Crime Michigan School Shooter's Mom on Trial for Manslaughter (Update: Guilty on all 4 counts) (Update 3: Father guilty on all counts)

[Thrawn33]

Thing is though, the school isn't a legal authority. A recommendation by them, isn't legally binding. They should've gone to CPS, if they thought the parent's were being detrimentally negligent to the well being of their child.

In terms of buying a gun for him, if the laws state that the kid can own one, that's on the state. The parents aren't breaking any laws by buying him a gun.

I think for them to have a case, the parents would've had to have broken some laws to give him access to the gun. I far as I can tell, they didn't. At worst, they ignored non-legally binding advice from the school.

If the parents did nothing illegal, then the responsibility for this should fall on the state, since their laws let it happen.

Nah dude, we agree on much, but no.

How often do we say against the antigun crowd after a tragic shooting "fucker shouldn't have had the gun anyway....I lock up mine/watch my kids/am good parent/ect..."

I'm all about blaming shit parents for shit kids and perpetrating a cycle of idiocy...

Fuck that, if a shitty parent whos shitty parenting has to be burned at the stake...yall need lighter fluid?

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

Thing is though, the school isn't a legal authority. A recommendation by them, isn't legally binding. They should've gone to CPS, if they thought the parent's were being detrimentally negligent to the well being of their child.

In terms of buying a gun for him, if the laws state that the kid can own one, that's on the state. The parents aren't breaking any laws by buying him a gun.

I think for them to have a case, the parents would've had to have broken some laws to give him access to the gun. I far as I can tell, they didn't. At worst, they ignored non-legally binding advice from the school.

If the parents did nothing illegal, then the responsibility for this should fall on the state, since their laws let it happen.

Criminal negligence is a real thing.

What Is Criminal Negligence?

Criminal negligence involves a level of criminal responsibility that applies when a person should have understood the risks involved but didn't appreciate them.

www.nolo.com

 

[James Eagle]

It's funny how liberties are always taken with the law when it comes to punishing a citizen. How about we start charging members of government as accessories to a crime whenever an illegal immigrant committees a crime, or whenever a judge hands out a comically lenient sentence, things of that nature.

like the guy arrested for beating up cops, who is an illegal immigrant, being released with no bail?

 

[HereticBD]

Nah dude, we agree on much, but no.

How often do we say against the antigun crowd after a tragic shooting "fucker shouldn't have had the gun anyway....I lock up mine/watch my kids/am good parent/ect..."

But it's a matter of law, not feelings. I believe "gun safety" laws kind of fluctuate throughout the country, so if it's not illegal to leave your guns around the house for anyone to grab, then it's a state law matter. They created the environment for it to happen. If the kid can legally own a gun, then it's not illegal to gift them one.

That said, I'm just spitballing here. I don't know the laws of their particular state, so if they broke any that led to the kid unlawfully owning a firearm, then yeah, it makes sense to go after them. If they didn't break any laws,though, it doesn't, and the state should be the ones to answer for their negligent laws that let it happen.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

But it's a matter of law, not feelings. I believe "gun safety" laws kind of fluctuate throughout the country, so if it's not illegal to leave your guns around the house for anyone to grab, then it's a state law matter. They created the environment for it to happen. If the kid can legally own a gun, then it's not illegal to gift them one.

That said, I'm just spitballing here. I don't know the laws of their particular state, so if they broke any that led to the kid unlawfully owning a firearm, then yeah, it makes sense to go after them. If they didn't break any laws,though, it doesn't, and the state should be the ones to answer for their negligent laws that let it happen.

While most crimes involve intentional conduct, legislators have decided a lower level of culpability suffices to impose criminal penalties for certain offenses. Specifically, some crimes involve reckless or negligent, rather than intentional, conduct.

What Is Criminal Negligence?​

Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived. Another common definition includes an act that amounts to a gross deviation from the general standard of care.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

There's even a point to be made that by buying a mentally disturbed minor who had shown signs of said disturbance a gun instead of getting him help, his parents aided in the crime that was committed with the gun that they bought and improperly stored.

 

[HomeCheese]

There has been a consistent erosion of good parenting in this country and the norm is becoming a really low level.

I think there needs to be significantly more interventions in failing families on behalf of society. This shit needs to start in kindergarten at the latest. When little kids are struggling, the school should send a social worker out to investigate the home situation.

 

[HereticBD]

While most crimes involve intentional conduct, legislators have decided a lower level of culpability suffices to impose criminal penalties for certain offenses. Specifically, some crimes involve reckless or negligent, rather than intentional, conduct.

What Is Criminal Negligence?​

Criminal negligence (sometimes called culpable negligence) refers to a defendant who acts in disregard of a serious risk of harm that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived. Another common definition includes an act that amounts to a gross deviation from the general standard of care.

In the land of guns, I think that's gonna be hard to prove. I'd say that buying any kid a gun(signs of mental illness or not) is pretty damn risky and negligent, but plenty of states allow it. If he wasn't officially diagnosed with anything, you can't just take away his rights(or their rights) on a whim, and regardless of "the signs", you're asking the parents to be mind readers and responsible for anything the kid does with a gun that the state said he could legally own. Plenty of undiagnosed crazy people get their driver's license everyday. Is it the DMV's fault if they snap one day, and run over a bunch of people?

FTR, I'm not sticking up for the parents' actions(or lack thereof). Just saying that it appears they did nothing that was actually illegal, and if people want to do anything about it, they have to get the state to change their gun laws.

 

[Teppodama]

The question has been posed before but we really should be asking why the increase in this phenomenon now when realistically children and the mentally disturbed had probably more and easier access to firearms in our society.

Why were schools and such not being shot up in the 50s, 60s, 70s

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

In the land of guns, I think that's gonna be hard to prove. I'd say that buying any kid a gun(signs of mental illness or not) is pretty damn risky and negligent, but plenty of states allow it. If he wasn't officially diagnosed with anything, you can't just take away his rights(or their rights) on a whim, and regardless of "the signs", you're asking the parents to be mind readers and responsible for anything the kid does with a gun that the state said he could legally own. Plenty of undiagnosed crazy people get their driver's license everyday. Is it the DMV's fault if they snap one day, and run over a bunch of people?

FTR, I'm not sticking up for the parents' actions(or lack thereof). Just saying that it appears they did nothing that was actually illegal, and if people want to do anything about it, they have to get the state to change their gun laws.

This is just wrong. You can't expect justice to only ever adhere directly to the exact letter of the law or suffer the consequence of being reactionary. We have things like involuntary manslaughter and criminal negligence so that when someone does something wrong, they can be held accountable even if they didn't break any specific law. There is a reasonable expectation that people don't do things that harm the people around them.

You know something can be wrong and punishable and not be 'illegal', though, right?

 

[The XL]

like the guy arrested for beating up cops, who is an illegal immigrant, being released with no bail?

He's an illegal, not a citizen, so it goes without saying that he gets special privileges

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

In the land of guns, I think that's gonna be hard to prove. I'd say that buying any kid a gun(signs of mental illness or not) is pretty damn risky and negligent, but plenty of states allow it. If he wasn't officially diagnosed with anything, you can't just take away his rights(or their rights) on a whim, and regardless of "the signs", you're asking the parents to be mind readers and responsible for anything the kid does with a gun that the state said he could legally own. Plenty of undiagnosed crazy people get their driver's license everyday. Is it the DMV's fault if they snap one day, and run over a bunch of people?

FTR, I'm not sticking up for the parents' actions(or lack thereof). Just saying that it appears they did nothing that was actually illegal, and if people want to do anything about it, they have to get the state to change their gun laws.

If it isn't illegal to talk on your phone while driving in your state, and you are distracted by talking on your phone and that causes a wreck where someone loses their life... the fact that you were talking on your phone should be a non-issue, because it wasn't illegal. Right?

 

[HereticBD]

This is just wrong. You can't expect justice to only ever adhere directly to the exact letter of the law or suffer the consequence of being reactionary. We have things like involuntary manslaughter and criminal negligence so that when someone does something wrong, they can be held accountable even if they didn't break any specific law. There is a reasonable expectation that people don't do things that harm the people around them.

You know something can be wrong and punishable and not be 'illegal', though, right?

And I'm saying I don't think it's applicable here. There's a reason why it's being considered uncharted territory, that could set some pretty big precedents going forward.

 

[spamking]

No, not even close.
If the mother knew he was a gang banger and he was talking about doing a drive by
to her, and the school contacted her and flagged it too.
And she still provided access to the weapon he used in a drive by you might have a point...

Again here we have a case were the parents knew their child had mental problems and "bad thought".
Their child asked them for help.
The school recommended that they got him help.
The school flagged that he had problems.
They refused to do anything and also IIRC bought him a gun as a present.
They did nothing to secure their own weapons at home KNOWING their child have these issues.

Huh?

The parent ignoring their underage kid carrying a gun as part of a gang isn't the same as this situation simply because the gang member kid might not have "asked for help" or attended a school for them to become aware of the gang activity?

Are parents no longer responsible for their underage kids?

 

[lsa]

Huh?

The parent ignoring their underage kid carrying a gun as part of a gang isn't the same as this situation simply because the gang member kid might not have "asked for help" or attended a school for them to become aware of the gang activity?

Are parents no longer responsible for their underage kids?

yeah that not what I am saying at all.
But at least you tried.

 

[HereticBD]

If it isn't illegal to talk on your phone while driving in your state, and you are distracted by talking on your phone and that causes a wreck where someone loses their life... the fact that you were talking on your phone should be a non-issue, because it wasn't illegal. Right?

To that point, this would be like the parents knowing the kid was addicted to social media and buying him a phone, and then the kid gets into an accident while using the phone the parents bought them. Should the parents be charged with vehicular manslaughter, because they bought him the phone?

 

[KnightTemplar]

"aloof mom who liked to point the blame at everyone but herself"

literally every single female alive

Posts like this are why we need a Bro-Hug Emoji.

 

[spamking]

I'd say that buying any kid a gun(signs of mental illness or not) is pretty damn risky and negligent, but plenty of states allow it.

There's buying a kid a gun and letting them use it when supervised. And then there's buying a kid a gun and completely ignoring them to the point they take it whenever they want.

 

[spamking]

yeah that not what I am saying at all.
But at least you tried.

So explain it better then . . . because what I replied to wasn't very clear. Which is why I asked what I did.

Why would the gang member parent get a pass?

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

To that point, this would be like the parents knowing the kid was addicted to social media and buying him a phone, and then the kid gets into an accident while using the phone the parents bought them. Should the parents be charged with vehicular manslaughter, because they bought him the phone?

That, quite literally, doesn't answer my question.