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

[KnockoutsGalore]

Sorry, I keep forgetting that almost all sherdoggers have the attention span of a gnat and can’t read beyond two sentences

You also keep forgetting that not everything is about red/blue to fit your political narrative. Sometimes it's just about personal responsibility.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I admittedly have not been following this case, but I did read an article discussing this case yesterday, so I am not completely ignorant on the case or issue.

They may be guilty of being shitty parents, or at least, aloof parents. I would certainly be concerned if it were my kids-but we are very involved parents. But to my understanding, he made a drawing and tried to look up buying ammo online-which doesn’t mean he’s planning a school shooting, maybe he was wanting his parents to buy a certain type of ammo to go to the range.

But they were charged with four counts of voluntary manslaughter or something like that. They were under no obligation to lock up the guns(MI doesn’t have that law), no obligation to tell the school that they own guns, which is not the schools business-plus, the school would have suspended him, denying him education, which is a terrible precedent because there are states that would take that so far that kids whose parents own guns, wouldn’t be allowed to send them to school there(Cali, Colorado, northwest). They bought a gun for him to use at the range. Where I’m from, that is very common and many families are into hunting with their kids and buy them guns. Parents aren’t required to get their kids therapy-it’s a choice that most families choose for their kids if showing signs of struggling mentally, but no law says they have to seek therapy.

Basically, I don’t see how the parents could have known for certain that he would carry out a school shooting and holding them responsible seems ridiculous to me.

The state and this county vote democrat. This county is considered liberal, (56% democrat) which I think is important as to why charges were brought in this case. Punishing people for exercising their second amendment rights is purely a liberal issue and is prevalent in liberal areas.

San Jose, CA, charges taxes to families that own guns and they have to pay a fee to own a gun. They do this to take these taxes and use them to try and offset the gun violence there. But guess what-the people doing the shooting in San Jose are mostly black and brown and not legal gun owners-most are felons and prohibited from owning a gun. I fucking hate the idea of punishing those that legally exercise their second amendment rights because of those who obtain and use guns illegally. It’s not fair and I don’t think it’s constitutional to do so, and this takes place in liberal areas. Look at the areas where owning a gun is difficult or carrying a gun is prohibited. My brother lives on Long Island. He was denied a concealed carry and was told “you’re going to need a letter from the pope to get this approved, ha ha.” In nyc area, you have to prove that you are facing an active threat to be issued a gun permit. When going to the range, he has to lock up his gun and ammo in separate areas of his vehicle traveling to and from. It’s fucking absurd.

In Philly, you can’t have a gun and the progressive da larry krasner, who is a cunt, blames the nra for all the gun violence in that city. However, the nra is all about legal gun ownership and legal gun rights. Guess who’s committing all the gun crime in Philly-I will give you a hint, it’s not the legal gun owners.

And cunt krasner has said multiple times that he will not prosecute felons caught with firearms. Why? Because that particular crime is mostly a black or brown issue. He is quoted as saying that he doesn’t prosecute that crime because he doesn’t want to lock up more “black and brown bodies.” Black and brown bodies is a fuxking retarded progressive ass thing to say. Just say people.

Also of note, most of the actual bodies littering the streets of Philly are black and brown. Coincidence? Felons with firearms are responsible for 87% of gun crimes. Only 13% purchased their gun legally. Approx 48% got their gun from a friend or family member and the rest bought them on the street illegally and those guns were stolen.

It’s unknown how many got theirs through straw purchasers, but I would guess a lot of the 48% had the friend or family member buy them the gun they used. We need to hammer straw purchasers with heavy sentences, perhaps even voluntary manslaughter because they knew they were selling a gun illegally or buying one for a felon.

Biden signed a law (I actually agree with) that the ATF can sentence a straw purchaser up to 25 years in prison. Since the singing of that law, they have only picked up 31 cases. A couple are detailed in the link, but quick summation. One guy named Hernandez has purchased 231 guns since 2020. He had not one of those 231 guns in his possession because he sold them all. He was caught on his way to Mexico with 17 guns and some of his previously purchased guns ended up being used in murder cases-I had to do additional research to find the latter part. So he got 25 years, right? Nope. Just 7. He illegally sold 231 of the guns he purchased with the intent to sell them to felons and cartels. He got 7 years. Wtf?

Another case in Nola involves a gf that bought her bf guns even though he is a felon. He used one of those guns to shoot someone in an attempted murder. When police went to arrest him, he barricaded himself in his apartment with his gf and two kids. Because this bitch bought him guns, someone was almost killed, not to mention kids were at risk. She got just six years. Boy, they’re really hammering these straw purchasers. It’s a fucking joke.

Why aren’t they charging these people with voluntary manslaughter? They knowingly bought guns for felons and cartels. But two parents that bought their 15 yr old a gun and took him to the range, but didn’t let him have possession of the gun in his room or anything, get charged for his crimes in a liberal area. That’s why I believe this is politically motivated.

Like I said, I believe race plays a factor here. It’s just my opinion. But my reasoning for it is because you very rarely see parents charged for their kids crimes. I quickly looked up “teen murders in Detroit” because the area itt is a suburb of Detroit. I had to specifically say “Detroit” or it would only yield this case. I read a few of them, including two juveniles charged in triple murder. Guess what I didn’t see on any of those cases? Parents charged with crimes for their kids actions. And all the cases I clicked on were black. Can you imagine how many parents of black juvenile murders would be locked up if they used similar logic as they did in this case? Besides school shootings(almost exclusively white) the overwhelming majority of juvenile murderers are minorities. My opinions on this matter is that if we started charging the parents of black juvenile murderers, there would be a huge fucking uproar and it would be called racist.

But in liberal areas, you absolutely can do this to whites because a. Liberal areas hate LEGAL gun owners and b. white people don’t protest when other whites are charged with crimes, when whites are arrested, or when whites are shot by police, which happens way more than minorities shot by police-but the latter is all you hear about. According to stats blared over the loud speakers by activists and media, blacks are 2.5x more likely to be shot by police than whites. But, as is always the case, they state these stats but don’t ever look into each case because that would destroy their narrative.

Sure, you definitely have a case here or there, where the cops shot an unarmed black person, but it
Is just .2% of all black homicide victims. Check out the below article from an extremely surprising source, USA Today. It talks about how rare it is for police to shoot unarmed black people and how the majority were armed. Police seem to like to keep their killings to around 1,000 per year. That is the average (2023 had the most since they started keeping tabs). It also discusses what I have said for many, many years-that when police don’t proactively patrol and decide on their own(without being called) to do traffic stops and check out suspicious people, that crime and violence shoots up.

When do police stop proactive policing? After a George Floyd incident, and in every case, the cops back way off and violence goes up just about every single time here are some quotes if you don’t want to read the article: “
Much of modern policing is driven by crime data and community demands for help. The African American community tends to be policed more heavily, because that is where people are disproportionately hurt by violent street crime. In New York City in 2018, 73% of shooting victims were Black, though Black residents comprise only 24% of the city’s population.

Nationally, African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 die from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department. But the evidence does not support the charge that biased police are systematically killing Black Americans in fatal shootings.
Such self defense may be understandable if the police were engaging in an epidemic of shooting unarmed Black men and women, as we now hear daily — but there is no such epidemic. For the last five years, the police have fatally shot about 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. Black people account for about 23% of those shot and killed by police; they are about 13% of the U.S. population.

As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...icide-rates-race-injustice-column/3235072001/



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...cking or straw purchasing to lesser offenses.

Stop.

You totally glossed right over the part about this kid was acting all kinds of wrong and even with the behavior she still put a gun in his hand. This isn't about liberal anti gun anything or black people this or that. It's about putting a gun in the hand of someone who's showing all the signs that you shouldn't.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

Stop.

You totally glossed right over the part about this kid was acting all kinds of wrong and even with the behavior she still put a gun in his hand. This isn't about liberal anti gun anything or black people this or that. It's about putting a gun in the hand of someone who's showing all the signs that you shouldn't.

Some people just can't process that not everything is a political issue that needs to fit their narrative. No use in wasting your time trying to explain it. He'll bring up the streets of Philadelphia and the NRA, as though that has bearing on what happened at a school in Michigan.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

so can we hold parents of criminal teenagers accountable now?

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Seems like a horrible precedent.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

so can we hold parents of criminal teenagers accountable now?

If they neglect signs that their child may be a danger to themselves or others and instead purchase a gun for them and then leave it unsecured.

Seems like a horrible precedent.

For whom? If the kid had to take a torch to the safe to get to the gun, use cable cutters to cut the cable lock off, and had to find someone online to buy him ammo that he could access... do you think these parents would still be held liable?

 

[spamking]

Well, if that's the case and that's the gun he was given, then it's open and shut. They bear some responsibility.

That doesn't mean he can't shoot mom or dad's pistol while they're present . . . or that they can't buy him a pistol to give him when he turns 21. It sounds like they definitely neglected to pay attention to the ramifications of their actions.

 

[spamking]

She bragged about buying him a handgun on social media. Play stupid games and all.

Definite no no . . .

 

[Lord_Impaler]

If they neglect signs that their child may be a danger to themselves or others and instead purchase a gun for them and then leave it unsecured.

For whom? If the kid had to take a torch to the safe to get to the gun, use cable cutters to cut the cable lock off, and had to find someone online to buy him ammo that he could access... do you think these parents would still be held liable?

How about if a shitbag parent knows their kid is a gang member who has illegal guns and the kid kills someone, his mom should be charged with manslaughter? Seems unreasonable that the mother wouldn’t suspect her child would commit a violent crime in that scenario.

Is that “negligent enough” to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Seems like a standard that a DA could just arbitrarily assign based on whatever they want.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Each charge can carry a penalty of up to 15 years in prison and a $5,000 (Maybe 10k) fine.

Yikes.

You also keep forgetting that not everything is about red/blue to fit your political narrative. Sometimes it's just about personal responsibility.

I didn't expect to see a white grievance narrative ITT but it is the WR after all.

 

[HockeyBjj]

How about if a shitbag parent knows their kid is a gang member who has illegal guns and the kid kills someone, his mom should be charged with manslaughter? Seems unreasonable that the mother wouldn’t suspect her child would commit a violent crime in that scenario.

Is that “negligent enough” to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Seems like a standard that a DA could just arbitrarily assign based on whatever they want.

If the mom buys the gang member the gun, yes. And if she makes sure he knows where the key to the gun safe is and ammo.

I don’t think it gets past the “above all unreasonable doubt” criteria if she just thinks he got a gun from someone else but doesn’t know where he keeps it.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

If the mom buys the gang member the gun, yes. And if she makes sure he knows where the key to the gun safe is and ammo.

I don’t think it gets past the “above all unreasonable doubt” criteria if she just thinks he got a gun from someone else but doesn’t know where he keeps it.

So she knows he has illegal guns in his possession, in her house, doesn’t report him to the police and he murders someone. That’s A-OK, no culpability for the mom?

It’s only in the specific scenario the mom purchased the gun for the son?

Seems both stupid and ripe for abuse by the courts.

Is that what the law says? Or is that just your opinion?

 

[nhbbear]

Stop.

You totally glossed right over the part about this kid was acting all kinds of wrong and even with the behavior she still put a gun in his hand. This isn't about liberal anti gun anything or black people this or that. It's about putting a gun in the hand of someone who's showing all the signs that you shouldn't.

He looked up ammo online and drew a scary picture. Not exactly a guaranteed school shooting. They sound like shitbag parents. If one of them is more culpable, it’s the husband who actually bought the gun. Where I live, parents buy their kids hunting rifles all the time. These kids grow up hunting.

At best, she sounds aloof and stupid. But they charged her as if she was standing behind him cheering him on. That simply didn’t happen.

Bottom line is that I don’t think you hold someone accountable for actions they didn’t directly do. I also don’t agree with other types of crimes where someone is convicted for something they didn’t directly do.

For example, you and I rob a bank and I shoot the teller. I should be charged with murder and bank robbery; you with conspiracy and bank robbery-but instead, they charge you with murder as well even though I was the one that pulled the trigger.

Another example, someone sells drugs to a celebrity. The celebrity goes home and overdoses and dies and they charge the dealer with murder. I don’t agree with that.

One more example. I buy guns and give them to a felon. I am guilty of straw purchasing. If the felon I sell the gun to kills someone, I am still guilty of just selling the gun, not the murder.
You’re responsible for your own actions. You and you, alone. The parents didn’t pull the trigger. Charge them with neglect? Being bad parents? But manslaughter? No.

As for the race thing, I was pointing out that they wouldn’t have had the balls to do this with another race.

 

[nhbbear]

Stop.

You totally glossed right over the part about this kid was acting all kinds of wrong and even with the behavior she still put a gun in his hand. This isn't about liberal anti gun anything or black people this or that. It's about putting a gun in the hand of someone who's showing all the signs that you shouldn't.

He looked up ammo online and drew a scary picture. Not exactly a guaranteed school shooting. They sound like shitbag parents. If one of them is more culpable, it’s the husband who actually bought the gun. Where I live, parents buy their kids hunting rifles all the time. These kids grow up hunting.

At best, she sounds aloof and stupid. But they charged her as if she was standing behind him cheering him on. That simply didn’t happen.

Bottom line is that I don’t think you hold someone accountable for actions they didn’t directly do. I also don’t agree with other types of crimes where someone is convicted for something they didn’t directly do.

For example, you and I rob a bank and I shoot the teller. I should be charged with murder and bank robbery; you with conspiracy and bank robbery-but instead, they charge you with murder as well even though I was the one that pulled the trigger.

Another example, someone sells drugs to a celebrity. The celebrity goes home and overdoses and dies and they charge the dealer with murder. I don’t agree with that.

You’re responsible for your own actions. You and you, alone. The parents didn’t pull the trigger. Charge them with neglect? Being bad parents? But manslaughter? No.

As for the race thing, I was pointing out that they wouldn’t have had the balls to do this with another race.

You also keep forgetting that not everything is about red/blue to fit your political narrative. Sometimes it's just about personal responsibility.

I am purple. I am not red and I am not blue. But I absolutely believe that this would never happen in a red area. I believe this was allowed to happen because the area is liberal. I can see this happening in a few other states as well. But this makes this an issue governed by politics

 

[Limeade]

I admittedly have not been following this case, but I did read an article discussing this case yesterday, so I am not completely ignorant on the case or issue.

They may be guilty of being shitty parents, or at least, aloof parents. I would certainly be concerned if it were my kids-but we are very involved parents. But to my understanding, he made a drawing and tried to look up buying ammo online-which doesn’t mean he’s planning a school shooting, maybe he was wanting his parents to buy a certain type of ammo to go to the range.

But they were charged with four counts of voluntary manslaughter or something like that. They were under no obligation to lock up the guns(MI doesn’t have that law), no obligation to tell the school that they own guns, which is not the schools business-plus, the school would have suspended him, denying him education, which is a terrible precedent because there are states that would take that so far that kids whose parents own guns, wouldn’t be allowed to send them to school there(Cali, Colorado, northwest). They bought a gun for him to use at the range. Where I’m from, that is very common and many families are into hunting with their kids and buy them guns. Parents aren’t required to get their kids therapy-it’s a choice that most families choose for their kids if showing signs of struggling mentally, but no law says they have to seek therapy.

Basically, I don’t see how the parents could have known for certain that he would carry out a school shooting and holding them responsible seems ridiculous to me.

The state and this county vote democrat. This county is considered liberal, (56% democrat) which I think is important as to why charges were brought in this case. Punishing people for exercising their second amendment rights is purely a liberal issue and is prevalent in liberal areas.

San Jose, CA, charges taxes to families that own guns and they have to pay a fee to own a gun. They do this to take these taxes and use them to try and offset the gun violence there. But guess what-the people doing the shooting in San Jose are mostly black and brown and not legal gun owners-most are felons and prohibited from owning a gun. I fucking hate the idea of punishing those that legally exercise their second amendment rights because of those who obtain and use guns illegally. It’s not fair and I don’t think it’s constitutional to do so, and this takes place in liberal areas. Look at the areas where owning a gun is difficult or carrying a gun is prohibited. My brother lives on Long Island. He was denied a concealed carry and was told “you’re going to need a letter from the pope to get this approved, ha ha.” In nyc area, you have to prove that you are facing an active threat to be issued a gun permit. When going to the range, he has to lock up his gun and ammo in separate areas of his vehicle traveling to and from. It’s fucking absurd.

In Philly, you can’t have a gun and the progressive da larry krasner, who is a cunt, blames the nra for all the gun violence in that city. However, the nra is all about legal gun ownership and legal gun rights. Guess who’s committing all the gun crime in Philly-I will give you a hint, it’s not the legal gun owners.

And cunt krasner has said multiple times that he will not prosecute felons caught with firearms. Why? Because that particular crime is mostly a black or brown issue. He is quoted as saying that he doesn’t prosecute that crime because he doesn’t want to lock up more “black and brown bodies.” Black and brown bodies is a fuxking retarded progressive ass thing to say. Just say people.

Also of note, most of the actual bodies littering the streets of Philly are black and brown. Coincidence? Felons with firearms are responsible for 87% of gun crimes. Only 13% purchased their gun legally. Approx 48% got their gun from a friend or family member and the rest bought them on the street illegally and those guns were stolen.

It’s unknown how many got theirs through straw purchasers, but I would guess a lot of the 48% had the friend or family member buy them the gun they used. We need to hammer straw purchasers with heavy sentences, perhaps even voluntary manslaughter because they knew they were selling a gun illegally or buying one for a felon.

Biden signed a law (I actually agree with) that the ATF can sentence a straw purchaser up to 25 years in prison. Since the singing of that law, they have only picked up 31 cases. A couple are detailed in the link, but quick summation. One guy named Hernandez has purchased 231 guns since 2020. He had not one of those 231 guns in his possession because he sold them all. He was caught on his way to Mexico with 17 guns and some of his previously purchased guns ended up being used in murder cases-I had to do additional research to find the latter part. So he got 25 years, right? Nope. Just 7. He illegally sold 231 of the guns he purchased with the intent to sell them to felons and cartels. He got 7 years. Wtf?

Another case in Nola involves a gf that bought her bf guns even though he is a felon. He used one of those guns to shoot someone in an attempted murder. When police went to arrest him, he barricaded himself in his apartment with his gf and two kids. Because this bitch bought him guns, someone was almost killed, not to mention kids were at risk. She got just six years. Boy, they’re really hammering these straw purchasers. It’s a fucking joke.

Why aren’t they charging these people with voluntary manslaughter? They knowingly bought guns for felons and cartels. But two parents that bought their 15 yr old a gun and took him to the range, but didn’t let him have possession of the gun in his room or anything, get charged for his crimes in a liberal area. That’s why I believe this is politically motivated.

Like I said, I believe race plays a factor here. It’s just my opinion. But my reasoning for it is because you very rarely see parents charged for their kids crimes. I quickly looked up “teen murders in Detroit” because the area itt is a suburb of Detroit. I had to specifically say “Detroit” or it would only yield this case. I read a few of them, including two juveniles charged in triple murder. Guess what I didn’t see on any of those cases? Parents charged with crimes for their kids actions. And all the cases I clicked on were black. Can you imagine how many parents of black juvenile murders would be locked up if they used similar logic as they did in this case? Besides school shootings(almost exclusively white) the overwhelming majority of juvenile murderers are minorities. My opinions on this matter is that if we started charging the parents of black juvenile murderers, there would be a huge fucking uproar and it would be called racist.

But in liberal areas, you absolutely can do this to whites because a. Liberal areas hate LEGAL gun owners and b. white people don’t protest when other whites are charged with crimes, when whites are arrested, or when whites are shot by police, which happens way more than minorities shot by police-but the latter is all you hear about. According to stats blared over the loud speakers by activists and media, blacks are 2.5x more likely to be shot by police than whites. But, as is always the case, they state these stats but don’t ever look into each case because that would destroy their narrative.

Sure, you definitely have a case here or there, where the cops shot an unarmed black person, but it
Is just .2% of all black homicide victims. Check out the below article from an extremely surprising source, USA Today. It talks about how rare it is for police to shoot unarmed black people and how the majority were armed. Police seem to like to keep their killings to around 1,000 per year. That is the average (2023 had the most since they started keeping tabs). It also discusses what I have said for many, many years-that when police don’t proactively patrol and decide on their own(without being called) to do traffic stops and check out suspicious people, that crime and violence shoots up.

When do police stop proactive policing? After a George Floyd incident, and in every case, the cops back way off and violence goes up just about every single time here are some quotes if you don’t want to read the article: “
Much of modern policing is driven by crime data and community demands for help. The African American community tends to be policed more heavily, because that is where people are disproportionately hurt by violent street crime. In New York City in 2018, 73% of shooting victims were Black, though Black residents comprise only 24% of the city’s population.

Nationally, African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 die from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department. But the evidence does not support the charge that biased police are systematically killing Black Americans in fatal shootings.
Such self defense may be understandable if the police were engaging in an epidemic of shooting unarmed Black men and women, as we now hear daily — but there is no such epidemic. For the last five years, the police have fatally shot about 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. Black people account for about 23% of those shot and killed by police; they are about 13% of the U.S. population.

As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...icide-rates-race-injustice-column/3235072001/



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/04/27/results-of-new-gun-control-laws/11734545002/#:~:text=In public announcements, the ATF warns that straw,from trafficking or straw purchasing to lesser offenses.

I'm surprised you wrote such a long response without looking up the charges or the novel legal theory.

"charged with four counts of voluntary manslaughter or something like that."

She was charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. Not voluntary. Normally the mens rea requirement would be reckless disregard or a depraved heart. However, the prosecution based its case on gross negligence, which ask if a reasonable person would have done something else.

In other words, the defendant knew of the danger, the defendant could have avoid injury by exercising ordinary care and the defendant failed to use ordinary care to prevent injuring another when, to a reasonable person, it must have been apparent that the result was likely to be serious injury.

Under this standard, Michigan does not need to have a law that requires locking the firearms. Michigan does not need a law that requires parents to disclose information. So long as a reasonable person would have done so under these circumstances, that's enough for gross negligence.

I don't understand why you brought up race, politics, and poverty when that is not relevant to the standard of gross negligence.

 

[Limeade]

How about if a shitbag parent knows their kid is a gang member who has illegal guns and the kid kills someone, his mom should be charged with manslaughter? Seems unreasonable that the mother wouldn’t suspect her child would commit a violent crime in that scenario.

Is that “negligent enough” to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?

Seems like a standard that a DA could just arbitrarily assign based on whatever they want.

Is that negligent enough?

Would a reasonable person with the same knowledge have done differently in the same circumstances? If you can argue maybe but not for sure, then you have a defense.

 

[Gutter Chris]

He looked up ammo online and drew a scary picture. Not exactly a guaranteed school shooting. They sound like shitbag parents. If one of them is more culpable, it’s the husband who actually bought the gun. Where I live, parents buy their kids hunting rifles all the time. These kids grow up hunting.

At best, she sounds aloof and stupid. But they charged her as if she was standing behind him cheering him on. That simply didn’t happen.

Bottom line is that I don’t think you hold someone accountable for actions they didn’t directly do. I also don’t agree with other types of crimes where someone is convicted for something they didn’t directly do.

For example, you and I rob a bank and I shoot the teller. I should be charged with murder and bank robbery; you with conspiracy and bank robbery-but instead, they charge you with murder as well even though I was the one that pulled the trigger.

Another example, someone sells drugs to a celebrity. The celebrity goes home and overdoses and dies and they charge the dealer with murder. I don’t agree with that.

One more example. I buy guns and give them to a felon. I am guilty of straw purchasing. If the felon I sell the gun to kills someone, I am still guilty of just selling the gun, not the murder.
You’re responsible for your own actions. You and you, alone. The parents didn’t pull the trigger. Charge them with neglect? Being bad parents? But manslaughter? No.

As for the race thing, I was pointing out that they wouldn’t have had the balls to do this with another race.

Yes where I'm from a lot of kids get rifles and shoot with family there's nothing wrong with enjoying guns and the tradition. I can't wait to take my son shooting... But also parenting and making the right call on if your kid is mature enough to do so. These parents failed at that and people died.

 

[Lord_Impaler]

Is that negligent enough?

Would a reasonable person with the same knowledge have done differently in the same circumstances? If you can argue maybe but not for sure, then you have a defense.

A non-shitbag would, certainly.

But as far as I know the DA isn’t prosecuting moms who know their gangbanger kids keep guns in the home and end up killing someone, are they?

I could be wrong but I’ve not heard of that.

Which brings me back to my original comment, it’s an arbitrary charge and will be applied unfairly, so I don’t like it.

 

[Limeade]

A none shitbag would, certainly.

But as far as I know the DA isn’t prosecuting moms who know their gangbanger kids keep guns in the home and end up killing someone, are they?

I could be wrong but I’ve not heard of that.

Which brings me back to my original comment, it’s an arbitrary charge and will be applied unfairly, so I don’t like it.

Well you can't say if it's an arbitrary charge if there is a legal standard for it right? That would be inherently contradictory.

 

[KnockoutsGalore]

He looked up ammo online and drew a scary picture. Not exactly a guaranteed school shooting. They sound like shitbag parents. If one of them is more culpable, it’s the husband who actually bought the gun. Where I live, parents buy their kids hunting rifles all the time. These kids grow up hunting.

At best, she sounds aloof and stupid. But they charged her as if she was standing behind him cheering him on. That simply didn’t happen.

Bottom line is that I don’t think you hold someone accountable for actions they didn’t directly do. I also don’t agree with other types of crimes where someone is convicted for something they didn’t directly do.

For example, you and I rob a bank and I shoot the teller. I should be charged with murder and bank robbery; you with conspiracy and bank robbery-but instead, they charge you with murder as well even though I was the one that pulled the trigger.

Another example, someone sells drugs to a celebrity. The celebrity goes home and overdoses and dies and they charge the dealer with murder. I don’t agree with that.

You’re responsible for your own actions. You and you, alone. The parents didn’t pull the trigger. Charge them with neglect? Being bad parents? But manslaughter? No.

As for the race thing, I was pointing out that they wouldn’t have had the balls to do this with another race.


I am purple. I am not red and I am not blue. But I absolutely believe that this would never happen in a red area. I believe this was allowed to happen because the area is liberal. I can see this happening in a few other states as well. But this makes this an issue governed by politics

What about the actions that they did do?
- Buying a minor a handgun (who had previously expressed his interest in getting therapy, to which the mom laughed at him)
- not securing said handgun
- not securing the ammunition for the handgun
- not mentioning the handgun when they were called into the school to look at a drawing that contained, among other things and you guessed it, a handgun
- not removing him from the school that he drew a picture of a handgun.

Sure seems like if they had done any number or combination of those things, there'd be a better chance that 4 high school kids would still be alive today. And if the shooting still occurred, but they had done their due diligence, they wouldn't be where they are now.

Again... thanks for playing.