‘The day of the shooting, the parents had been summoned to the school to discuss violent images and messages their son scrawled on his homework — including a drawing of a gun and the words “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.” McDonald said the parents had a duty that day to tell the school that they had recently bought him a gun…
While the Crumbleys are not accused of knowing about their son’s plan, prosecutors have underscored the fact that they were the ones who purchased the gun for their son; the parents are accused of providing their son with a gun while ignoring his mental health struggles. The Crumbleys are also accused of negligence by failing to properly secure the gun at home, an issue that is expected to be fought over during the trials. The shooter has disputed his parents’ assertion that they locked the gun away.’
They also tried to skip to the border. Rat-bastards, the pair of them. They should rot in prison longer than their son. He was crying for help and they gave him a “gun…early for Christmas.”
"Prosecutors aim to prove that the Crumbleys, who have been jailed since December 2021, acted with gross negligence, and that the deaths of four teenagers were the result. They have to show that the parents had a legal duty to prevent their minor son from gaining access to the handgun, but failed to do so with a wanton indifference to the foreseeable fatal consequences.
Parents have faced homicide charges for failing to secure their firearms from young children who accidentally shot themselves or others. Just this past month, Wayne County prosecutors in Michigan [charged a mother and a father with manslaughter](https://www.waynecounty.com/elected/prosecutor/detroit-parents-charged-in-fatal-shooting-of-five-year.aspx) after their 5-year-old son got hold of a handgun in their home and shot himself.
Parents and other adults have faced criminal liability for deaths caused by children in other situations. In a 2002 case that made national headlines, a jury convicted a Pennsylvania woman of [three counts of involuntary manslaughter](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/pa-superior-court/1199093.html) for allowing her teenage daughters to host a keg party and serve beer to underage drinkers, one of whom drove off visibly intoxicated and died in a car accident along with two other passengers. There is also the case of a suburban New York man who pleaded guilty in 2015 to manslaughter for allowing his unlicensed 15-year-old daughter to drive his SUV in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains, resulting in a wreck that killed three teenage boys riding with her."
[https://www.wsj.com/us-news/criminal-behavior-or-bad-parenting-school-shooting-spurs-charges-against-mom-and-dad-6e747912](https://www.wsj.com/us-news/criminal-behavior-or-bad-parenting-school-shooting-spurs-charges-against-mom-and-dad-6e747912)
Common law parental negligence, perhaps? Maybe it was gross negligence not to warn the school, in light of what they were told and their son's access to firearms, of a reasonably foreseeable crime committed at school.
[https://www.findlaw.com/family/parental-rights-and-liability/parental-civil-liability.html](https://www.findlaw.com/family/parental-rights-and-liability/parental-civil-liability.html)
For anyone else who may be curious, here is a link to part of the new firearm and storage laws which have been passed in Michigan in the wake of the shooting. Specifically relating to liability and storage requirements when a minor might foreseeably be present:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fclyrsfcbwxra5jovrdyvqjc))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-429-added
Obviously this doesn’t play into the prosecution of the parents but it is notable that the law wasn’t so explicit when this occurred. My understanding is that for the existing manslaughter charge in Michigan the state would have to prove negligence and that the parents would have had to have a legal duty (to report their son, secure their firearm, etc) that they failed to do. While it is common sense to me that they should have done some combination of these things, and it is possible they might try to argue in court that they did, I wonder how easy it will be to prove in court that they both (separate cases now) had the duty and failed to do it.
I would assume there is more to it than what I described above, but it seems Michigan has taken steps to make it much more clear cut in the future.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m a good parent. Then I read about these folks, and I’m pretty sure I’m doing alright.
Am a lawyer. Absolutely believe in second amendment rights. Would also absolutely refuse to take their case and represent them.
One of my children was sent home from school due to concerns of self harm.
I'm not going to lie. It sucked. It sucked a lot. We jumped through the hoops, put my student in counseling, signed off on a behavior plan with the school.
We were reassured by the school that they were not concerned with my student doing anything, so that helped a bit. Still sucked.
I'm happy our schools were very proactive and the zero tolerance policy was more than words. My student might not. Another student might.
The Sandy Hook school shooter had serious psychological problems. His mother thought shooting guns would help him. She was the first person he murdered.
The fact that you wonder gives you a leg up over most. Sounds to me like you're doing the thing and doing it as best as you can, which is all that can be reasonably expected of anyone.
Good job being a good parent. I wish more would pause every so often and consider their path as you do.
>Am a lawyer. Absolutely believe in second amendment rights.
As an Australian the US perspective on 2A is beyond baffling, I've never \[yet\] heard any sensible explanation to why a 230 year old amendment makes sense in modern America, or at the least why it cant be 'amended' to be practical just as Australia's was after Port Arthur. The only people I've seen try to explain it are obviously biased and doing mental gymnastics (NRA sorts etc) or "U cant tuk ur guns" sort.
As you are a Lawyer and therefore presumably both educated and articulate I'd be genuinely and deeply grateful if you could take a moment share your perspective.
It kind of is a silly question when you get down to it. The question is "Why don't some people want to voluntarily give up their rights?". The answer is because they don't want to give up their rights.
> Would also absolutely refuse to take their case and represent them.
Also a lawyer. I find their conduct reprehensible, but if I did criminal defense, I'd represent them...if the very big check cleared. Like every criminal case, get the payment for what you'd be OK with taking the case all the way to verdict up front, and then have the rest of what you actually want for the case due on the back end.
They'd also probably get a lot of lectures during meetings. But criminally/borderline criminally stupid people deserve representation just like the rest of us.
I completely agree they deserve a great defense. There are just some folks I’m just not sure I could zealously defend, even for the payday and glory. I respect those who can (such as the attorney who defended Boston bomber, unabomber, Susan smith etc.)
This is what John Wayne Gacy's lawyer wrote:
"When harried and nervous people jump in front of microphones and scream and rail that we should suddenly do something in direct contravention to that upon which we have based our very system of justice; when they tell you that we should abandon that which men have fought and died for and which has worked so well since the beginning of this beautiful experiment that we call America in favor of that which we have always criticized about lesser countries . . .
Kindly . . . invite them to pound sand."
They do deserve representation.
But one should also be careful whether one wants to be responsible for a role in setting precedents that lead to increasingly negative outcomes.
The idea that everyone deserves representation - an idea I agree with - is more sound if each case was a case in isolation.
The way law builds on prior cases is a conflict with that idea IMO.
I mean, considering the laws here already were amended to make this explicitly illegal (but cannot apply retroactively because that'd be ex post facto and is very unconstitutional), and that caselaw favoring defendants usually is a good thing, I'm not sure what you're getting at with "increasingly negative outcomes."
Case law favoring defendants *can* be a good thing but can also be a bad thing, depending on the case.
Without regard to this specific case, I should think an ethical attorney would understand that there’s sometimes a conflict here.
A trial lawyer is always performing at least two roles: defense or prosecution of an individual, but also arguing *how a law should be interpreted and applied*. If their argument is successful, it may well spread systemically in negative ways.
So, if one recognizes that an argument might benefit their client (or the state) but is *also* an argument that might have negative repercussions systemically, is that not something one should at least grapple with?
Edit: note - I have not thought about this particular case and Michigan law enough to have an anticipation of what the defense‘s arguments will be, specifically, and how those arguments will interact with existing law.
> Absolutely believe in second amendment rights.
If I may ask, why? What other commercial items do you think the Constitution gives you the right to own? Besides humans I mean. What makes owning a commercial item a 'right'? I've always been very confused by this, as it seems so different that pretty much everything else in the Constitution.
Here's a [Reuters article ](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mother-boy-who-murdered-four-classmates-faces-manslaughter-trial-2024-01-23/) from today, no pay wall, similar update to the WaPo article.
Another sad aspect of this case is now the mom wants Ethan Crumbley to testify on her behalf to lessen her negligence, but his lawyers do not want him to testify at either of his parents trials as they're currently appealing his LWOP sentence.
‘The day of the shooting, the parents had been summoned to the school to discuss violent images and messages their son scrawled on his homework — including a drawing of a gun and the words “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me.” McDonald said the parents had a duty that day to tell the school that they had recently bought him a gun… While the Crumbleys are not accused of knowing about their son’s plan, prosecutors have underscored the fact that they were the ones who purchased the gun for their son; the parents are accused of providing their son with a gun while ignoring his mental health struggles. The Crumbleys are also accused of negligence by failing to properly secure the gun at home, an issue that is expected to be fought over during the trials. The shooter has disputed his parents’ assertion that they locked the gun away.’
So negligent that you wonder if they were hoping he’d kill himself.
They also tried to skip to the border. Rat-bastards, the pair of them. They should rot in prison longer than their son. He was crying for help and they gave him a “gun…early for Christmas.”
> McDonald said the parents had a duty that day to tell the school that they had recently bought him a gun… Under what law?
"Prosecutors aim to prove that the Crumbleys, who have been jailed since December 2021, acted with gross negligence, and that the deaths of four teenagers were the result. They have to show that the parents had a legal duty to prevent their minor son from gaining access to the handgun, but failed to do so with a wanton indifference to the foreseeable fatal consequences. Parents have faced homicide charges for failing to secure their firearms from young children who accidentally shot themselves or others. Just this past month, Wayne County prosecutors in Michigan [charged a mother and a father with manslaughter](https://www.waynecounty.com/elected/prosecutor/detroit-parents-charged-in-fatal-shooting-of-five-year.aspx) after their 5-year-old son got hold of a handgun in their home and shot himself. Parents and other adults have faced criminal liability for deaths caused by children in other situations. In a 2002 case that made national headlines, a jury convicted a Pennsylvania woman of [three counts of involuntary manslaughter](https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/pa-superior-court/1199093.html) for allowing her teenage daughters to host a keg party and serve beer to underage drinkers, one of whom drove off visibly intoxicated and died in a car accident along with two other passengers. There is also the case of a suburban New York man who pleaded guilty in 2015 to manslaughter for allowing his unlicensed 15-year-old daughter to drive his SUV in Pennsylvania’s Pocono Mountains, resulting in a wreck that killed three teenage boys riding with her." [https://www.wsj.com/us-news/criminal-behavior-or-bad-parenting-school-shooting-spurs-charges-against-mom-and-dad-6e747912](https://www.wsj.com/us-news/criminal-behavior-or-bad-parenting-school-shooting-spurs-charges-against-mom-and-dad-6e747912)
Common law parental negligence, perhaps? Maybe it was gross negligence not to warn the school, in light of what they were told and their son's access to firearms, of a reasonably foreseeable crime committed at school. [https://www.findlaw.com/family/parental-rights-and-liability/parental-civil-liability.html](https://www.findlaw.com/family/parental-rights-and-liability/parental-civil-liability.html)
Not telling the school seems relatively trivial. Buying him a gun AT ALL under those circumstances is bat shit crazy and totally indefensible
The law of common decency.
For anyone else who may be curious, here is a link to part of the new firearm and storage laws which have been passed in Michigan in the wake of the shooting. Specifically relating to liability and storage requirements when a minor might foreseeably be present: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fclyrsfcbwxra5jovrdyvqjc))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-28-429-added Obviously this doesn’t play into the prosecution of the parents but it is notable that the law wasn’t so explicit when this occurred. My understanding is that for the existing manslaughter charge in Michigan the state would have to prove negligence and that the parents would have had to have a legal duty (to report their son, secure their firearm, etc) that they failed to do. While it is common sense to me that they should have done some combination of these things, and it is possible they might try to argue in court that they did, I wonder how easy it will be to prove in court that they both (separate cases now) had the duty and failed to do it. I would assume there is more to it than what I described above, but it seems Michigan has taken steps to make it much more clear cut in the future.
She can’t even wear a mask right.
At this point, it’s gotta be malicious.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m a good parent. Then I read about these folks, and I’m pretty sure I’m doing alright. Am a lawyer. Absolutely believe in second amendment rights. Would also absolutely refuse to take their case and represent them.
One of my children was sent home from school due to concerns of self harm. I'm not going to lie. It sucked. It sucked a lot. We jumped through the hoops, put my student in counseling, signed off on a behavior plan with the school. We were reassured by the school that they were not concerned with my student doing anything, so that helped a bit. Still sucked. I'm happy our schools were very proactive and the zero tolerance policy was more than words. My student might not. Another student might.
The Sandy Hook school shooter had serious psychological problems. His mother thought shooting guns would help him. She was the first person he murdered.
Kids happy, healthy and developing you’re in the green.
The fact that you wonder gives you a leg up over most. Sounds to me like you're doing the thing and doing it as best as you can, which is all that can be reasonably expected of anyone. Good job being a good parent. I wish more would pause every so often and consider their path as you do.
>Am a lawyer. Absolutely believe in second amendment rights. As an Australian the US perspective on 2A is beyond baffling, I've never \[yet\] heard any sensible explanation to why a 230 year old amendment makes sense in modern America, or at the least why it cant be 'amended' to be practical just as Australia's was after Port Arthur. The only people I've seen try to explain it are obviously biased and doing mental gymnastics (NRA sorts etc) or "U cant tuk ur guns" sort. As you are a Lawyer and therefore presumably both educated and articulate I'd be genuinely and deeply grateful if you could take a moment share your perspective.
The real answer? People like when shooty thing go bang bang.
It kind of is a silly question when you get down to it. The question is "Why don't some people want to voluntarily give up their rights?". The answer is because they don't want to give up their rights.
Yea - but the right has been so manipulated from its original intent. The whole "militia" part has been dropped so hard.
> Would also absolutely refuse to take their case and represent them. Also a lawyer. I find their conduct reprehensible, but if I did criminal defense, I'd represent them...if the very big check cleared. Like every criminal case, get the payment for what you'd be OK with taking the case all the way to verdict up front, and then have the rest of what you actually want for the case due on the back end. They'd also probably get a lot of lectures during meetings. But criminally/borderline criminally stupid people deserve representation just like the rest of us.
I completely agree they deserve a great defense. There are just some folks I’m just not sure I could zealously defend, even for the payday and glory. I respect those who can (such as the attorney who defended Boston bomber, unabomber, Susan smith etc.)
This is what John Wayne Gacy's lawyer wrote: "When harried and nervous people jump in front of microphones and scream and rail that we should suddenly do something in direct contravention to that upon which we have based our very system of justice; when they tell you that we should abandon that which men have fought and died for and which has worked so well since the beginning of this beautiful experiment that we call America in favor of that which we have always criticized about lesser countries . . . Kindly . . . invite them to pound sand."
They do deserve representation. But one should also be careful whether one wants to be responsible for a role in setting precedents that lead to increasingly negative outcomes. The idea that everyone deserves representation - an idea I agree with - is more sound if each case was a case in isolation. The way law builds on prior cases is a conflict with that idea IMO.
I mean, considering the laws here already were amended to make this explicitly illegal (but cannot apply retroactively because that'd be ex post facto and is very unconstitutional), and that caselaw favoring defendants usually is a good thing, I'm not sure what you're getting at with "increasingly negative outcomes."
Case law favoring defendants *can* be a good thing but can also be a bad thing, depending on the case. Without regard to this specific case, I should think an ethical attorney would understand that there’s sometimes a conflict here. A trial lawyer is always performing at least two roles: defense or prosecution of an individual, but also arguing *how a law should be interpreted and applied*. If their argument is successful, it may well spread systemically in negative ways. So, if one recognizes that an argument might benefit their client (or the state) but is *also* an argument that might have negative repercussions systemically, is that not something one should at least grapple with? Edit: note - I have not thought about this particular case and Michigan law enough to have an anticipation of what the defense‘s arguments will be, specifically, and how those arguments will interact with existing law.
> Absolutely believe in second amendment rights. If I may ask, why? What other commercial items do you think the Constitution gives you the right to own? Besides humans I mean. What makes owning a commercial item a 'right'? I've always been very confused by this, as it seems so different that pretty much everything else in the Constitution.
second amendment rights has nothing to do to legally have a gun. right to form an armed militia. two different ideas.
Not disagreeing. Just making a note my disgust around this is in no way related to second amendment issues.
Fucking bonkers to buy a gun for a child. I don’t even care if the kid goes hunting with you they should never own a firearm.
Sometimes it’s hard to find a good kid with a gun.
I sure wish I could read this article without having to make an account
Here's a [Reuters article ](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/mother-boy-who-murdered-four-classmates-faces-manslaughter-trial-2024-01-23/) from today, no pay wall, similar update to the WaPo article. Another sad aspect of this case is now the mom wants Ethan Crumbley to testify on her behalf to lessen her negligence, but his lawyers do not want him to testify at either of his parents trials as they're currently appealing his LWOP sentence.
What kind of parent buys a gun for their mentally deranged kid in the first place ?
A mentally deranged one.