Jennifer Crumbley charged in November 2021 Oxford High School shooting Prosecutors: Crumbley grossly negligent by making a gun accessible to son Defense: Blame belongs to the shooter, not Jennifer Crumbley The shooter's father will have a separate trial on the same issues beginning sometime in March. Today is the second day of the mother's trial. How much responsibility does a parent have to prevent their child from committing a crime? The verdicts for the parents could have an effect on gun rights or gun control in the US. The shooter has already been tried in December or 2023 and sentenced to life without possibility of parole. Timeline of the massacre from CNN https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/us/michigan-oxford-high-school-shooting-timeline/index.html Another CNN article on the trials and the charges https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/us/james-jennifer-crumbley-school-shooting-trial/index.html
Looks like the dirtbag parents did more than just provide the gun. They played texts in court where the mother says things like, "You have to learn not to get caught."
Good morning to all- I don't give a hoot in hell about "gun rights" or gun owner's rights. I am disgusted with those who support unlimited gun possession and those who feel "gun rights" are more important than the right to live their lives of those who are killed by guns. These parents are typical of many "adults" who provide their kids with firearms and then turn to more important things while the kids deal with their problems with the guns. As far as I am concerned, put the parents in jail and put them there for a long time. And companies which make and sell handguns and autofire military style weapons- make them liable when their guns are used to kill.. Put the gun makers in jail, too. Too many guns in the hands of people who should not have them. The Second Amendment was never intended to make all guns available to all people,. you all be safe and keep well- Ed
Aiding and abetting is a legal doctrine related to the guilt of someone who aids or abets another person in the commission of a crime.
You are painting with a very broad brush. Gun owners do not support unlimited gun possession for everyone. But intelligent gun owners acknowledge the reality of the world we live in. And that realitiy includes the fact that it is impossible to keep anything out of the hands of people who want it. We have laws against drunk driving. Did those laws save the lives of Princess Dianna or Ted Kennedy's teenage mistress? Or any of the 25,000 people killed by drunk drivers each year? Gun manufacturers can't be held liable for criminal use of their products. That would be like holding Mercedes Benz liable for Princess Dianna's death or General Motors liable for Mary Kopecne's death. I understand your frustration at crime, etc. but the solution is not as simple as you make it. We basically ignore mental illness & we release criminals far too early - both to save costs. As for those "Evil" High Capacity Military Assault-Style rifles, there are situations where nothing else would do: (another reality)
Gun banners don't expect banning guns to result in any fewer deaths. They welcome the deaths as they further their cause. They want guns banned, and everything else is an excuse. Once they ban guns, there will be a push to ban knives, as there is in the UK, and then maybe baseball bats, all the while the same people are pushing agendas that destabilize families and society, creating people who would use these tools to kill people.
I'm glad to see these parents being held responsible. 1, They knew their fifteen year old son was having mental health issues and they decided to buy him a gun. 2. On the day of the shooting the school called the parents in and said their boy was drawing pictures of guns with blood dripping and writing "Help me" in the margins. The school suggested they take their boy home and instead they shrugged it all off and left him in school. 3, They failed to mention that the boy owned a gun and they didn't know exactly where it was at the moment. I understand a parent's tendency to be in denial. I'm sure it never occurred to them that the child they loved was getting ready to murder his classmates that day. But I also think that if you buy an underage child a gun, you are responsible for anything he does with it.
Thanks for your responses so far. I’m watching the trial and following discussion in several places. I appreciate your opinions. My interest is not particularly the Crumbleys, It’s more that the legal issues involved here are likely to set precedents that will have long reaching effects. Anyone can find information about that. There was a case not long ago where a 6 yr old took his mother’s gun to school and shot his teacher. The mother was tried and sentenced. Here’s a link if anyone is interested. https://abcnews.go.com/US/mom-newport-news-teacher-shooting-sentenced/story?id=104925730
I always thought that not all people should be parents. It would be great if the WEF inserted sub cutaneous birth control in everyone and people had to prove mental stability to get a license to have it removed. I was an evil mother and taught my kids right from wrong. If they knew they did something wrong, they knew there would be consequences. They know there is a time to kill, living on a farm. But human life is sacred. Not sure they would even defend themselves. None of them would touch a gun without permission. Now, in the off chance they had to shoot someone for defense as youths, I can't believe I would be held responsible. But in these crazy times, who knows.
When they do that here, they won't call it a ban, either. They'll probably refer to it as "common sense gun laws." Guns aren't banned because some people have guns, although the common people will not be able to have them. Guns will be for the ruling class: the rich, the elite, and the politicians and bureaucrats who do their bidding.
What? You really think people who want guns banned want more death? Do you honestly think the parents of the Sandy Hook children who died welcomed the deaths of their six year old children? What makes you think that if they succeed in banning assault weapons that have no other use than killing people, they will then want to ban things like knives and baseball bats that have many harmless uses?
Gun-banning politicians and news media people often can't even refrain from smiling when reports come in about a school shooting. They are clearly thrilled and grateful for the chance that the shooters give them to advance their agenda.
Of course no parent welcomes the death of their child by any means. We had a guy plow into a Thanksgiving day parade of grand mothers and kids, killing and maiming several. Vehicles are used to kill on occassion. The instrument is not what dictates killing--it is intention and if one has the intention one will find the means. The CDC has a record of 1.7 million defensive uses of guns a year compared to a 30,000 aggressive uses. And while 30,000 sounds like a lot it is not so much when compared to medical mistakes etc. The media dwells on things that are shocking and the gun banners use those to forward their agenda to get guns away from law abiding citizens more than from criminal killers. We have what could be the largest militia in the country here in Wisconsin but few injuries and deaths by guns. We use the gov't targeted guns for hunting and sport shooting which is no more dangerous than golfing. I have watched in horror as children were killed or injured by drive by shootings in Chicago. I confronted a Green Bay news caster as to why they reported a single stand off in California when there were 97 shootings on a July 4th in Chicago just a few hours away from him. He said he just reported the 'feed'. The gov't did not go after the criminals. Occassionally one was taken off the street, only to be returned. These were black on black crimes and they did not get the response of white on black crimes or fit the agenda. My next door neighbor said her son was driving through Milwaukee and a guy got in front of his car at a stop light and pointed a gun at her son in an effort to car jack. The boy happened to have a pistol with him which he, then, pointed at the guy. The guy left. Criminals will not be responsible to new laws. They have not been to the laws already on the books. The only guns that will be removed will be the ones the gov't can find through registration and other laws that the law abiding obey.
Oh I see that glee on the broadcasters faces you're talking about, but they get that way whenever there's big breaking news. I just think most of them care more about ratings and their own careers than any particular agenda. Same with most politicians. I'm talking about individuals I've seen who have lost loved ones through gun violence and I would never accuse them of being happy that it happened.