Jennifer Crumbley verdict thread (Michigan school shooter mother)

[HiggyBaby 2529]

Guilty on all 4 counts. Good, the parents need to bear responsibility when their flesh turds go wheels off.


(Obligatory x,3)

[Guest]

Haven't followed this. What's the charge against her?

[HiggyBaby 2529]

4x involuntary manslaughter for each of the 4 students killed. Husbands up next.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/prosecution-picks-apart-jennifer-crumbleys-parenting-cross-examination-rcna136922

[BabaYaga 15288]

Was a straw purchase completed here?  Haven't followed the trial

[Carl Spackler 3479]

8 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Was a straw purchase completed here?  Haven't followed the trial

My understanding is that the father bought the handgun for the son (perpetrator), so yes it does sound like it was a straw purchase given that minimum age to purchase a handgun in Michigan is 18.

[Samson's Wig 3191]

I don't have a problem with culpability for the parents from the straw purchase perspective.  I don't know much about this case, so I don't know if the mother was involved in that aspect of it.  As a general rule I don't think it makes any sense at all to punish parents for the actions of their kids unless they were directly involved.  Good parents have terrible children all the time, just like good kids have terrible parents all the time.

[miguelito 11255]

Mans laughter?

That sounds made up.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

sad world.  parents are so shitty at being parents that we debate whether it is criminal.  if she had a single "i tried this thing, it just didn't work" there never would have been an indictment in the first place.  instead, it's just a lady that basically didn't care about signs of criminal future. 

[HiggyBaby 2529]

I don't have a problem with culpability for the parents from the straw purchase perspective.  I don't know much about this case, so I don't know if the mother was involved in that aspect of it.  As a general rule I don't think it makes any sense at all to punish parents for the actions of their kids unless they were directly involved.  Good parents have terrible children all the time, just like good kids have terrible parents all the time.

I dunno man. They were called in the day of and walked away.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/jury-reaches-verdict-jennifer-crumbley-manslaughter-trial/story?id=106924349

School officials had called the Crumbley parents to the school the morning of the shooting after finding violent drawings he had done on a school assignment. He was also caught searching online for bullets at school, watching shooting videos in class and drawing violent images on several other papers.

School officials testified that the parents chose not to take their son home despite the school telling them to get him immediate help, and offering them facilities that provided same-day mental health care services.

The parents told the school they could not take him home because they both had to return to work and that if he left school he would walk home and be alone. School officials, who were worried about his mental health, did not think it was a good idea for him to be alone since they were concerned he was considering suicide.

[Samson's Wig 3191]

4 minutes ago, HiggyBaby said:

I dunno man. They were called in the day of and walked away.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/jury-reaches-verdict-jennifer-crumbley-manslaughter-trial/story?id=106924349
 

Yeah, that would fall under "directly involved" in my book.  I understand why these parents are being prosecuted.    I was speaking more to the general notion of parent culpability for their teenager's actions.  We have to be very careful what precedents are being set, in my opinion, as overreach is likely.  

[South Austin 52454]

2 minutes ago, HiggyBaby said:

I dunno man. They were called in the day off and walked away.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/jury-reaches-verdict-jennifer-crumbley-manslaughter-trial/story?id=106924349
 

Yeah, fuck those parents, especially after the mom testified that she wouldn’t have done anything differently.  It’s not just buying the kid a gun in and of itself.  It’s that, and all those warning signs slapping them in the face in an era where the public reads about disturbed kids shooting up schools on a frequent basis.

[NorthLoop 14183]

7 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

Yeah, that would fall under "directly involved" in my book.  I understand why these parents are being prosecuted.    I was speaking more to the general notion of parent culpability for their teenager's actions.  We have to be very careful what precedents are being set, in my opinion, as overreach is likely.  

You buy your kid a gun and he uses that gun to kill people - you should be prosecuted. Don't like it? Don't buy your kid a gun. 

[Frank Drebin 5659]

1 minute ago, NorthLoop said:

You buy your kid a gun and he uses that gun to kill people - you should be prosecuted. Don't like it? Don't buy your kid a gun. 

So strict liability?

 

[Brisketexan 105071]

1 minute ago, NorthLoop said:

You buy your kid a gun and he uses that gun to kill people - you should be prosecuted. Don't like it? Don't buy your kid a gun. 

This.  That was the threshold issue here.  I suspect that if the remaining facts had been the same, but the kid got the gun from another source, a criminal prosecution wouldn't have stood up.  Because "being a super-shitty parent" alone isn't a crime.  You could try to cobble together a "parental neglect" case, but it would be an uphill climb.  

She got convicted because she 1) knew her kid was a danger, 2) ignored all the warning signs, AND 3) bought him a gun.  Without item 3, this case doesn't get off the ground.

[Brisketexan 105071]

Just now, Frank Drebin said:

So strict liability?

 

While that isn't the law at present AFAIK, you could make a decent policy argument for it.  Give a minor a firearm/access to a firearm?  You are liable for any crime they commit with said firearm.

I say that as someone who "gave" both of his minor children firearms.  You know where those guns lived?  A locked gun safe.  I had the only key, kept well-hidden (seriously, they have no clue where it is).  The only time they put their hands on those firearms were when I was present - we're going to a range, a ranch, etc.  Once out there?  Yes, they occasionally carried the firearm on their own.  And if my son had decided to murder his buddy while they were out stalking squirrels....I should be at risk in that case.  I am responsible for assessing his responsibility and mental state before I hand him a firearm.  I'm the adult.  I'm in charge, I'm responsible.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

She got convicted because she . . .  bought him a gun. 

husband did

[Brisketexan 105071]

Just now, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

husband did

As I understand, the act of giving him the firearm was a joint act (regardless of who the original purchaser was).  BUT, I confess to not poring through the facts on this one in detail.  As I understood, giving him access to the firearm was a key element of the prosecution's case...but maybe I read that into things?

[Frank Drebin 5659]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

While that isn't the law at present AFAIK, you could make a decent policy argument for it.  Give a minor a firearm/access to a firearm?  You are liable for any crime they commit with said firearm.

I say that as someone who "gave" both of his minor children firearms.  You know where those guns lived?  A locked gun safe.  I had the only key, kept well-hidden (seriously, they have no clue where it is).  The only time they put their hands on those firearms were when I was present - we're going to a range, a ranch, etc.  Once out there?  Yes, they occasionally carried the firearm on their own.  And if my son had decided to murder his buddy while they were out stalking squirrels....I should be at risk in that case.  I am responsible for assessing his responsibility and mental state before I hand him a firearm.  I'm the adult.  I'm in charge, I'm responsible.

Strictly liable criminally?

What if they get drunk and kill someone driving your car?  Same rule since you handed them the keys?

Edited February 6 by Frank Drebin

[Schulz2.0 28951]

5 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Strictly liable criminally?

What if they get drunk and kill someone driving your car?  Same rule since you handed them the keys?

The kid had obvious mental issues. He had told his parents he had thoughts about shooting up the school. The school had brought up to parents the obvious mental issues. They did nothing. It's no mystery why they got prosecuted.

[Brisketexan 105071]

2 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Strictly liable criminally?

What if they get drunk and kill someone driving your car?  Same rule since you handed them the keys?

No.  Because in that case, they are licensed by a separate authority (the State of Texas) that has adjudicated their competence to drive, and issued them a license to do so.  That said, if you see that someone (minor or not) is drunk as hell and you hand them your keys, then you can be held liable (not strict liability, but liability).  So, no need for a strict liability regime.

In the case of a firearm, there is no such licensing mechanism in Texas (and in other states, it's actually illegal for a minor to possess a firearm - under federal law, it's illegal for a minor to possess a handgun).  To BUY a gun, you have to be 21 for a handgun, 18 for a long gun.  A minor can't obtain a firearm on their own.  So, the burden is entirely on the adult procuring said firearm to assess whether the minor is responsible enough to put hands on a gun.  It's not letting a kid work the electric mixer while baking a cake; it's handing them a deadly weapon.  Yes, I think the burden can and should be strict liability for a crime committed by a minor with a firearm you gave them.

[Js1 85280]

Oh here we go.  Sack's sock is at it again.

I bet you believe lazy negligent parents are to blame for kids being bad at school, but in this case, the parents don't have liability?  Because a gun is involved.  

[Wally Fairway 5541]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

  I'm the adult.  I'm in charge, I'm responsible.

Over 41,000 posts on THIS message board and you expect us to believe that?

Seriously, they were negligent in buying a troubled minor a firearm, and allowing him to access, On the other hand, my oldest son was an absolute shithead for several years, and it took him until he was almost 19 and went in the army to get his head out of his ass. I was responsible for him driving my car, even without permission, and thankfully his 3 accidents were all the single vehicle type. But his run ins with the police, and I'm sure the myriad of things I don't even know about give me pause to parental criminal liabllity. Hopefully this is a narrow case and does not open floodgates to sue parents who struggle with "bad" kids. 

[Brisketexan 105071]

2 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Hopefully this is a narrow case and does not open floodgates to sue parents who struggle with "bad" kids. 

My current read is that this is most likely the correct reading.  Again, just being shitty and ignoring warning signs makes for a tough case to prosecute.  Giving your troubled kid a handgun . . . in violation of local law . . . that puts it over the top.

If you gave your 10 year old the keys to your 'Vette and told him to run up to the store to buy you some Hot Pockets because you're too wasted to drive, you're gonna get popped when that kid gets excited, punches it to 90 mph, and runs over an old lady at the crosswalk.  You gave an unlicensed 10 yr old the keys to a supercharged dangerous machine.  Yeah, you're a criminal.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

4 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Hopefully this is a narrow case and does not open floodgates to sue parents who struggle with "bad" kids. 

different things.  they can already do this.  this is about mom going to jail for bad kids.

[jimmyjazz 45889]

My off-the-cuff uninformed thoughts about parental liability are that once a kid becomes "an adult" then they are liable for their own actions, save instances of group liability (coercion, conspiracy, whatever the legal terms are).  If you're old enough to vote, join the military, buy a gun, etc. then you're kind of on your own in my book, regardless of who made the initial purchase of the gun in question.  (I fully understand that in this case the kid was still a minor.)

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

The school expressed their worry about the son being a danger to himself or others BUT the parents failed to express that he had access to and potentially was carrying a gun. If the parents had provided this info to the school, 4 students would be alive today.

The parents most likely declined to say anything because they were worried of the consequences to themselves or their son. Now 4 people are dead.

I'm sorry the mom was convicted in the sense that I'm sorry the crime was committed. But since the crime occurred, I think the mom has some responsibility at a criminal level.

[DaggerHorns 3082]

Hopefully this is a broad case and opens the floodgates to sue parents who enable "bad" kids.

[HiggyBaby 2529]

11 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Over 41,000 posts on THIS message board and you expect us to believe that?

Seriously, they were negligent in buying a troubled minor a firearm, and allowing him to access, On the other hand, my oldest son was an absolute shithead for several years, and it took him until he was almost 19 and went in the army to get his head out of his ass. I was responsible for him driving my car, even without permission, and thankfully his 3 accidents were all the single vehicle type. But his run ins with the police, and I'm sure the myriad of things I don't even know about give me pause to parental criminal liabllity. Hopefully this is a narrow case and does not open floodgates to sue parents who struggle with "bad" kids.

hopefully this case gets more than one parent’s attention and forces them to intervene ahead of disaster. I honestly haven’t looked at the parents involved in other shootings  like Uvalde but I’m sure there were warning signs that the parents either chose to ignore or were too stupid to follow up on.

[Mikey4 2476]

The issue should be whether the parents/dad was negligent, not whether he bought the kid a gun. I have purchased guns for my minor children. The guns are unloaded, cable locked, and in my sole custody unless we are going to the range, in which case they remain locked until we get in a lane and I hand out keys. That's responsible gun ownership. But buying a gun and handing it over to a kid, especially one with mental health problems, is negligence. There's a difference.

[DaggerHorns 3082]

5 minutes ago, HiggyBaby said:

hopefully this case gets more than one parent’s attention and forces them to intervene ahead of disaster. I honestly haven’t looked at the parents involved in other shootings  like Uvalde but I’m sure there were warning signs that the parents either chose to ignore or were too stupid to follow up on.

Uvalde shooter: His father was not in his life. His mother was an avid drug user. He lived with his grandparents. 
 

When I got a rescue dog, I went through two weeks of waiting and a background check. If I want to have another kid, I could go to a bar tonight and make it happen.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

Just now, Mikey4 said:

The issue should be whether the parents/dad was negligent, not whether he bought the kid a gun. I have purchased guns for my minor children. The guns are unloaded, cable locked, and in my sole custody unless we are going to the range, in which case they remain locked until we get in a lane and I hand out keys. That's responsible gun ownership. But buying a gun and handing it over to a kid, especially one with mental health problems, is negligence. There's a difference.

i think you literally described the case.

[Mikey4 2476]

1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i think you literally described the case.

Good, that's what I was trying to do.

[SimonBolivar 10957]

7 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

If I want to have another kid, I could go to a bar tonight and make it happen.

Someone sure does think a lot of themselves.

[Brisketexan 105071]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

Someone sure does think a lot of themselves.

That someone is brutally aware of how many really ugly, desperate women with low/no standards there are in this world.

[Celery Man 20932]

I’m fairly comfortable with the idea that you are responsible for a minor household member using your guns to murder people. Lots of solutions for people who aren’t comfortable with that risk.

[Celery Man 20932]

18 minutes ago, DaggerHorns said:

If I want to have another kid, I could go to a bar tonight and make it happen.

 

Edited February 6 by Celery Man

[Frank Drebin 5659]

42 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Oh here we go.  Sack's sock is at it again.

I bet you believe lazy negligent parents are to blame for kids being bad at school, but in this case, the parents don't have liability?  Because a gun is involved.  

Be an asshole all you want.  I never said anything about the facts of the case.  I was discussing whether strict liability should be imposed on crimes committed by kids with guns. This case was not a strict liability case, you dumb fuck.  The state had to prove a certain mens rea.  I certainly have no problem with liability in "this case".

[Mikey4 2476]

4 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

I’m fairly comfortable with the idea that you are responsible for a minor household member using your guns to murder people. Lots of solutions for people who aren’t comfortable with that risk.

I allow my kids access to all sorts of dangerous instruments. I leave my car keys lying around. We have a drawer full of sharp knives. They know where to find matches and lighter fluid. The chainsaw is in the shed. Don't get me started on poisonous household chemicals.

Should parents be responsible any time a child uses the parent's property to murder someone? Or is there something special about guns?

 

[DaggerHorns 3082]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That someone is brutally aware of how many really ugly, desperate women with low/no standards there are in this world.

You’re aware of how your father came to be a parent.

[Celery Man 20932]

2 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

I allow my kids access to all sorts of dangerous instruments. I leave my car keys lying around. We have a drawer full of sharp knives. They know where to find matches and lighter fluid. The chainsaw is in the shed. Don't get me started on poisonous household chemicals.

Should parents be responsible any time a child uses the parent's property to murder someone? Or is there something special about guns?

 

There’s something special about guns.

[Brisketexan 105071]

Just now, Mikey4 said:

I allow my kids access to all sorts of dangerous instruments. I leave my car keys lying around. We have a drawer full of sharp knives. They know where to find matches and lighter fluid. The chainsaw is in the shed. Don't get me started on poisonous household chemicals.

Should parents be responsible any time a child uses the parent's property to murder someone? Or is there something special about guns?

 

Does your kid have your PERMISSION to:

take your car (presuming they are not a licensed driver)

use sharp knives outside of the kitchen?

start fires?

Use the chainsaw?

The kid in this case was given 1) the gun, and 2) permission to possess it.  I would not propose strict liability of a kid breaks into a safe and takes a gun he did not have permission to have.  

[DaggerHorns 3082]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Does your kid have your PERMISSION to:

take your car (presuming they are not a licensed driver)

use sharp knives outside of the kitchen?

start fires?

Use the chainsaw?

The kid in this case was given 1) the gun, and 2) permission to possess it.  I would not propose strict liability of a kid breaks into a safe and takes a gun he did not have permission to have.  

Exactly. Mom also made a social media video and celebrated her son going to the range. That’s another layer of idiocy despite that not being illegal in any way.

Edited February 6 by DaggerHorns

[mchookem 16322]

2 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

Or is there something special about guns?

 

yes? i mean car keys and kitchen knives and matches and household chemicals are not expressly designed and manufactured to kill people. seems a pretty clear and easy distinction. 

[Da Fino 2776]

Is this the mom who texted the kid something afterwards about not crying on camera or try not to get caught? 

[Frank Drebin 5659]

I think there should be a certain mens rea for holding a parent criminally accountable for a kid misusing something and hurting or killing someone, whether it is a car, firearm, chemicals, baseball bat, etc.  Here, you have what seems like pretty clear gross negligence by the parents.  

 

[Mikey4 2476]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Does your kid have your PERMISSION to:

take your car (presuming they are not a licensed driver)

use sharp knives outside of the kitchen?

start fires?

Use the chainsaw?

The kid in this case was given 1) the gun, and 2) permission to possess it.  I would not propose strict liability of a kid breaks into a safe and takes a gun he did not have permission to have.  

I was responding to a post that reads:

Quote

I’m fairly comfortable with the idea that you are responsible for a minor household member using your guns to murder people. Lots of solutions forpeople who aren’t comfortable with that risk.

My basic point is that a parent should not be strictly liable for a child's crimes. At a minimum, parental liability should require proof that the parent failed to use ordinary or reasonable care.

So giving a gun to a mentally disturbed kid who then uses it to murder someone? That's grounds for criminal liability of the parent. Just having a sharp knife in the kitchen? Nah, nothing out of the ordinary there. Everyone seems to agree on those points.

Here's where I see disagreement: What about owning a gun that is unloaded and locked, but unbeknownst to you, your child -- with no warning signs -- walks to the hardware store, buys a bolt cutter, finds the gun, breaks the lock, finds the ammo, and kills someone? I don't see how that's a basis for parental liability. The parent stored the gun unloaded and locked and had no reason to suspect the child would do those things.

[Frank Drebin 5659]

1 minute ago, Mikey4 said:

I was responding to a post that reads:

My basic point is that a parent should not be strictly liable for a child's crimes. At a minimum, parental liability should require proof that the parent failed to use ordinary or reasonable care.

So giving a gun to a mentally disturbed kid who then uses it to murder someone? That's grounds for criminal liability of the parent. Just having a sharp knife in the kitchen? Nah, nothing out of the ordinary there. Everyone seems to agree on those points.

Here's where I see disagreement: What about owning a gun that is unloaded and locked, but unbeknownst to you, your child -- with no warning signs -- walks to the hardware store, buys a bolt cutter, finds the gun, breaks the lock, finds the ammo, and kills someone? I don't see how that's a basis for parental liability. The parent stored the gun unloaded and locked and had no reason to suspect the child would do those things.

Exactly.  

[Celery Man 20932]

Do a better job securing your gun, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid.

[Js1 85280]

23 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

I don’t deserve this kind of shabby treatment! 

[Mikey4 2476]

10 minutes ago, mchookem said:

yes? i mean car keys and kitchen knives and matches and household chemicals are not expressly designed and manufactured to kill people. seems a pretty clear and easy distinction. 

That's a distinction, but it's not a very principled one. A gun is not inherently more dangerous than those items, and guns have lots of uses other than killing people. I suspect that some very high percentage (99%+) of gun uses do NOT involve killing people but are instead focused on sport or hunting. A similar percentage of gun owners never use a gun to kill. I'm not sure why we would make parents strictly liable for a child's crime when the child uses a gun, but not when a child uses some other weapon.