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

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.

seems like a VERY easy case to sell a slippery slope.

buying guns is legal
giving them to your kids is legal
being a bad parent is legal

now they can legislate what they think bad parenting is, and just cite this case to remove kids from parents.

i realize these parents were terrible and should have done 1000 things they didn't do, and could have done EVERYTHING they did better. that's irrelevant.

this is an unemotional processing of what this court precedent will be used for in the future.

quote:

---

These people should be more responsible than the parents as far as I'm concerned. Failing this badly and being immune to consequences?

Any of the downvoters want to explain how the professionals that were responsible for keeping students safe and trained to evaluate students should get off scott free in this scenario given the facts?

---

Because it's complete bullshite, ghetto logic when people go looking for authorities to blame in place of the parents who raised the shooter and - often as in this case - armed him and raised him to be unaccountable.

Tired of this "it' takes a village" bullshite every time some trashy parents' unleash their kid on the world.

Reasonable adults will ponder where and when exactly the line is crossed of parents bearing some responsibility for their kids' actions, but some people believe the line does not exist and parents are never responsible.

I feel the same when Mama jumps in front of the cameras crying Dayshawt Mahbaby after T-shon gets what's coming.

quote:

---

Because it's complete bullshite, ghetto logic when people go looking for authorities to blame in place of the parents who raised the shooter and - often as in this case - armed him and raised him to be unaccountable.

---

So every parent should be charged when their child breaks the law? What a completely asinine thought.

quote:

---

Tired of this "it' takes a village" bullshite every time some trashy parents' unleash their kid on the world.

---

What the frick are the school counselors even there for if not for something like this? I certainly never said a village. This is part of what these people are supposed to do for as a profession.

quote:

---

Reasonable adults where ponder where and when exactly the line is crossed of parents bearing some responsibility for their kids' actions, but some people believe the line does not exist and parents are never responsible.

I feel the same when Mama jumps in front of the cameras crying Dayshawt Mahbaby after T-shon gets what's coming.

---

I'm gonna need someone to translate this

quote:

---

So every parent should be charged when their child breaks the law? What a completely asinine thought.

---

If they had a reasonable possibility to stop it but ignored every opportunity? Yes.

If my kid goes around fantasizing about shooting up the school I’m damn sure not going to Aw Shucks Boys Will Be Boys it away.

There were plenty of signs that this kid should not be around firearms. His parents made no effort to restrict them from him.

When your inactivity leads to death you are partially responsible in my eyes and now in the eyes of the court.

quote:

---

I've bought guns for my kids.

---

I understand hunting and shotguns, but why would you buy a handgun for a kid?

So when is the administration trial? Because they allowed him to stay at school also? Accessory to murder?

quote:

---

Clearly not what I posted at all; you're just posting idiotic strawmen to try to sound smart and it isn't working

---

I'm the one making the strawman argument? Ok

quote:

---

Unfortunately, the OT is sometimes the perfect place to read the views of trash humans who expect public school employees to take the place and take the accountability of parents.

---

Yea, I'd just post nonsense instead of addressing anything I said as well.

To be clear, my argument is that this is the child's fault. Not the counselors, not the parents, not anyone else. This ruling is incredibly dangerous.

quote:

---

Buying a handgun for a kid who's suicidal and having violent ideations then refusing to get him help can start getting into territory where you're legally responsible for his actions.

---

Yeah. The kid was texting his mother for months before they bought him the gun that he was depressed and seeing demons and ghosts and the reason he was communicating with them by text is because they were largely absent from the home pursuing their own interests. A child that has expressed that he's currently depressed and experiencing visual and audible hallucinations while often left unsupervised and alone is not an ideal candidate to be given a handgun in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say if the charges were perfectly appropriate, but there certainly seems to be some form of criminal negligence here.

quote:

---

So I buy my son a truck. He has a mental break one day and drives through a parade route and kills people. I’m now liable for negligent homicide?

---

Did you break multiple laws to give your son that truck? Because that’s a huge part of the legal issue here.

Mother gave cash to father to purchase a gun, with the intent to circumvent laws prohibiting the kid to buy that type of gun till 21.

This wasn’t a hunting rifle or something.

I mean….not really sure I see any case where it’s a good idea to give a kid in school a handgun. ESPECIALLY if he is in a bullying environment. There is literally no scenario there with a good outcome.