- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jennifer Crumbly (school shooter mom) verdict in: Guilty of involuntary manslaughter
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:25 pm to MFn GIMP
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:25 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
They never proved they "went on the run." Hell, they were found basically across the street from a police station. I would've left my home as well after that happened.
They knew they were wanted for questioning and being looked for it was being reported endlessly on national news, and even had a thread here. Call it what you want, but they couldn't be found and they didn't make themselves available.
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:36 pm to MFn GIMP
I don't, nor have I ever practiced law in Michigan, but I assume this is the law/standard applied to this case:
I'm assuming the State argued the mother knew or should have known there was a reasonable risk the child would attempt to kill people at the school, yet took no action to try to prevent it.
Having not heard about this case until 10 minutes ago I have no idea what the facts were. Thus, no opinion on the reasonableness of the verdict. Just pointing out the law likely applied to the case.
quote:
“Manslaughter is murder without malice.” People v. Mendoza, 468 Mich. 527, 534, 664 N.W.2d 685 (2003). “The common law recognizes two forms of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary.” Id. at 535, 664 N.W.2d 685. Involuntary manslaughter is a catch-all crime that encompasses all homicides that do not constitute murder, voluntary manslaughter, or a justified or excused homicide. People v. Holtschlag, 471 Mich. 1, 7, 684 N.W.2d 730 (2004). The requisite mental state for the type of involuntary manslaughter charged in this case is gross negligence. See id. at 16-17, 684 N.W.2d 730. Gross negligence means wantonness and disregard of the consequences that may ensue. People v. Feezel, 486 Mich. 184, 195, 783 N.W.2d 67 (2010). Wantonness exists when the defendant is aware of the risks but indifferent to the results; it constitutes a higher degree of culpability than recklessness. Id. at 196, 783 N.W.2d 67. To prove gross negligence, a prosecutor must show:
“(1) Knowledge of a situation requiring the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to avert injury to another.”
(2) Ability to avoid the resulting harm by ordinary care and diligence in the use of the means at hand.
(3) The omission [i.e., failure] to use such care and diligence to avert the threatened danger when to the ordinary mind it must be apparent that the result is likely to prove disastrous to another. [People v. McCoy, 223 Mich. App. 500, 503, 566 N.W.2d 667 (1997) (citation omitted).]
I'm assuming the State argued the mother knew or should have known there was a reasonable risk the child would attempt to kill people at the school, yet took no action to try to prevent it.
Having not heard about this case until 10 minutes ago I have no idea what the facts were. Thus, no opinion on the reasonableness of the verdict. Just pointing out the law likely applied to the case.
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:37 pm to IT_Dawg
Dad is 100% getting convicted. He bought the gun for the son.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:39 pm to Will Munny
seems like a VERY easy case to sell a slippery slope.
buying guns is legal
giving them to your kids is legal
being a bad parent is legal
now they can legislate what they think bad parenting is, and just cite this case to remove kids from parents.
i realize these parents were terrible and should have done 1000 things they didn't do, and could have done EVERYTHING they did better. that's irrelevant.
this is an unemotional processing of what this court precedent will be used for in the future.
buying guns is legal
giving them to your kids is legal
being a bad parent is legal
now they can legislate what they think bad parenting is, and just cite this case to remove kids from parents.
i realize these parents were terrible and should have done 1000 things they didn't do, and could have done EVERYTHING they did better. that's irrelevant.
this is an unemotional processing of what this court precedent will be used for in the future.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:46 pm to Will Munny
This is a tricky one.
She should have done more when she realized her kid was f'ed up. But parents didn't pull the trigger. Civilly liable but not criminally liable IMO.
She should have done more when she realized her kid was f'ed up. But parents didn't pull the trigger. Civilly liable but not criminally liable IMO.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:07 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
These people should be more responsible than the parents as far as I'm concerned. Failing this badly and being immune to consequences?
Any of the downvoters want to explain how the professionals that were responsible for keeping students safe and trained to evaluate students should get off scott free in this scenario given the facts?
Because it's complete bullshite, ghetto logic when people go looking for authorities to blame in place of the parents who raised the shooter and - often as in this case - armed him and raised him to be unaccountable.
Tired of this "it' takes a village" bullshite every time some trashy parents' unleash their kid on the world.
Reasonable adults will ponder where and when exactly the line is crossed of parents bearing some responsibility for their kids' actions, but some people believe the line does not exist and parents are never responsible.
I feel the same when Mama jumps in front of the cameras crying Dayshawt Mahbaby after T-shon gets what's coming.
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 2:25 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:08 pm to IT_Dawg
quote:
Again, I think the jurors made an emotional verdict here
It's Detroit. She's white. She had no chance.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:10 pm to PowerTool
quote:
Because it's complete bullshite, ghetto logic when people go looking for authorities to blame in place of the parents who raised the shooter and - often as in this case - armed him and raised him to be unaccountable.
So every parent should be charged when their child breaks the law? What a completely asinine thought.
quote:
Tired of this "it' takes a village" bullshite every time some trashy parents' unleash their kid on the world.
What the frick are the school counselors even there for if not for something like this? I certainly never said a village. This is part of what these people are supposed to do for as a profession.
quote:
Reasonable adults where ponder where and when exactly the line is crossed of parents bearing some responsibility for their kids' actions, but some people believe the line does not exist and parents are never responsible.
I feel the same when Mama jumps in front of the cameras crying Dayshawt Mahbaby after T-shon gets what's coming.
I'm gonna need someone to translate this
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:15 pm to rundmcrun
quote:No, it's a conservative area north of Detroit.
Detroit
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:17 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So every parent should be charged when their child breaks the law? What a completely asinine thought.
If they had a reasonable possibility to stop it but ignored every opportunity? Yes.
If my kid goes around fantasizing about shooting up the school I’m damn sure not going to Aw Shucks Boys Will Be Boys it away.
There were plenty of signs that this kid should not be around firearms. His parents made no effort to restrict them from him.
When your inactivity leads to death you are partially responsible in my eyes and now in the eyes of the court.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:19 pm to Tr33fiddy
quote:
I've bought guns for my kids.
I understand hunting and shotguns, but why would you buy a handgun for a kid?
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:28 pm to Auburn80
quote:
I understand hunting and shotguns, but why would you buy a handgun for a kid?
I don't see a problem with it as long as you're teaching them gun safety and monitoring it responsibly. Buying a handgun for a kid who's suicidal and having violent ideations then refusing to get him help can start getting into territory where you're legally responsible for his actions.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:33 pm to Ingeniero
So when is the administration trial? Because they allowed him to stay at school also? Accessory to murder?
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:35 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So every parent should be charged when their child breaks the law? What a completely asinine thought.
Clearly not what I posted at all; you're just posting idiotic strawmen to try to sound smart and it isn't working at all. Unfortunately, the OT is sometimes the perfect place to read the views of trash humans who expect public school employees to take the place and take the accountability of parents.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:40 pm to PowerTool
quote:
Clearly not what I posted at all; you're just posting idiotic strawmen to try to sound smart and it isn't working
I'm the one making the strawman argument? Ok
quote:
Unfortunately, the OT is sometimes the perfect place to read the views of trash humans who expect public school employees to take the place and take the accountability of parents.
Yea, I'd just post nonsense instead of addressing anything I said as well.
To be clear, my argument is that this is the child's fault. Not the counselors, not the parents, not anyone else. This ruling is incredibly dangerous.
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:42 pm to PowerTool
Question: if I have a child that has at any point in his or her life expressed frustration and violence, is my only course of legal protection to lock them in their room?
Because there's only so much you can keep away from people that aren't pets and make their own choices without straight imprisonment.
Because there's only so much you can keep away from people that aren't pets and make their own choices without straight imprisonment.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 3:10 pm to Ingeniero
quote:Yeah. The kid was texting his mother for months before they bought him the gun that he was depressed and seeing demons and ghosts and the reason he was communicating with them by text is because they were largely absent from the home pursuing their own interests. A child that has expressed that he's currently depressed and experiencing visual and audible hallucinations while often left unsupervised and alone is not an ideal candidate to be given a handgun in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say if the charges were perfectly appropriate, but there certainly seems to be some form of criminal negligence here.
Buying a handgun for a kid who's suicidal and having violent ideations then refusing to get him help can start getting into territory where you're legally responsible for his actions.
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 3:21 pm to Will Munny
People finding ways to get out of jury duty need to remember this. It leaves a less qualified pool. Then the ones on jury who might not want to go along with the verdict want to get back to their phones so they give in.
Keep in mind your phone is taken when you go into deliberations. I’ve sat on a jury and it was amazing to me how many took no notes nor paid attention and just went along with the majority.
People always assume every jurist is qualified to be there. They may meet the state requirements but that doesn’t mean they care about you or your case.
Keep in mind your phone is taken when you go into deliberations. I’ve sat on a jury and it was amazing to me how many took no notes nor paid attention and just went along with the majority.
People always assume every jurist is qualified to be there. They may meet the state requirements but that doesn’t mean they care about you or your case.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 3:26 pm to Scooby
quote:
So I buy my son a truck. He has a mental break one day and drives through a parade route and kills people. I’m now liable for negligent homicide?
Did you break multiple laws to give your son that truck? Because that’s a huge part of the legal issue here.
Mother gave cash to father to purchase a gun, with the intent to circumvent laws prohibiting the kid to buy that type of gun till 21.
This wasn’t a hunting rifle or something.
I mean….not really sure I see any case where it’s a good idea to give a kid in school a handgun. ESPECIALLY if he is in a bullying environment. There is literally no scenario there with a good outcome.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 3:39 pm to dukke v
quote:
They have sent a messsge to parents to pay more attention to you kids….
If this is now going to be the threshold for conviction then we should have nearly a whole generation of “parents” getting locked up just in BR and NOLA alone.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News