- 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 4:14 pm to LNCHBOX
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:14 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Yes, I'm the one building strawmen in this thread
Please explain how asking what the school official should have done to avoid criminal negligence in your eyes is a strawman?
A bad outcome isn’t criminal negligence.
You can’t use the shooting as evidence.
According to testimony and school accounts, the kid didn’t have a history.
Just this one data point of concern, which was immediately elevated to parents who dismissed it.
So again, what should he have done?
You are just running around throwing a smoke screen trying to spread liability just because a gun was involved….but unwilling to actually lay out what you think reasonable expections are.
1
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:14 pm to Volvagia
So the law he broke was having the gun on his own and shooting the place up. Legally he can have a gun with his parent. Funny you thought that was a win for you 
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:15 pm to Volvagia
The shooter is who is guilty, not anyone else. This conviction is insanity given the facts.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:18 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Is that the only negligence at play?
The issue is does it arise to criminal negligence under the statutes of that particular state? In this case, gross negligence.
This is not an apples to apples comparison necessarily, but an example of how one can be held (civilly) responsible for the death of another even though one did not actually or intend to kill the decedent.
Most states have a civil cause of action for negligent entrustment. It most often arises in the context of drunk driving. I, as the owner of a vehicle, can be held liable for the death of another if I allow someone who I know is impaired/drunk to drive my vehicle and that person ends up killing someone. I didn't kill anyone, nor did I have any intent to do so. But I knew the person whom I was allowing to drive my car was impaired to the point where it was a reasonable possibility they could kill someone. I could have taken steps to prevent that death by not allowing the impaired person to drive my car. Yet, I chose not to. I entrusted them with the vehicle that was ultimately used to kill another.
My understanding is the State applied a somewhat similar logic here. That is, the parents knew or reasonably should have known their son was having mental issues that could rise to level of seriously harming others. Yet they knowingly provided him with a dangerous weapon anyway. Thus making them grossly negligent...which appears to be the standard under Michigan law to be found guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter.
Again, I was not on the jury, nor did I hear any of the facts introduce into evidence. So I have no opinion one way or the other on the verdict.
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 4:21 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:18 pm to LNCHBOX
Funny how your post being proven empirically false just gets brushed off and you aimlessly move on as if it never happened.
There are additional laws regarding how guardians should maintain access to weapons.
But I wasn’t going to write a comprehensive treatise of Michigan/Detroit law for the sake of a goalpost shifter unwilling to even make a firm stand for their own argument.
That reference was just to shoot down your absurd “ATF doesn’t agree with you.”
There are additional laws regarding how guardians should maintain access to weapons.
But I wasn’t going to write a comprehensive treatise of Michigan/Detroit law for the sake of a goalpost shifter unwilling to even make a firm stand for their own argument.
That reference was just to shoot down your absurd “ATF doesn’t agree with you.”
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:22 pm to Ingeniero
quote:
Pretty much yes, from what I caught. Stuff like the school telling her he's having violent delusions, watching videos of school shooters at school, etc. and she told the school to get over it and privately told him "don't get caught doing that" so she didnt have to take him to a psych
If this is the precedent, well it’s now time to have that conversation………
Yes, you all know the conversation I’m talking about. It’ll help clean up some of the urban degradation in heartbeat.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:37 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So in the meeting that day they were unaware of the drawings?
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.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 4:46 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
Also, my bigger issue is if she is guilty, how do the counselors/admin that also didn't send the kid home escape punishment? How is there no negligence there?
They didn’t buy the gun.
Had no reason to believe he had access to a gun much less that there was one in his bag.
They relied on the parents to make a judgment call. The two people who SHOULD have known him best.
The administration failed but they didn’t have near the knowledge that the parents did that an actual shooting was imminent.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 5:20 pm to shel311
quote:
they bought a 9mm handgun for a 15 year old kid but never knew why he wanted it or what he wanted to use it for?
There was evidence that it was bought for them to go to the shooting range together and that a lot of other kids in town did the same with the parents. It wasn’t strange for them to purchase a gun for their kid to use at a range in that community.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 5:21 pm to Will Munny
This board blames EVERYTHING on parenting. The one time a parent is called to account, there's outrage.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 5:25 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
This board blames EVERYTHING on parenting. The one time a parent is called to account, there's outrage
Blaming things on shitty parenting and making shitty parents criminally liable are two different things.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 5:25 pm to Will Munny
And the dumbasses on X are making Rittenhouse trending... But the responses are on point... 
Posted on 2/6/24 at 5:32 pm to Will Munny
quote:
Morning of the shooting parents were called in because he wrote/drew some creepy violent stuff and they said sorry we can’t take him home for the day we have to go back to work. Didn’t mention he has access to a gun and didn’t check his bag.
This dismissal by all adults in this case is beyond strange for the times we live in. Even without any knowledge of the gun at home, the admins still considered the picture creepy enough to call the parents to come get him. I mean, a 15 year old drawing pictures of guns/blood is weird. You absolutely cannot take chances these days. Why they didn't demand he be removed by the parents and sent for an evaluation is pretty wild.
Furthermore, they let the parents decide, and still didn't check his book sack? Schools search kids for far less than guns because they have to act on behalf of all the children in their care.
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.
Posted on 2/7/24 at 9:56 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
These people should be more responsible than the parents
quote:These 2 things are not the same.
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
One can believe they should not have gotten off scott free and still have downvoted you and it not be contradictory.
Posted on 2/7/24 at 9:57 am to shel311
quote:
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
I disagree with the verdict, but you're spot on. This is sufficient to get it past a directed verdict and to a jury.
Posted on 2/7/24 at 9:59 am to rundmcrun
quote:Only recourse? No
Question: if I have a child that has at any point in his or her life expressed frustration and violence, is my only course of legal protection to lock them in their room?
But you probably shouldn't buy them a handgun then give him access to it when you aren't remotely surprised if he becomes a school shooter.
quote:Question: Are you saying since there's only so much you can do and he'll do it anyway if he wants, then you should enable him and make it easier for him to do it instead of at least doing everything you can in your power to not allow it to happen?
Because there's only so much you can keep away from people that aren't pets and make their own choices without straight imprisonment.
Posted on 2/7/24 at 10:40 am to Will Munny
Too many parents are afraid of their children.
Too many parents want to be their children's friend.
Both are mistakes . Some folks are not qualified to be responsible parents.
No way my Dad would have bought a 9 mm for any reason for me. He did buy me a shotgun when I was in the 6th grade so that we could go duck hunting in Lake Theriot. Being wet and cold all day long was great fun. After we were done duck hunting for the day the guns were locked up and I never even thought about bringing it to school. Did have to clean though ,at home with Dad.
Starting in the 8th grade I had little interest in duck hunting as I spent most of my free time trying to get my hands on titties.
Too many parents want to be their children's friend.
Both are mistakes . Some folks are not qualified to be responsible parents.
No way my Dad would have bought a 9 mm for any reason for me. He did buy me a shotgun when I was in the 6th grade so that we could go duck hunting in Lake Theriot. Being wet and cold all day long was great fun. After we were done duck hunting for the day the guns were locked up and I never even thought about bringing it to school. Did have to clean though ,at home with Dad.
Starting in the 8th grade I had little interest in duck hunting as I spent most of my free time trying to get my hands on titties.
Posted on 2/7/24 at 11:01 am to Will Munny
This is a pretty slippery slope
Posted on 2/7/24 at 11:06 am to LNCHBOX
quote:So you're saying you don't think any parent should EVER be held liable for anything any child of theirs does, correct?
I don't see how you can say these sentences back to back.
if not, then you should understand how those sentences can be said back to back.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News