Oxford High School, Michigan, school shooting.

[Darat]

In this case, though, if it's unfair to expect a counselor to do that assessment, is it fair to expect the parents to make that assessment?

...snip...

Yes or rather it is their responsibility see to it that the child gets adequate health care, no one forced them to have a child.

 

[Craig4]

In this case, though, if it's unfair to expect a counselor to do that assessment, is it fair to expect the parents to make that assessment?

That's why I just have a hard time justifying charging the parents unless they lied to the authorities, or misled them. If the only argument against them is "they should have known", I think that's unreasonable.

I'd say not mentioning the gun during the meeting at the school was a fairly substantial lie of omission.

 

[Meadmaker]

The counselor wasn't looking at this in the light of buying a gun for the kid and not securing it.

If the kid shot himself I'd still be on board with charging the parents with involuntary manslaughter (although some sort of neglect charge would probably be easier).

The facts aren't quite clear, but there is a possible version where this is arguably straight up murder as classically defined as depraved heart/indifference murder. That giving this kid a gun was analogous to shooting a gun into a dark room.

On a moral level, I don't have a problem with blaming the parents, but I am not so sure on a criminal level.

Over in the mass shooting thread, Bogative posts frequent updates of the many, many, mass shootings in America. I'm sure some of the perpetrators are juveniles. Have any of the parents ever been charged with manslaughter? (That's a sincere question. I don't know the answer.)

Sadly, in my opinion, the gun acquisition and storage appears to be perfectly legal. Unless they did something to mislead school officials and prevent them from correctly assessing the danger, I'm just not seeing anything criminal. Being dumb as a stump can result in death or injury to yourself or others, and based on Jennifer's writing, I would definitely say that's the case here, but I can't see that as the sole basis for a criminal charge.

 

[Suddenly]

Over in the mass shooting thread, Bogative posts frequent updates of the many, many, mass shootings in America. I'm sure some of the perpetrators are juveniles. Have any of the parents ever been charged with manslaughter? (That's a sincere question. I don't know the answer.)
.

It would need extreme facts and while still in the media fog this one has the potential to really be that. Without a lot more clarification there are tons of reasonable opinions w/r/t this.

It's sort of a unicorn case given how extreme this kid's problems were and that the parents apparently may have given him a gun not in spite of this, but because of this. Which is pretty wild.

 

[Meadmaker]

I've done some googling, and I can't find a comparable case where the parents of a teenaged killer were charged. I found a few references to parents being charged after a small child, ten years old or less, gained access to a parent's gun and used it to shoot someone.

One article referenced 84 school shootings, and said 74% used weapons obtained at home, and there were only four prosecutions of parents, all involving small children.

ETA:. Obviously, the jury makes the final call, but to say that charges like this are rare is an understatement. I think they are unprecedented.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's sort of a unicorn case given how extreme this kid's problems were and that the parents apparently may have given him a gun not in spite of this, but because of this. Which is pretty wild.

I think this may be 20/20 hindsight. From what I've read he had no disciplinary problems, was a normal student,, had no legal issues, and held down a job where he was a good employee.

He drew one really disturbing cartoon, on the morning of the shooting. Maybe we will learn more at trial, but right now it just doesn't seem like he fit any sort of profile.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

It would need extreme facts and while still in the media fog this one has the potential to really be that. Without a lot more clarification there are tons of reasonable opinions w/r/t this.

It's sort of a unicorn case given how extreme this kid's problems were and that the parents apparently may have given him a gun not in spite of this, but because of this. Which is pretty wild.

We don't know this: we have a picture and a couple of comments. If all bairns who drew or wrote things like that have extreme problems this will include many, many, many bairns (disclaimer - for several years I had cornered the market on gothy and emo-y bairns in my patch, most of whom were nowhere near as "disturbed" as most adults assumed from the overall goth or emo vibe; on the other hand, one of my colleagues did find a lad with plans to bomb his high school, which said colleague's rapid actions prevented from happening).

 

[smartcooky]

Over in the mass shooting thread, Bogative posts frequent updates of the many, many, mass shootings in America..

I hope you understand that he has a certain agenda for doing so that more involves muddying the waters that casting light on the subject.

 

[Meadmaker]

I hope you understand that he has a certain agenda for doing so that more involves muddying the waters that casting light on the subject.

His agenda is pretty transparent, but his facts are accurate. The USA is awash with gunfire, but I haven't seen a case where parents were prosecuted when their sons commit murder.

 

[smartcooky]

His agenda is pretty transparent, but his facts are accurate. The USA is awash with gunfire, but I haven't seen a case where parents were prosecuted when their sons commit murder.

He has been trying to confuse the issue for his own, shall we say "personal" reasons, by bringing criminal gang shootings into a discussion where it does not belong. Gang-related shootings and killings involving drug dealers and criminals should not be confused with spree-shootings such as those carried out by disgruntled employees, nutters with ideological/religious/political motives or troubled students like Crumbley shooting up schools. They are different beasts entirely that happen for different reasons entirely. The solutions for one are unlikely to work for the other.

For example, restricting gun access by having a law that requires guns in the home be dismantled and locked away in a gun safe separate from the ammunition (as they are in this country) would massively reduce the number of school shootings because they are almost always carried out with legally owned firearms, usually (8 out of 10 times) coming from the student's home.

However, such a law would make hardly a dent in the criminal gang shootings, because criminal gangs have ready access to illegally held and stolen guns all the time. Ballistic forensics often shows that multiple, seemingly unrelated shootings can be traced back to the same firearm. This almost always indicates the use of guns that are passed and traded between criminals in exchange for drugs or other contraband, or the use of "community guns", illegal/stolen firearms that are kept in a secret location that only the criminals know. They get the firearm, commit the crime and put it back so that they minimise their chance of the firearms being found, or of being caught with it in their possession.
.
.

 

[Meadmaker]

He has been trying to confuse the issue for his own, shall we say "personal" reasons, by bringing criminal gang shootings into a discussion where it does not belong. Gang-related shootings and killings involving drug dealers and criminals should not be confused with spree-shootings such as those carried out by disgruntled employees, nutters with ideological/religious/political motives or troubled students like Crumbley shooting up schools. They are different beasts entirely that happen for different reasons entirely. The solutions for one are unlikely to work for the other.

For example, restricting gun access by having a law that requires guns in the home be dismantled and locked away in a gun safe separate from the ammunition (as they are in this country) would massively reduce the number of school shootings because they are almost always carried out with legally owned firearms, usually (8 out of 10 times) coming from the student's home.

However, such a law would make hardly a dent in the criminal gang shootings, because criminal gangs have ready access to illegally held and stolen guns all the time. Ballistic forensics often shows that multiple, seemingly unrelated shootings can be traced back to the same firearm. This almost always indicates the use of guns that are passed and traded between criminals in exchange for drugs or other contraband, or the use of "community guns", illegal/stolen firearms that are kept in a secret location that only the criminals know. They get the firearm, commit the crime and put it back so that they minimise their chance of the firearms being found, or of being caught with it in their possession.
.
.

I don't disagree, but I just wonder how far criminal liability should extend in either case, whether suburban kid spree shooter or inner city juvenile drug dealer and gang member.

In the Oxford case, the parents left a gun unsecured. That's bad. In my opinion, it ought to be illegal, but it isn't. In the other cases, 8 out of 10 school spree shootings, the parents weren't charged. What's special about this one?

I think most people would answer that the kid's obvious mental health issues are what makes this case different, but it appears to me that those issues were not, in fact, staring everyone in the face. I think they came to light the morning of the crime.

 

[newyorkguy]

What's special about this case? The parents were summoned to meet with school officials a couple hours BEFORE the shooting took place. The parents had just purchased a powerful handgun for their son. He had it with him in school that morning. But the parents did absolutely nothing to ascertain where the gun was, if Ethan in fact had it with him or to make school officials aware of that possibility. As a direct result four other children were murdered by their son and seven others were shot but survived (though with who knows what kinds of ongoing medical issues).

 

[mgidm86]

Were you locked in?

No, there was someone in the room with us. We weren't dragged in there forcibly either.

We also didn't have school shootings like we do now so there was no reason to do so. We went because we had to or we'd get in worse trouble by the school and our parents.

Kids that got in fights got sent home. I can't remember if cops were ever called for that.

I would think since shooting up schools is now "a thing" that things would need to be a little different. I think keeping this kid at school was a mistake. If the parents won't take him then authorities should probably be called, whether it's child services or the police. Times have changed.

That's my quick "eating dinner while I type" answer anyways.

 

[plague311]

In the Oxford case, the parents left a gun unsecured. That's bad. In my opinion, it ought to be illegal, but it isn't. In the other cases, 8 out of 10 school spree shootings, the parents weren't charged. What's special about this one?

These parents bought the kid the gun he used, they didn't just "oopsie" and leave the case unlocked. His mom had told him not to get caught looking up ammo. He was cutting animals heads off and keeping them in jars. I'm completely and entirely baffled at how you keep acting like this school shooting happened in a vacuum. This kid had an established history of having mental conditions.

This is what always happens in these scenarios and it just ******* pisses me off to no end. Every single step of the incident has to be viewed in some form of vacuum. The parents didn't just find out about his issues that morning. They'd been ongoing and documented for awhile. The parents were aware of all of these issues and rather than get him the obvious help he needed, they got him a ******* gun. That's not irresponsible, reckless or negligent? Then in all seriousness, what is? If none of that qualifies, then I don't know how you'd get there.

I think most people would answer that the kid's obvious mental health issues are what makes this case different, but it appears to me that those issues were not, in fact, staring everyone in the face. I think they came to light the morning of the crime.

No, they didn't come to light the morning of the crime. There was a trail of them. Did the message about the bullets happen that morning? No, the mother was aware of them and told him not to get caught. Did him getting caught with the head of an animal in a jar that he was, for some ****** up reason, keeping, happen that morning? No, of course not. There were others posted in this thread. Why do you feel the need to directly contradict available evidence? If you want the parents to get off, that's fine, but denying reality and established information isn't going to do it.

 

[Meadmaker]

These parents bought the kid the gun he used, they didn't just "oopsie" and leave the case unlocked. His mom had told him not to get caught looking up ammo. He was cutting animals heads off and keeping them in jars. I'm completely and entirely baffled at how you keep acting like this school shooting happened in a vacuum. This kid had an established history of having mental conditions.

This is what always happens in these scenarios and it just ******* pisses me off to no end. Every single step of the incident has to be viewed in some form of vacuum. The parents didn't just find out about his issues that morning. They'd been ongoing and documented for awhile. The parents were aware of all of these issues and rather than get him the obvious help he needed, they got him a ******* gun. That's not irresponsible, reckless or negligent?

But is it manslaughter?

And did the kid actually have a history of mental conditions? I haven't read that. I've read of disturbing things that he did, but I don't demand that parents recognize the difference is between moody teenage behavior and mental illness.



On the other hand, I would expect the school counselors to know the difference. So, to me, it comes down to why didn't the counselors act? Did they not know what was going on? Did they ask the Crumbleys the right questions? If they asked, and the Crumbleys lied, then I would absolutely support charges against the parents.

I keep thinking about the ammo search. A whole lot has been made about that, but to me it seems awfully normal. He has a gun. Search for ammo. That makes sense to me.

On the other hand, I think it should have signalled a red flag to the counselors, and they should have asked why he might have been looking up ammo. If they asked, and the Crumbleys didn't say, "for his new gun", I would absolutely say that was concealing information.

Being dumb as hell isn't a crime. I would not lock someone up for failing to recognize warning signs. If they concealed those signs, that's a different story. If they concealed information, that's a deliberate act. If they just didn't recognize the significance, that's stupid, but not criminal.

 

[plague311]

But is it manslaughter?

To me? Yes.

And did the kid actually have a history of mental conditions? I haven't read that. I've read of disturbing things that he did, but I don't demand that parents recognize the difference is between moody teenage behavior and mental illness.

My kids must have never been moody. We had zero severed animal heads in our house. None, not one.

On the other hand, I would expect the school counselors to know the difference. So, to me, it comes down to why didn't the counselors act? Did they not know what was going on? Did they ask the Crumbleys the right questions? If they asked, and the Crumbleys lied, then I would absolutely support charges against the parents.

LoL outstanding. The counselors should know more than the people WHO BOUGHT HIM A ******* GUN. You're laying this at the counselors feet? If it makes sense to you I guess. We aren't changing any minds here. We'll both walk away with this same outlook.

I keep thinking about the ammo search. A whole lot has been made about that, but to me it seems awfully normal. He has a gun. Search for ammo. That makes sense to me.

Sure, sure. It's so commonplace that the teachers found it normal, and didn't mention it at all. The same people you're saying should have recognized an issue, did, reported it, and now that's also out of the ordinary. I'm getting dizzy, man. Make it make sense. If it was normal, they wouldn't have reported it.

On the other hand, I think it should have signalled a red flag to the counselors, and they should have asked why he might have been looking up ammo. If they asked, and the Crumbleys didn't say, "for his new gun", I would absolutely say that was concealing information.

Being dumb as hell isn't a crime. I would not lock someone up for failing to recognize warning signs. If they concealed those signs, that's a different story. If they concealed information, that's a deliberate act. If they just didn't recognize the significance, that's stupid, but not criminal.

 

[Meadmaker]

My kids must have never been moody. We had zero severed animal heads in our house. None, not one.

Reading news stories, it's very hard to tell who knew what, and when and how they found out.

If the Crumbleys knew information, and hid it, I think that could be a crime. If they were just idiots, then I don't think it's a crime. The prosecution's task is to show that the parents' actions were beyond stupid, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to do it.

 

[Meadmaker]

To reiterate, I'm not saying the parents are innocent. I am saying that the publicly available information isn't enough to prove that their actions reached a level beyond stupid, enough to be called criminal.

 

[plague311]

Reading news stories, it's very hard to tell who knew what, and when and how they found out.
If the Crumbleys knew information, and hid it, I think that could be a crime. If they were just idiots, then I don't think it's a crime. The prosecution's task is to show that the parents' actions were beyond stupid, and the burden of proof is on the prosecution to do it.

He brought it to school and placed it in the bathroom....So I would say pretty much everyone?

The only difference is the administrators could have changed in that time, the teachers could have changed, counselors could have changed. His parents didn't change though. Always the same parents.

 

[smartcooky]

No, they didn't come to light the morning of the crime. There was a trail of them.

Not forgetting that there were also prior complaints from the parents of other children about Crumbly's behaviour, and that fact that he made threats on Social media prior to the shooting.

https://www.yourtango.com/news/threats-ethan-crumbley-social-media-oxford-school-shooting

There was also a complaint some years ago to CPS from a neighbour, about the parents' behaviour.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-c...otective-services-on-parents-years-ago-report

"When they were gone, he would come knock on our door," Kayla LeMieux told the newspaper of Ethan when his parents would leave him at home alone to go drinking at bars in 2014 and 2015. "They didn’t leave him with a phone.

LeMieux said that the parents continued leaving their son at home alone even after she made a complaint and confronted them about it. "​

.
.