Really?
That's. the silliest bullshit I've heard around here in a long time. Unless it can be proven the parents encouraged their child's actions, or colluded in some way, their guilt in any way is highly questionable.
This is not mere pre-crime nonsense. this is pre-crime once-removed.
Right. How many times has a kid said "I'll kill that so and so"? Now every kid is supposed to be locked down on the off chance they actually will? I'm with
@roamer_1 on this.
If the parents did not know of a specific threat and intent to do harm, or didn't encourage harmful action, how are they guilty? ...of a crime they were not participants in, at a location removed from their physical presence? People act as if the parents wanted this to happen, and it happened to their child (life without parole) too. If they had any inkling that this would be the outcome of that day, does anyone think they would not have acted differently? Had they any serious sense that their child was going to commit acts of violence, doesn't it stand to reason that they would have done what they could to prevent it?
Nope, this was a case for civil courts, if to be tried at all, not something that should have been a criminal case.
Now consider, the precedent (if allowed to stand) has been set that you could be responsible for the actions of another person, who, without your knowledge, and without your consent or approval, used your tools/firearms/vehicle etc or tools/firearms/vehicles etc. you obtained for them or helped them obtain in the commission of a Felony and could face prison time.
That is some seriously dangerous distortion of American Jurisprudence.
