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

Posted by lostinbr

Baton Rouge, LA

Member since Oct 2017

9575 posts

Posted on 2/7/24 at 4:53 pm to BluegrassBelle

quote:
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.

People want to try to boil it down to the parents buying the gun or failing to secure the gun, but I agree with you - there’s a lot more than that.

There are the strings of text messages from the kid to the mother talking about hallucinating, seeing demons, clothes flying around the house, etc. where the mother eventually responds with something like “talk to your father.”

There are the journal entries where Ethan Crumbley talked about how his parents wouldn’t get him any help or bring him to see a therapist.

There’s the fact that the parents, knowing their child was disturbed, decided to buy him a handgun as a gift and then neglected to secure the gun or ammunition.

Finally, there’s the fact that the parents said they couldn’t take him home the day of the shooting when they were confronted with his drawings - despite being told that the school would call CPS if he didn’t receive treatment within 48 hours, knowing he was disturbed, knowing he wasn’t receiving any treatment, and knowing that he had access to a handgun.

It’s not just one specific thing that got her convicted, it’s the cumulative effect of all of these things.

Part of me does think that the state should have to choose between charging the kid as an adult or charging the parents, though.

2 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board