Jennifer Crumbley verdict thread (Michigan school shooter mother)

Jameslaw121 · February 6

31 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.

Wheelhouse

Pimphand · February 6

5 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

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

Yeah I'm not sure about the involuntary manslaughter thing for the mom but for fucks sake..... this times 1,000,000 at a minimum secure the gun with a gun lock even if your shitty ass can't get a legitimate gun safe.

At least in the case of Jamie Gilt the only person who got shot for negligent handling of firearms around a kid was her.

Frank Drebin · February 6

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

My son has a hunting license issued by the state of Texas and has taken the required state mandated hunter safety course. As such, he is licensed to hunt by himself with a firearm by the state of Texas. He is 14 years old. But as you say he is licensed by a separate authority (the State of Texas) that has adjudicated his competence to hunt outside of my supervision, and issued a license to do so.

If he decides to go nuts without warning and shoot someone with one of my guns, I should not be criminally liable based on strict liability.

If I had reason to know he was a danger to others like these Michigan parents, and the state can prove the requisite degree of criminal negligence, then I should suffer the criminal consequences.

Truth is the riskiest thing I allow him to do at the ranch is drive the side by side.

Edited February 6 by Frank Drebin

Deej · February 6

40 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.

Thank god.

Brisketexan · February 6

12 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

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.

From my perspective, you and I aren't in disagreement. I do not propose -- from a policy standpoint -- strict liability for the circumstance of "a child uses a gun to commit a crime." Instead, it would require the act of the parent giving the child/knowingly giving the child access to a firearm.

Keep a gun locked away, and the kid hires a team of safecrackers to get him the gun, and then he uses it? No charges whatsoever. You aren't even negligent.

Leave your gun where it's easily found and used by the kid to shoot someone? Maybe merits a negligence-based charge.

GIVE the kid a gun, allowing him to have access to it at all times? Strict liability. If you make THAT choice (giving a kid access to a firearm), that is the act that gives rise to the strict liability standard.

Hell, to go with your kitchen knives standard, no prosecutor is going to bring a negligence case if your 5 year old scoots a chair over to a cabinet, opens it, gets a kitchen knife, and stabs his friend over a fight over a who gets to play with the Transformer. But....if you leave those same sharp kitchen knives on the kid's bed, and he does something bad with them....you might catch a charge.

A gas can on the top shelf of the garage, with a lighter in the kitchen junk drawer? Nope. Leave those items in a kid's room, unsuprevised? Yep.

There is a triggering act, which is going to relate to the dangerousness of the item. I'm suggesting that based on the dangerousness of the item, the triggering act for a firearm is the act of consciously choosing to grant the minor access to the item away from adult supervision. Give your kid a firearm, and you take on the risk. Note that I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't do so. You just need to be damned thoughtful and sure when you do. I'd still have let my son go hunting with his buddies when he was 16. Because I knew him, knew the other guys, and was comfortable with my judgment and the risks it entailed (and even if those risks were just "one of them being a dumbass, careless with a gun, and accidentally shooting another guy," that's a steep fucking risk I was very, very aware of).

There are some things in life that you do "at your own risk." I'd suggest "giving a minor unfettered access to a firearm" is one of those things you do "at your own risk" - with the thing you are risking being your liberty in case a crime is committed.

Mikey4 · February 6

14 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

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

Why wouldn't that same logic -- secure your shit, do a better job parenting, pay attention to your kid -- make parents strictly liable for every crime a kid commits? Your kid steals the car, road rages, and hits someone? "Do a better job securing your car, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid."

SimonBolivar · February 6

17 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

That's a distinction, but it's not a very principled one. A gun is not inherently more dangerous than those items

They are inherently more dangerous as in characteristically they carry more danger. They don't always behave in such ways but inherently there is more danger.

Brisketexan · February 6

14 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

My son has a hunting license issued by the state of Texas and has taken the required state mandated hunter safety course. As such, he is licensed to hunt by himself with a firearm by the state of Texas. He is 14 years old. But as you say he is licensed by a separate authority (the State of Texas) that has adjudicated his competence to hunt outside of my supervision, and issued a license to do so.

If he decides to go nuts without warning and shoot someone with one of my guns, I should not be criminally liable based on strict liability.

If I had reason to know he was a danger to others like these Michigan parents, and the state can prove the requisite degree of criminal negligence, then I should suffer the criminal consequences.

Truth is the riskiest thing I allow him to do at the ranch is drive the side by side.

You make a good point as to the State of Texas requiring hunter safety, and issuing him a license allowing him to hunt unaccompanied at that age. Here are the regs, summarized:

Quote

Under 9 years of age: You must be accompanied. Accompanied means: By a person (resident or non-resident) who is at least 17, who is licensed to hunt in Texas, who has passed hunter education or is exempt (born before Sept. 2, 1971), and you must be within normal voice control.

Age 9 through 16: You must successfully complete a hunter education course or be accompanied.

Age 17 and over: You must successfully complete a hunter education course; or purchase a "Hunter Education Deferral" and be accompanied.

"Accompanied" means: by a person (resident or non-resident) who is at least 17, who is licensed to hunt in Texas, who has passed hunter education or is exempt (born before Sept. 2, 1971), and you must be within normal voice control.

So, I would accept an amendment of my proposal based on these regulations, reflecting the public policy of the state. Give a gun to someone under 9, with no supervision? Strict liability. Give a gun to someone under 18, who has not completed a hunter education course (or a similar firearms course, like a CCL course), with no supervision? Strict liability. But if that person is between 9 and 18, and has a course completed, then no strict liability.

This can be hashed out. I just think that giving a minor a firearm, with zero supervision and no third party oversight/evaluation (like a Texas driving exam, or a CCL course, for driving or shooting, respectively) means that you assume the risk of what happens based on your decision to give that person full and unsupervised access to a deadly weapon.

Edited February 6 by Brisketexan

Mikey4 · February 6

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

From my perspective, you and I aren't in disagreement. I do not propose -- from a policy standpoint -- strict liability for the circumstance of "a child uses a gun to commit a crime." Instead, it would require the act of the parent giving the child/knowingly giving the child access to a firearm.

Keep a gun locked away, and the kid hires a team of safecrackers to get him the gun, and then he uses it? No charges whatsoever. You aren't even negligent.

Leave your gun where it's easily found and used by the kid to shoot someone? Maybe merits a negligence-based charge.

GIVE the kid a gun, allowing him to have access to it at all times? Strict liability. If you make THAT choice (giving a kid access to a firearm), that is the act that gives rise to the strict liability standard.

Hell, to go with your kitchen knives standard, no prosecutor is going to bring a negligence case if your 5 year old scoots a chair over to a cabinet, opens it, gets a kitchen knife, and stabs his friend over a fight over a who gets to play with the Transformer. But....if you leave those same sharp kitchen knives on the kid's bed, and he does something bad with them....you might catch a charge.

A gas can on the top shelf of the garage, with a lighter in the kitchen junk drawer? Nope. Leave those items in a kid's room, unsuprevised? Yep.

There is a triggering act, which is going to relate to the dangerousness of the item. I'm suggesting that based on the dangerousness of the item, the triggering act for a firearm is the act of consciously choosing to grant the minor access to the item away from adult supervision. Give your kid a firearm, and you take on the risk. Note that I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't do so. You just need to be damned thoughtful and sure when you do. I'd still have let my son go hunting with his buddies when he was 16. Because I knew him, knew the other guys, and was comfortable with my judgment and the risks it entailed (and even if those risks were just "one of them being a dumbass, careless with a gun, and accidentally shooting another guy," that's a steep fucking risk I was very, very aware of).

There are some things in life that you do "at your own risk." I'd suggest "giving a minor unfettered access to a firearm" is one of those things you do "at your own risk" - with the thing you are risking being your liberty in case a crime is committed.

Yeah, we're basically saying the same thing. I might quibble over whether the act of giving a child a firearm is always categorically negligence (if that's what you're saying), but it would certainly be negligence in the vast majority of cases. (Say the family has a ranch and the 17-year-old, Eagle Scout son helps with the sheep, including using the 22 to shoot wild dogs that try to get through the fence. I'm not sure giving him access to that gun with those facts would be negligence, but I see the arguments both ways.)

Helobious · February 6

4 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

Why wouldn't that same logic -- secure your shit, do a better job parenting, pay attention to your kid -- make parents strictly liable for every crime a kid commits? Your kid steals the car, road rages, and hits someone? "Do a better job securing your car, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid."

This kid had drawings depicting him shooting people, he got caught searching for ammo online at school, he had expressed suicidal and violent thoughts to others, the school TOLD his parents all of this… and they took no steps at all to restrict his access to that gun or inform the school that he had access to a gun, or even seek any professional help for their son… and you really think the parents weren’t negligent here?

Brisketexan · February 6

4 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

Yeah, we're basically saying the same thing. I might quibble over whether the act of giving a child a firearm is always categorically negligence (if that's what you're saying), but it would certainly be negligence in the vast majority of cases. (Say the family has a ranch and the 17-year-old, Eagle Scout son helps with the sheep, including using the 22 to shoot wild dogs that try to get through the fence. I'm not sure giving him access to that gun with those facts would be negligence, but I see the arguments both ways.)

See Frank Drebin's point above, with which I agree -- if the kid has completed a course, has a hunting license that allows him to carry a firearm unsupervised, that would fall outside my proposed strict liability regime. I'll go with the "strict liability if the kid is under 9, and strict liability if the kid is between 9 and 18 and has no gun safety training."

Mikey4 · February 6

1 minute ago, Helobious said:

This kid had drawings depicting him shooting people, he got caught searching for ammo online at school, he had expressed suicidal and violent thoughts to others, the school TOLD his parents all of this… and they took no steps at all to restrict his access to that gun or inform the school that he had access to a gun, or even seek any professional help for their son… and you really think the parents weren’t negligent here?

Holy shit dude, read the thread. Yes, these parents are cooked. I've never defended them. I'm responding to claims that a parent should ALWAYS be criminally liable for a child's crimes if the child uses the parent's gun in the crime.

Mikey4 · February 6

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

See Frank Drebin's point above, with which I agree -- if the kid has completed a course, has a hunting license that allows him to carry a firearm unsupervised, that would fall outside my proposed strict liability regime. I'll go with the "strict liability if the kid is under 9, and strict liability if the kid is between 9 and 18 and has no gun safety training."

But even under 9, you're not really proposing strict liability. I think you're saying that the act of giving a gun to the child would be negligence, and I'm basically fine with that proposal.

Celery Man · February 6

7 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

Why wouldn't that same logic -- secure your shit, do a better job parenting, pay attention to your kid -- make parents strictly liable for every crime a kid commits? Your kid steals the car, road rages, and hits someone? "Do a better job securing your car, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid."

Because gun violence is different and, by choosing to keep an unsecured/poorly secured gun in the home, the parent is involved in creating the risk in a way that is different than a parent who owns a car or has a chef's knife. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not trying to pretend to be a lawyer, and obviously this is not a legal argument - a small subset of society demands that society as a whole take on the non trivial risk and negative externalities created by their hobby. In the absence of different solutions for managing that demand I'm happy to see some more risk sharing here. And obviously it's a complex issue and a complex world but if your kid gets your gun and murders someone with it, there were things you failed to do that could have prevented that outcome. Like lock the gun up such that a fucking teenager with a pair of bolt cutters isn't going to get at it.

Native Horn · February 6

1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

Don't get me started on poisonous household chemicals.

*venomous

Pam Cummings · February 6

23 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

Why wouldn't that same logic -- secure your shit, do a better job parenting, pay attention to your kid -- make parents strictly liable for every crime a kid commits? Your kid steals the car, road rages, and hits someone? "Do a better job securing your car, do a better job parenting/paying attention to your kid."

If your kid said out loud "i wanna kill myself, and id like to run over some people too" and multiple people heard them say it and then you immediately gave them the keys to your car and they went out and ran over some folks, yeah i'd like to think you'd be held criminally liable?

Edited February 6 by Pam Cummings

Mikey4 · February 6

2 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Because gun violence is different

Gun violence is certainly a big problem. I guess I would understand a pragmatic policy that treats gun crimes differently due to the societal harms they cause. I disagree with it, as I think it would be used to punish parents for doing nothing more than exercising a constitutional right, but I see where you're coming from.

'stache · February 6

53 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

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.

Gross negligence has been a standard for criminal culpability forever and is described as it's own standard of mens rea. I heard about this a little on the radio and not only did they give him the gun and knew he had free access to it, they told the school to fuck off when they reported that he was drawing or writing violent things and they felt he was a serious threat to himself and/or others, including not telling the school that he had open access to the gun they gave him, just basically said "we need to get back to work, you deal with it." It's extraordinary negligence and well beyond bad parenting, they could have directly intervened, or at least attempted to intervene, but doing literally nothing while telling the school to screw themselves, it forms a well supported basis for criminal liability.

Edited February 6 by 'stache

Mikey4 · February 6

5 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

If your kid said out loud "i wanna kill myself, and id like to run over some people too" and multiple people heard them say it and then you immediately gave them the keys to your car and they went out and ran over some folks, yeah i'd like to think you'd be held criminally liable?

Agreed, that's negligence though, not strict liability.

'stache · February 6

Strict liability has nothing to do with this case, so I guess we're "just asking questions"?

Mikey4 · February 6

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Strict liability has nothing to do with this case, so I guess we're "just asking questions"?

Yeah, if you read upthread, nobody is defending these dipshit parents, but people have differing views about why they should be criminally liable, and that's where the thread has gone.

Brisketexan · February 6

14 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

I think you're saying that the act of giving a gun to the child would be negligence,

Accurately speaking, it would be negligence per se. Which, functionally, is a "strict liability" standard. I don't need to find any other fact to find that you are negligent. Giving a gun to an 8 yr old (in my scenario above) is negligent per se, and any harm that follows is on the negligent party.

I think you're looking for a quibble here that isn't really a quibble. Truly. I think that we agree, you're just not comfortable with the idea that we do. Note that I am a gun owner, and have been shooting since I was 5 (yes, under adult supervision at that age). I am not opposed to firearms, I have my own, and my kids grew up around them. I just take them very, very fucking seriously. And I think the law should impose a very, very fucking serious standard for them.

Frank Drebin · February 6

22 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

Because gun violence is different and, by choosing to keep an unsecured/poorly secured gun in the home, the parent is involved in creating the risk in a way that is different than a parent who owns a car or has a chef's knife. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not trying to pretend to be a lawyer, and obviously this is not a legal argument - a small subset of society demands that society as a whole take on the non trivial risk and negative externalities created by their hobby. In the absence of different solutions for managing that demand I'm happy to see some more risk sharing here. And obviously it's a complex issue and a complex world but if your kid gets your gun and murders someone with it, there were things you failed to do that could have prevented that outcome. Like lock the gun up such that a fucking teenager with a pair of bolt cutters isn't going to get at it.

Those words "unsecured/poorly secured" as a qualifier means you are taking it outside of strict liability.

Mikey4 · February 6

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think that we agree, you're just not comfortable with the idea that we do.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I'm uncomfortable making a categorical rule rather than evaluating each case on its facts...even though I know that evaluating each case on its facts would lead to liability in virtually every case. Your approach is more practical and efficient, while mine leaves room for parents to escape liability in exceptional cases 🤷‍♂️

Edited February 6 by Mikey4

Frank Drebin · February 6

14 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Strict liability has nothing to do with this case, so I guess we're "just asking questions"?

It has to do with the discussion in this thread. Because someone suggested early on that he was okay with strict liability.

Edited February 6 by Frank Drebin

Carl Spackler · February 6

Side note -- my understanding is that the families of the deceased victims as well as the other victims filed a civil lawsuit against the school district and certain school employees, but a judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2023. I've read differing reasons for the dismissal -- one article referenced governmental immunity and another one stated the judge found the alleged acts/omissions by the school employees weren't the proximate cause of the harm. That decision is currently on appeal.

The victims had also sued the Crumbleys, but apparently dropped them from the suit last year in order to facilitate the appeal of the decision to dismiss the school defendants. I suspect the Crumbleys don't have much money to satisfy any potential civil judgment in any event.

Celery Man · February 6

2 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Those words "unsecured/poorly secured" as a qualifier means you are taking it outside of strict liability.

I’m defending this position -

1 hour 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 could add a “broadly “ in there if that allows legal room for me to mean “in most or many cases”.

NotActuallyALonghorn · February 7

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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.

*naturally aspirated

TwiceHorn · February 7

6 hours 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.

Well, it's not so much the purchase of the gun, it's the complete failure to supervise the kid and the gun, post-sale. When you buy your underage spawn a gun, you assume responsibility for their training with and responsible use of said gun.

For the peanut gallery, strict liability means you engage in an action, you are liable for the consequences of that action without regard to factors of foreseeability and causation, or negligent behavior. It's pretty rare thing and reserved for things that are so dangerous or likely to cause harm that we aren't even going to analyze it: you do it, you're liable. In this case, buy your minor a gun, you're liable for whatever happens thereafter, without regard to how bizarre it might be or how carefully you supervised the kid and gun.

Edited February 7 by TwiceHorn

Nivek · February 7

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.

I suppose context would matter. If the drawings and musings about harming self/ others was something they heard about or joked about for years, then I could understand how they might not take it seriously on this day. Additionally, it can be a difficult thing to believe something is off with your kid even when the evidence is right there.

But let’s get real. We don’t give a flying fuck about school shootings or stopping them. This just gives our sick society a red herring while we ignore the reality of the real causes and solutions at a macro scale.

Putting the parents in jail won’t prevent the next one. And there will be many many more until we as a society stop worshipping stupid shit, stop celebrating indecency, and stop seeing threats everywhere, and stop ignoring real issues that matter in place of manufactured rage topics.

TwiceHorn · February 7

Well, because the surl loves them some deterrence, the most commonly accepted scenario in which criminal law deters is when something becomes criminal that was not before. Usually, that is in the form of legislation, like you cant use your cell phone in a school zone. But it could come from prosecutions and convictions under existing law, where there weren't before. Like this.

South Austin · February 7

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, because the surl loves them some deterrence, the most commonly accepted scenario in which criminal law deters is when something becomes criminal that was not before. Usually, that is in the form of legislation, like you cant use your cell phone in a school zone. But it could come from prosecutions and convictions under existing law, where there weren't before. Like this.

It probably won’t deter shit for a lot of folks, just like the death penalty won’t deter mass shooters.

But this is punishment, plain and simple.

DigglerontheHoof · February 7

Sounds like Mikey has a problem child whose potential for mayhem is high. CYA mode engaged.

February 7

16 hours 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.

Just one guy's opinion, and it may already be the law; if you provide a firearm to your child, you should be responsible for that outcome until they are 21/ legal age to purchase said firearm.

If you don't secure your own firearms, then you are negligent, at the very least, and culpable.

Edited February 7 by slorch

El Tri · February 7

15 hours ago, Mikey4 said:

Gun violence is certainly a big problem. I guess I would understand a pragmatic policy that treats gun crimes differently due to the societal harms they cause. I disagree with it, as I think it would be used to punish parents for doing nothing more than exercising a constitutional right, but I see where you're coming from.

kids under 18 have no constitutional right to own a gun

February 7

11 minutes ago, El Tri said:

kids under 18 have no constitutional right to own a gun

There is no minimum age required to possess a gun in Texas. Nobody under 18 can lawfully possess a handgun, per federal law.

Celery Man · February 7

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

For the peanut gallery, strict liability means you engage in an action, you are liable for the consequences of that action without regard to factors of foreseeability and causation, or negligent behavior. It's pretty rare thing and reserved for things that are so dangerous or likely to cause harm that we aren't even going to analyze it: you do it, you're liable.

Thanks for that explanation. Are people strictly liable for the actions of their dogs? Kid with access to a gun (even if they’ve taken a course where it was explained that murder is bad and even if they sometimes shoot animals alone) seems like a pit bull.

Mikey4 · February 7

1 hour ago, El Tri said:

kids under 18 have no constitutional right to own a gun

The parent has a constitutional right to own a gun. If the law makes a parent strictly liable when a child uses the parent's gun in a crime, then by definition the parent is liable even if the parent is without fault. In other words, the parent is liable even though the only relevant parental conduct is owning the gun -- the very thing that the Second Amendment protects.

Celery Man · February 7

15 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

The parent has a constitutional right to own a gun. If the law makes a parent strictly liable when a child uses the parent's gun in a crime, then by definition the parent is liable even if the parent is without fault. In other words, the parent is liable even though the only relevant parental conduct is owning the gun -- the very thing that the Second Amendment protects.

What if the conduct was allowing the kid access to the gun, with a very high bar for what “securing the gun” means?

Armybrat · February 7

1 hour ago, slorch said:

There is no minimum age required to possess a gun in Texas. Nobody under 18 can lawfully possess a handgun, per federal law.

A minor can possess a gun under adult supervision to shoot at a range (where allowed) or on private property following city/county/state laws.

Of course a minor is ineligible to purchase a firearm.

Addendum: Screw those Crumbley jerks.

Edited February 7 by Armybrat

Mikey4 · February 7

13 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

What if the conduct was allowing the kid access to the gun, with a very high bar for what “securing the gun” means?

I'm fine with that. 100% agree. The bar should be very high. But there should be a bar.

South Austin · February 7

21 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

But there should be a bar.

Wait, do I have to secure my bar now?

Mikey4 · February 7

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Wait, do I have to secure my bar now?

It depends on the kind of bar. The kind with alcohol should be off limits to minors. But kids should have access to crowbars for gang brawls and the like.

'stache · February 8

Strict liability is largely a civil standard, most prominently in product liability cases, and even that has defenses, like if the user modified or misused the product. The only widely applicable strict liability crime that I’m aware of is statutory rape. Some states I think have strict liability for dog bites although that again is often limited to civil liability.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, in 1789, no laws precluded parents from giving muskets to kids or requiring that they be kept safely, so SCOTUS wouldn’t allow any of that nonsense. These parents’ liability wasn’t based on the gun but their gross negligence in telling the school to fuck off when they were told of the warning signs. If he had killed someone with a knife or a rock or his bare hands the same standards would apply. Conviction probably would’ve been easier in those situations because they wouldn’t have to dance around judicial interpretations of “muh guns.” So everyone “just asking questions” about strict liability gun laws have nothing to worry about.

Wally Fairway · March 4

I'll just keep this thread going -
James Crumbley's trial is scheduled to start this week with jury selection. This guy is going to need Jake Brigance or Mickeya Haller to save him from a guilty verdict

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2024/03/01/oxford-james-crumbley-father-journal-text-school-shooting/72806062007/

NeverMarryAStripper · March 4

Did the Lincoln Lawyer transition?

Edited March 4 by NeverMarryAStripper

Sgt Hulk · March 4

On 2/6/2024 at 11:41 AM, 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

While I agree with what was said before. This right here shows direct parental failure and the charges belong

High Plains Drifter · March 6

From Higgy's link:

Prosecutors argued that the parents did not secure the gun or limit their son's access to it.

If this is true, then I agree with the guilty verdict, regardless of any other circumstances. Fuck em.

HiggyBaby · March 15

Aaaaand…..

Helobious · March 15

Sign In

Jennifer Crumbley verdict thread (Michigan school shooter mother)

Recommended Posts

Jameslaw121 4448

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pimphand 5733

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Frank Drebin 5659

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deej 76755

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105066

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SimonBolivar 10957

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105066

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Helobious 9450

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105066

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Celery Man 20932

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Native Horn 3498

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pam Cummings 9639

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

'stache 21795

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

'stache 21795

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Brisketexan 105066

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Frank Drebin 5659

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mikey4 2476

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Frank Drebin 5659

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Carl Spackler 3479

Link to comment