July 4th Parade Shooter’s Father Charged With 7 Felonies Including Criminal Reckless Conduct

1. How was it so definitively determined that the boy was “unfit to own a gun” and that the Father’s negligence in sponsoring his son’s gun purchase(s?) was so intimately attached to the boy’s unfit nature?

   • Most likely, he admitted it when he had a little chat with the cops down at the station…

     • EDIT – Meaning, the cops were looking to charge him, and likely led him on by saying things like “So, you knew he had problems, but you signed the FOID card anyways?”

       And the dumbass likely replied “Yeah.”

       That’s what he gets for talking to the police.

       Don’t talk to the police, unless you want to go to prison…

       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

       • My sister and brother-in-law are both retired cops. They have both told me never talk to the cops without a lawyer present.

       • great video!

2. so the father was criminally reckless for sponsoring his civil rights but the State wasn’t, for allowing them to be exercised? yeah, no.

3. More info is needed on this one…..

   • The bureaucrats are making an example out of him. You dads out there thinking about buying junior a rifle well you better lookie over here first. See that guy in jail? That could be you daddy-o.

     In this case it is crystal clear the perp was a disaster waiting to happen and one did big time. Too bad he won’t face a firing squad, etc.

     • NO – go live in a Free State.

       FOID = Unconstitutional.

4. Maybe the state should arrest itself, after all, they received, reviewed and granted the application. Oh wait, I forgot, “One for Thee and another for Me”, our rulers can do no wrong,

   • Hmm, it’s strange suddenly only the criminal is responsible when a known violent offender is paroled or has charges dropped and then commits another violent crime (surprise!), I mean the judge and prosecutor couldn’t know that might happen in Chicago or California…

   • Mauser, even the dumbest government goon quickly learns what happens when you piss upwind… point that thing somewhere else.

5. So, in Mn. anyway, I or my wife had to sign for our three sons to get their driver’s license at age 16. Now that the youngest is 33, if one of them killed someone for whatever reason in a vehicle incident, would the prosecutor come back after me for ” sponsoring” my sons licenses?
   Sounds far fetched, but I guess that’s much the same that is involved here.

   • Yeah they like to have someone to go after anytime something bad happens, so yeah, totally. That’s why they like that gun registration paper trail so they can sue anyone who had the weapon, dealers, distributors, advertisers, uncles, friend of a friend, everyone must be punished!

     • “Look over there!”
       “Don’t look here!”

   • In countries run by despots, it’s not uncommon for entire families to be rounded up and executed because a single member – maybe not closely related, has committed a crime, especially one which the tyranny very much wants to suppress, such as speaking in defiance. In the Iron Curtain countries, families weren’t always shot, but might serve time in prison, lose their jobs and be prohibited from finding any but the most menial, driven out of housing (all housing was state-owned), etc. This is the precursor to more widespread oppression of entire families for a single person’s undesireable behavior.

6. Now do the prosecutors and judges allowing known violent criminals back onto the street which contributes “to the bodily harm suffered by victims.” Why isn’t that happening?

   • Dem of the favored/protected demographic are multiple “voters”. Can’t have them locked up.

7. “An Illinois prosecutor has filed felony charges against the father …”

   Yeah, well, that’s usually an over zelous anti-gun prosecutor trying to make up a case to establish an unconstitutional precedent of some type to hold anyone responsible as they see fit by biased ‘interpretation’ of the law.

   We really need more info though. Maybe there was something definitive some place that the father knew. Who knows at this point really though, simply saying he did something does not mean he actually did it or knew it.

   Remember what happened to Rittenhouse? Anti-gun all over the place, including MSM, were blatantly trying to try the case in the court of public opinion and convict him of murder when in reality it was valid self-defense to establish some sort of ‘precedent’ case and in that they also used that he was, basically, a ‘prohibited’ person due to age and that did not turn out to be true either but rather was based upon an anti-gun biased ‘interpretation’ of the law.

   • .40

     “…an over zelous anti-gun prosecutor trying to make up a case to establish an unconstitutional precedent of some type to hold anyone responsible as they see fit by biased ‘interpretation’ of the law.”

     Exactly! And add to that, the ‘law’ is often just another set of prejudices mal-aligned with the US Constitution for the express purpose of advancing political control and having no intention of making this world a better place.

     Yeah, yeah, yeah…there are some good laws, like those against murder and against putting chewed bubblegum on the bus seats.

     • It’s not the laws, but rather those making application or a lack thereof or more appropriately those entrusted to uphold laws become engaged in the act of twisting and ignoring the laws. All for the desire to get a conviction at any cost while ignoring the principles of right and wrong thereby throwing “justice” under the rug.
       The Netflix movie “Staircase” is a good example of how LE at times functions beginning with local PD up to and including the FBI.

8. it’s the Illinois way. You’re guilty regardless except criminals.

9. They knew Criminal Er Crimo 3 was a violent lunatic. Since the FOID is UN constitutional arrest yourself ILLANNOY! And why is every AR owner guilty by ASSociation??? FU ILL…

10. I am all in for mental health verification for prosecutors.

    You have deep-seated prejudices that will jaundice you application of the law? Learn to code or go get your electrician’s license. You can help a lot of people that way.

    You think using the law and lawfare is a legitimate means to advance your political agenda? Become an engineer (the kind that drives trains), instead. Goods have got to move. People and businesses need stuff.

    You don’t give a crap about whom you hurt as long as you advance your career? Become a forest ranger. Maybe some time in the wilderness will fill those caverns in your soul.

    If you are a sociopathic, malignant tumor in society, the law, medicine, and ministry are not for you. Find a profession that produces a concrete, helpful product. Doing good might do you some good.

    • “If you are a sociopathic, malignant tumor in society, the law, medicine, and ministry are not for you.”

      That’s why most of them actually work in HR or K-12.

11. Would you sign the forms if this was your kid?

    Authorities have previously said the accused shooter attempted suicide by machete in April 2019 and in September 2019 was accused by a family member of making threats to “kill everyone.”

    Both reports happened months before his father sponsored him getting a gun license.

    • Police also have said that Bob Crimo told authorities that knives found in the family’s home belonged to him after another family member reported in September 2019 that the younger Crimo had threatened to “kill everyone” and had a collection of knives.

    • Gonna….

      You have a valid point. If these event occurred as you indicate, the father should probably have indicated such, even if he decided to sign.

      HOWEVER, gun permits are still an infringement.

      Freedom is dangerous. Family, friends, neighbors, faith communities, and social organizations can help manage that danger, but government control is ineffective and constitutionally illegal.

    • That, exactly. Few people know the kid better than the parents (and that may be true even in broken homes). If you have a kid known for violence, threats of violence, suicide attempts, and other crazy stuff, you DON’T want that kid to have access to weapons.

      He says “I’m going to kill all of you!” and you respond by buying him a weapon to do it with?

    • Of course not. I wouldn’t even consider it.

      Here’s a hypothetical: What if those threatening incidents occurred while someone was a troubled teen. Later in life, they seemed fine. You sign for this person. That person kills someone. Can they hold you responsible because you didn’t think that person would kill someone, but they made some threats when they were younger? Isn’t it the liberals that are for giving second chances and not wanting someone’s past to hold them back in life? It’s something to think about.

      Should we be held criminally liable for not correctly predicting the future? Should we be a psychology expert before signing for anyone? If someone is an adult, then shouldn’t they be the ones held liable? Did law enforcement know about this kid’s troubled past? If so, then why aren’t they being prosecuted for his crimes? Imagine that sort of precedent.

      • “Isn’t it the liberals that are for giving second chances and not wanting someone’s past to hold them back in life? ”

        Second chances are only for those espousing the correct agenda. And if your offense has moved the needle in the wrong direction to the elites agenda then there is no second chance regardless. Also your circumstances have a time limit for redemption, if the media has moved on you can forget any help. It won’t be coming.

12. This is not so much rocket science. The parents ARE responsible for their minor children living with them. This is and always has been the case. I know that we have a situation now where those lines are getting blurred but the father does take on responsibility. He did so willingly. Now with that said, the sate has responsibility aswell when they give the license. It’s no different when they give licenses to conceal carry. All too often the state fails at this just like parents fail at this. We often discuss this particular topic here. This one is no different. If we are going to set 18 as the age for adulthood then THAT is what it is. This should be the case for getting off of the parents’ insurance, driver’s licenses, marriage certificates, financials contracts, buying guns, buying alcohol, voting, and consensual sex. Parents should also have the ultimate say in their children’s education.

    Just because this is a 2A website, that doesn’t mean I should alter my opinion on this matter.

13. Dude, “Here’s a hypothetical: What if those threatening incidents occurred while someone was a troubled teen. Later in life, they seemed fine. You sign for this person”
    Why would anyone need to sign for a person later in life who “seemed fine”?

    • Why would anyone need to sign for a person later in life who “seemed fine”?

      I’m don’t understand the sponsoring in the first place. Is that part of their background check process? It seems like a way to put the responsibility on the person signing instead of the state.

      • ” he sponsored his son’s application for a firearm owner identification (FOID) card, despite knowing his son was unfit to own a gun.”
        The father signed the app for a FOID card which permits the holder to make gun purchase. I suppose the LE folk looked at this as the same as cosigning for a gun purchase. Around here there is no FOID card and no way to cosign for a 3rd party. Just more of Illannoy foolishness.

        • How is this not a backdoor (legalized) straw purchase? The ATF comes down hard on people that facilitate guns for those that otherwise could not have them.

      • It’s like cosigning for a student loan (if an idiot were to borrow on one/cosign one). Except Obiden will write off the freely signed agreement and here will hang the consigner.

14. Considering his sons troubled past the Father will most likely get a jail cell right next to his son’s jail cell. Poetic justice I would say.

    • “…the Father will most likely get a jail cell right next to his son’s jail cell.”

      County jail, maybe, but highly doubtful. The DA usually has a policy of keeping family members apart from each other, in the interest of them not wanting them comparing stories with each other.

      If they get convicted, highly doubtful they will get the same prison…

15. If you want to know how the criminals are getting guns…this is part of the process!

    It’s the Democrat left that runs Ill. that creates all the problems they tell us they need to fix. There should NEVER be anything like this in the first place. SPONSOR someone else for getting a gun? lol How is this NOT illegal? Why is this NOT being looked at?

16. Lets be real here, the state is covering for their failures and they won’t charge any of their own so the father gets to carry their weight too. If no one ever gets committed or prosecuted after quite clearly committing crimes like threatening to kill people then why do we even have prosecutors, background checks and laws in the first place?

    At this point he’s no more negligent than the state is.

    “I thought he was safe because the prosecutors, doctors and police didn’t keep him.”

    • True, but let’s be real here, people right here on TTAG (and in Conservative media) have been unwittingly asking for this for years.

      If you keep saying “What about the parents!?” you’re handing the State a cudgel to swing at you. This is how they do that.

      And for the state, the “chilling effect” is part of the allure.

      • Lets be real here if some “kid” was robbing liquor stores or carjacking people they wouldn’t ask this question of the parents at all.

        • That depends. If he was doing it with a gun he got via of a FOID card that a parent sponsored, they’d do the same thing.

          These people don’t argue in good faith. It’s incumbent on the rest of us to be careful about how we argue so as to minimize the amount of space they have to “give us what we want”.

          What’s the biggest similarity between Catholics and the Left? They both believe in original sin (and they both support pedos, lol sorry, couldn’t resist). Funny, that.

17. Have you seen Crimo #3? Certified lunatical freakazoid. And everyone knew it. Who is the doofus Gunshop who sold him a black rifle(scads of police calls aside)???

18. Guilt by association, awesome. In the mean time, zero dollar bail for truly criminal behavior.

19. I see this a lot and saw it as a cop for 23 years. No way in hell this moron needed a gun. He was screwed up by any definition. His dad was a fool. Many of you dont get how a parent enables a kid to drugs and bad behavior and how so few children earn what they have- cars, money, guns. A stupid ass jail guard- over 50, a guy with plenty of experience, let a recently paroled prisoner borrow his car. The POS wrecked the car during a felony and got the guard sued. That is just a small example. So sure if it proves out the dad is somewhat responsible.

    • Lots of people don’t “need” a gun. But that’s not really the point.

      If he was serious, which he clearly was, he’d have just done something else if he couldn’t get a gun. Steal an SUV and run over some people like it’s Xmas in Wisconsin, for example.

      I mean, semi-literate arabs can move to the UK, build an S-vest from stuff purchased at a cosmetics store and clack it off at a concert. It’s not like killing people is hard or something.

      As long as you keep your glassware clean PETN is actually pretty damn easy to make and it’s got a lot of pop for your buck, too. Stabilize it, also pretty easy for a semi-literate, and you can build some pretty big fireworks.

      Shall we ban or limit access to Sephora to only those who really “need” it?

      • You are correct in that he could have done any number of things to take lives. But if he had stolen a car and run people over then his father wouldn’t be an accessory and would not have been charged.

        • If it was politically convenient to go after the dad, they’d have gone after the dad.

          It’s almost like you guys can’t figure out that statists have a singular rule: Anything that increases their power over the public is good.

          It’s not about the tool. It’s about the political optics and nothing fucking else.

20. This is the case of the guy who dressed as a girl to go undetected, yes?

    Either way, recklessness is one of those charges that makes me uncomfortable since it nearly always falls into the “I know it when I see it” category, making laws in this regard rather abusable if a scapegoat is needed.

    I’ll await more information on exactly what this guy knew, or is at least supposed to have known before passing judgement.

Comments are closed.