(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

---