Parents Of Michigan High School Shooting Suspect Charged With Four Counts Of Involuntary Manslaughter

Not defending him at all.....

But I will defend the parents, they are not responsible for his crime. They are most likely guilty of a few things when it comes to his crime but manslaughter ain't one of them.

They are charged with involuntary manslaughter and I think they're good for it.
 
Wrong, go back to law school and criminal law 101. The defendants’ actions in purchasing and providing access to the gun to their disturbed child was the proximate cause of the murders he committed. As a former prosecutor I can attest that this evidence meets all the elements of the charged offense and a jury can be properly instructed to bring a conviction if they find the facts of the case to be as the state is alleging.
How can they prove that they knew their child was DISTURB? If you went to law school then you know that there is a LEGAL defination of crazy that must be met---
 
How can they prove that they knew their child was DISTURB? If you went to law school then you know that there is a LEGAL defination of crazy that must be met---

You think there is an insanity defence for Ethan?
 
Laws do vary state to state.

THere should be no limits...the 2nd amendment should be absolute.
The next time you`re stopped at a metal detector give the police your little speech. They enjoy a good laugh every now and then, I`m sure.
 
Great, let's apply it across the board.

Any time a gangbanger kills some one, or person with a KNOWN mental illness kills someone.

And, anytime a judge releases someone from jail and they commit another murder.

How about when an illegal alien commits murder? Should a president who is not enforcing our borders be charged with "involuntary" manslaughter?!?
Holy shit, you're still a moron.
 
How can they prove that they knew their child was DISTURB? If you went to law school then you know that there is a LEGAL defination of crazy that must be met---
The legal definition of insanity vis a vis an affirmative defense to murder is entirely apart from mental disturbance sufficient that it should have, in a reasonable person, compelled the sharing of information regarding this child’s easy access to firearms with school officials.
 
The legal definition of insanity vis a vis an affirmative defense to murder is entirely apart from mental disturbance sufficient that it should have, in a reasonable person, compelled the sharing of information regarding this child’s easy access to firearms with school officials.
The kid wrote "help me" on a drawing he made. The kid was quite aware of reality and it's consequences. Zero chance he successfully gets a psychologist to rule him mentally incompetent or a jury to find him guilty by reason of insanity. He's going to be in prison for the rest of his life and his trumpanzee parents will be locked away for a good while as well.
 
The kid wrote "help me" on a drawing he made. The kid was quite aware of reality and it's consequences. Zero chance he successfully gets a psychologist to rule him mentally incompetent or a jury to find him guilty by reason of insanity. He's going to be in prison for the rest of his life and his trumpanzee parents will be locked away for a good while as well.
At what point did I ever assert he could successfully pursue an insanity defense?

My response to the original post on this issue was to assert that there is a wealth of mental disturbance short of the legal threshold for not guilty by reason of mental defect that should have compelled the parents to share the critical information about his access to firearms with the school.
 
At what point did I ever assert he could successfully pursue an insanity defense?

My response to the original post on this issue was to assert that there is a wealth of mental disturbance short of the legal threshold for not guilty by reason of mental defect that should have compelled the parents to share the critical information about his access to firearms with the school.
So we are agreeing. I was never disputing anything you said.
 
THere should be no limits...the 2nd amendment should be absolute.

And yet, they are commonly used for all of these things.
Well, OK, not so much for skeet shooting, but they -can- be used for that.
"Can be used for that"?????
Ever seen that happen, M14?
I never have.
And I belong to two gun clubs with active busy skeet & trap ranges.
ps....don't try to stretch so far to make your point. IMHO


"At what point did I ever assert he could successfully pursue an insanity defense?"
............................................................................

This is a long and uncomfortable thread.
The topic being, painfully, a 15yr old kid with emotional/mental issues, and parents who gave the kid a powerful handgun.....with which he killed a handful of schoolkids.
That's heavy merde'.
Duh!

But, on a positive note.....let's give a hat-tip to the poster 'BoSoxGal'. It is always heartening to have someone come into this Mos Eisley Cantina who can use good English, construct a paragraph without fbombs,....and most importantly, make sense and be credible doing it.
So, a hat tip.
It's a nice antidote to some of the RWNJ jackassery that gets whirled & twirled here.

Then the good Colonel Angus says there should be no limits for the 2nd Amendment.

Meaning, anything goes.
Semi-auto.
Auto.
Grenades.
Flame throwers, Claymores, etc.
All portable. All 'personal' arms.
Hell, throw in 'satchell charges' too.

So, the good Colonel welcomes all hardware.
I would suggest though, that with his right to all this iron....comes responsibility. Comes liability.
Meaning, if his Glock 21 causes unwarranted harm. If his Claymore causes unwarranted harm. He....is responsible.
He ....owns the good it does for him.
He.....owns the harm it does to innocents.
Period.
 

Forum List

Back
Top