Michigan court rules Oxford High School shooter's parents will face manslaughter trial
James and Jennifer Crumbley have pleaded not guilty to charges linked to Oxford High School shooting in Michigan
The parents of Oxford High School shooter Ethan Crumbley can face trial on involuntary manslaughter charges, a
Michigan appeals court has ruled Thursday.
James and Jennifer Crumbley are facing four involuntary manslaughter charges each following the November 2021 attack outside Detroit, which left four students dead and another seven injured.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-cour...face-trial
This is good with DAs who want to follow the law but with the liberal DAs this will not end well. They are charging them for buying him a gun and then for not removing him from school on the day of the shooting.
Buying him a gun is not illegal. It's obvious that they aren't good parents but charging them like this is going to open a can of worms that can't be put back. If he was crazy and they didn't get him help, didn't care for him, didn't lock up the gun, etc they should be liable for his actions but making it criminal is a step too far that will be abused.
What about the school admin that didn't keep him isolated and locked down? They should be liable for not getting him the mental help he needed, for not searching him, etc. Anyone could have baker acted him and the school did nothing after the deadbeat parents ignored it.
(03-23-2023, 06:11 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]This is good with DAs who want to follow the law but with the liberal DAs this will not end well. They are charging them for buying him a gun and then for not removing him from school on the day of the shooting.
Buying him a gun is not illegal. It's obvious that they aren't good parents but charging them like this is going to open a can of worms that can't be put back. If he was crazy and they didn't get him help, didn't care for him, didn't lock up the gun, etc they should be liable for his actions but making it criminal is a step too far that will be abused.
What about the school admin that didn't keep him isolated and locked down? They should be liable for not getting him the mental help he needed, for not searching him, etc. Anyone could have baker acted him and the school did nothing after the deadbeat parents ignored it.
They don't have a Baker Act in Michigan. There are similar laws though.
Generally, the Supreme Court has held that outside of military law, police can not be sued for failing to protect the public.
(03-23-2023, 06:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-23-2023, 06:11 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]This is good with DAs who want to follow the law but with the liberal DAs this will not end well. They are charging them for buying him a gun and then for not removing him from school on the day of the shooting.
Buying him a gun is not illegal. It's obvious that they aren't good parents but charging them like this is going to open a can of worms that can't be put back. If he was crazy and they didn't get him help, didn't care for him, didn't lock up the gun, etc they should be liable for his actions but making it criminal is a step too far that will be abused.
What about the school admin that didn't keep him isolated and locked down? They should be liable for not getting him the mental help he needed, for not searching him, etc. Anyone could have baker acted him and the school did nothing after the deadbeat parents ignored it.
They don't have a Baker Act in Michigan. There are similar laws though.
Generally, the Supreme Court has held that outside of military law, police can not be sued for failing to protect the public.
Yeah they all call it something else but they can hold someone for 3 days if they are a risk. The police aren't liable but the school should be. They called the parents and met with them. The kid claimed it was a video game and then everyone believed him.
The school should have done something if they thought it was a risk and needed to call his parents. They took action and could have caused the shooting later in the day. If you charge the parents, you need to charge all the school admin for failing to see the warning signs and to do a basic search to find the gun he had.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
A little off topic but it made me think about the Adrien Fucci case today. A 14 year old boy walking around with a 13 year old girl at 1:00 AM, past curfew? Gets brutally stabbed to death. Do we not hold both families accountable here for not keeping better tabs on their children since they were out past curfew?
Are we turning into North Korea here? Do we start punishing family members for the actions of a lone lunatic or what? The more I read cases like this it usually boils down to a series of missed opportunities to prevent it from happening. Have to be very, very careful with this type of stuff.
If I'm not mistaken, those parents that just got convicted enabled their kid. Didn't follow the trial, so I could be incorrect.
(03-24-2023, 02:38 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]A little off topic but it made me think about the Adrien Fucci case today. A 14 year old boy walking around with a 13 year old girl at 1:00 AM, past curfew? Gets brutally stabbed to death. Do we not hold both families accountable here for not keeping better tabs on their children since they were out past curfew?
Are we turning into North Korea here? Do we start punishing family members for the actions of a lone lunatic or what? The more I read cases like this it usually boils down to a series of missed opportunities to prevent it from happening. Have to be very, very careful with this type of stuff.
Yes they should have known where their kids are but teens also lie or sneak out so it's not possible to always know where your kid is. If you start monitoring them, then they will find ways to get around the tracking. So without knowing the background, you can't blame them.
(03-24-2023, 05:43 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]If I'm not mistaken, those parents that just got convicted enabled their kid. Didn't follow the trial, so I could be incorrect.
Yes they bought him the gun and were generally just not good parents and expected someone else to deal with his issues. Holding them criminally liable is fine but it wouldn't be used fairly and also how old is the cutoff when a parent can control their child?
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk