In an editorial titled “Parents and School Shooters”, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) delves into the complex issue of parental responsibility in school shootings, focusing on the case of Colin Gray, who faces criminal charges after his 14-year-old son murdered four people at a Georgia high school. The editorial in the WSJ, one of the few “main stream” media outlets to not sell its soul to the left and still provide reasonably balanced, informative and thought-provoking new coverage, explores the legal and ethical questions surrounding whether parents should be held liable when their children commit such heinous acts with firearms from the home. With references to similar cases, like the Crumbleys in Michigan, the Journal emphasizes that while holding parents accountable may be justified when clear negligence is involved (and even emotionally satisfying to those looking for someone to pay for such unfathomable acts), the law must still require firm evidence of culpability. The piece also highlights the need for enhanced school security measures, lamenting that while these steps are unfortunate necessities, they are crucial in preventing future tragedies and to date, one of the best plans put on the table at keeping our children safe in schools.
Parts of the editorial are posted here for those who cannot access it online:
“Should parents be held criminally liable if a child goes on a shooting spree with a gun from the home? That question is now in sharp public relief with the indictments this week after (a 14-year-old) murdered two students and two adults at Apalachee High School in Winder, Ga.
The teenager has been charged with murder as an adult. More unusual is that his 54-year-old father, Colin Gray, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter, second degree murder and cruelty to children. If found guilty, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
The U.S. has been mired for decades in a partisan gun debate that has stymied practical answers for school shootings. The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms, and gun control has become a political and practical dead end.
But Americans are understandably frustrated, angry and searching for other ways to prevent mass murder, especially against children in schools. Holding parents criminally responsible for abuses by their children may make sense when the facts of a case demonstrate negligence or aiding or abetting the child’s commission of a crime.
Georgia authorities clearly feel they have enough facts to warrant a charge against Colin Gray…
…The Georgia facts will be tested in court, and it’s important that laws are written in a way that requires clear parental culpability. School shootings are horrific, and the public desire to cast blame can be strong. There needs to be evidence beyond guilt by parental association.”
In the editorial they quote the school shooter’s extended family members and grandfather, Charlie Polhamus, as saying, “the family home was dysfunctional and Colt’s emotional turmoil was the result of verbal abuse. ‘He was just a good kid, but he lived in an environment that was hostile,’ he (Polhamus) said. While the boy will ‘pay the price’ for the crime, ‘his dad is as guilty as Colt is.’”
In a TTAG article last week, Georgia gun attorney Matthew Kilgo, explained prosecutors will have their work cut out for them because of the specific charges against the elder Gray. The state does not have a safe storage law, and among the initial charges, involuntary manslaughter typically deals with acts other than a felony, which the father has not been charged with.
“The issue centers around whether the father’s act or failure to act [in allowing the juvenile access to the firearm] constituted negligence that a reasonable person would not have committed,” Kilgo said in the article. “It’s so wide and muddy that any act that the state at this point could perceive that the dad took that would have allowed his son to gain access to the gun is probably OK for charging because the level of proof for charging, probable cause, is so many steps down the wrung from beyond reasonable doubt. The problem then becomes that level of proof gets raised extremely high when you go to trial. So, that same level that would cause you to be arrested may not be enough to cause you to be convicted.”
The Journal editorial goes on to stress:
“A second useful focus has to be more school security, as some states and communities are doing. States including Pennsylvania, Texas and Michigan have funded security upgrades for school buildings. Utah in March allocated $100 million in one-time funding and $2.1 million in annual funding. In 2023 Georgia allocated $115 million in school security grants…
…Confronting a shooter who is attempting to enter the building is the best chance to prevent horrific loss. Campuses from elementary to high school may need to have an armed security guard or local police officer on duty during the school day…
…It’s a tragedy that such security steps are needed, but the deeper causes of school shootings such as community and family dissolution will require a cultural renaissance. Social media’s bad effects also need to be countered.
But in the near term, increased security and law enforcement are essential, and tragically so is holding parents responsible when their children kill with guns that shouldn’t be in their possession.”
Merely having children and owning guns…will be a crime soon..
Having children is practically a crime as it is.
When “children kill with guns that shouldn’t be in their possession”?
Children with guns still should not kill. And for a long time, they did not.
In 1900, everything was over the counter – machine guns, cannons, drugs, medicines, chemicals, explosives…
But no TV.
Realistic violence was allowed on TV starting around 1956. The modern era of school shootings started in ’66. Meanwhile, guns and drugs have never been harder to get.
I think that is called a multivariate correlation…
But nearly no divorce. The father was very much still in the home.
Also our country had a universal belief system, that had high expectations for behavior in both public and private.
Children fought each other all the time. But never with guns. The thought never entered their mind. Private religious self-control, which is hated by the atheists, is what stopped guns from being used.
In both children and adults.
In the 1980s High school kids still carried guns to school in their cars. And they weren’t shooting each other back then.
But now children are being medicated on the “orders” of public school teachers. And divorce rates are very high.
A parent who so disengaged as to have no awareness of their child’s mental condition and does not have the common sense not to give that child access to guns probably is a big part of the reason that kid winds up being a school shooter.
Having raised 5 children, and having been a “handful” when I was one, I can say with absolute certainty, that parents are oft the last ones to know a thing.
IF you buy or facilitate your spawn to own a gat yeah you bear some responsibility-especially underaged. If you’re unaware/ brain dead like Columbine perhaps not. We can’t charge the Lanza demon as he murdered mom. The Crumbly killer yes. The July 4th mass murderer in Highland Park ILLANNOY yes. The pos who bought his spawn a gun in Georgia he!! yes! I saw a certain 2A youtube channel disagree. I have a son in his late 40’s who I don’t trust at all🙄 They’ve charged black people in ILLannoy for that!!!
Should we not hold judges criminally liable when they release a violent criminal into the community pending trial then that violent criminal goes on to commit other violent crimes?
How about holding the corrupt attorneys who knowingly and intentionally present perjured testimony to exonerate violent criminals when those violent criminals then commit more violent crimes?
I see your point, but at least we have the failsafe of elections, when it comes to local judges and prosecutors. In theory, that is…
Anyone with half a brain can see the father’s ignorance, he does not even have the sense to leave his drink in the house and stand when speaking to a police officer who is not there to invite the family to a cookout. The father should have taken the matter dead f-ing serious and either removed the son or the weapons or both. Here’s the police interview, connect the h to ttps…
h ttps://youtu.be/g2N2w4gvPsk?feature=shared
Determining responsibility is a rather challenging position. I find it unbelivable that a youth could get an AR size weapon into a school unnoticed or intercepted.
The real issue is this youth was ON the Radar. But he had been moved to a different school. Which because of Juvenile Laws was unaware of his issues.
Now if the father is criminally responsible for this what other violent actions should a parent be responsible for? Could an inner city parent be responsible if Little Shantee kills someone in a car crash?
If a child assaults a teacher should the parent be responsible?
And should the parent of the little twit who took a shot at Trump also be tried?
Let’s be clear: this family was already visited by law enforcement because of the kid’s threats made online. A half hour before the shooting the mom called the school to warn them he was a threat. The parents knew the kid was a ticking time bomb yet the dad bought him an AR for Christmas anyway. The dad is absolutely culpable in this and should be charged.
“A half hour before the shooting the mom called the school to warn them he was a threat.”
What did the school do?
mom called the school warning a school counselor of an “extreme emergency” involving her son and urged them to “immediately” find her son to check on him, a relative said… a relative who got this information from a text mom sent her. The relative showed this to a news paper, the news paper reported that a call log from the family’s shared phone plan showed a call was made to the school about 30 minutes before the shooting started.
So indications are that mom did call the school about an “extreme emergency” involving her son. But what did the school do?
The parents knew the kid was a ticking time bomb
Assumed facts not in evidence. LE visited the home last year and they left without escalating the matter. They could have followed the digital trail to track the on line post, but did not. So if LE apparently didn’t have enough evidence to take further action, why is the Dad being held to a different standard?
Because Dad doesn’t have to prove to a jury before he can act, discipline, reward, etc.
G is correct, the sheriffs deputies were uncertain if they had the right address/Internet, so they could not provide definitive information to dad.
And dad told them his son had access to weapons, and still LE took no action nor required dad to do so.
The same holds true for the Christmas purchase of the AR15, dad had no solid evidence his son made any threats whatsoever, so why not buy ‘Ralphie’ a modern sporting rifle and some 30 round magazines to go deer hunting…
Georgia does not have a red flag law or safe storage requirements in code, so their hands were tied and dad really isn’t responsible because he had no solid information to go on.
With freedom, apparently these occurrences are ‘just a fact of life’.
When someone criminally misuses a motor vehicle, knife, bat, brick, etc. to maime and kill it’s ironic how knee jerk democRats calling for gun confiscations and bans are crickets. The knee jerk european style response to criminal misuse needs to end in America. America is not Gun Control nazi germany or is it Gun Control cotton field slavery. In other words mr. and miss toe tapping democRats take your insane Gun Control and shove it back up the tyrannical behinds from which it came.
So last year there were reports of threats made by the kid. LE visited the home and determined there wasn’t enough there there to do anything about it. Maybe they were just lazy and didn’t follow up on the digital trail. Maybe they believed the kid. Who knows. But now everyone is blaming Dad for having “known”. Am I the only one who finds this odd?
Per instance aside, what I would really like to know, and the question we must answer is:
What has changed so much in our society that we are raising boys who think killing kids is even a thing?
“What has changed so much in our society“
Murder rehearsal in video games, which the courts have ruled is protected speech under the first amendment.
Straw man
Proving guilt unless the jury is tainted by publicity will be difficult in a state with no safe storage or age restrictions will be very difficult. Especially when the defense will present evidence that it is very common for parents to familiarize children starting in elementary school with firearms. In rule areas it is likely elementary school age children are given a 22LR rifle to use and high school age kids a 12 ga. shotgun & deer rifle for hunting.
“Should parents be held criminally liable if a child goes on a shooting spree with a gun from the home? That question is now in sharp public relief with the indictments this week after (a 14-year-old) murdered two students and two adults at Apalachee High School in Winder, Ga.
Yes, YES, YES! Parents most certainly should be held accountable for a shooting by their child with a weapon the child had access to because the Parent (s) did not properly secure the weapon. It is inherent in weapon ownership and all safety requirements that weapons be locked and unloaded. The parents should be schooled by a certified local organization, Police, NRA etc., To do otherwise is unsafe, stupid and inexcusable.
“Parents most certainly should be held accountable for a shooting by their child with a weapon the child had access to”
Georgia has no safe storage laws, so that pretty much ends any criminal liability.
The parents of the dead kids could institute a civil proceeding, but I’d say dad is pretty much lawsuit-proof, he ain’t got nothing to take.
Oh no that sucks…….. anyway
Or the kid could just kill the mom to get the gun safe key, but if the secretary at the front door of the school was armed, said ‘kid’ would have been riddled by bullets before gaining access.
Taken by surprise, you say? I’d say the more that the few seconds it took to shoot out the windows and climb in over the sills and broken glass would have been plenty of time to grab your gun and take cover, then blast who ever follows that stream of bullets into the building..
Nah, we can’t do that, it would put control back into the hands of the people charged with keeping our kids safe all day…
“the secretary at the front door“
Do you really think that’s a reasonable idea?
Experienced LEO, with years of training, often have difficulty handling an unexpected threat, and you believe the school secretary, on the phone, head buried in her computer, hearing the shouts and noises of normal kid activity is going to be ready to respond with lethal force to an intruder in moments?
I do think it’s prudent to have an armed response on the school campus, but I don’t think it’s the secretary at the front door.
Damn right I thinkk it’s a good idea.. Otherwise, lets just let the kid ‘walz’ right in…
No opposition at all.
Analysis of so called mass shootings show that in a large percentage, the shooter SELF TERMINATES at the first sign of resistance. A secretary cranking off a few rounds at the shooter certainly qualifies as ‘resistance,’ I’d say.
In the mall shooting in Oregon several years ago, the shooter just saw a person down the hall holding a handgun getting ready to crank off a few rounds at the dirtbag. Said dirtbag dives into a stairwell and preceeds to scatter his grey matter.
BTW, shots fired vs shots on target show the beat cops are routinely ‘out shot’ by civilians, to the tune of something like 70%, if I recall..
Why, you ask?
Mostly because civilians that pack, generally put a lot more rounds down range per year than the average cop, who only needs to qualify every so often.
There is such a double standard when it comes to every other means of killing.
You’ll never hear of a parent being arrested for buying their son a car if their son drives drunk and kills someone. And they’ll never call it an “assault-style car” or a “military-style car with a high-capacity gas tank,” not even if it’s black, OD green, or a Jeep or Hummer of military heritage.
Far more people are stabbed to death each year in America than are killed with rifles, but you’ll never hear of a parent being arrested for having “unsecured” knives in their kitchen (including an “assault-style butcher knife,” OMG!) if a kid stabs someone.
“You’ll never hear of a parent being arrested for buying their son a car if their son drives drunk and kills someone“
Really? You mean like this?
“Parents sentenced for role in unlicensed son’s crash that killed teen passenger in Queens
By Jacob Flanagan and DUARTE GERALDINOPublished July 22, 2024 11:20pm EDT FOX 5 NY
Parents plead guilty for role in deadly crash
The parents of a now 17-year-old boy accused of being behind the wheel of a BMW that killed his 14-year-old passenger were sentenced Monday after pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. FOX 5 NY’s Duarte Geraldino has the story.
NEW YORK – The parents of a now-17-year-old boy accused of killing a 14-year-old girl in a high-speed crash in Queens last year have pled guilty to endangering the welfare of a child.
Authorities say that Sean Smith, 40, and Deo Ramnarine, 43, were sentenced Monday for giving their 16-year-old son a BMW when he was not legally allowed to drive it anywhere in New York City.”
If this “kid’ was such a mess, why didn’t the state step in and get some psycological help for this individual. Charging the dad is a way to shift blame away from others ( state) failure to render aid before this type of thing happens. Wonder if he was on so called antidepressants that usually cause psychosis.
Because there are no red flag laws in Georgia, and that’s how the Republicans want it.
Good civil rights still exist.
“Because there are no red flag laws in Georgia”
100% false that its “Because there are no red flag laws in Georgia”. Its because there was not a crime at the time of investigation and a provable or obvious mental illness condition exposure indicating actual harm to self or others.
Simply making a post on line is not a crime, cause for concern in this case, but its not a crime. And they had nothing else other than that at the time of investigation.
Mental illness has been ‘normalized’ by years of left-wing liberal doctors and left-wing politicians telling governments and the public that mentally ill people basically don’t exist because its wrong to ‘stigmatize’ them by calling them ‘mentally ill’.
All states for the last 100 years have a series of laws already in place where a person that’s a danger to them selves or others can be confined for evaluation or treatment, but those laws allow due process. What the left-wing and anti-gun wants, and republicans and sane people object to and rightfully so, is ‘red flag laws’ that has no due process so they can ‘we said so therefore it is because we say so’.
“a series of laws already in place where a person that’s a danger to them selves or others can be confined for evaluation”
Do you think the deputy sheriffs had enough evidence to justify a Baker Act involuntary incarceration?
But they did not take the son into custody, does that make it their liability because they failed to incarcerate the son?
In Georgia: To commit someone involuntary for a mental evaluation, two people have to petition the court. Petitioners must have witnessed the behavior of an individual within 48 hours of their hearing date. If the judge grants it (most do immediately, the grating rate is about 92%), an Order to Apprehend will be issued and the sheriff will pick them up and transport them to a designated state mental health system facility. The witnesses must attest to the fact that the said individual is a mentally ill person, an alcoholic or is drug dependent, presents a substantial risk of imminent harm to him or others, and that this individual needs involuntary treatment.
Any licensed doctor in the State of Georgia can also commit a person in the State of Georgia for involuntary treatment upon signing a 1013 Request Form.
law enforcement can also IF they witness or have an reasonable suspicion based on the actions of the individual that harm IS imminent or the person WILL harm themselves or others. There weren’t any indications of that from the kid when the deputy investigated and an on line post is not substantiating before the fact.
We don’t do pre-crime in the United States, its a violation of due process.
“We don’t do pre-crime in the United States, its a violation of due process“
So the answer is no, there is no way to stop kids like Colt Gray.
Society must wait until kids like him actually kill a few people before the authorities can act.
Only the 14-year-old is at fault here, everyone else is in the clear.
So it is a ‘fact of life’, just another benefit to living in the American society.
“So the answer is no, there is no way to stop kids like Colt Gray.”
No, that’s not the answer.
“Society must wait until kids like him actually kill a few people before the authorities can act.”
No. Key words here are “like him”, and we would be able to identify “kids like him” if the narrative and resources wasn’t always directed to guns and away from the mental illness “kids like him” have. No gun whispered in his ear and said “hey, I want you to go shoot up a school. I command it!”
Even if guns simply did not exist he would have still wanted to kill, that’s the nature of this mental illness. Its been expressed in the journals and writings of these types of killers over and over again, phrases such as ‘if I cant get a gun i’ll use an axe” said one more specifically. Its not about the implement used, its about being driven by the mental illness. But the anti-gun always direct the narrative away from the mental illness to the gun.
Then when its pointed out the anti-gun basically go “oh uhhhh ok, its mental illness too” in metaphorical all ‘lowercase subscript’ as they direct the narrative back to guns which is what they also do with pushing ‘Red Flag Laws” the basic concept for which is derived from an old communist Soviet Union era concept of “you are because we say you are because we say so” (e.g. in the old soviet union “you are an enemy of the state because we say you are because we say so”) with no due process just like that communist Soviet Union era concept.
The anti-gun Red flag laws are an insane idea in a free society. They are ripe for abuse by government, they invite such abuse and expansion to cover just about anything the government doesn’t like or wants to control. There is a reason the 4th amendment exists, its to prevent the very abuse that the anti-gun red flag laws open the door to for which government can use “we say therefore you are because we say”.
“we say therefore you are because we say” ….The British did this, the founders were well aware of such abuse by government. Every government on earth has done it to its citizens. First its the ploy of ‘soft promises’ like for example “Trust us, we need to do this for the public safety.” then incrementally over time they expand it to gain more and more power through it. Every government on earth has done it to its citizens, the U.K. today is doing it to its citizens where their ‘right to free speech’ has now become ‘a right to free speech unless we don’t like it and if we don’t like it we are going to throw you in jail because we say so’.
And now today we have a repeat of history with anti-gun red flag laws once again opening that door the British stepped through so long ago with soothing soft promises of ‘its for your safety, just let us do this.” as they garrisoned troops planning to turn us into a subservient slave colony.
“Only the 14-year-old is at fault here, everyone else is in the clear.”
For the actual act, yes, its only the “14-year-old” at fault here. No one else but him pulled the trigger, the gun didn’t pull the trigger, dad and mom didn’t pull the trigger, I didn’t pull the trigger, millions of other gun owners didn’t pull the trigger, even other criminals didn’t pull the trigger – yes, for the actual act, its only the “14-year-old” at fault here. We need to realize that, its very important to realize that because its key to understanding that we need to focus on the individuals mental health to unravel how this happens and not get side tracked to ‘guns’ and the actions of others. Sure, there was the gross irresponsibility and stupid by dad, I’ve said that before, that did have an effect and he will be judged for that for what ever charges he is judged for, and that effect can be explored also for its interactive role. But for the actual act, yes it was only this mentally ill kid.
“So it is a ‘fact of life’, just another benefit to living in the American society.”
I’m not sure who told you about the facts of life for anything, but this is just false.
Both gray and Crumbly bought the weapons FOR their deranged kids in an effort to soothe the whacko from attacking their own parents. Both should be held responsible for their failures.
I bet Teenagers kill and injury thousands of people each year. Because their parents let them use the car.
Should the parents be prosecuted? When the kids get into an accident?
They haven’t been before.
If their kid threatened to run people over causing the FBI to investigate, and then you buy him a muscle car despite being a deeply troubled kid, then for damn sure the parents should be charges
“They haven’t been before“
Yes they have:
“Parents sentenced for role in unlicensed son’s crash that killed teen passenger in Queens
By Jacob Flanagan and DUARTE GERALDINOPublished July 22, 2024 11:20pm EDT FOX 5 NY
Parents plead guilty for role in deadly crash
The parents of a now 17-year-old boy accused of being behind the wheel of a BMW that killed his 14-year-old passenger were sentenced Monday after pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child. FOX 5 NY’s Duarte Geraldino has the story.“
Unlicensed seems to be a key word in regards to the privilege of driving.
Grey Sr certainly showed contributory negligence in buying a firearm for Grey Jr, and Grey Jr certainly looked like he/she/it was on the LGBTetc spectrum. Looks like a mess all round.
I sure do hope we have lots of orphanages ready to go, because this will absolutely justify kicking junior out of the house at the first hint of trouble.
OR, know this is crazy but here me out, you remove the child’s gun and lock it up, only to be used with you in his presence.
And then just find another way to kill mom and dad, get the key to the gun safe and go on your rampage.
Ah, that’ll NEVER happen, right?
Parents can no longer raise their children.. Radical teachers unions and Hollywood raise your children now.. They are making children grow up grossly inappropriate and violent..
He should’ve never had access without parent supervision! Sometimes the parents are dumber than the kids! 18 is the minimum age for a reason!
“18 is the minimum age for a reason!“
Many say because there are no age restrictions in the constitution, any age restriction on the purchase or possession of a firearm is unconstitutional.
The Uvalde shooter could hardly wait until his 18th birthday to buy his modern sporting rifle:
“On May 17, 2022, a day after his 18th birthday, he legally purchased a Smith & Wesson semi automatic rifle from a local gun store. He then purchased another rifle three days later“.
It was a hard and fast rule when my kids were minors that they did not have free access to any firearm, including their own hunting firearms without direct supervision and express consent for the particular hunting trip, or trip to the shooting range or competition.
And very well understood there would be immediate and possibly harsh consequences if that rule was ignored. And yes there was an exception for emergencies. Luckily such an emergency never occurred with the kids.
So, yes, I do agree with parents being held at least partially accountable for the misdeeds, or crimes of their minor children. Of course this does require a bit of common sense on both sides of the legal issue. Your kid goes out and does something dumb and someone gets injured or killed, that would be both unintended and likely accidental. But, if your offspring goes out and intentionally goes out and does something they know is illegal and or harmful then yes as a parent you do bear some responsibility.
Basically, the WSJ explored its not the ‘crisis’ the anti-gun wants to make it out to be because there are millions of other kids in homes with guns that don’t do such things or have accidents despite ‘having’ access to the guns in some manner (even being able to break into ‘gun safes’).
And as usual for anti-gun in these cases, the WSJ didn’t bother to explore the issue of mental illness as what was the real cause (of school shootings) and go straight to framing everything and blame ‘on gun’.
We are never going to be able to address this unless we get away from anti-gun always focusing attention and resources on ‘guns’ instead of mental illness.
Interesting question. If the shooter is charged as a juvenile, there might be a better argument for parental culpability. However, The shooter is being charged as an adult. The state has chosen to argue that he is culpable for his own actions (just like an adult) I doubt the case against dad is gonna fly.
I am guessing the father was overcharged to encourage him to take a plea.
It’s immaterial whether or not the child is charged as an adult, dad still showed a reckless disregard for the safety of others, by purchasing the modern sporting rifle for his son.
The case could be made that he is at least guilty of involuntary manslaughter or depraved indifference.
The question is, after being informed by the deputy sheriffs of the school shooting threats, did dad have a duty to restrict access to firearms by his son.
Comments are closed.