Oxford High School, Michigan, school shooting.

[Meadmaker]

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.

Yes. In these situations, exactly what you know may depend on where you are. If you are in your car, you would know what's on the radio, unless you have notifications for certain things turned on in your cell phone. I would assume that there is some sort of alert system set up for text messaging to parents in an emergency, although I haven't seen such a message references. If you are in front of a computer screen, you might see a headline on an internet news feed, or even an email. So, we can't say exactly what they knew, but the prosecutors probably have at least some idea. "Don't do it, Ethan." doesn't make much sense to me out of context, but it might make more sense if we knew exactly what she knew at the moment she sent that text, and what else she did.

I don't remember exactly when I first heard about it, but I saw a headline on a local news feed, and I then tuned to a local news source that had gone to full time live coverage, but there weren't any details on injuries and no confirmed deaths at the time. They were sure that ambulances had gone to a local hospital, and I think that parents were being told by then to meet their kids at the Meijer store near the school. That was probably some time after 2:00, if I recall correctly. In other words, as you might expect, initial reports were very spotty and had little confirmed information.

I thought that the text was sent at 1:22, but I might be confusing things. To me, a very interesting thing is that the Crumbley's 911 call didn't happen until 1:37, reporting, first, that their gun was missing....oh and by the way we think the shooter at Oxford school might be our son. That seemed kind of odd to me. Fifteen minutes after they had texted their son, they finally called 911, and the first thing they bring up is the missing gun? When I first heard that I actually thought that maybe they were attempting to cover up something.

Well, one possibility is that they were in the car when they heard the intial reports. The radio reports would have had little or no information, so they leap to the conclusion that the kid had the gun and was threatening suicide. However, he shouldn't have had the gun, right? It's at home, right? So, it takes them 15 minutes to get home, and they rush right to the gun, and see it's missing. That's the first thing in their mind, not because a missing gun is most important, but because the missing gun is confirmation of their worst fears, so they immediately call 911, but what's in their head is that the gun is missing.

This is all speculative, of course. The point is that we don't know exactly what they knew when they made the call, or why they made the calls at the exact times they did. We don't know where they were. Together or apart? Home or car? TV, radio, or internet on?

Assuming there's a trial, we'll learn more. I think there will definitely be a trial, unless prosecutors have a real damning piece of evidence that they haven't shared yet.

I still think it's an uphill climb to get a conviction unless they lied to the school officials. I think an awful lot depends on the content of the conversation held at the school.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes. In these situations, exactly what you know may depend on where you are. If you are in your car, you would know what's on the radio, unless you have notifications for certain things turned on in your cell phone. I would assume that there is some sort of alert system set up for text messaging to parents in an emergency, although I haven't seen such a message references. If you are in front of a computer screen, you might see a headline on an internet news feed, or even an email. So, we can't say exactly what they knew, but the prosecutors probably have at least some idea.

An alert came up on my Google News feed at 07:17 on the morning of December 1st. When I work the time back to the time in Oxford, Michigan (Eastern), its 1:17pm on November 30th, 26 minutes after the first 911 calls came into the Police.

So even as far away as here in NZ, I knew about it less than a half hour after it happened. I'm pretty sure that people in Oakland County MI would have known before that.

 

[Checkmite]

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 that's hair-splitting. I submit that the average person who hears that a school has been locked down, that there are lots of police present, and that a "gun" is somehow involved, is likely to reasonably infer that there has been a shooting incident at the school whether or not the fact has been explicitly confirmed yet by reporting media.

 

[newyorkguy]

This is what WDIV -- a UHF digital channel in Detroit, affiliated with NBC -- reports as to the first alerts the school sent. The warning was sent by email.

Active Emergency at OHS -- 1:09 p.m.

Dear Oxford Community Schools Parent/Guardian(s):

There is an active emergency occurring at Oxford High school right now. Oakland County Sheriff’s Department are on the scene and we have activated our emergency protocols and placed the school into lockdown.

We will send more information to you as we know it. Please do not go to the school. NBC affiliate in Detroit

The warning was sent at 1:09 pm and Jennifer Crumbley sent her son the 'don't do it' text at 1:22 pm (not 1:15 pm as I wrote yesterday). At 1:09 when the alert was sent, Ethan Crumbley was already in police custody.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thanks for that. WDIV is what I was actually watching on the day of the shooting. It's not just UHF digital. It's channel 4. I was watching the streaming version, but during breaking news like that, they live stream their regular news coverage.

So, based on the wording of the emergency message, you still had to read between the lines to understand the difference between an active shooter situation and a student threatening suicide. A student with a gun would cause a lockdown, regardless of whether he had yet fired it at himself or anyone else. Even just a student with a knife would probably cause a lockdown. Certainly any time police were on the scene and there was a potential for violence, a lockdown would be triggered just to keep students in classrooms and away from trouble.

So prosecutors and defense will know whether they saw that alert. I'm guessing they did. I'm guessing they also turned on whatever news source they had available. (Jennifer Crumbley doesn't strike me as the sort that would listen to the news channel in the car by default. I'm sure it would be too liberal for her tastes.) Reviewing what was actually being broadcast at the time of the text on whatever news source she was tuned in to would tell them what she actually knew at the time.

 

[plague311]

I haven't seen this posted here but it appears there's a bit more disturbing **** this kid was up to:

"Their son was torturing animals, even kept a baby bird's head in a jar on his bedroom floor, which he later took and placed in a school bathroom," the prosecutor's filing states. "Meanwhile, the parents were focusing on their own issues, things like extramarital affairs, financial issues and substance abuse."

Combined with the previous quote I'm not sure how this all ties together:

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald also alleged that during this same time period, the Crumbleys spent their time at a barn caring for their horses three to four nights a week for up to three hours at a time, and "seeking other relationships, including (the) mother's extramarital affairs.

Perhaps the phrasing is odd but it seems like this is saying the couple were seeking other relationships? I'm not sure if that means together.

The kid definitely had a lot of reasons to be depressed. Apparently his only friend had moved and his dog died. Long story short, it sounds like there were so many red flags that a person would have to go pretty far out of their way to avoid seeing them.

 

[plague311]

A few more things from the article:

McDonald also alleged in her filing that on the day of the shooting, Jennifer Crumbley gave misleading statements about the location of the gun that she had purchased for her son for Christmas, including telling her boyfriend that the gun was in her car. Instead, authorities have said, the gun was with her son. And it was her husband who noticed it missing after the shooting and called 911 to report it missing.

Oddly:

The defense has disputed that, stating in court records, "the Crumbleys did have the gun at issue in a locked and hidden location."

Yet the mom was telling her side piece that it was in her car. Doesn't sound like anyone can keep their stories straight. This family is a hot ******* mess for sure.

 

[newyorkguy]

I wondered what kind of sentence Ethan Crumbley might be looking at if he is convicted. What kind of sentences have other convicted student school shooters gotten? I discovered a reporter had the same idea and wrote an article about it. Only he pretty quickly discovered, in many if not most of these shootings the student gunmen aren't convicted of anything. That's because they kill themselves before they can be arrested. That's one way this case is a little different. But in cases where student gunmen are around to get arrested they usually wind up getting sentenced -- especially if they killed multiple people -- to life-no-parole.

But THE most unusual facet of this case is, the school actually tried to discipline the shooter just a couple hours before the shooting started. Tried to remove him from the school. That has never happened before and that is what will always separate this case from the others. Just a couple hours before the shooting began, the school removed Crumbley from class and summoned his parents. They requested the Crumbleys get Ethan into counseling within the next two days and that they take him home. James and Jennifer Crumbley agreed to the first condition but balked at the second. From comments school officials have made the Crumbleys apparently made it clear once they left school they were headed back to work. Neither was up for playing babysitter for Ethan that afternoon. The school decided it might be better for Ethan to remain in class rather than go home to an empty house. Thus setting the stage for what would happen.

 

[Blue Mountain]

But THE most unusual facet of this case is, the school actually tried to discipline the shooter just a couple hours before the shooting started. Tried to remove him from the school. That has never happened before and that is what will always separate this case from the others. Just a couple hours before the shooting began, the school removed Crumbley from class and summoned his parents. They requested the Crumbleys get Ethan into counseling within the next two days and that they take him home. James and Jennifer Crumbley agreed to the first condition but balked at the second. From comments school officials have made the Crumbleys apparently made it clear once they left school they were headed back to work. Neither was up for playing babysitter for Ethan that afternoon. The school decided it might be better for Ethan to remain in class rather than go home to an empty house. Thus setting the stage for what would happen.

What a dilemma for future school administrators! They have a fifteen year old who appears to be in distress. They want to send him home but the parents don't want to take responsibility. Do they send him home alone, where he might make an attempt to kill himself? Or keep him in school, where he might start shooting up the place?

It sounds like they need a secure room or two in the school where they can put the youth. Give it windows so it doesn't feel like a jail cell, a bed to lay down on, and perhaps books and magazines. Let the kid have his/her cell phone as well, but not the backpack.

Still sounds too close to a holding cell for my liking. Anyone have a better idea?

 

[mgidm86]

What a dilemma for future school administrators! They have a fifteen year old who appears to be in distress. They want to send him home but the parents don't want to take responsibility. Do they send him home alone, where he might make an attempt to kill himself? Or keep him in school, where he might start shooting up the place?

It sounds like they need a secure room or two in the school where they can put the youth. Give it windows so it doesn't feel like a jail cell, a bed to lay down on, and perhaps books and magazines. Let the kid have his/her cell phone as well, but not the backpack.

Still sounds too close to a holding cell for my liking. Anyone have a better idea?

That's nothing new. We even called it "detention" when I was in school! Been there many times.

 

[Meadmaker]

What a dilemma for future school administrators! They have a fifteen year old who appears to be in distress. They want to send him home but the parents don't want to take responsibility. Do they send him home alone, where he might make an attempt to kill himself? Or keep him in school, where he might start shooting up the place?

It sounds like they need a secure room or two in the school where they can put the youth. Give it windows so it doesn't feel like a jail cell, a bed to lay down on, and perhaps books and magazines. Let the kid have his/her cell phone as well, but not the backpack.

Still sounds too close to a holding cell for my liking. Anyone have a better idea?

There's no reason to not let him have the backpack, unless there's a weapon in it. Obviously, it didn't occur to anyone to check for that. They (school officials) rather clearly didn't think he had a weapon with him. It didn't even occur to them to check. They had the right to do so, but they didn't.

If they let him go home, he might come back with a gun....except that thought probably didn't occur to them, either, because if it had they might have checked to make certain that he didn't already have a gun. If they thought he had access to one at home, it seems a rather obvious thing to do.

I just have to wonder what the content of the conversation with the kid, parents, and counselors was. If the counselors asked about weapons, and the parents lied about it, then I say throw the book at the parents. However, if the counselors didn't bring up that possibility, I'm far less certain. I guess we'll see what more we learn as the case proceeds.

And yes, putting a kid in a windowless room all day long was pretty common back in the '70s. That was called, at our school, "in school suspension". "Detention" was forcing the kid to stay 30 minutes after school. Apparently these things are unacceptable in the modern world, because reasons. I know my kid's school didn't have either.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm failing to see how getting put into the naughty corner would have stopped a student with a gun. In school detention is not actually a jail cell, a sufficiently motivated student can just walk out, especially if they have a gun.

It seems pretty obvious that the school did not suspect that he was armed at the time, otherwise their response would have been far more severe. Given the parents terribly reckless behavior generally, I would imagine they were not going to raise this as a possibility or lift a finger in any way. Such callousness to their own child's well-being in a time of crisis is something that I would imagine many school administers would not be expecting.

The school rightly saw a student in need of intervention and psychological help, but the parents were really the only ones in a position to fully understand the enormity of the risk.

 

[plague311]

And yes, putting a kid in a windowless room all day long was pretty common back in the '70s. That was called, at our school, "in school suspension". "Detention" was forcing the kid to stay 30 minutes after school. Apparently these things are unacceptable in the modern world, because reasons. I know my kid's school didn't have either.

Well, as mgidm86 made a joke about, and I can confirm, probably because it did **** all as far as prevention or rehabilitation. Detention and in-school suspension had no positive outcome. I have no idea how sitting quietly in a room for 30 minutes is supposed to teach someone something (it's literally what you do all day in school). Also, if you got detention and rode the bus home, you got to take the second bus, which means there was maybe 1 or 2 other people on the bus.

It would be hard to come up with a reason as to how the school officials considered any action without asking if there was a gun or weapon that Ethan could have on him. If the mother is telling him not to get caught looking up ammo, it's not that unbelievable to think she just wouldn't bring it up. Why would she? She told her kid to get better at not getting caught. I doubt she'd throw him under the bus.

 

[Thermal]

There's no reason to not let him have the backpack, unless there's a weapon in it. Obviously, it didn't occur to anyone to check for that. They (school officials) rather clearly didn't think he had a weapon with him. It didn't even occur to them to check. They had the right to do so, but they didn't.

If they let him go home, he might come back with a gun....except that thought probably didn't occur to them, either, because if it had they might have checked to make certain that he didn't already have a gun. If they thought he had access to one at home, it seems a rather obvious thing to do.

I just have to wonder what the content of the conversation with the kid, parents, and counselors was. If the counselors asked about weapons, and the parents lied about it, then I say throw the book at the parents. However, if the counselors didn't bring up that possibility, I'm far less certain. I guess we'll see what more we learn as the case proceeds.

And yes, putting a kid in a windowless room all day long was pretty common back in the '70s. That was called, at our school, "in school suspension". "Detention" was forcing the kid to stay 30 minutes after school. Apparently these things are unacceptable in the modern world, because reasons. I know my kid's school didn't have either.

Also "Saturday detention", a three hour sit down on Saturday morning. I was told it all detentions were to prepare us for our inevitable future in the Correctional System. It also forced you to miss practice if you were in a sport, and missing practice got you benched or kicked off the team.

 

[Meadmaker]

Also, if you got detention and rode the bus home, you got to take the second bus, which means there was maybe 1 or 2 other people on the bus.

You had a second bus?

Anyway, this is a digression. It's conceivable that somehow lack of discipline played some role at Oxford, but from what I've read, it doesn't seem likely.

My only point was that the idea of keeping a kid in a room at school isn't something out of a bizarre dystopian sci-fi novel. It's normal. If they thought the kid shouldn't be in class, they could have kept him in the office. However, honestly, why not send him back to class? He wasn't being disruptive.

Should someone have actually considered the possibility that he might have a gun with him? I'm sure a lot of people have asked themselves that question over and over. Maybe we'll learn more about why they didn't as the case develops.

 

[Thermal]

But what can a school reasonably foresee? Should they treat any emotionally disturbed kid like a potential murderer, and search him, his belongings, and locker? Seems less than compassionate on the receiving end.

 

[Blue Mountain]

(respectful snip)

My only point was that the idea of keeping a kid in a room at school isn't something out of a bizarre dystopian sci-fi novel. It's normal. If they thought the kid shouldn't be in class, they could have kept him in the office. However, honestly, why not send him back to class? He wasn't being disruptive.

A good summary. The student wasn't being disruptive and there was probably no indication he had the gun in his possession—I suspect his parents assured the administration it was safely at home. So there wasn't any pressing reason not to let him back into class.

This may cause an update to protocols to have the parents verify to the school that any firearms in the home are still there before letting the student out of the school office.

 

[Suddenly]

What a dilemma for future school administrators! They have a fifteen year old who appears to be in distress. They want to send him home but the parents don't want to take responsibility. Do they send him home alone, where he might make an attempt to kill himself? Or keep him in school, where he might start shooting up the place?

If they believe him a danger to self or others there are civil commitment options.

 

[plague311]

A good summary. The student wasn't being disruptive and there was probably no indication he had the gun in his possession—I suspect his parents assured the administration it was safely at home. So there wasn't any pressing reason not to let him back into class.

This may cause an update to protocols to have the parents verify to the school that any firearms in the home are still there before letting the student out of the school office.

Hard to know what the parents said. The mom was telling her side piece it was in the car. The father called shortly after the shooting saying it wasn't at the house.

I think it boils down to the parents had no clue at all where the gun was, they couldn't even keep it straight between themselves, and that's how they ended up catching a charge.

 

[Suddenly]

Hard to know what the parents said. The mom was telling her side piece it was in the car. The father called shortly after the shooting saying it wasn't at the house.

I think it boils down to the parents had no clue at all where the gun was, they couldn't even keep it straight between themselves, and that's how they ended up catching a charge.

The whole buying the obviously troubled kid the gun is what makes this a viable case. Even if they intended to not let him actively possess it a jury isn't likely to split hairs when it comes down to their failure to secure it and whether that is the reckless part.

They might have not caught the charge if the gun was secured in a locked heavy safe buried in five feet of concrete and the kid managed to somehow get it, but if you are going to give a kid who is collecting animal heads in jars a gun, well, that's reckless right there.