So…the defense attorney states the gun was locked? Now what in Michigan case?

[Rigby5]

Everything. His parents would not be in any trouble at all had he not gone on a killing spree

That is not how law is supposed to work.
Whether or not the act results in a death or not, the consequences are supposed to be the same for the same negligence.

 

[Rigby5]

Of course he does. He would for the killer too, if society wouldn't punish him for it.

Of course we should also have sympathy for the killer.
The school must have been treating him terribly, and now his life is essentially over.
A tragedy all around.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is not how law is supposed to work.
Whether or not the act results in a death or not, the consequences are supposed to be the same for the same negligence.

The law would not know about the negligence unless it caused some harm. It is the harm that came from the negligence that is the problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sooo…the defense attorney stated the gun wasn’t loose but was actually locked………

I ask this court to note that full discovery has not been available and that the court is only aware of the facts the Prosecution has presented, but that gun was actually locked, so when the prosecution is stating that this child had free access to a gun, that is just absolutely not true.

New Details Emerge as Parents of Accused Michigan School Shooter Formally Arraigned

James and Jennifer Crumbley, parents of Oxford High School shooting suspect Ethan Crumbley, have eac

pjmedia.com

Also…they weren’t fleeing….

The Crumbleys’ attorneys said that their clients “were never fleeing prosecution” and that the missed court appearance was a result of miscommunication with the court. Defense attorney Mariell Lehman also claimed McDonald was trying to “make an example” out of the Crumbleys.

Will Chicago start prosecuting gang banger parents?

 

[surada]

My grandfather gave me a single shot ,410 shotgun before he died. It was when I was about 5 years old. I still have that shotgun. Up until my father's death, the shotgun was kept in his closet and only given to me when we went hunting. Should my father have been prosecuted?

Sounds like it was a non issue in your home. Ethan Crumbley didn't grow up going hunting with his father or grandfather,

 

[gipper]

He did not try to kill his parents, neighbors, or anyone else but those in the school who had made his life a nightmare.
So you want to blame the parents?
Makes no sense.
Schools are notoriously bad.
There are several movies about people wanting to shoot teachers because schools are so notoriously bad.

There is plenty of blame to go around. However it seems to me the school’s failure to stop bullying, which nearly all schools do a poor job of curtailing, is where much of the blame resides. Obviously the parents should have been more involved in the kids life and done something to stop the bullying.

Notice how the establishment media doesn’t appear interested in the bullying aspects of this terrible crime.

 

[gipper]

Will Chicago start prosecuting gang banger parents?

Their parents are either unknown or completely uninvolved.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Their parents are either unknown or completely uninvolved.

...which is a crime

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Will Chicago start prosecuting gang banger parents?

They should if the parent is the one supplying them with their guns.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They should if the parent is the one supplying them with their guns.

Lame.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Lame.

So you think it is ok for the parents to supply them with their guns?

 

[Rigby5]

The law would not know about the negligence unless it caused some harm. It is the harm that came from the negligence that is the problem.

Wrong.
All negligence can be detected without waiting for actual harm.
For example, if you catch a drunk driver swerving, before he actually kills someone.
The penalty should be the same regardless of if someone died.

The common factor in all school shooting is a horrific school system, trying to turn normal kids into little passive robots.

 

[Rigby5]

They should if the parent is the one supplying them with their guns.

Having guns is a necessary means of defense in most large cities.
Depends on age, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

So you think it is ok for the parents to supply them with their guns?

Kids can own guns if only unlocked in parents presence.
How did this kid get the gun that day?
Why did he already have it in school?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

For example, if you catch a drunk driver swerving, before he actually kills someone.
The penalty should be the same regardless of if someone died.

But the penalty is not the same for getting caught drunk driving and killing someone while driving drunk.

The common factor in all school shooting is a horrific school system, trying to turn normal kids into little passive robots.

Weird how there are almost 140,000 schools but only a few shooting per year then.

 

[Rigby5]

But the penalty is not the same for getting caught drunk driving and killing someone while driving drunk.



Weird how there are almost 140,000 schools but only a few shooting per year then.

And we imprison people for things like prostitution and drugs, which should not be criminalized at all.
The fact we give a higher penalty for the exact same act, depending on how it accidentally effected someone else, shows how stupid, corrupt, and immoral our legal system is.

The reason there are not more schools shooting is not because almost all schools deserve being shot up, but that school shooting do not accomplish anything.
It does not free the shooter from the evils of the school, but instead imposes upon them the even greater evils of the penal system.
Most school shooters commit suicide, so they have to have been pressed to their limits before they get to that point.
Instead, most students just trudge on in agony, with the hope their lives get better after graduation.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And we imprison people for things like prostitution and drugs, which should not be criminalized at all.

I agree 100%. We have some stupid laws and some that contradict each other

The fact we give a higher penalty for the exact same act, depending on how it accidentally effected someone else, shows how stupid, corrupt, and immoral our legal system is.

There is nothing immoral about that, that is basic common sense. If I drive my car 100mph on an empty road I will get a traffic ticket. If I drive my car 100mph on the highway and run into another car and kill someone the charge will be much different as it should be.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The common factor in all school shooting is a horrific school system

I had to laugh when I read this a second time.

The common factor in automobile accidents is the horrible automobiles.

The common factor in gun deaths is the gun.

The common factor in cancer deaths is the cancer.

The common factor in parachuting deaths is the parachute.

The common factor in poison deaths is the poison.


Captain Obvious would be so proud of you.

 

[Rigby5]

I agree 100%. We have some stupid laws and some that contradict each other



There is nothing immoral about that, that is basic common sense. If I drive my car 100mph on an empty road I will get a traffic ticket. If I drive my car 100mph on the highway and run into another car and kill someone the charge will be much different as it should be.

Wrong.
The penalty should only be higher if the act was deliberately more risky to others.
Whether or not it randomly resulted in more harm to others is irrelevant and then immoral to change the penalty over.

The penalty for speeding should NOT be higher if a pedestrian suddenly darts out of nowhere and gets hit.

For example, a person on 4th of July fires a weapon into the air.
Almost always it will land harmlessly due to the fact there is so much open space.
But purely randomly, it could accidentally kill someone.
So should the penalty differ depending on result?
Of course not.
The act needing penalty is the firing of the weapon, because no one has any control over where it lands.

If you need a better historical reference to why this is immoral in our legal system, I remember an incident in the movie, "Ben Hur".
The new Roman consul is in a parade through Jerusalem, and to get a better look, Ben Hur's sister leans out over the tile roof.
She accidentally dislodges a tile, it falls, spokes the Roman horse, which then throws and kills the Consul rider.
The whole family then ends up imprisoned for murder.
But the moral of the story is that it is immoral to punish for result, when the act itself was not worth of that punishment.

The point is to differentiate legal punishments intended to deter and reduce risky actions, and abusing legal authority in order to get revenge.

 

[Rigby5]

I had to laugh when I read this a second time.

The common factor in automobile accidents is the horrible automobiles.

The common factor in gun deaths is the gun.

The common factor in cancer deaths is the cancer.

The common factor in parachuting deaths is the parachute.

The common factor in poison deaths is the poison.


Captain Obvious would be so proud of you.

Wrong.

Automobile, gun, and cancer deaths, are not deliberate.
Only school deaths are deliberate.

We do all we can to reduce auto, gun, and cancer deaths, by reducing causes.

We do nothing at all to make schools less awful and stressful.
We deliberately want schools to be stressful because that increases profits by those who will employ those students later.