Started By
Message

re: Jennifer Crumbly (school shooter mom) verdict in: Guilty of involuntary manslaughter

Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:36 pm to
Posted by Alt26
Member since Mar 2010
28484 posts
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:36 pm to
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.

This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 1:37 pm
Posted by shel311
McKinney, Texas
Member since Aug 2004
111148 posts
Posted on 2/7/24 at 9:53 am to
quote:

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.
I'm the same in not knowing a lot of the facts, but supposedly the moment the parents found out there was a shooting at school and knew nothing else, one of the parents texted the other basically saying they knew immediately it was their son who was the shooter.

Not sure about from a legal perspective, but in my personal and irrelevant opinion, that tells me she knew there was that level of risk, and yet she still bought the kid the gun and he had access to it that day.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram