quote:
Being aware of a picture with a gun and blood and doing nothing is one level of negligence. Being aware of a picture with blood and a gun and knowing the child had unfettered access to a handgun and ammunition is another level at least IMO.

Agreed.

Under Michigan law it appears the standard to find someone guilty of involuntary manslaughter is gross negligence. As I'm sure you know, that is a standard higher than "ordinary" negligence. Often it requires proof of a wanton disregard of a known risk. It's more than just a "If I had been paying better attention I could have done something to possible avoid this situation". It's, "I knew of this very real, dangerous risk and wantonly disregarded it."

Again, I wasn't on the jury, so I didn't see any of the evidence presented. But it appears the strongest argument for the state was the parents were notified of the disturbing drawing the DAY of the shooting and they knew he had access to the gun. They also appeared to know he may have had prior mental issues. Now, they (presumably) did not know he had the gun with him at school that day (if he actually had it with him at the time of the meeting). But the argument is knowing what they knew they could have, that day, prior to the shooting, taken efforts to ensure he did not have the gun with him or be able to access the gun. Yet, they did nothing whatsoever....which (apparently) in the mind of the jury reached the threshold of gross negligence.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by BluegrassBelle

RIP Hefty Lefty - 1981-2019

Member since Nov 2010

99243 posts

Posted on 2/7/24 at 3:39 pm to Alt26

quote:
But it appears the strongest argument for the state was the parents were notified of the disturbing drawing the DAY of the shooting and they knew he had access to the gun. They also appeared to know he may have had prior mental issues. Now, they (presumably) did not know he had the gun with him at school that day (if he actually had it with him at the time of the meeting). But the argument is knowing what they knew they could have, that day, prior to the shooting, taken efforts to ensure he did not have the gun with him or be able to access the gun. Yet, they did nothing whatsoever....which (apparently) in the mind of the jury reached the threshold of gross negligence.

This is where the issue lies more so than him simply having access to a gun.

The biggest part I think is they lied as to why they didn’t want to take him home that day or go get him assessed. The mom on the stand disclosed that she told the school she had to get back to work but that she actually would have been able to take off to take him to be assessed that day at a mental health facility. IMO that showed some pretty clear negligence on her part.

He almost certainly would’ve been admitted to a facility with what was presented at the school.

The other issue is that the school didn’t have any kind of policies to force them to get him assessed so the parents had full say on him returning to class. In the district I worked in, if a kid was found with those drawings with intent to harm he wouldn’t be able to return to school without a letter from a mental health provider clearing him to return.

This post was edited on 2/7/24 at 3:40 pm

1 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board