- 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 1:36 pm to MFn GIMP
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 2/7/24 at 9:53 am to Alt26
quote: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.
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.
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News