Jennifer Crumbley walks into the Oakland County courtroom of Judge Cheryl Matthews before being found guilty on four counts of involuntary manslaughter on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024 in Pontiac, Mich. Prosecutors say Crumbley was grossly negligent when she failed to tell Oxford High School that the family had guns, including a 9 mm handgun that her son, Ethan Crumbley, used at a shooting range on the weekend before the Nov. 30, 2021, attack. (Mandi Wright/Detroit Free Press via AP, Pool)

Jennifer Crumbley, the Michigan mother of a child who carried out a mass school shooting killing four students in 2021, just became the first parent in the U.S. to be held responsible for their child’s criminal actions. She was found guilty today of involuntary manslaughter. The unanimous verdict in the unprecedented case came on the second day of deliberations.

Crumbley, 45, had been charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, one for each victim. Being found guilty, the mother faces up to 15 years in prison for each count. She will be sentenced April 9.

Prosecutors made the case that the mother had a duty under state law to prevent her son’s actions by securing the gun and ammunition at home and obtaining mental health services for her son who had allegedly shown signs of a distressed mental state prior to the shooting.

In what in hindsight now seems like an epic failing by both the parents and the school, Oxford High School in Pontiac, Mich., where a then 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley was a student, the parents, James and Jennifer, had been summoned to the school after the boy was caught drawing pictures of a gun, bullets and a wounded person on a math assignment accompanied by phrases crying out for help. According to a journal police found after the shooting, Ethan had written his parents ignored his pleas for help and lamented that he had mental problems that were going to cause him “to shoot up the…school.”

The parents met with school administrators that morning and talked to Ethan, but then he was allowed to return to class. Nobody checked his backpack, which contained a 9mm SIG, his parents had bought him as an early Christmas present just four days prior.

Jennifer Crumbley had also taken Ethan to the range just three days before and was the last known adult to handle the weapon prior to Ethan using it in the school shooting. The boy, now 17, was charged as an adult with murder and terrorism and eventually pled guilty. He is currently serving life in prison without the possibility of parole.

James Crumbley, the boy’s father, is set to go to trial on March 5, 2024, for the same charges Jennifer faced. He is currently being held in jail on $500,000 bond.

Between firearms storage laws and additional legislation in states across the country, there has been an increasing effort to hold the parents of juvenile mass shooters responsible for their children’s actions where negligence on their part may have played a hand in their child accessing the firearm(s) used in such crimes. With the Crumbley case now setting a precedent for the conviction of a parent

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

163 COMMENTS

  1. This is a weird one. Depending on access controls I could see how the parents could be viewed as negligent especially if there was a pattern of issues. It could easily enough be argued as a straw man purchase too based on age, much less mental state. I never kept up with the details of this one too much.

    Naturally if the authorities were involved with this there’s zero mention of what they ignored I’m sure. I mean, how many convictions have ever been made of a police officer over inaction in a mass shooting?

    • Weird one? The parents litterly ignored their sons pleas for help and bought him a gun.

      How out of touch with reality most people are is amazing, including you.

      The parents short of carrying out the attack could not of done more to cause it.

      Both parents deserve whatever is coming their way and probably much more.

    • A kid can not purchase a gun. A parent can and can legally gift a gun to a minor.

      How many prog pshrinks does to take to fix crazy? (hint: pshrinks don’t ‘FIX” diddly).
      Is crazy nature or nurture (the pshrink can’t answer)?

      Could a kid own/possess a handgun/firearm in 1776 (Bruen)? YES

      The state of Michigan is run by iinsane progs,

    • The state needs to now do Chicago gangbangers. Arrest all their parents. Build more prisons. Going to need a lot more prisons for this.

  2. It could easily enough be argued as a straw man purchase too based on age

    That’s a dangerous precedent. I wouldn’t do anything to encourage the courts to go there, because it’s a pretty short distance from this kid to anyone who buys a gun for their kids to learn on. I mean, if you buy a “youth” model gun, isn’t that sort of an admission that the gun is your child’s not yours, you criminal?

    That may sound ridiculous to you, but do you trust leftists to interpret it in ways that favor you?

    • I don’t think this specific case sets a dangerous precedent. Only going by the details in this article, it doesn’t like the transfer was covered by the exceptions in 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(3) and the parent(s) would have been violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2) by permanently transferring a handgun to a juvenile.

      I’m not a lawyer and there are certainly a lot of questions to be answered, here… but as I read this, the biggest stand-out detail was that the parents bought a 17 year-old juvenile a handgun and skipped a few steps in permanently transferring it to him legally or were negligent in their intent to allow him to only possess it temporarily (implied by them no longer having control of it, or knowledge of where it was).

      I hate getting into discussions about how ‘secure’ a firearm should be, but a quick search shows me that the parents allowed him open access to the handgun which I see as a serious lapse in judgement.

      • I agree with that key point. The parents bought the kid for the kid and that gun was effectively HIS gun regardless of the law prohibiting him from having one. They didn’t simply fail to secure THEIR guns – they bought a gun for HIM and then taught him how to use it without recognizing what a troubled young man he was. Those key points are why the verdict makes sense. They failed to recognize the boy’s problems AND they were grossly negligent by arming and training him.

  3. How many murders have been committed by illegal alien invaders that President Biden and DHS Secretary Maorkis have enabled to enter the US with impunity? How many millennia should Joe Biden serve in prison for all of the deaths resulting from his inaction? How many judges should be imprisoned for life because a career criminal that they enabled to go free then went on to commit murder?. There IS a precedent here that the Democrats aren’t going to like.

    • The name of the Secretary of DHS is spelled MAYORKIS.

      A good old fashioned public stoning would be more appropriate.

      • I would greatly prefer a firing squad with the tool in use being a .22 WRF bolt action. Give him some time to ponder what HE did to his victims between hits, and an up close personal touchy feely connexion with what he dished out. Announce prior to initiating the session that this is the new normal for those who would perpetrate a shoot-em-up of innocents.

        • Most school shooters, or even general mass shooters, kill themselves upon completion of their deed or encountering armed resistance. A promise of a slow, painful, torturous death is no deterrent to a dead man.

  4. Now do Chiraq’s baby momma’s who leave their gats out for their 2 year old to off themselves. Or gangbanger progeny who steal,kill & destroy. This is low hanging fruit with mommy taking her monster son shooting & her confession of adultery(ewww). Mandate safe storage so you can’t protect little Jimmy or Jenny in time. OTOH her & her cuckold hubby did flee after they arrested her possibly fetal alcohol syndrome afflicted son🙄☹️

    • “Now do Chiraq’s baby momma’s who leave their gats out for their 2 year old“

      I’m happy to inform you that you can rest easy, as this is already happening in Chicago:

      “Gun in 8-year-old’s backpack goes off at school, mom charged

      Published 7:06 PM EST, May 18, 2022
      CHICAGO (AP) — A Chicago mother has been charged with child endangerment after a gun in her second grader’s backpack accidentally discharged at school, injuring a 7-year-old classmate, police said Wednesday.

      The 28-year-old woman appeared in court on Wednesday on three misdemeanor child endangerment counts. A judge ordered her release from Cook County Jail on $1,000 bond.“

      .

      “Chicago Man Charged With Child Endangerment After Accidental Shooting Death of 8-Year-Old Boy
      Matt Masterson | August 31, 2023 11:16 am (Michael Izquierdo / WTTW News)

      A Chicago man is facing multiple felony charges, weeks after an 8-year-old boy was accidentally shot and killed inside the man’s Garfield Park home.
      Ramon Sumerlin, 41, is charged with child endangerment resulting in death and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon stemming from the Aug. 15 shooting of Jacari Brown. Sumerlin appeared in court for a hearing Wednesday and was held on a $10,000 D-bond, according to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.”

      Honestly guys, a moment or two of research is all it takes to shoot down most of the claims I see posted on this forum, it doesn’t speak very well of the intellectual curiosity of those on this forum.

      • “Gun in 8-year-old’s backpack goes off at school, mom charged”

        Not good enough. All the moms of the teenage gangbangers need a cell.

        Your one BS example of parental negligence lacks all the reasoning behind this example. No. Any teenager in Chiraq that kills another teenager needs their parents arrested and imprisoned, for a gun, scissors, pencil, whatever they used.

  5. The best, fast solution to these type shootings is to sentence people with mental health issues to life without parole. Put them in institutions (prisons) where the will not be released, ever. Crazy people are dangerous, 24/7; lock ’em up in solitary confinement.

    Parents of crazy people need to be sterilized, to prevent birthing another crazy person. BTW, locking away crazy people will go a long way to cleaning up homeless camps, where crazy people get together to create more crazy people.

    This craziness has to be stopped.

    • Those are half measures, Sam. If you really want to stop it, execution would be more effective.

      Execute the crazies. Execute the parents. Execute the school admins who didn’t see it coming. A few executions, and the rest of the population will fall in line.

      • “A few executions, and the rest of the population will fall in line.”

        Thanx for the contribution; can’t think of everything all by myself.

    • Well, we kind of tried that before and it didn’t work out very well:

      “Tens of thousands of lobotomies were performed in the United States from 1936 onward, and both these men would continue operating for decades. Lobotomy’s inventor, the Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his pains in 1949. Major medical centers in the United States—Harvard, Yale, Columbia, the University of Pennsylvania—regularly performed variations on the basic operation well into the 1950s.“

      https://lithub.com/a-brief-and-awful-history-of-the-lobotomy/

      • MINOR49er. Let’s face facts, Lefty, you Leftists did away with mental hospitals back in the 70’s and 80’s. 1936 is almost 100 yrs ago and don’t you think that mental health has progressed a bit since? You cite studies done a long time ago to justify what?
        There is an adage that says, “You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”. Catch my drift?

      • To be fair, Miner49er, Sam I Am didn’t suggest lobotomies, although the argument could be made that the procedure could prove quite useful for certain people such as those who believe that Trump was a good president. He proposed incarceration for life and sterilisation. IMO lobotomy, incarceration, or sterilisation doesn’t address the root of the problem. Do you agree?

        • “IMO lobotomy, incarceration, or sterilisation doesn’t address the root of the problem. Do you agree?“

          Yes, I don’t think any of those so-called solutions addresses the root of the problem.

          My point on the lobotomy is that they were considered a ‘living death’.

          The Natzis in Germany also murdered many of their mentally ill, characterizing them as ‘useless eaters’ or ‘life unworthy of life’.

          And that defines the problem, just who adjudicates an individual as mentally ill?

          For myself, I would consider any enthusiastic Natzi who advocated for a final solution of the Jews as mentally ill and very likely worthy of lobotomy.

        • “Yes, I don’t think any of those so-called solutions addresses the root of the problem.” Do you have a solution to propose to address “these type shootings,” as Sam and I have been discussing?

        • Sam,Trump was a good president. He was forthright and truthful. He did not mince any words. I guess you might want someone like Biden ? LOL

      • What do you mean “didn’t work well?” Did any of the lobotomy patients kill someone after their lobotomy?

  6. I don’t see anything weird or unusual about this at all. This is the way it’s supposed to be. This is the standard way of life we have all lived under since the dawn of civilization.

    Parents are responsible for their minor children living with them.

    This doesn’t change because people lost their lives or for the fact that a firearm was involved. If you have an unstable kid, don’t give them a gun. It’s not rocket science here.

    • Problem is every parent thinks their cretin of a child is “special”, “gifted” or “misunderstood.”

    • Except we can’t decide what a child is. Hes in prison for life, presumably charges as an adult. If that’s the case, why the charge to the parents? The government already admitted he was an adult.

      • “The government already admitted he was an adult.”

        A valid point.

        Counter-Point: Government gets to have its cake and eat it too, pleb.

  7. Her utter incompetence is being used to put fear in parents and turn that fear into Gun Control. On the other hand what’s going to happen to parents and relatives who buy a well behaved kid a pocket knife and they go on a murderous rampage?

  9. Under 18 or 21 he was not allowed to possess a handgun nor were his parents permitted to transfer it to him. Their failure to secure could be involuntary homicide if he committed suicide (see footnote), this is not substantively different.

    Responsible gun owners should condemn these parents irresponsible actions.

    reminds me of nanzy lanza, who also was guilty of manslaughter had she not been shot by her son’s hand with the gun she irresponsibly made available … just sayin

    https://www.dailyitem.com/news/parents-charged-in-sons-july-death/article_62f586ba-8146-11ed-a2c2-5f6bec2b3f38.html

    • Ummm…she did reportedly lock her gats up. He is supposed to have broken in her safe,murdered mom & supposedly shot up Sandy Hook school & killed himself. So I’ve heard 🙄

      • Source?
        Every source I find says adam killed mom with a .22 savage bolt action which was in his possession before he took the bushmaster and glock to the school. Either there was no safe or if there was the .22 was not in it. Facts are clear she knew he couldn’t have guns but allowed him access to guns and it cost her life along with all those kids.

        • Uh oh!!! Kid has access to a 22 bolt action guys!

          He could have killed her with a kitchen knife, too.

          So you anti-gun stance is collectivist BS. GFY.

    • “Responsible gun owners should condemn these parents irresponsible actions.”

      The intent is to discourage responsible gun owners from teaching their children to become responsible gun owners. And to discourage parents from being gun owners, period.

    • ^ collectivist Bullshit.

      When I was 12, I was proficient with a firearm and had access to them on the farm.

      All of you boot licking helicopter parents can GFY and ESAD. And I hope that you do.

      It’s not your business if I teach my teenager how to use a firearm proficiently within the confines of my culture or any other reason.

  10. Good. Start holding parents accountable for the actions of their minor children again….and maybe parents will start parenting again.

    • only those parents who have something to lose. it would be discriminatory to hold disadvantaged communities to the same standard.

      • “it would be discriminatory to hold disadvantaged communities to the same standard“

        Nope, they’ve been charging minority parents for years in Chicago, see my post above for two specific cases.

        Here’s some other cases where parents have been charged when children found guns and used them:

        “In 2000, a Flint-area man pleaded no contest to involuntary manslaughter after a 6-year-old boy who was living with him found a gun in a shoebox and killed a classmate.“

        “In 2020, the mother of an Indiana teen was placed on probation for failing to remove guns from her home after her mentally ill son threatened to kill students. He fired shots inside his school in 2018. No one was injured but the boy killed himself.”

        https://apnews.com/article/oxford-high-school-shooting-shootings-education-violence-crime-31b054a2e403275f119b5e919f7fbc43

        • Were they tried as an adult? No. They tried this teen as an adult, but then also tried his adult parents.

          Let me know when they arrest the parents of a blood or crypt shooting up the neighborhood and charge them – potentially giving them 60 years in prison for it.

  11. So the parents of a 15 year old gave him a handgun as a gift, even though he had told them he was having mental issues and drew a school shooting on a test?
    Reckless beyond belief.

    • The school admins, who met with the parents about the drawings, apparently didn’t think that the kid was a threat or they could have taken steps to prevent him from returning to class.

      Therefore the school admins should also be convicted of manslaughter.

      • RePete,

        If the school admins were aware that the son was struggling with violent urges and had been asking for help (of the mental health variety) over the last several weeks/months, then I agree that they are legally culpable. If the only indication that school admins had was a single gory drawing, then I am not inclined to hold them accountable.

        • The school counselor is trained to recognize indicators of aberrant behavior and has the power to “red flag” the kid if he appears to present mental issues. Since the expert felt there was enough cause to call the parents into a meeting where the kid’s mental state was discussed in detail, then determined that no further action was needed, even allowing the kid to return to class — the school administration is even more guilty than the parents who are not trained to diagnose the extent of the kid’s mental illness.

        • School administrators may not have had the information the parents did that they’d given him a gun.

        • Do school counselors only concern themselves with a child’s mental illness if he has access to a gun or not? If the child presents signs of mental illness, the counselor should assume that the child may obtain a weapon by whatever means. If the child is a danger, then he’s a danger. The counselor apparently didn’t think so.

        • RePete,

          You stated:

          “Since the expert felt there was enough cause to call the parents into a meeting where the kid’s mental state was discussed in detail, then determined that no further action was needed, even allowing the kid to return to class …”

          We don’t know what the parents disclosed to the counselor in that meeting.

          If the parents painted a picture of a mentally healthy child and that the drawing was a “one-off” type of thing, then the counselor had nothing else (other than the single gory picture) to conclude that the child was unstable and therefore had no reason to “red flag” that child.

          Of course if the parents shared obvious warning signs about their child, then the counselor had sufficient reason to “red flag” the child and go from there.

          As I stated at the outset though: we don’t know what the parents disclosed at the meeting. Therefore, we have no way of constructing an informed opinion on the actions of the counselor.

        • “…we don’t know what the parents disclosed at the meeting. Therefore, we have no way of constructing an informed opinion on the actions of the counselor.”

          Yet you are certain that “the minor child exhibited obvious symptoms of being mentally disturbed for a long time before he finally acted out–and the parents appear to have done absolutely nothing.” What specific information do you have that allowed you to construct your informed opinion of this contention?

        • RePete,

          News reports claim that police searched the Crumbley home after the attack and found the attacker’s journal–and the attacker supposedly indicated in that journal that he asked his parents for help multiple times.

          There are no news reports (that I am aware of) that tell us whether or not the child or his parents disclosed that important information (the child asking for help multiple times and the parents apparently not helping) to the school counselor.

          Perhaps going out on a limb here–I imagine that police disclosures and news reports would have informed us if the parents had taken steps to treat their child and the school was aware of that.

        • “News reports claim that police searched the Crumbley home after the attack and found the attacker’s journal–and the attacker supposedly indicated in that journal that he asked his parents for help multiple times.”

          uncommon sense, do you see any problems in basing your conclusions on that statement? Offhand, I see a few: “reports claim,” “after the attack,” “supposedly indicated.” I’m not as willing as you are to accept any of that as indisputable fact. I still contend that the school counselor, who is supposed to be trained to recognize patterns of mental instability and threatening behavior, was the person who bore the major responsibility in allowing this attack to happen — that person should have been the one to encourage the parents to submit their child for mental evaluation and treatment if the parents didn’t realize that need themselves. If the counselor had intervened, the shooting would never have occurred.

        • The school counselor is trained to recognize indicators of aberrant behavior.

          Send those counselors to Chiraq please. There don’t seem to be any of them there.

      • “The school admins, who met with the parents about the drawings, apparently didn’t think.”

        Correct. Nobody thinks it can happen here. In the case of school administration, they are SUPPOSED TO THINK! In point of fact, Mother was just convicted for not thinking.

  12. I’ll have to read into this some more, on the surface I’m really not happy about this. That’s all these fuckers need is some way to lock more people up. I’m not having a hard time figuring a requirement for training, then anytime anyone gets arrested the trainer gets locked up for “terrorist training,” over a DUI with a gun in the vehicle or some crap.

  13. On the one hand:
    Parents should be able to train their children on responsible firearm ownership and use. And parents should be able to keep a firearm ready for immediate access and deployment in righteous self-defense in the event of a home invasion. Finally, children who are old enough to handle the responsibility should also be able to immediately access and use the family firearm in the event of a violent home invasion. (Parents could be out in the yard, in the shower, or even away from home when a violent home invader comes calling and responsible children should be able to defend themselves.)

    On the other hand:
    After any family member shows repeated signs that they are mentally disturbed and likely dangerous, the rest of the family needs to ACT which includes removing access to deadly items (firearms, knives, poisons, etc.) and initiating mental health treatment or institutionalizing the dangerous family member.

    It looks like the Crumbley family likely failed my second paragraph above. And now the family members face legal culpability for their alleged failure.

    • Parents should be able to train their children on responsible firearm ownership and use.

      Parents should train their children on responsible firearm ownership and use.

      Fixed that for ya. NO charge. You’re welcome.

  14. She was convicted because she’s white. If she had been a ghetto mama, nothing would have happened.

    Take heed, whitey, and make the necessary changes in your life.

    • I have, I’ve donned “Blackface” and now identify as a “trans”, it gives me double protection and absolves me of any responsibility for my actions.

    • “She was convicted because she’s white. If she had been a ghetto mama, nothing would have happened.”

      No, the reason this court drama is even newsworthy is because they’re charging white people.

      Putting the ol’ race card, your white persecution complex is showing.

      Do you think minorities haven’t been charged in the same situation?

      “Gun in 8-year-old’s backpack goes off at school, mom charged

      Published 7:06 PM EST, May 18, 2022
      CHICAGO (AP) — A Chicago mother has been charged with child endangerment after a gun in her second grader’s backpack accidentally discharged at school, injuring a 7-year-old classmate, police said Wednesday.

      The 28-year-old woman appeared in court on Wednesday on three misdemeanor child endangerment counts. A judge ordered her release from Cook County Jail on $1,000 bond.“

      .

      “Chicago Man Charged With Child Endangerment After Accidental Shooting Death of 8-Year-Old Boy
      Matt Masterson | August 31, 2023 11:16 am (Michael Izquierdo / WTTW News)

      A Chicago man is facing multiple felony charges, weeks after an 8-year-old boy was accidentally shot and killed inside the man’s Garfield Park home.
      Ramon Sumerlin, 41, is charged with child endangerment resulting in death and unlawful use of a weapon by a felon stemming from the Aug. 15 shooting of Jacari Brown. Sumerlin appeared in court for a hearing Wednesday and was held on a $10,000 D-bond, according to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.”

      Honestly guys, a moment or two of research is all it takes to shoot down most of the claims I see posted on this forum, it doesn’t speak very well of the intellectual curiosity of those on this forum.

      • Well stated. Speaking of intellectual curiosity, I’m not an intellectual but I am curious: what’s your opinion of the mother’s conviction of manslaughter?

        • The jury saw the evidence and heard the testimony, then reached a verdict.

          As I detailed in a post further down this thread, I’ve seen individuals convicted and sentenced for a more serious charge (felony murder), for less culpability.

        • The jury saw the evidence and heard the testimony, then reached a verdict.

          Thanks for that obvious assessment.

          As I detailed in a post further down this thread, I’ve seen individuals convicted and sentenced for a more serious charge (felony murder), for less culpability.

          No. No they weren’t. One of them was a felon is possession. And your example (a little 7 or 8 year old accidentally killing themselves) is not applicable to this situation. This is a teenager, tried as an adult, and then the parents were tried for manslaughter, for simply gifting him a gun (that he later used in a crime). It’s BS. And you’re full of BS too.

      • An 8 year old and a 7 year old. Neither of your examples are applicable this this situation. They tried this guy as an adult and then still went after his parents.

        Come back to me when they start giving near life sentences to parents of teenage gangbangers.

        They went after the parents in this example, because he used a gun. That is precisely why.

  15. For everyone on this site who is uneasy about this prosecution and verdict, look at it this way:

    Suppose a 16 year-old reports to his/her parents multiple times over several months that he/she is struggling to suppress violent urges to drive a car into a crowd and even draws a gory picture of driving a car into a crowd. And then the child’s school calls-in his/her parents to notify them that their child appears to be struggling with violent urges. And yet the parents still do nothing about the violent urges and hand over their car keys to their 16 year-old son/daughter who promptly drives the family car into a crowd of people, killing four of the victims. Do we give the parents a complete pass or do we assign some level of responsibility to the parents as well? If we assign some level of responsibility to the parents, why does it matter whether the parents gave a car or a firearm to their child?

      • Really?

        Not at all. I painted the exact same picture as what really happened. The only thing I changed was the method of harming people (driving a car into people instead of shooting people).

    • Fuck the parents, are we really going to charge the hardworking FBI agents who had the kid “on their radar” or were even encouraging this behavior?

      Think of the Feds. Those poor, poor Feds, before you do anything rash.

      • Guaranteed the FEEBs knew he was a problem and let him act as that then allows them and their Democrat masters to exploit the tragedy for political gain and also smear all law-abiding gun owners (which his parents were).

        • “Guaranteed the FEEBs knew he was a problem and let him act”

          Well now, that’s quite a claim, do you have an actual source or citation to back up your assertion?

        • “Can you prove me wrong?“

          You made the claim, the burden of proof is upon you.

          Otherwise it’s just empty speech.

        • Well now, that’s quite a claim, do you have an actual source or citation to back up your assertion?

          You make wild and unsubstantiated assertions all the time. Go find your own source.

  17. Tonight this Crumbley case was all over the U.S. and International News and every damn one of them analyzed it the same way. It has been declared a landmark conviction, and in the future will be used to justify prosecuting other deadbeat, shiftless, paranoid parents that let their kids have access to deadly weapons who then go on to use them to commit mass murder.

    In a way this was a back door Safe Storage prosecution which has not yet been passed at the Federal level and is long, long, overdue. With a Draconian Federal Safe Storage Law even the Far Right paranoids will get the message very quickly because the only real God they worship is money and none of them want fined, imprisoned, lose their jobs and be banned for life from owning a firearm. You have to get tough with these block headed demented paranoid hillbillies to get through to them and a tough Safe Storage law on the Federal Level is the best way to terrorize them because they squeeze every penny that passes through their fingers so tightly the penny screams for mercy. They would rather die than pay out even a penny in fines besides of course going to the slammer for years.

    It was a damn shame it took so long to convict people like this Crumbley because so many, many innocent children’s lives were lost needlessly.

    As usual the gangster criminal corrupt Republicans who are prostitutes of the NRA have oceans of blood on their hands for blocking sane gun control laws that every other civilized nation has had for decades and decades. Any sane person can easily understand how badly these safe storage laws are needed because on average 1,350 Children are slaughtered by guns every year far surpassing even automobile accidents. In 2023 1,650 died needlessly but the Far Right paranoids will scream “losses can never be to high” even if it means sacrificing our own children on the demented altar of “zero gun control”.

    And before I get a rebuttal from out of control paranoids screaming that guns locked up are not accessible if someone breaks in that is pure bullshit. When I had kids in the house all my weapons were locked up and if I felt threatened I could have simply carried a gun on my person or opened my safe in less than 2 seconds to get a weapon. So their hogwash and paranoia does not stand up to reality.

    The gun control truth is the truth no matter how hard the Far Right try to lie their way out of it or put their demented spin on it.

    • You’ve never owned a gun or had a kid, jerry p. of canton ohio. If you have to lie you do not have a valid point.

      I swear you would lie if the truth would save your life.

      • “jerry p. of canton ohio”

        You’ve made this claim several times, but I’ve never seen any sort of evidence to substantiate your statement about his name/address.

        And more importantly, why are you doxxing him just because he’s freely expressing his opinion?

        Are you trying to bully him into silence?

        Seems mighty un-American to me…

        • You’ve made this claim several times, but I’ve never seen any sort of evidence to substantiate your statement.

          You don’t substantiate your claims most of the time, so GFY, and find your own evidence.

          This whole article is about the left bullying parents into not teaching their kids about firearms.

    • DUNDERHEAD, For your edification, the defense will undoubtedly appeal the verdict. And whether or not it is upheld or not. it is not “back door” at all. The jury felt that the parent did not exercise good judgement in this case in locking up their firearms. So ipso facto, your “safe gun storage laws are not needed. It’s called common sense. We have enough laws on the books now without legislating everything that we do.

      • The only reason Dacian is creaming over this verdict is because he can’t hold back his bigotry towards gun owners ability to self regulate their own property in their homes. Dacian wants safe storage laws. Even with your 15 year old apparently. And that’s because he doesn’t want you teaching your older teenage kids anything at all about firearms.

    • It has been declared a landmark conviction.

      Get ready for the landmark appeal. The charge was ridiculous. The jury was a bunch of tards, now here you are.

    • …deadbeat, shiftless, paranoid parents that let their kids have access to deadly weapons…

      Yep! There it is! It’s about the guns. Had he knifed someone, or ran over a crowd of people in his car, there would be no charge against the parents. This is about pro-gun rights advocates trying to teach their children about guns.

  19. This seems like a mess and will probably end up being a precedent that POTG will come to rue as it’s wildly expanded upon in the coming years.

    Overall, what I get out of this is that pretty much everyone involved in this fiasco is a complete shit-heel. Which, as situations go, seems to be something that’s becoming more and more common.

    • strych9,

      I think the difference in this case is that the minor child exhibited obvious symptoms of being mentally disturbed for a long time before he finally acted out–and the parents appear to have done absolutely nothing.

      If a minor child repeatedly displays signs of being mentally disturbed, the parents have a responsibility to seek treatment and cure for their child–as well as securing the child and/or access to firearms, knives, bludgeons, poisons, etc. If the child attacks people after the parents start treatment and reasonably secure the child and/or objects, the parents are no longer culpable in my opinion.

      Let’s look at a parallel situation again for clarity. If a husband and wife had a large dog which repeatedly displayed a propensity to attack friendly non-family members, that husband and wife have a responsibility to change their dog’s disposition (through appropriate training/conditioning) AND reasonably secure their dog while going through the training/conditioning process. If a husband and wife refuse to do that, they are legally culpable if their dog goes out and attacks someone. So, if the husband and wife have a minimal responsibility to prevent their dangerous dog from attacking friendly strangers, why don’t they have a minimal responsibility to prevent their dangerous child from attacking friendly strangers?

      • Children as domestic animals? That’s an excellent parallel. I don’t think that your analogy goes far enough, though. Obviously any child (up to the age of 26 per Obamacare) that displays any anti-social behavior whatsoever wasn’t raised properly. The parents should be held responsible for any failings of their offspring, since it’s not the child’s fault that their parents weren’t experts in psychology, sociology or child-rearing.

        • Pets,

          Parents get a pass on culpability on a range of behavioral traits, especially subtle traits. They do NOT get a pass when their child–especially a teenage child–tells them that they have violent urges to murder people, they want psychological and/or medical treatment to eliminate the urges, the parents fail to facilitate treatment, and the parents fail to remove easy access to firearms + knives + poisons + bludgeons + …

          By the way I think legal culpability for the parents is child neglect at a minimum and quite possibly accessory to murder for providing the murder weapon.

        • Retrain an out of control dog (child). Put it down more likely which conveniently corresponds with the prog love infanticide. Put the kid down up until the dems want them to vote (multiple times_?

      • Uncommon:

        Let’s see if this reply is allowed, lol.

        I don’t disagree with you at all in a rational world. But we don’t live in a rational world. Hence why I said “…everyone involved in this fiasco is a complete shit-heel”.

        We live in a world of lawfare that has been adopted as a battle tactic by one side rather than the other and which also contains a selectivity filter based on political leanings.

        While I agree that in this case the parents’ behavior was, at best, negligent I know where this will go over time. The precedent is now set for criminally going after parents of children who do something terrible and over time that precedent will be used the way it is always used, to expand where .gov can prosecute people.

        Years ago, that judge that used to be on Fox (Andrew Napolitano) gave an interview where he stated that this exact reason as part of why he had to stop being a Superior Court judge. After almost a decade of hearing a never-ending stream of .gov lawyers arguing precedent as a reason to expand their power to prosecute something else he simply couldn’t take it any longer. In his telling, this happened at least once in very nearly every single case he ever had.

        Precedent is always expanded. Always. Even when it’s insane, eventually they’ll find a judge that allows it and the net they may cast gets wider and wider and wider.

        This isn’t a good one for us in terms of precedent.

        The McCloskeys had to take a pardon, remember? That case was outrageous, to say the least. They still had to get pardoned for it after they pled guilty to charges they were never going to beat but which shouldn’t have been presented in the first place.

        And that’s after a prosecutor was removed for outlandish abuses and a new one installed.

        Simply put: When considering legal proceedings like this, always ask if this outcome is one you would want weaponized by your worst enemies in a kangaroo court, because over a long enough time period it will be. And that period ain’t real long these days.

        • “The precedent is now set for criminally going after parents of children who do something terrible“

          Um, you know, this has already been happening to black folk for years.

          In this thread I posted two news stories involving black parents who were criminally charged (in Chicago by a ‘Soros-prosecutor’) because their children obtained easily accessible handguns in their home and went on to shoot someone.

        • strych9,

          Your comment seems to be accurate and I don’t have a tidy solution either way.

          Parents allowing their children to become monsters is very bad and it would be wonderful if there were legal incentives for parents to NOT allow their children to become monsters.

          Of course lawfare is very bad.

          Which is worse–unaccountable parents or unbridled lawfare? I am uncertain.

        • “… I don’t have a tidy solution either way.”

          Depending on how you define your terms, there isn’t one. There certainly isn’t one that purely legalistic or codifiable. It’s a cultural issue in many regards.

          “Which is worse–unaccountable parents or unbridled lawfare?”

          The latter. The former may produce something like a Lavrentiy Beria, but it’s the latter that empowers him to become a true monster on a level that exceeds your comment here on children by many, many, many orders of magnitude.

          There are no perfect solutions, only trade offs. Pick the one that does the least damage over the longest period of time since cumulative damage is nearly always worse in these sort of situations.
          ===

          As for Miner:

          If you want my opinion on something like that why not try asking instead of trying to tell me?

          Secondly, don’t act like this is apples to apples. Both Tatanina Kelly and Ramon Sumerlin were hit child endangerment charges, not homicide charges. It could well be argued that, given the circumstances, such charges are far more applicable to such a situation. We’re not having that discussion because the people in this story were charged with negligent homicide, not child endangerment.

          Since the kid in one case died that would appear to be a felony and therefore (Ramon Sumerlin) could be facing two to 10 years if he doesn’t plead it down, get it tossed or beat it. Tatanina Kelly, OTOH, appears to face probation since no one died she apparently faces a Class A misdemeanor.

          Both are, just a touch different than facing 60 years.

          Third, your need to directly inject race into this is, at best, disturbing. You should probably talk to a professional about it.

        • “Third, your need to directly inject race into this is, at best, disturbing“

          How sad that you make this accusation. Did you miss your pal Johnny‘s comment from above or are you just intentionally ignoring it in order to ‘prove’ your flawed point?

          “Johnny LeBlanc
          February 6, 2024 At 20:26
          She was convicted because she’s white. If she had been a ghetto mama, nothing would have happened.

          Take heed, whitey, and make the necessary changes in your life.“

          My reply was in response to Johnny the white’s initial mention of race.

          S9, what was it you said…

          “You should probably talk to a professional about it“

          .
          “Pay close attention when advising people. Chances are, you are saying what you need to hear.”
          — Dr. Walubita Siyanga

        • Your level of mental gymnasitics is fuckin’-A-mazing.

          You probably are the type IRL to hear something in one conversation then roll over to another, act an asshole to everyone in that conversation and then excuse your behavior by telling them it’s because their “pal” said something you didn’t approve of in a completely separate conversation.

        • Um, you know, this has already been happening to black folk for years.”

          No it hasn’t. Your examples of 7 and 8 year old kids bringing guns to school and accidentally killing themselves are not comparable examples.

          This is about parents who gifted a gun (gasp!!!!) to their older teenage son. This is precisely, absolutely precisely, why they went after these parents. Show me the parents of teenage gangbangers getting arrested.

  20. if the democrats support it
    we should be against it
    because they havent been right
    or told the truth about much
    since at least the summer of 2015
    this should be our guiding principle
    on every single topic

    • Defensive dumb take from a tard leftist.

      Rather than drop sarcasm bombs trying to highlight this was the correct decision (which it isn’t). Maybe you should mention what they have done correctly in the last 10 years, and we can talk about it.

  21. Ans about time to. Far too many parents expect far too mucg from scholls. It is notbthe responsibilty to establish FAMILY NORMS and the scholl did express concern about some of thise boys action whixh the parents apparently ignored. I can only of course speak for the UK but in generral our PARENT SCHOOL relationship as regards childrens behaviour is not much better . However the cut off here is 16 after which the Parent is no longer responsible for any criminal ,behavious by their children – known her as THE AGE OF CONSENT- and can kick them out if they so wish In my own case and I was a SINGLE MALE Parent to a Girl and Boy n all this was made totally clear to both them and the school Two things is made sure of both of them had a SEX education including all the graphic details, risks and responsibilities especially my daughter

    • Albert has your spelling gone to hell in a handbasket again, or are you drunk. Here is the US (especially in Leftist run states), there cutoff age is 18. As you can only speak to the UK’s way of doing things, it’s probably time for you to just shut up.

    • How about your UK “migrant”/Islamists? They get away with any/everything.

      Sad how far oncegreatbritain has fallen.

    • Albert is older than Joe Biden, and about as cogent too.

      Far too many parents expect far too mucg from scholls.

      That’s not true. I would like the schools to STFU and focus on math, reading, literature, science, and less about their ideology and sexuality.

    • Two things is made sure of both of them had a SEX education including all the graphic details, risks and responsibilities especially my daughter…

      Groomers. All of you. Teach your own kids the birds and the bees and stop relying on weirdo quasi-pedo school admin in blue hair teaching your kids this perversion.

      The problem with your spiel is they tried this kid as an adult, but then still went and tried the adults as if they were negligent with a child. The real reason behind of all it, is because they gifted a firearm to their teenage son, which is expressly forbidden by leftists. Gun owners shouldn’t be teaching their kids or teenagers anything about guns whatsoever, ever.

  22. I’m glad the parents are being held liable, as I’m sure the kid just didn’t exhibit signs of mental illness just on that day. This could have been prevented with attentive parents. I also think this should carry over to other crimes, where the parents just let their teenagers run wild. If parents can’t control their children, they should notify the state that their child is incorrigible.

    • “I’m glad the parents are being held liable, as I’m sure the kid just didn’t exhibit signs of mental illness just on that day.”

      You’re “sure?” How are you sure? And what is a “sign of mental illness?”

      “I also think this should carry over to other crimes, where the parents just let their teenagers run wild. If parents can’t control their children, they should notify the state that their child is incorrigible.”

      That’s not good enough. If parents “let their [children] run wild,” the parents should be charged with a crime of some sort. I’m sure you’ve heard someone say that “it’s a crime that the Smiths allow their child to run wild and get away with it.” Make it a real crime.

      “If parents can’t control their children, they should notify the state that their child is incorrigible.”

      That doesn’t absolve the parents of their responsibility to raise a child properly. It’s not fair to the rest of the citizenry (“the state”) to accept the responsibility when the parents should be jailed for their failings and the child executed to prevent the problem from getting worse.

    • This is about safe storage laws and the fact they gifted a firearm to their son.

      If you can’t go after the guns, go after the gun owners. That is what this is about.

  23. 2nd attempt to post in two days

    Yesterday this Crumbley case was all over the U.S. and International News and every damn one of them analyzed it the same way. It has been declared a landmark conviction, and in the future will be used to justify prosecuting other deadbeat, shiftless, paranoid parents that let their kids have access to deadly weapons who then go on to use them to commit mass murder.

    In a way this was a back door Safe Storage prosecution which has not yet been passed at the Federal level and is long, long, overdue. With a Draconian Federal Safe Storage Law even the Far Right paranoids will get the message very quickly because the only real God they worship is money and none of them want fined, imprisoned, lose their jobs and be banned for life from owning a firearm. You have to get tough with these block headed demented paranoid hillbillies to get through to them and a tough Safe Storage law on the Federal Level is the best way to terrorize them because they squeeze every penny that passes through their fingers so tightly the penny screams for mercy. They would rather die than pay out even a penny in fines besides of course going to the slammer for years.

    It was a damn shame it took so long to convict people like this Crumbley because so many, many innocent children’s lives were lost needlessly.

    As usual the gangster criminal corrupt Republicans who are prostitutes of the NRA have oceans of blood on their hands for blocking sane gun control laws that every other civilized nation has had for decades and decades. Any sane person can easily understand how badly these safe storage laws are needed because on average 1,350 Children are slaughtered by guns every year far surpassing even automobile accidents. In 2023 1,650 died needlessly but the Far Right paranoids will scream “losses can never be to high” even if it means sacrificing our own children on the demented altar of “zero gun control”.

    And before I get a rebuttal from out of control paranoids screaming that guns locked up are not accessible if someone breaks in that is pure bullshit. When I had kids in the house all my weapons were locked up and if I felt threatened I could have simply carried a gun on my person or opened my safe in less than 2 seconds to get a weapon. So their hogwash and paranoia does not stand up to reality.

    The gun control truth is the truth no matter how hard the Far Right try to lie their way out of it or put their demented spin on it.

    • “It has been declared a landmark conviction, and in the future will be used to justify prosecuting other deadbeat, shiftless, paranoid parents that let their kids have access to deadly weapons who then go on to use them to commit mass murder.” dacian, I’d take it a step further — this decision is intended to discourage parents who are responsible gun owners from teaching their children to be responsible gun owners, and it also serves to discourage parents from being gun owners at all. It’s a two-fer victory for gun control, without passing legislation or even issuing executive orders — in your own words “In a way this was a back door” move since front-door actions to restrict guns have met resistance due to their unconstitutional and unlawful premise.

    • DUNDERHEAD, Did your family have any children that lived? First of all according to one of your buddies, MINOR49er, this is not a land mark case at all. He reports other parents being prosecuted in similar instances. You depend on your Leftist Lame Stream Media? JBOL! These hoplophobes (LSM) ae just like you, Scared stiffless of firearms. They like you fail to realize that 99.999999% of people who use a firearm, do so in self-defense and last I heard, self defense is LEGAL!
      This conviction shows that “safe storage gun laws” are NOT NECESSARY. It shows that one’s not using good common sense when it violates the law that they should be prosecuted. No one here objects to that. Whether or not this conviction will stand is up to the appellate courts.
      You vainly blame “corrupt” Republicans for not passing laws that should be common sense. You see, DUNDERHEAD, there are already such laws on the books.
      You have repeatedly claimed to be a firearms “expert” but can’t even tell us the firing sequence of a cartridge. Do you know what a cartridge is? Can you define semi-automatic? Seems you and hoplophobes like you can’t even tell us what an “assault weapon” is.
      I am sure this will upset your sorry posterior, but I carry my GLOCK Mod 22 in a holster on my hip, each and every day. When I return home, I place my GLOCK in my safe in my bedroom, where I have access locked (and I am not going to tell you how or in what manner, I have access).

      Unfortunately, you Leftist hoplophobes are lying like rugs every time you spout your hoplophobic propaganda tying to pass more laws so it make you look like you are doing something to fee better.

  24. This a purely anti-gun verdict by an anti-gun judge and jury of an anti-gun Detroit suburb.
    Convicting the mother of “manslaughter” is ridiculous.

    Aren’t leftists always arguing we should regulate guns the way we regulate cars?
    If courts treated cars the way this jury treated guns, then:

    – If a teenager robs a bank using a car his parents bought for him to use, this jury would convict the mother of “bank robbery” even though she was nowhere near the bank!
    – If a teenager drives drunk and kills someone with a car his parents bought for him to use, then they’d convict the mother of “drunk driving” and “manslaughter” too!
    – If a teenager intentionally kills someone by hitting them with a car his parents bought for him to use, then they’d convict the mother of “manslaughter.”
    – If a teenager commits suicide using a car his parents bought for him to use, then they’d convict the mother of “suicide.”

    See how ridiculous this jury’s decision was?
    But this jury would never treat cars the way they treat guns, because this judge and jury is anti-gun, not anti-car. They have an obvious anti-gun bias.

  25. “If courts treated cars the way this jury treated guns… “

    You are uninformed, the record shows that parents are being charged when they allow children to use cars to injure or kill others:

    “TEEN DRIVER AND PARENTS CHARGED IN GRUESOME COLLISION THAT KILLED 14-YEAR-OLD GIRL
    December 5, 2023

    His parents are charged with endangering the welfare of a child and permitting unlicensed operation.

    District Attorney Katz said: “We will argue that the horrific car crash that took Fortune Williams’ young life was the result of recklessness and negligence, not only on the part of the minor behind the wheel, but the adults who put him in the driver’s seat.“

    https://queensda.org/teen-driver-and-parents-charged-in-gruesome-collision-that-killed-14-year-old-girl/

    • MINOR49er, Again, you cite one or two incidents where parents are held accountable as if this were the rule. Let me put it another way. HORSE PUCKY! For every case you cite, we can come up with 20 more where the parent was never charged.

      • Ever the fool Walter refutes the truth because it does not fit his warped far right ideology. Your response was Non Sequitur.

        • DUNDERHEAD, the fool here, is you and your hoplophobic cohorts who have no clue what you are talking about.
          For your edification (of which you need quite a bit it seems) Non sequitur has multiple meanings:
          Literary device
          A non sequitur is a literary device used in conversation, often for comedic purposes. It’s something said that seems absurd or confusing because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what preceded it. For example, “I’m worried that my sister is mad at me,” and her friend replies, “I wonder what you call a male ladybug?” .
          Logic and philosophy
          A non sequitur is a formal fallacy, deductive fallacy, logical fallacy, or non sequitur. It’s a pattern of reasoning that’s rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure. For example, “People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!” .

          Your entire brain lacks any coherent ability to decern facts from fiction.

      • By the same token, Walter, we can point to numerous cases similar to this one that is the topic of the thread, where parents were never called to account for the actions of their minor child. In fact, this case is being hailed as “unprecedented,” as Mrs. Crumbley “just became the first parent in the U.S. to be held responsible for their child’s criminal actions” — although neither part of that statement rings true considering the cases that Miner49er has documented where parents were held criminally responsible for the acts of their minor children.

        • Ah, Faulty, did you READ what I wrote? Or are you just spouting off like a sperm whale?

      • “Mrs. Crumbley “just became the first parent in the U.S. to be held responsible for their child’s criminal actions”

        No, she’s just the first upper-class white person who is to be held responsible for her child’s criminal actions.

  26. She sure has been enjoying the chow while in the joint. Looks like she put on 100 pounds. A drop from a short rope should get the job done.

  27. “Convicting the mother of “manslaughter” is ridiculous“

    No, if you were a part of a felony in which someone dies, you can be charged under the felony murder statute.

    By unlawfully purchasing a firearm for their son, they became participants in the murders he later committed.

    “The current felony murder rule comes from the Illinois statute covering murder: 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(3). In this statute, there are three ways to incur a first-degree murder conviction when someone is killed by your actions:

    Intending to kill the person, or intending great bodily harm by your actions
    Knowing that your actions would result in a killing or great bodily harm
    Committing or intending to commit a forcible felony (other than second degree murder)“

    https://www.goldbergdefense.com/blog/2022/01/understanding-the-new-felony-murder-rule-in-illinois/#:~:text=It%20is%20this%20third%20provision,would%20result%20in%20someone's%20death.

    The parents themselves conceivably could be charged with murder because they knew their actions would result in killing or great bodily harm.

    • MINOR49er, this matter will most certainly be appealed to the higher courts. I do find that these parents are at worst culpable and could be sued in civil court, but to stretch this into a felony manslaughter is a reach at best.

  28. “…if you were a part of a felony in which someone dies, you can be charged under the felony murder statute. By unlawfully purchasing a firearm for their son, they became participants in the murders he later committed.” I had asked you in response to a previous post, what was your opinion of the manslaughter verdict on Mrs. Crumbley? Would it be fair to extrapolate from your remarks in this post, that it would have been appropriate to convict her of murder? Which brings us further to the penalty phase — should she (and her husband) be executed?

    (A “poseur,” according to the classical definition, is one who asks [poses] difficult questions.)

    • “that it would have been appropriate to convict her of murder?“

      That’s for a court to decide.

      I can say, I’ve seen felony murder convictions upheld where the individual did far less towards the crime.

      Several years ago here in WV, the Supreme Court uphill a felony murder conviction of an individual, riding with his friends in the backseat while they stop at a drive-through for beer. Suddenly the driver without warning shoots the drive-through operator in a robbery attempt and then drives away. Backseat individual had no idea it was occurring, played no part, but his felony murder conviction was upheld and he’s sitting in the penitentiary.

      Mrs. crumbly bought a handgun for a 15-year-old and transferred it into his sole custody. She gets what she gets.

    • “should she (and her husband) be executed?“

      Let me give you an answer to this query, I am personally opposed to the death penalty.
      Mostly because far too often, the state gets it wrong. Through incompetence or corruption, police, prosecutors and the judiciary make mistakes.

      Need I remind the faithful, Jesus Christ was a victim of capital punishment imposed by the state.

      Would Jesus flip the switch on ol’ Sparky?

      Would Jesus push the needle in?
      (I bet He could find a vein… )

      If the answer is no, then every Christian should oppose capital punishment.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hNGQ2AQWZ6Q&pp=ygUPTW9yZSBsaWtlIEplc3Vz

  29. Holding a parent of a minor who committed an egregious crime responsible for their child’s actions. I hope this actually becomes a trend. Would be a nice change of pace from BAU. Would love to see it applied equally across the entire nation, but wont hold my breath.

  30. Full Disclosure: I’m a full blown gun nut but I’m also a resident of Oxford and had 2 daughters in Oxford High School that day. I personally knew 2 of the students killed. Bad day all around.

    There was a 572 page report completed by an independent investigator that answers many questions about the school’s culpability. A few takeaways: 1) A counselor with a caseload of a few hundred kids was the only staff that had all the facts in real-time. Various other people had bits and pieces but no one had the whole picture except the counselor. Not even the principal. 2) 3 armed SRO are normally present on any given day – one was on vacation, one went to the middle school to handle a problem, and the 3rd thought it was a drill and couldn’t get off the X when she realized it wasn’t a drill. For all intents and purposes, there was no armed resistance. 3) The SROs were not in the loop in any of the behavior events preceding the shooting and were not present during the meeting where the backpack could have been searched.

    For the most part, the school didn’t recognize his problems as a trend since he was an ok student with no prior record of behavioral or emotional problems. In a school of 1500 students, someone like this gets lost in the cracks so he wasn’t on anyone’s radar.

    As for the parents – completely dysfunctional and more f’ed up than the kid was. He was home alone much of the time as each parent had something better to do away from home, they didn’t get him help when they knew he needed it, and then for some reason thought giving him a personal defense weapon at his lowest emotional point was a good idea. It’s almost as if they were secretly hoping the kid would off himself.

    It’s a bad precedent but if I had chose who goes to jail between the kid and parents, it would be the parents in this case.

    • “but no one had the whole picture except the counselor. Not even the principal.”
      A lot of people want to focus on the school administrators. I am also concerned about the typically liberal policies of schools. However in this case it would seem to have to jump up a few levels as the lower levels implement approved budgeted policies. I know the principal brought ALICE training to the school. (is it effective?). He was on site and provided immediate assistance to victims.
      The superintendent is gone (retired). The assistant superintendent left (medical issues?). The principal got reassigned then fired (he’s only around 40 and probably won’t get another admin job). School board members immediately began CYA.

      Another note regarding searching the backpack: since everyone knows schools are gun free zones why should they search the backpack? Is this the reason it didn’t get searched?

  31. Great info, thank you so much for posting.

    “1) A counselor with a caseload of a few hundred kids was the only staff that had all the facts in real-time.”

    There’s the basic problem, adults inattention to the psychological struggles of the children in their care.

    The conservatives laugh and cut the funding, but we need more social workers in schools, elementary, middle and high school, to work with the kids who have issues.

    Thugs and gangsters don’t just pop into existence, they were babies who suffered too many adverse childhood experiences and their psyche has been damaged as a result.

    An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of care, and apparently many lives.

    • A pound of Cure…

      Speech recognition has trouble with my hillbilly accent, which some linguists believe is closer to the original Kings English of the colonies because of our mountain isolation.

    • “There’s the basic problem, adults inattention to the psychological struggles of the children in their care.”

      But “the system” found someone to punish — the parents. As a bonus, the state gets to demonize gun owners, discourage parents from teaching their kids about guns, and discourage parents from being gun owners at all. As dacien pointed out above, this is a “back door” move to promote gun control, and the shooter’s parents are just collateral damage to the state. Unless the state intends to begin punishing parents for being “bad parents” — that just opens the door for them to proscribe punishments for not raising children according to the whims and desires of the state. Slippery slope? Absolutely.

      • “But “the system” found someone to punish — the parents“

        Yes, those poor parents, they did nothing wrong… Except for providing their unstable 15-year-old child with a Sig 9mm.

        “the shooter’s parents are just collateral damage“

        Yes, they were just innocent victims of Joe Biden’s gun control efforts.

        • “Yes, those poor parents, they did nothing wrong”

          We’re in agreement on that point.

          “they were just innocent victims of Joe Biden’s gun control efforts.”

          Again, we agree.

        • “Again, we agree“

          Your sarcasm meter needs recalibration.

          So we’re clear on this, you believe that parents bear no responsibility for the outcome of providing their 15-year-old son with a Sig 9mm, even though he had expressed threats of violence against his school?

          How fascinating, it seems you are in favor of promoting more school shootings by troubled youth. You are really working for your bonus today.

        • “Your sarcasm meter needs recalibration.”

          No sarcasm intended. I was agreeing with what you wrote.

          “So we’re clear on this”

          Yes, it’s quite clear that we agree — gun control is bad.

          “How fascinating”

          Isn’t it? Even people who have different viewpoints on many issues can often find agreement.

    • MINOr49er. The monitoring of the mental health of children is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PARENTS, not the schools, or the government,.

      • “The monitoring of the mental health of children is the RESPONSIBILITY of the PARENTS“

        So we can agree that the parents failed in their duty to monitor the mental health of their children, a duty you say is the “RESPONSIBILITY of the PARENTS“.

        And what consequence do you feel would be appropriate for the parents who neglected their duty of care regarding monitoring the mental health of their children?

    • “The conservatives laugh and cut the funding” — Michigan is a blue, blue state. Governor is Democrat, House is controlled by Democrats, Senate is controlled by Democrats, Pontiac has a Democrat mayor and a majority Democrat city council.

Comments are closed.