CatRyan
Striker
Jennifer Crumbley has been found guilty on all counts of Manslaughter in the school shooting by her 15 year old son that saw 4 dead and more injured.
Some are concerned that making parents liable for their children's actions is a worrying precedent.
The key points as I see it are:
Crumbley did not do anything to prevent the shooting despite being in the school at urgent request that day after her son had filled in a paper with murderous ideation and a perfect drawing of his personal gun. Crumbley did not tell the school he had a gun gifted to him just a few days before.
A gun that was in his backpack in school that day. The gun he used in the shooting a few hours later when his parents said they had to go back to work, cutting the meeting short after 11 minutes and turning down the school's offer to take him out of school for the rest of the day.
Crumbley's job was family friendly and allowed children to come into work or for her to wfh which she often did.
The shooter had been having a very obvious mental health crisis for some time, thinking the house was haunted and knowing he was paranoid and an insomniac.
In his journal he writes of his desperate need for help
In text messages to his only good friend who had abruptly been moved to a special school far away just a few weeks prior to the shooting, he says he has asked his mother for medical help with his mental health and she just laughed.
The school counsellors were very concerned about his comments in essays that he was beyond despair. The point here being that his troubles were not being hidden at all and while the school had not yet picked these all up and talked to the parents, he was apparently openly and visibly in some trouble to everyone but Crumbley says this was him "messing with them" and manipulative.
The shooter had two bedrooms because he made his first unlivable with messiness so his second bedroom soon was similarly unlivable but it was where he spent all his time alone when not at school.
He ate Thanksgiving Dinner in his squalid room on his own a few days before the shooting.
On Hallowe'en not long before that he had plans with his one good friend but that was the day his friend was moved abruptly to another school. His parents went out partying and left him home alone.
He would text his mother that he loved her and she would not reply, he would message her alone in the house begging her to come back, that he was scared and paranoid etc
It was just a couple of weeks or less before the shooting that his father bought him a gun.
The gun came with a case you can fit a lock to and a cable lock for the weapon that made it impossible to load or shoot. The cable lock was never used, the case never had a lock fit, it wasn't put in a gun safe.
After the shooting the parents withdrew lots of cash and went into hiding with burner phones, they claim it was to get out of the oppressive limelight but text messages indicate they were on the run and were in fact found and arrested.
Crumbley did not ask after her son, actually spent more time arranging care for her horse and finding out the calorie content of prison food and when someone else discussed her son's situation said he should "man up".
So that is pretty much the Prosecution's argument, that nothing was done that could have been done to prevent this.
The Defence was that the son never asked for medical help, that he hadn't given any indication that he might do anything so bad etc
The reason for the Manslaughter charge is that Michigan did not at that time have a law about gun ownership that would be the usual avenue of charging them, this has now been drafted as a new law.
The concern is that now a parent may be liable for their child's actions which could be insidious.
For instance the parent of a gang member... could they be held liable?
In my view if they did nothing at all like Crumbley, did nothing to get their child help from mental health professionals, police interventions etc then yep they should be held somewhat responsible.
Some are concerned that making parents liable for their children's actions is a worrying precedent.
The key points as I see it are:
Crumbley did not do anything to prevent the shooting despite being in the school at urgent request that day after her son had filled in a paper with murderous ideation and a perfect drawing of his personal gun. Crumbley did not tell the school he had a gun gifted to him just a few days before.
A gun that was in his backpack in school that day. The gun he used in the shooting a few hours later when his parents said they had to go back to work, cutting the meeting short after 11 minutes and turning down the school's offer to take him out of school for the rest of the day.
Crumbley's job was family friendly and allowed children to come into work or for her to wfh which she often did.
The shooter had been having a very obvious mental health crisis for some time, thinking the house was haunted and knowing he was paranoid and an insomniac.
In his journal he writes of his desperate need for help
In text messages to his only good friend who had abruptly been moved to a special school far away just a few weeks prior to the shooting, he says he has asked his mother for medical help with his mental health and she just laughed.
The school counsellors were very concerned about his comments in essays that he was beyond despair. The point here being that his troubles were not being hidden at all and while the school had not yet picked these all up and talked to the parents, he was apparently openly and visibly in some trouble to everyone but Crumbley says this was him "messing with them" and manipulative.
The shooter had two bedrooms because he made his first unlivable with messiness so his second bedroom soon was similarly unlivable but it was where he spent all his time alone when not at school.
He ate Thanksgiving Dinner in his squalid room on his own a few days before the shooting.
On Hallowe'en not long before that he had plans with his one good friend but that was the day his friend was moved abruptly to another school. His parents went out partying and left him home alone.
He would text his mother that he loved her and she would not reply, he would message her alone in the house begging her to come back, that he was scared and paranoid etc
It was just a couple of weeks or less before the shooting that his father bought him a gun.
The gun came with a case you can fit a lock to and a cable lock for the weapon that made it impossible to load or shoot. The cable lock was never used, the case never had a lock fit, it wasn't put in a gun safe.
After the shooting the parents withdrew lots of cash and went into hiding with burner phones, they claim it was to get out of the oppressive limelight but text messages indicate they were on the run and were in fact found and arrested.
Crumbley did not ask after her son, actually spent more time arranging care for her horse and finding out the calorie content of prison food and when someone else discussed her son's situation said he should "man up".
So that is pretty much the Prosecution's argument, that nothing was done that could have been done to prevent this.
The Defence was that the son never asked for medical help, that he hadn't given any indication that he might do anything so bad etc
The reason for the Manslaughter charge is that Michigan did not at that time have a law about gun ownership that would be the usual avenue of charging them, this has now been drafted as a new law.
The concern is that now a parent may be liable for their child's actions which could be insidious.
For instance the parent of a gang member... could they be held liable?
In my view if they did nothing at all like Crumbley, did nothing to get their child help from mental health professionals, police interventions etc then yep they should be held somewhat responsible.
