- 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 2/8/24 at 4:48 am to Scooby
Posted on 2/8/24 at 4:48 am to Scooby
quote:If he spent the six months prior to your purchase of the truck communicating to you that he was plagued with hallucinations of being surrounded by literal demons and struggling with thoughts of suicide which you blew off,
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?
If he requested mental health which you ignored,
If you knew all this prior to buying him the truck in a state that he was not legally old enough to operate it in public without adult supervision and also failed to secure it when you were not supervising him,
If you decided to leave him home alone every night with access to the truck while you were out fricking Jody,
And finally, if an outside party called you prior to the parade to show you a picture he drew of himself mowing down people at the parade in the truck you bought him and you didn't even bother to tell them that your 15 year old actually owns a truck just like the one in his picture and allow him to go ahead and drive to that parade,
If all that...
I dunno. maybe. I definitely wouldn't be shocked if the state had a few questions for you.
0
Posted on 2/8/24 at 5:52 am to udtiger
quote:
Criminally? Only under extremely narrow circumstances (i.e., "Mom...I am taking your gun today to kill some classmates." "Okay...don't forget your coat.")
I know most US laws are written to protect firearm owners who are irresponsible with their firearms but it shouldn't be that way. Hell pet owners are held to a higher standard than firearm owners. Now I know most muraka people will say "well my colt 45 aint gonna jump a fence and go run off and kill nobody."
No, but every day children and other individuals who are not intended to get ahold of and possess those firearms do so and some use them violently against other people.
Maybe I'm just built different or was raised around firearms for most of my life but I feel that if you have something that would be considered a weapon under normal circumstances by a reasonable person then it's your obligation to secure that weapon if not in your possession should be a foregone conclusion. .
But I feel like I know why responsible firearm owners won't relent on this and support this thinking. As with the Left if you give an inch they try to take it all.
fwiw I would much prefer these things be common sense rather than laws.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 9:47 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 7:30 am to Snipe
quote:
Maybe I'm just built different or was raised around firearms for most of my life but I feel that if you have something that would be considered a weapon under normal circumstances by a reasonable person then it's your obligation to secure that weapon if not in your possession
That's what civil liability is for.
And there's no constitutional guarantee protecting the right to own a dog.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 7:48 am to udtiger
quote:
That's what civil liability is for.
And there's no constitutional guarantee protecting the right to own a dog.
But there are plenty of laws on the books regarding neglect of a minor. This has a lot less to do with the gun ownership itself and more so of the responsibility of the parent to not neglect their child. And criminal neglect of a minor is a thing, even if it’s not utilized as much as it should be.
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:26 am to slackster
quote:That's usually around the time he shuffles on to the next thread, without fail.
You realize this is kind of his thing, right?
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 10:27 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:48 am to Tr33fiddy
quote:
I haven't followed this. I've bought guns for my kids. I'd never expect them to shoot up a school. Did she know their son was a physco and still bought him the gun?
Yes, ignored many warnings. Both nuanced as well as very direct ones such as the school warning her about her son’s violent tendencies and her refusal to take him home or get him help. There’s a lot more to it than her guilty for her son’s actions and is a good ruling imo
Posted on 2/8/24 at 10:55 am to Will Munny
My main problem with this is the kid was tried and convicted as an adult from what I understand. That means the state contends he was solely responsible for his actions. And a jury agreed with the state. If that’s the case, and he indeed, as the state contends, acted as an adult, how can his parents then also be responsible for his actions.
Are we going to start arresting the parents of every murderer and hold them responsible for their offspring’s actions? What about some 15 yr old gang banger who does a drive-by or car jacking and kills someone? Will the state go to the projects and arrest his mom? Will they try to find his dad, who probably isn’t even in the kid’s life anyway, and arrest him as well?
Are we going to start arresting the parents of every murderer and hold them responsible for their offspring’s actions? What about some 15 yr old gang banger who does a drive-by or car jacking and kills someone? Will the state go to the projects and arrest his mom? Will they try to find his dad, who probably isn’t even in the kid’s life anyway, and arrest him as well?
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:00 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
My main problem with this is the kid was tried and convicted as an adult from what I understand. That means the state contends he was solely responsible for his actions. And a jury agreed with the state. If that’s the case, and he indeed, as the state contends, acted as an adult, how can his parents then also be responsible for his actions.
That's a fair criticism, but I'm going to assume there's probably some minimum threshold for certain felonies in their state that automatically makes the crime untriable as a juvenile defense.
quote:
Are we going to start arresting the parents of every murderer and hold them responsible for their offspring’s actions? What about some 15 yr old gang banger who does a drive-by or car jacking and kills someone? Will the state go to the projects and arrest his mom? Will they try to find his dad, who probably isn’t even in the kid’s life anyway, and arrest him as well?
If their negligence meets the threshold of criminal negligence, then I'd assume yes that could apply. For instance, I worked with two kids who were in a gang and killed brutally for witnessing a murder. They were in the gang because the Mom was fricking the gang member and the kids were bringing home money from the gang to pay her bills. I'd have no problem with her being charged with criminal negligence in that case.
But, chances are a father that walked away and has no influence in his child's life won't meet the same threshold as a "present" parent who willfully ignored her child's mental health symptoms and went as far to mock him over text over it.
It's like the argument that now every parent that buys their kid a gun will be charged with this law. The purchase alone, if legal in their state, doesn't meet that threshold of negligence.
This post was edited on 2/8/24 at 11:02 am
Posted on 2/8/24 at 11:10 am to Scooby
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?
If he is a minor and its registered in your name you are certainly subject to civil litigation even if he just makes a dumb mistake or possibly even if it isn't his fault.
I do not see how this woman was convicted but it will not be surprising when someone is convicted of a similar charge when their gun was stolen. At some point the choice for most people is going to be "own a gun or have a homeowners policy that doesn't bankrupt you".
Posted on 2/8/24 at 2:37 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Are we going to start arresting the parents of every murderer and hold them responsible for their offspring’s actions? What about some 15 yr old gang banger who does a drive-by or car jacking and kills someone? Will the state go to the projects and arrest his mom? Will they try to find his dad, who probably isn’t even in the kid’s life anyway, and arrest him as well?
The second they did that, a large portion of the OT would celebrate.
I personally have no problem with white, black, Hispanic, or Asian parents being legally liable for their underaged children.
It's a damn shame we have to step in to make people feel like parenting their kids by threat, but maybe if we actually bothered to do so, we would see less crime. Or a lessened birth rate. Either one I am fine with.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:48 am to ThoseGuys
10-15 years for each.
LINK
quote:
The parents of the Oxford High School shooter were sentenced 10 to 15 years in prison, drawing to a close historic criminal proceedings that marked the first time a father and mother of a mass school shooter had not just been charged but convicted of manslaughter in connection to their child's crime.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 11:49 am
Posted on 4/9/24 at 11:50 am to Will Munny
What a crock of shite. Accountability administered only when it sets a freedom-removing precedent.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News