fun fact. Columbine was not planned as an active shooter attack. The two dead knuckleheads attempted to blow up the school but were incompetent bomb makers. They had hoped to kill up to 500 students, teachers, and others by blowing up the school like was done in Oklahoma City. They killed most of their victims with shotguns, not the handgun or rifle also used.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Or trials by compurgation.

compurgation
kŏm″pər-gā′shən
noun
1. An ancient form of trial in which an accused person could call a number of people, usually 12, to swear to their belief in his or her innocence.
2. In early English law, a mode of trial in which the accused was permitted to call twelve persons of his acquaintance to testify to their belief in his innocence. See compurgator. Compurgation in the ecclesiastical courts was not abolished till the reign of Elizabeth.
3. The act or practice of justifying or confirming a man's veracity by the oath of others; -- called also wager of law. See purgation; also Wager of law, under wager.

This is what happens when the people who insist there was no law broken, and the people who are always first to yell "There oughta be a law!" ... are all the same people.

If we want people to see us as responsible gun owners, then shouldn't we want to hold people responsible for what they do with their guns? Of course you could also substitute the words "kids", "pets", "cars" and a million different things into that sentence, but in the end it all still comes down to responsibility.

Were these parents behaving responsibly with that gun and that kid? Let the trial begin...

The trial court will rule on dismissal motions soon enough.

Maybe a shift in strategy? The local shootings I’m aware of,there’s invariably someone with a bad feeling about the shooter to be and suspects something,but doesn’t tell anyone until it’s too late. Being exposed to some culpability could change that?

The Laurel and Hardy “prosecutors” in WI should have to reimburse the state for court costs.

__________________
Sure you did

In order to have a trial you have to have a crime. The trial is there to determine if the the defendants committed said crime, not if there was in fact a crime.

In this case the crime with which they might be charged is Improper Storage of a Firearm (generic term). The problem is that Michigan has no such law.

The crime that they HAVE been charged with is Involuntary Manslaughter. Michigan does have one of those laws, as does just about every states.

These are the elements of the crime which the prosecution must prove in order for a jury to convict.


My NON Lawyer opinion is that the law does not apply to the parents since Michigan law does not require firearms to be safely stored. Maybe they should, but that's up to the legislature not the media, not random people on the Internet, or anyone but the legislature.

Since Involuntary Manslaughter is a felony in MI, I expect that the case will be presented to a Grand Jury. It's generally pretty easy to convince a Grand Jury to issue an indictment, but if they aren't convinced there was a crime, they may not.

I've only testified before one of those and the jurors can ask questions. The DA doesn't need a particularly strong case to get an indictment, just enough for the jury to say that the matter should go to trial.

I testified in several homicide cases and I can tell you it's much tougher to get a conviction.

Other than maybe flying through the airport on my way somewhere else, I don't recall ever being in Michigan. Therefore, my thoughts on whether or not they should have a law don't matter.

Oddly enough, neither do yours.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Highly recommended...

STOP TEACHING OUR KIDS TO KILL, by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Isn't this what "red flag" laws are all about?

Here's food for thought from FindLaw.com:

"Negligence claims must prove four things in court: duty, breach, causation, and damages/harm. Generally speaking, when someone acts in a careless way and causes an injury to another person, under the legal principle of "negligence" the careless person will be legally liable for any resulting harm."

What we have to first ask ourselves is if these parents were negligent in the handling of their firearm and their responsibility towards their son. That is going to be a tough question - some will say "Absolutely YES!" while other will say "Absolutely NO!". I'm sure the answer is somewhere in the middle.

As for myself (and myself only) I have to ask if I see any difference between the actions, results and responsibility of someone who DELIBERATELY leaves a firearm in a position to be easily stolen and someone who NEGLIGENTLY does the same thing. Regardless of intent, the results are the same either way, but our courts should only convict or acquit based on the act and the facts. Is "Oops!" ever a good excuse? I'm guessing that is why the parents were only charged with "involuntary" manslaughter.

That is the standard for a civil suit, not a criminal prosecution. Those do not apply to the criminal case against them at all. They may or may not be civilly liable, but that's for a different discussion.

As to criminal prosecution, what I posted before stands.

If you don't understand the difference between a criminal prosecution and a tort claim, there is no point in reading anything you post.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Well, I can always count on you for a civil, intelligent discussion...

To help you clear up your confusion, here is a quote from What's The Difference Between Negligence and Something Criminal? | The Brown Firm - JDSupra :

"Criminal negligence is conduct where a person ignores an obvious risk or disregards the life and safety of those around him. Both federal and state courts describe this behavior as a form of recklessness.

The negligent person acts significantly different than most people would under similar circumstances. An unfortunate example of this is a parent or guardian leaving a loaded firearm where a small child can get it.

Certain crimes base culpability on a criminally negligent standard. An example of this is involuntary manslaughter.

To be convicted of this crime, and held criminally negligent, the prosecutor will have to prove that the defendant killed someone unintentionally but acted with unlawful negligence when they did it."

Seems pretty on point. Hope this helps.

Reread the Michigan statute. Negligence is NOT sufficient for a criminal charge. It requires either gross negligence OR intent.

You are using generic standards to try to prove that something exists under a specific criminal statute in Michigan.

Your own description says that the prosecutor will have to prove that the defendant killed someone. In this case, that would mean that one or both of the parents did the shooting, which clearly they didn't.

Keep digging, maybe you can find a reference to mopery in a public alley or something.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

Sorry, but I didn't mean to trigger you so badly.

If you have been following the coverage you can easily see that the prosecutor isn't charging them with negligence; the charges are involuntary manslaughter. My best non-lawyer guess is they decided on these charges because they consider the parents a key factor in the son's crime but are not accusing them of actually pulling the trigger, and charged them like any other accomplice in any other crime.

As you can plainly read in my post: "Certain crimes base culpability on a criminally negligent standard. An example of this is involuntary manslaughter." It's readily apparent that if they continue with the proceedings, demonstrating negligence will most likely be a very large part of the case. I was just trying to point out that negligence can most certainly be considered part of a criminal issue; your post further up the line appeared to indicate you believed it was only a part of civil issues - which it is not.

But again, I am sorry if you got upset about my posts. I have already decided that I will leave the lawyering to the professionals, and the results to the jury - perhaps you should consider that as well? I will admit, however, I never thought I would see "mopery" used in this discussion!