I watched every day of the trial and it was a nonsense case. The state presented no evidence of how Ethan obtained the gun that day or that it could be foreseen he would shoot up the school when they bought the gun to use at the shooting range. They mainly talked about Jennifer's affairs causing her to "ignore" her son and then appeals to emotion about the kids who were killed.

It's a novel use of the law to blame parents for the crime of their children because Michigan politicians hate guns and should make every parent afraid of being put on trial for the sins of their children.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Alt26

Member since Mar 2010

28718 posts

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:

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.