Thermal
August Member
Oddly, this is +/- the same as NJ USA, except that police and some security personnel (mostly armored car drivers) will have handguns.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Oxford High School, Michigan, school shooting.
- Thread starter plague311
- Start date
Oddly, this is +/- the same as NJ USA, except that police and some security personnel (mostly armored car drivers) will have handguns.
NJ residents can buy and keep handguns. They just can't carry them without a permit, which is rarely issued.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_New_Jersey
Thermal
August Member
Darat was talking about seeing them in public (at the park, etc). It's the same in NJ. They are not open or concealed carry, except for the like three that different judges have issued permits for.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
I wondered about this call, though I agree with it.
Prosecutor says she received 'pushback' after charging parents over Michigan shooting (npr.org)
Prosecutor says she received 'pushback' after charging parents over Michigan shooting (npr.org)
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Thursday local prosecutors formally opposed an effort by James and Jennifer Crumbley -- parents of accused school shooter Ethan Crumbley -- to have their $500,000 bail reduced, arguing the couple are a risk to flee. As of October, prosecutors allege, the couple was $11,000 behind in their house payments, have put the house on sale and begun to sell personal property. This included several horses the Crumbley's kept at another location.
The Crumbley's defense attorneys filed a brief this week arguing the Crumbley's kept the handgun safely locked away and had no reason to believe their son, Ethan, posed any kind of threat. Prosecutors do not agree at all, as the Detroit News reports:
Below is an image of the infamous 'The thoughts won't stop, help me' paper teachers at Oxford High School found on Ethan Crumbley's desk the morning of the shootings. Ethan Crumbley later altered it.
The Crumbley's defense attorneys filed a brief this week arguing the Crumbley's kept the handgun safely locked away and had no reason to believe their son, Ethan, posed any kind of threat. Prosecutors do not agree at all, as the Detroit News reports:
Below is an image of the infamous 'The thoughts won't stop, help me' paper teachers at Oxford High School found on Ethan Crumbley's desk the morning of the shootings. Ethan Crumbley later altered it.
Attachments
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36,990
Sigh. Firearms are not "banned" in the UK. In fact there are rather more than two million legally held firearms in the UK.
Your point regarding "self defense" is irrelevant. In fact it hasn't been grounds for a license for over fifty years, except in Norn Iron. It is also irrelevant to the inaccuracy of the item you quoted.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
There seems to be a determined effort to turn this thread into one, not about the Michigan high school shootings, but one about international gun law. The message above was posted fifteen minutes after my previous post, but it's in response to a message from one week ago about UK firearm regulations. Sigh. 
Anyway, the lawyers for the Crumbleys, Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman, have been arguing that they should not have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Wednesday the attorneys filed a brief arguing:
To be convicted of involuntary manslaughter prosecutors will have to prove the Crumbley's showed 'willful disregard' of the danger their son posed, not just that they were negligent. I'm not sure if the prosecutors can clear that bar -- we'll have to wait and see -- but I do support the parents being charged.
One troubling fact -- which prosecutors have pointedly mentioned -- is the Crumbleys argue they had "no idea" something like what happened was even possible. Yet when Jennifer Crumbley heard local news reports about a shooting spree at their son's high school, her immediate reaction was to text her son, "Ethan, don't do it." Does that sound like someone who was totally unaware their son posed a risk, or someone who just 'willfully disregarded' that risk until it was too late? I know what I think.
Below is an image of the Crumbleys in court December 14th. The court officer on the right is about to ask Jennifer Crumbley to pull her face mask up.
Anyway, the lawyers for the Crumbleys, Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman, have been arguing that they should not have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Wednesday the attorneys filed a brief arguing:
To be convicted of involuntary manslaughter prosecutors will have to prove the Crumbley's showed 'willful disregard' of the danger their son posed, not just that they were negligent. I'm not sure if the prosecutors can clear that bar -- we'll have to wait and see -- but I do support the parents being charged.
One troubling fact -- which prosecutors have pointedly mentioned -- is the Crumbleys argue they had "no idea" something like what happened was even possible. Yet when Jennifer Crumbley heard local news reports about a shooting spree at their son's high school, her immediate reaction was to text her son, "Ethan, don't do it." Does that sound like someone who was totally unaware their son posed a risk, or someone who just 'willfully disregarded' that risk until it was too late? I know what I think.
Below is an image of the Crumbleys in court December 14th. The court officer on the right is about to ask Jennifer Crumbley to pull her face mask up.
Attachments
Last edited:
There seems to be a determined effort to turn this thread into one, not about the Michigan high school shootings, but one about international gun law. The message above was posted fifteen minutes after my previous post, but it's in response to a message from one week ago about UK firearm regulations. Sigh.
Anyway, the lawyers for the Crumbleys, Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman, have been arguing that they should not have been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Wednesday the attorneys filed a brief arguing:
To be convicted of involuntary manslaughter prosecutors will have to prove the Crumbley's showed 'willful disregard' of the danger their son posed, not just that they were negligent. I'm not sure if the prosecutors can clear that bar -- we'll have to wait and see -- but I do support the parents being charged.
One troubling fact -- which prosecutors have pointedly mentioned -- is the Crumbleys argue they had "no idea" something like what happened was even possible. Yet when Jennifer Crumbley heard local news reports about a shooting spree at their son's high school, her immediate reaction was to text her son, "Ethan, don't do it." Does that sound like someone who was totally unaware their son posed a risk, or someone who just 'willfully disregarded' that risk until it was too late? I know what I think.
Below is an image of the Crumbleys in court December 14th. The court officer on the right is about to ask Jennifer Crumbley to pull her face mask up.
I think I would be hard to persuade that the parents should be found guilty without that one text. Surely any parent’s first thoughts would be about their kid’s safety not that they were engaged in a shooting as the perpetrator.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 36,990
There seems to be a determined effort to turn this thread into one, not about the Michigan high school shootings, but one about international gun law. The message above was posted fifteen minutes after my previous post, but it's in response to a message from one week ago about UK firearm regulations. Sigh.
.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
That's kind of where I'm at with this case. I don't know if they can be convicted. I don't even know whether or not they ought to be convicted. However, having to go through at least the trouble of the trial and being held in jail before the trial, seems like the very least that ought to happen to them. Their actions were sufficiently negligent that, at the very least, they should have to face a jury.
The defense claimed that the "it" in "Don't do it", was meant to imply suicide. The news reporting on that subject that I have seen wasn't thorough. I don't know if it was a case that Jennifer Crumbley only knew that a student had a gun, but didn't know he had already killed people, or if she knew he had killed people, and she was imploring him not to end his own life as well.
I'm not sure how credible that claim is.
Either way, from a purley logical perspective, the prosecutors' claim of the text as evidence against the Crumbleys doesn't make a lot of sense to me. At 1:22pm, after news reports of shots fired, they obviously knew that such a thing was possible, and they did the one and only think that could have possibly made a difference at that point.* The willful disregard would have to apply to a time prior to the shooting, when they knew there was a danger, but willfully chose to do nothing about it.
"Willful disregard" is another one of those phrases that tends to just be used as a stock phrase by people, without thinking of the meaning of the actual words. If "they should have known", that there was a danger, then there's nothing willful about it. The prosecution ought to have to prove that the Crumbleys knew very well that there was an actual danger, and did nothing, or worse, did something to conceal that danger from authorities.
In practice, juries are a bit flexible with language interpretation.
*Or so they thought. In fact, when Jennifer Crumbley sent the text, the shooting was over and Ethan was in custody.
Last edited:
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I agree, that's a good point. For a parent to learn there's been an active shooter incident at their child's school and immediately wonder, "Is my child the shooter?" is quite telling. As the local prosecutor has said, it's tangible evidence that Jennifer Crumbley was indeed aware that her son posed a danger.
I have to admit if I was on the Crumbley's jury -- and I've been on three juries in my time -- I would really have to wrestle with this. Hash it out with the other jurors. Because it does appear to me to be willful disregard of the potential danger her son posed.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I don't see it as tangible evidence. It's a bit suggestive, but that's really all, because it shows their state of mind at 1:22, not before.
If you know that your kid is very disturbed and are afraid he might kill himself, that doesn't imply that you would think he also might kill someone else. A lot of parents believe their kid is a "good kid" who would never do that sort of thing, and so they don't even ask the question. They don't really understand the psychology of spree shooters, nor should they be expected to.
On the other hand, having learned that there is, in fact, an active shooter in the school, suddenly asking, "Could it be my kid?" is a lot more natural, and suddenly the disturbing images would take on a whole new character in their mind.
To me, the content of the morning's discussion with the counselors would be something that would be very telling. What did they think of the drawings? Did the discussion focus on suicide, or homicide? How did they present it to the Crumbleys, and how did the Crumbleys react? That would show a bit about the state of mind of both the Crumbleys and the counselors.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I have to admit, I find the alternate scenario, Jennifer Crumbley learning of a shooting at her son's high school and immediately fearing her son might be about to commit suicide ("Don't do it.") not a whole lot different. What parent upon learning there was an active shooter incident in their child's school, immediately reacts, "I hope my kid doesn't kill himself" rather than "I hope my kid is okay."
What's the most likely reason a parent would fear their child might be about to commit suicide following an active shooter incident in their school? Wouldn't it be the fear, their kid was the shooter?
What's the most likely reason a parent would fear their child might be about to commit suicide following an active shooter incident in their school? Wouldn't it be the fear, their kid was the shooter?
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
One with a suicidal kid.
Absolutely, but the accounts haven't described what was actually known at the time of the text. The first news accounts were, naturally, very vague. "Shots fired", "police activity", that sort of thing. It's unclear, to me at least, how the Crumbleys even knew what was happening. They were probably listening to the radio, which would probably mean they were in their car, or perhaps they had turned on the television in their home. Either way, by the time of the text, they wouldn't have heard much at all about what was happening. Part of the investigation undoubtedly will be, or rather already has been, asking them where they were when they texted, and what was their news source? Most schools these days also have emergency notification systems, so they may have received text messages from that system, but I haven't seen the exact content.
No doubt recordings of whatever broadcasts and notifications will be examined to see what they actually knew at that time. It may be that the only thing they knew was that there was a student with a gun.
Personally, I would have actually tried a phone call instead of just a text. But...maybe she did. That hasn't been reported either. Maybe she phoned, and when he didn't answer, texted. I don't know.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I don't want to discuss what we don't know because that can go anywhere. What did Jennifer Crumbley know when she texted her son not to "do it?" The original news reports I saw said that the first local news bulletins were about a shooting at the high school. Is that accurate? I guess we'll have to wait for the trial to find out.
I will say that most communities do have an active shooter response that includes quickly warning the public. Primarily to keep people away until the situation is under control. In New York on my last couple of jobs I had to watch the 'active shooter' training video. It was emphasized that if an incident begins -- and if it's safe for you to do so -- you should alert others to an "active shooter" scenario. Just say those words: active shooter!
I will say that most communities do have an active shooter response that includes quickly warning the public. Primarily to keep people away until the situation is under control. In New York on my last couple of jobs I had to watch the 'active shooter' training video. It was emphasized that if an incident begins -- and if it's safe for you to do so -- you should alert others to an "active shooter" scenario. Just say those words: active shooter!
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
In my opinion, positively choosing not to act on the at least two separate warnings from the school about their son's various behaviors (indeed, even laughing the behavior off privately in one instance), in combination with the mother's text message when she became aware of a shooting at her son's school, to me is all consistent with parents who understood what they were being told - that is, understood that the rest of society sees those behaviors as evidence of substantial risk - but just personally disagreed with that assessment because they thought they knew better, until the reports of a shooting at the school began to reach them, at which point they realized their mistake.
The idea that upon learning there was a shooting going on at the school the mother texted her son to exhort him "not to commit suicide" just makes no sense at all unless she simultaneously believed he was the shooter whose actions were being reported..
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
It's not clear at this point if they knew there was a shooter at that point. The initial reports were very sparse and uncertain of what was happening. They knew that something was happening that caused a lot of police work, and that involved a gun. They may have known more, but I don't think the local news had confirmed more than that. I think it was about 2:00 when I first heard of it, and at that time the news wasn't saying more than "reports that there were injuries".
The phrasing "Don't do it, Ethan", by the mother srongly suggests that whatever "it" was, she wasn't aware that "it" had already happened. If she already knew that he had shot other people, and she was worried he might kill himself, that would be very weird phrasing. If she was worried that he might shoot other people, that would make sense. If she thought that he had a gun, and she was worried he would kill himself, it would also make sense. I just think we don't have enough information to draw strong conclusions about what she was thinking until we know what she had heard at that point.
Moreover, regardless of the exact details of what she knew, she certainly knew enough to know that her son was in a situation where he could die and/or commit murder, and possibly end up in prison for life. She had enough information to know that her life as she had known it up until that point was now over, or at least that it might be ending soon, and she had known this for less time than it took me to write this post. Expecting rational behavior under those circumstances is unrealistic.
We'll find out a little bit more as time goes on.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
What did Jennifer Crumbley know at 1:15 pm when she texted her son the advice not to "do it." What did the local media report in Oxford before that time? For one thing, local news stations usually monitor local police channels and the police dispatcher would almost certainly have advised officers that they were responding to what over 100 911 callers were describing as an active shooter event. For another, Jennifer Crumbley was a social media user. What had gone out on social media by 1:15 pm? It's an entirely possible that students at the high school were texting that there was an active shooter in the school. That kids had been shot.
Let's not forget, the Crumbley's lawyers are not asserting that when Jennifer Crumbley texted her son at 1:15 pm all she knew was there was police activity and/or shots fired at or near the school. They seem to have conceded that she knew there had been an active shooter incident at the school but -- contrary to the first impressions people had that Crumbley was urging her son not to shoot people -- she was urging her son not to kill himself.
Again, the premise that Crumbley only knew there was 'something' going on at or near the school and that she would react by urging her son not to commit suicide makes little sense. Unless, that is, she heard something was going on at the school and immediately guessed her son had staged an active shooter incident and was about to be arrested by police. But that seems like kind of a leap.
I would guess the prosecutors know a great deal more detail than the public has been made privy to. I guess we will find out more at the Crumbley's trial -unless the Crumbleys make a plea deal before the trial starts. Then we may never know.
Let's not forget, the Crumbley's lawyers are not asserting that when Jennifer Crumbley texted her son at 1:15 pm all she knew was there was police activity and/or shots fired at or near the school. They seem to have conceded that she knew there had been an active shooter incident at the school but -- contrary to the first impressions people had that Crumbley was urging her son not to shoot people -- she was urging her son not to kill himself.
Again, the premise that Crumbley only knew there was 'something' going on at or near the school and that she would react by urging her son not to commit suicide makes little sense. Unless, that is, she heard something was going on at the school and immediately guessed her son had staged an active shooter incident and was about to be arrested by police. But that seems like kind of a leap.
I would guess the prosecutors know a great deal more detail than the public has been made privy to. I guess we will find out more at the Crumbley's trial -unless the Crumbleys make a plea deal before the trial starts. Then we may never know.