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

[Fang]

Charging the child as an adult does not absolve the parents of any misdeeds. Personally since the parents refused to let the cops talk to their son after he killed people I have no compassion for them.

Agreed.

I totally get the point of not talking to police. It's sound legal advice. But not in this case. Those parents lost their son forever the moment he pulled the trigger. There is no question what their son did. Just hand him over to police and tell him to talk.

 

[Donald H]

Parents of teen suspect in Michigan school shooting charged with involuntary manslaughter

Prosecutors announced Friday that they have charged Jennifer and James Crumbley, whose 15-year-old son, Ethan, is alleged to have carried out the rampage that left four students dead and seven others injured.

www.yahoo.com

They should spend the rest of their days in prison. Unforgivable.

Yes! And that goes for all other parents who are guilty of the same or SIMILAR criminal negligence!

To offer up an example, any parent allowing a mentally unstable child to get their hands on a gun.
Maybe revisit the question of background checks that keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

See the danger in the precedences that could be set in the court?

p.s. maybe not the 'rest' of their days?

 

[Dana7360]

I've seen nothing to note that the parents were aware he had taken the gun. Maybe the authorities know things we do not but that is what I'm asking.

If you had read the article you would have.

This is the following sentence from the article that will show you that the mother knew he had that weapon:

When the news of the active shooting became public, McDonald said Jennifer Crumbley texted her son, writing: “Ethan, don’t do it.”

Seriously, you might want to read the article.

 

[john doe 101]

Parents of teen suspect in Michigan school shooting charged with involuntary manslaughter

Prosecutors announced Friday that they have charged Jennifer and James Crumbley, whose 15-year-old son, Ethan, is alleged to have carried out the rampage that left four students dead and seven others injured.

www.yahoo.com

They should spend the rest of their days in prison. Unforgivable.

Usually involuntary manslaughter carries a term of 1 to 6 years. You're all about locking people up and throwing away the key though. I understand.

 

[pknopp]

If you had read the article you would have.

This is the following sentence from the article that will show you that the mother knew he had that weapon:

When the news of the active shooting became public, McDonald said Jennifer Crumbley texted her son, writing: “Ethan, don’t do it.”

Seriously, you might want to read the article.

That was discussed. That only created lots of questions, IMO.

 

[BoSoxGal]

I seriously doubt they can get involuntary manslaughter which IS a form of murder. But perhaps other charges.

No, it isn’t. This is basic criminal law 101. Murder requires mens rea, involuntary manslaughter does not. Spend a little time with Google and educate yourself.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Usually involuntary manslaughter carries a term of 1 to 6 years. You're all about locking people up and throwing away the key though. I understand.

Not every case is the same.

 

[john doe 101]

No, it isn’t. This is basic criminal law 101. Murder requires mens rea, involuntary manslaughter does not. Spend a little time with Google and educate yourself.

Trust me, that dummy would rather wallow in his ignorance all day long.

 

[Dadoalex]

I'm simply running this through to understand.........

How would this be different than the parents that allowed their kid to take their car and while driving irresponsibly kills someone? They knew he was going to take it out and kill people?

The kid was not behaving "irresponsibly," his behavior was premeditated and purposeful. In your example if the kid announced his intention to use the car to kill the parents, in providing the car, would be liable.

I think the parents are being charged based on their prior behaviors concerning the kid. It appears, from what I have read, and taken with a very large grain of salt because the info comes from emails, texts, and on line posts, the parents may have encouraged the behavior even if they didn't intend the consequences.

That's the thing with kids, at it appears especially true in this case, they're often unable to understand the consequences of an action until after the fact.

 

[Donald H]

Agreed.

I totally get the point of not talking to police. It's sound legal advice. But not in this case. Those parents lost their son forever the moment he pulled the trigger. There is no question what their son did. Just hand him over to police and tell him to talk.

Aren't you suggesting quite unreasonable demands on parents, considering the gun culture that's been created.
Many are going to suggest that guns are a right and parents don't bear any responsibility in curtailing that right in any way.
I mean after all, hasn't the decision already been made that there are no background checks on a gun owner's mental stability that need be the law?

 

[john doe 101]

Not every case is the same.

Name a state that can lock up someone for life for involuntary manslaughter.

 

[Dadoalex]

I guess the question becomes............Get caught doing what? Playing on his phone?

Is it against the law to search for ammunition on the internet?

No. But such a search is evidence of premeditation and the mother's response lends credence to the charges.

 

[john doe 101]

Aren't you suggesting quite unreasonable demands on parents, considering the gun culture that's been created.
Many are going to suggest that guns are a right and parents don't bear any responsibility in curtailing that right in any way.
I mean after all, hasn't the decision already been made that there are no background checks on a gun owner's mental stability that need be the law?

If I were the defense, I'd use that line of argument. America has spoken and it doesnt care about mentally ill people possessing firearms.

 

[IS_JESS_AN_ACCOUNT]

This is CLEARLY a case of Megan "Vlad Xi" Whitmer deliberately trampling upon the God-given 2nd Amendment rights of the innocent parents and child. I point to the Rittenhouse precedent which decrees that parents can provide their obese male children with lethal weapons to kill with impunity to compensate for their minuscule, non-functioning penis. Suck it prog slaves, 2nd Amendment!

'Murica! Freedumb is never free!

 

[Winco]

but his parents are not responsible for his murdering of other people.

Do you know ALL the Facts yet?
Of course you don't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I saw no law.

Whatever it was I posted, you and I read very differently. And it seems my reading of it is in line with that of the State.

I am truly lost at what ever point you are trying to hard to make without actually saying it straight out

 

[BoSoxGal]

No. But such a search is evidence of premeditation and the mother's response lends credence to the charges.

Also while it may not be against the law to search for ammunition on the internet, it is very likely against school regulations to do so. In our current climate of school shootings nearly every day somewhere in America, I would expect that any talk about guns, ammunition, etc. is not allowed in very many schools - it could be considered a threat against other students or a form of terrorizing, as school officials here obviously perceived it to be.

 

[dblack]

Wow, the parents are now facing four charges of involuntary manslaughter.

I don't know much about this case but from what I have read, those parents weren't very responsible.

MSN

I'm glad to see this. Obviously not glad there was a shooting, but I've been saying, for a very long time now, that parents should be held accountable when they unleash a monster on the world.

 

[dblack]

In Michigan, gun owners are not required to lock up their weapons or keep them away from children, according to Giffords Law Center.

So what is it they are charging them for doing?

Unleashing a monster on the world.

 

[pknopp]

The kid was not behaving "irresponsibly," his behavior was premeditated and purposeful. In your example if the kid announced his intention to use the car to kill the parents, in providing the car, would be liable.

Sure, that's what I'm getting at. I'm wondering what we don't know for the charges to have been filed. There doesn't seem to be a law that addresses this.

I think the parents are being charged based on their prior behaviors concerning the kid. It appears, from what I have read, and taken with a very large grain of salt because the info comes from emails, texts, and on line posts, the parents may have encouraged the behavior even if they didn't intend the consequences.

That's the thing with kids, at it appears especially true in this case, they're often unable to understand the consequences of an action until after the fact.

I doubt very many people think their kid would do something like this.