Mass Shooting in Michigan High School

Post Reply New Topic

I believe that is correct, hence some of my statements here about why I think these charges are unjust.

The attorneys for the parents said they were not fleeing.

Rather, on the night of the shooting, before charged were made, they left town because of fear for their safety.

Even the Oakland county sheriff said he was unaware charges were being filed against the parents.

"Oakland County, Michigan, sheriff Michael Bouchard said he did not know that charges were going to be filed against James and Jennifer Crumbley until he heard about it in the media".
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/oxford ... index.html

Not all schools have metal detectors

Ethan was not allowed to carry that type of gun anywhere except on his own property and at a shooting range.

Ankle monitors and even high collateral is not 100% effective against someone determined to flee. Even prison is not 100% (don't forget the escape from a high security prison in upstate NY). Their attorney can say anything they want but if they were going to turn themselves in, they should have done it after the media reported that charges were filed. Instead the grabbed $4000 (probably the absolute ATM limit they could get), turned off their phones, and hid. They did not even contact their lawyers. That shows that they had no intention of turning themselves in if they could help it, even if they went about it in what I see as the wrong method.

And if the bail is excessive, their attorney has the right to argue that at a future hearing with the judge who is probably going to handle the case. The arraignment judge is usually the intake judge on rotation and the case is usually handed to the judge who can most likely get it onto their calendar. Bail can be reduced with conditions set if that judge feels that the parents are not a flight risk anymore.

How can it be perceived that a kid could be allowed to carry a gun in school? There are no “riflery” classes in high schools.

Just because there is not any specific law in place does not mean that another law cannot be used if its definition fits the crime. Again, it is more than simple gun storage. As I explained before, the charge is based on the totality of the situation, not just one specific act. Criminal charges have been brought for that in the past.

As an older person, I have learned that you really have to pick your battles unless you are willing to lose the war. You are not giving up your principles by simply not fighting one battle, especially a battle that you can lose. It has been said that the south could have won if General Lee simply refused to fight at Gettysburg and simply forced the union army off the high ground.

Yes, Michigan does not have specific laws regarding gun storage. However, based on the totality of the actions of the parents, other charges might fit and can be brought. The charge in this case is involuntary manslaughter.

They are not and if the school or police had searched Ethan's bags (which they could have done based on New Jersey v. T. L. O. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.) that would have ended the shooting right there. Then again, the school was dealing with an obvious Trump supporter and maybe did not want to push the issue themselves.

As for riflery classes, most of the time, the schools owned the rifles and they were kept locked when there were no classes and under adult supervision when there were classes. No need to bring your own gun to school.

There have also been cases where students have gotten in trouble for bringing guns onto school property in their personal vehicles (usually hunting guns) but never brought them into school.

There doesn't seem to be much substance to argue a pattern of gross negligence.

1. Four days earlier parents buy gun for child. <---everyday legal activity in Michigan
2. Mom take child to range to shoot gun <---everyday legal activity in Michigan
3. Gun kept in parent's room in a drawer <--everyday legal activity in Michigan
4. Child caught searching internet for ammo <--not suspicious, he wants accessories for his new gun
5. day of shooting, draws bloody picture <---school counselors evaluate him, and determine he's OK to go back to class

To prove gross negligence the prosecutor has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the parents should have foreseen their actions would result in him being a school shooter.

Who was threatening their safety?

Were they not well-armed enough to defend themselves in their own home?

Aren't you glad there are courts of law, and that a "trial by public opinion" does not confer a guilty verdict upon a defendant?

Let's hope the judge here is an impartial observer who objectively interprets the law. I'm not 100% sure that the judge in the Rittenhouse case was 100% impartial.

Read Wisconsin Law 948.60 (2)(a). If I were a judge, I would have continued to charge Rittenhouse under that statute. In most cases, if convicted, he would have gotten community service or something if this wasn't a public case. Rittenhouse possessed more than a "rifle" or a "shotgun" as a 17-year-old, a "minor."

I'm glad Rittenhouse didn't get a felony conviction with years in prison; that would have ruined him. But he should be made aware of the follies of vigilantism. I feel like the stress of the trial was almost "punishment enough" for him. Let's hope Rittenhouse is not used as a Trump tool.

The actions in and of themselves are not illegal. Taken together, the actions might suggest a pattern of criminal negligence. You are looking at the trees rather than the forest.

I am glad there are courts of law too. I agree with the charge. I am not sure if the parents are actually guilty or not and that is for a jury to decide.

As for Rittenhouse, you need to read the full law, not just the one section. In Rittenhouse's case, Wisconsin Law 948.60 (3)(c) overrode 948.60 (2)(a) as long as Rittenhouse met the requirements in Wisconsin Law 29.304 and 29.593 and the gun was not in violation of 941.28.

29.304 deals with those having rifles and shotguns for hunting who are under 16 years of age. Since Rittenhouse was 17, he met that part of the law.

29.593 deals with having a hunters safety training certificate for those born after 1973. I am sure Rittenhouse has such a certificate in either Wisconsin or Illinois considering his affinity with guns

941.28 deals with short barrel guns which basically defines a short barrel rifle as one with a barrel of less than 16 inches in length and a full gun length of 26 inches in length. If you watch the trial video, the prosecutor was forces, by the defendant's attorney, to admit that under law, the rifle used by Rittenhouse was a long gun.

The judge therefore made a good decision under the law to throw out the charge as taken together, Rittenhouse did not violate 948.60 (2)(a).

Bottom line is they bought a gun for a minor, and sent him to school unaware of its location. The school told them about his mental health and shooting drawings that day but it seems they didn’t even ask him where the gun was, or if it was in his bag, during the meeting. Not even privately. Then they didn’t take him out of school to find out what was going on for him emotionally even though they were given just 48 hours to seek crisis support for him. If they couldn’t get a psychiatric appt they could have gone straight to their GP or a hospital for evaluation. They didn’t even check at home to see where the gun was after the meeting and so far as I know they didn’t even start calling for psychiatric appointments as required. They sat through that meeting about guns and their child’s mental health without telling the school they just bought him a gun, even in relation to his search for ammunition during class time. They didn’t ask him where the gun was or double check its location for themselves until the shooting had begun, when they heard about it on the radio. Suddenly they decided to look for the gun and see if it was still at home where they left it unsecured? It hadn’t occurred to them that morning that their son was having a mental health crisis requiring crisis workers … and maybe they should put the damned thing out of his reach or return it to the store? At the very least pull him from school and lock the gun away until he had help.

Weren’t they worried about suicide, if nothing else?

Regardless of Michigan law it’s their responsibility as parents to take care of their son and his mental health by providing a safe home environment and putting his health needs ahead of everything else - including politics, Christmas gifts, or their own sick sense of irresponsibility.

It does not take drugs or religion to mess up a kid's mind; all it really takes is bad parenting.

The mother, at least, believes in "the ends justifies the means." She just told the kid "Don't get caught!"