The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: 240B on April 09, 2024, 05:08:40 pm
-
Daily Mail
By WILL POTTER
9 April 2024
- James and Jennifer Crumbley have each been sentenced to up to 15 years for their role in their son's school shooting
- The school shooter parents were forced to listen to devastating victim impact statements from the parents of their son's victims
- Their son Ethan is serving life without parole after murdering four classmates in 2021 when he was 15-year-old
(more)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13288081/ethan-crumbley-parents-oxford-school-shooting-sentencing.html
-
The parents were idiots. The school counselor called the mom and said her son was talking about killing people at the school with a gun. The mom blew it off. Should have locked up the guns right there.
School was at fault also. Should have booted him out and got the police involved and put him in therapy at a mental hospital.
-
The parents were idiots. The school counselor called the mom and said her son was talking about killing people at the school with a gun. The mom blew it off. Should have locked up the guns right there.
School was at fault also. Should have booted him out and got the police involved and put him in therapy at a mental hospital.
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.
-
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.
Dad bought the son a gun 4 days before the shooting. The school notified the parents the day before the shooting he did drawing of killing fellow students and did research on his school computer on how to do a school shooting. He wrote in his journal the firsts student he was going to kill was pretty girl. The school called in both parents and had a meeting the day before the shooting.. The mom refused to take her son out of the school and did not send her son in for mental help as the school requested and did not take away his gun.
I know if the school called me and told me what my son was doing I would lock up and hide the guns.
The school is also at fault. They should have called the police and had the kid arrested and sent away.
-
This is a precedent which will affect future cases, and may affect past trails.
-
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.
-
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.
:yowsa: pointing-up
-
Dad bought the son a gun 4 days before the shooting.
So what? By that time in my life I had four or five guns, several of which were in my pickup, which I'd been driving since age 14.
The school notified the parents the day before the shooting he did drawing of killing fellow students and did research on his school computer on how to do a school shooting. He wrote in his journal the firsts student he was going to kill was pretty girl. The school called in both parents and had a meeting the day before the shooting.. The mom refused to take her son out of the school and did not send her son in for mental help as the school requested and did not take away his gun.
A day and a half... Hardly time enough to resolve a problem child. Why didn't the school immediately suspend him? That is within their power. It seems the threat level wasn't detected all the way around. How is it that the parents get to pack the weight?
This is bullshit.
I know if the school called me and told me what my son was doing I would lock up and hide the guns.
I likely would not. I would not think my son capable of that. Intrinsically.
The school is also at fault. They should have called the police and had the kid arrested and sent away.
No. the SHOOTER is at fault. The school is liable alright, for not providing a defense.
-
That is some seriously dangerous distortion of American Jurisprudence.
That's right.
-
James had his communications cut off from anyone besides his legal team during his trial after he made a series of 'threatening' jail house calls, including saying the prosecutors would face 'retribution.'
...
At James' trial, jurors heard that he bought his son the Sig Sauer 9mm firearm used in the shooting at a Black Friday sale four days before the school shooting, and Jennifer took him to the gun range the day after the purchase.
James failed to properly secure the gun, keeping it only in a lock box that Ethan easily opened on the day of the shooting. His trial also heard that he kept other guns locked only with the code '000.'
...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/04/09/14/82318815-13288081-On_the_morning_of_the_school_shooting_teachers_became_concerned_-a-68_1712669318407.jpg)
James and Jennifer were brought into school to discuss the drawings, but both said they were 'too busy' to take him home and went back to work. Less than two hours later, Ethan opened fire.
-
This is a precedent which will affect future cases, and may affect past trails.
If parents are responsible for 'gun violence' why not the gun makers? Some will say.
-
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.
Saying "I'll kill that so and so" out of jest or in the heat of the moment is way different than saying "I'll kill that so and so" while also looking up on a computer on how to actually kill someone. Spouses talk about killing each other all the time. Looking up on the computer how to poison your spouse means something and if your wife was going that you would take it seriously.
The parents at a minimum should have locked up the guns so the son could not get them especially after what they learned from the school. They are at fault just as if I gave my car keys to some one I knew was drunk and they ent out and killed someone with my car.
-
James had his communications cut off from anyone besides his legal team during his trial after he made a series of 'threatening' jail house calls, including saying the prosecutors would face 'retribution.'
...
At James' trial, jurors heard that he bought his son the Sig Sauer 9mm firearm used in the shooting at a Black Friday sale four days before the school shooting, and Jennifer took him to the gun range the day after the purchase.
James failed to properly secure the gun, keeping it only in a lock box that Ethan easily opened on the day of the shooting. His trial also heard that he kept other guns locked only with the code '000.'
...
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/04/09/14/82318815-13288081-On_the_morning_of_the_school_shooting_teachers_became_concerned_-a-68_1712669318407.jpg)
James and Jennifer were brought into school to discuss the drawings, but both said they were 'too busy' to take him home and went back to work. Less than two hours later, Ethan opened fire.
As soon as the teacher saw that the cops should have been called.
-
You had to watch the trial to know all the evidence...The son begged his parents on numerous occasions to get him some help...to see a doctor..his mother told him to *suck it up*...that is just one piece of evidence...These parents along with the school and of course the shooter are all guilty in mho.
Both parents lied under oath saying they didn't think anything was wrong with him...his texts to his parents proved otherwise....the kid was crying for help and he was ignored at home and school...
-
James had his communications cut off from anyone besides his legal team during his trial after he made a series of 'threatening' jail house calls, including saying the prosecutors would face 'retribution.'
...
At James' trial, jurors heard that he bought his son the Sig Sauer 9mm firearm used in the shooting at a Black Friday sale four days before the school shooting, and Jennifer took him to the gun range the day after the purchase.
It took a whole day later? I'd have been out back poppin rounds within the hour. Big deal.
James failed to properly secure the gun, keeping it only in a lock box that Ethan easily opened on
the day of the shooting. His trial also heard that he kept other guns locked only with the code '000.'
I raised four kids up in a house full of loaded guns, and nary a lockbox in sight... Same as my daddy's house before me, and the same as pretty much every house I know.
-
As soon as the teacher saw that the cops should have been called.
Exactly...but they didn't... :crying:
-
It took a whole day later? I'd have been out back poppin rounds within the hour. Big deal.
I raised four kids up in a house full of loaded guns, and nary a lockbox in sight... Same as my daddy's house before me, and the same as pretty much every house I know.
But your kids were not mentally ill...this kid is/was.
-
You had to watch the trial to know all the evidence...The son begged his parents on numerous occasions to get him some help...to see a doctor..his mother told him to *suck it up*...that is just one piece of evidence...These parents along with the school and of course the shooter are all guilty in mho.
Both parents lied under oath saying they didn't think anything was wrong with him...his texts to his parents proved otherwise....the kid was crying for help and he was ignored at home and school...
No. the fault is his. This idea of laying blame off on others is terrible and dangerous.
-
But your kids were not mentally ill...this kid is/was.
I don't know that I'd go that far. Mental illness is part of the teen years in many if not every case. My own decision making was not to be considered mature till after my twenties.
-
Exactly...but they didn't... :crying:
And THEY should be held accountable! I'll bet the cops could have gotten mom and dad's attention!
-
No. the fault is his. This idea of laying blame off on others is terrible and dangerous.
This is true It was his fault.....What about the bartender who continues to serve a customer who is obviously intoxicated and lets him get into his car and drives away and crashes his car into another...an attorney on FOX brought up that scenario as basically the same liability.
-
You had to watch the trial to know all the evidence...The son begged his parents on numerous occasions to get him some help...to see a doctor..his mother told him to *suck it up*...that is just one piece of evidence...These parents along with the school and of course the shooter are all guilty in mho.
Both parents lied under oath saying they didn't think anything was wrong with him...his texts to his parents proved otherwise....the kid was crying for help and he was ignored at home and school...
I did not watch the trial, but if the child was crying for help and they did nothing, then they are indeed guilty.
-
This is true It was his fault.....What about the bartender who continues to serve a customer who is obviously intoxicated and lets him get into his car and drives away and crashes his car into another...an attorney on FOX brought up that scenario as basically the same liability.
In both cases the fault is upon the doer. You won't like where it goes otherwise.
I have never been a fan of 'blame the bartender'.
An horrible idea.
-
In both cases the fault is upon the doer. You won't like where it goes otherwise.
I have never been a fan of 'blame the bartender'.
An horrible idea.
Why can't fifteen-year-old girls consent to having sex?
-
Why can't fifteen-year-old girls consent to having sex?
They can, nowadays.
-
In both cases the fault is upon the doer. You won't like where it goes otherwise.
I have never been a fan of 'blame the bartender'.
An horrible idea.
IMO, this conviction will never hold up on appeal. Even "Opie Dilldox" could win on appeal in front of SCOTUS.
-
As soon as the teacher saw that the cops should have been called.
Also why wasn't the kids backpack/locker searched? I would say that odds were pretty good they would have found the gun and then it wouldn't have mattered how busy the parents were and no one would have died that day. Lots of blame to go all around.
-
Also why wasn't the kids backpack/locker searched? I would say that odds were pretty good they would have found the gun and then it wouldn't have mattered how busy the parents were and no one would have died that day. Lots of blame to go all around.
Nah... Even in a prison environment, it's damn hard to police contraband.
The school is liable for not providing a viable defense, but it is impossible to bet any money on prevention.
-
IMO, this conviction will never hold up on appeal. Even "Opie Dilldox" could win on appeal in front of SCOTUS.
I would hope that is true.
-
Nah... Even in a prison environment, it's damn hard to police contraband.
The school is liable for not providing a viable defense, but it is impossible to bet any money on prevention.
??? Even when I was back in high school, we had surprise locker checks once a month. So, I too am questioning why his locker wasn't searched? The locker is the property of the school -- it is not the property of the student.
-
??? Even when I was back in high school, we had surprise locker checks once a month. So, I too am questioning why his locker wasn't searched? The locker is the property of the school -- it is not the property of the student.
I was drunk off my ass through much of my junior and senior year. Many of my friends smoked dope like fiends... none of us ever got caught with contraband. Search my locker all you want.
-
They can, nowadays.
Really??? Where? Certainly not in Texas.
-
Also why wasn't the kids backpack/locker searched? I would say that odds were pretty good they would have found the gun and then it wouldn't have mattered how busy the parents were and no one would have died that day. Lots of blame to go all around.
For sure the perp would not have still been in school that day!
-
Really??? Where? Certainly not in Texas.
Consent is 15 in most places... Not for statutory, but one minor on another, 15...
-
??? Even when I was back in high school, we had surprise locker checks once a month. So, I too am questioning why his locker wasn't searched? The locker is the property of the school -- it is not the property of the student.
In our local schools the kids keep their backpacks with them the entire school day. They could not function without their phones, gameboys, snacks, makeup etc. BTW I remember those locker searches back in the 70's.
-
Consent is 15 in most places... Not for statutory, but one minor on another, 15...
Wrong
-
@roamer_1 Thought you might like to read this..
ANDY MCCARTHY: It's completely unprecedented ...your heart breaks for the parents of the children who were killed here. But you have to remember that the person who actually did the shooting got treated as an adult and was sentenced to life in prison. So it's not like the system didn't carry out law enforcement against the person who actually did this. It's unprecedented to hold the parents accountable to something that they obviously didn't plan, agree to participate in. I frankly just don't think that this is what the criminal justice system is for. I think the criminal justice system mainly should be reserved for intentional wrongs. And I think it's more troubling here because Michigan actually attempted to or proposed passing child access prevention laws, which would prevent – which would make it a crime for parents to negligently allow their children to have access to firearms. And the legislature wouldn't pass that. So what happened here is the prosecutor made up a crime on the fly that the legislature had not opted to pass.
…
It's a Pandora's box. You're extending the criminal law to people who didn't actually commit the crimes.
…
Having been a prosecutor for a long time, this is what you have a civil justice system for. I mean, these parents ought to be sued civilly. And it's the reason that you get the kind of judgments that you sometimes see in these tragic cases. But the criminal justice system is not intended to deal with tragedy. What it's intended to deal with is intentional wrongs. And I think if you take the step where you're now going to extend it beyond intentional wrongs, then all bets are off, and you don't know where it goes.
more
https://www.foxnews.com/media/unprecedented-ruling-against-crumbleys-opens-up-pandoras-box-criminal-justice-system-andy-mccarthy
-
@roamer_1 Thought you might like to read this..
more
https://www.foxnews.com/media/unprecedented-ruling-against-crumbleys-opens-up-pandoras-box-criminal-justice-system-andy-mccarthy
Andy is right! The parents should not have been prosecuted for what they were but they damned sure could have, and should have been prosecuted for gross neglect of their child.
-
@roamer_1 Thought you might like to read this..
more
https://www.foxnews.com/media/unprecedented-ruling-against-crumbleys-opens-up-pandoras-box-criminal-justice-system-andy-mccarthy
That's right @mystery-ak ... Except suing them civilly should be pretty hard to do too, considering they are removed from the crime. Like suing gun makers for what someone dd with their product, laying the responsibility away from the one that did the deed. Soon enough the whole purpose will be about how much money can be had instead of actual justice. It's plastic-banana feel-good crap. It's a mistake.
-
Exactly...but they didn't... :crying:
How many school officials lost their jobs or were put up on charges?
-
Andy is right! The parents should not have been prosecuted for what they were but they damned sure could have, and should have been prosecuted for gross neglect of their child.
But not manslaughter.
-
ANDY MCCARTHY: It's completely unprecedented ...your heart breaks for the parents of the children who were killed here. But you have to remember that the person who actually did the shooting got treated as an adult and was sentenced to life in prison. So it's not like the system didn't carry out law enforcement against the person who actually did this. It's unprecedented to hold the parents accountable to something that they obviously didn't plan, agree to participate in. I frankly just don't think that this is what the criminal justice system is for. I think the criminal justice system mainly should be reserved for intentional wrongs. And I think it's more troubling here because Michigan actually attempted to or proposed passing child access prevention laws, which would prevent – which would make it a crime for parents to negligently allow their children to have access to firearms. And the legislature wouldn't pass that. So what happened here is the prosecutor made up a crime on the fly that the legislature had not opted to pass.
…
It's a Pandora's box. You're extending the criminal law to people who didn't actually commit the crimes.
…
Having been a prosecutor for a long time, this is what you have a civil justice system for. I mean, these parents ought to be sued civilly. And it's the reason that you get the kind of judgments that you sometimes see in these tragic cases. But the criminal justice system is not intended to deal with tragedy. What it's intended to deal with is intentional wrongs. And I think if you take the step where you're now going to extend it beyond intentional wrongs, then all bets are off, and you don't know where it goes.
McCarthy's discussion completely ignores the long standing precedent of
"criminal negligence" laws being on the books and enforced.
This clearly is a case of criminal negligence.
It is illegal for a minor to possess a gun without adult supervision.
I think the sentence might be reduced upon appeal,
but it should not be overturned.
The parents' behavior in this case goes beyond negligence.
It is reckless.
And to continue ignoring the school's negligence in this case
is also criminal.