Oxford High School, Michigan, school shooting.

[Meadmaker]

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

I have read in several places that he had no record of disciplinary action. If the administration knew that he placed a bird head in a school bathroom, and that didn't result in disciplinary action, then there's something seriously wrong there.

Which is entirely possible.

If they did know, who did they tell?

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just have never seen any source for the information. I don't know who knew that Ethan put it there, or when they found out.

 

[plague311]

I have read in several places that he had no record of disciplinary action. If the administration knew that he placed a bird head in a school bathroom, and that didn't result in disciplinary action, then there's something seriously wrong there.

Which is entirely possible.

If they did know, who did they tell?

I'm not trying to be difficult here. I just have never seen any source for the information. I don't know who knew that Ethan put it there, or when they found out.

It's in the paperwork for the bond reduction. What sources are you using?

As smartcooky has posted, as well, it wasn't a one-off situation. He has an established history of red flags.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

The posts that parents complained about on November16 were not from Ethan Crumbley.

The post on the night before the shooting wasn't seen by school officials until after the shooting. (The article you linked said he tweeted out the "become death" quote. I had thought it was a post to Facebook or Instagram. I don't know who, if anyone, saw it before the shooting, but as far as I know it wasn't reported.)

 

[Meadmaker]

It's in the paperwork for the bond reduction. What sources are you using?

News sources that quote the prosecutor's statement at the bond hearing. She listed a variety of things that the parents knew. In a different part of the statement, she listed the dead bird. I haven't seen the source for anything about when or how anyone found out the connection between Ethan and the bird.

 

[plague311]

News sources that quote the prosecutor's statement at the bond hearing. She listed a variety of things that the parents knew. In a different part of the statement, she listed the dead bird. I haven't seen the source for anything about when or how anyone found out the connection between Ethan and the bird.

Ok, we're not going to come to any agreement and there's nothing else to provide you. Trying to parse this paragraph is giving me an aneurysm. As I did in another thread, I'll just say, good talk!

 

[smartcooky]

The posts that parents complained about on November16 were not from Ethan Crumbley.

...and you know this how exactly?

The post on the night before the shooting wasn't seen by school officials until after the shooting.

...and you know this how exactly?

(The article you linked said he tweeted out the "become death" quote. I had thought it was a post to Facebook or Instagram. I don't know who, if anyone, saw it before the shooting, but as far as I know it wasn't reported.)

As far as YOU KNOW is right!!

You might want to reconsider your position on this...

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

"The lawsuit claims the school ignored Ethan Crumbley’s behavior.

"They were aware of posts on the internet indicating that he was intending to commit mayhem," says attorney Geoffrey Fieger. "He drew pictures indicating that he was going to engage in a murderous rage … they recognized it enough where they pulled him out of class."
"Instead of calling the police liaison officer, they called his parents," he added. "They told his parents to take him out of school. The parents refused. They said okay, he can stay here and go to class."​

The key issue for the school will be "what did they know, and when did they know it"

Its looking increasingly likely that the school knew about his social media posts well before the shooting, because the school administrator responded to parents' complaints by belittling and handwaving those complaints away with a dismissive email to them.
.
.

 

[Meadmaker]

...and you know this how exactly?



...and you know this how exactly?

I'm taking school officials' word for it. That's what they say.

As far as YOU KNOW is right!!

You might want to reconsider your position on this...

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

"The lawsuit claims the school ignored Ethan Crumbley’s behavior.

"They were aware of posts on the internet indicating that he was intending to commit mayhem," says attorney Geoffrey Fieger. "He drew pictures indicating that he was going to engage in a murderous rage … they recognized it enough where they pulled him out of class."
"Instead of calling the police liaison officer, they called his parents," he added. "They told his parents to take him out of school. The parents refused. They said okay, he can stay here and go to class."​

The key issue for the school will be "what did they know, and when did they know it"

You are quoting Geoffrey Feiger. That might not mean anything to people outside of Michigan.

Just don't assume everything you are hearing is true. It's probably half true.

Its looking increasingly likely that the school knew about his social media posts well before the shooting, because the school administrator responded to parents' complaints by belittling and handwaving those complaints away with a dismissive email to them.

And you know they were "his" social media posts how, exactly?

Parse what Geoffrey Feiger actually said. He's a master of half-truths and misleading statements. I think you will find that he did not actually attribute the threatening posts, other than the one the night before the shooting, to Ethan Crumbley. It's one of his tactics that he plays over and over. Talk about one thing. Change the subject in the next sentence, but do it in such a way that the listener doesn't realize that what he said about the new subject doesn't apply to the previous sentence.

He does that. He's quite good at it. His house is very large.


If the posts that the school administration dismissively waived away have since been connected to Ethan Trumbley, it didn't happen until after the shooting. As far as I know, there is no connection. I haven't seen any news reports that made the connection.

 

[Doubt]

Just to add what should be a trivial point to the discussion.

The lawyer for the parents some time back said on television that the gun had a lock on it so that it was "secure". No evidence publicly provided by them to back this up.

That the kid was able to remove the lock should make this a distinction without a difference. The kid was able to defeat the lock by a means not yet stated. Either he had access to the key or the lock was easily bypassed. If you have ever watched any YouTube content from the lock picking lawyer you will know that those are mostly terrible locks to start with. I suspect this issue will come up in court.

Edited to add: Apparently the gun was in a locked drawer in the parents bedroom. They claim the gun was hidden in the locked drawer. As if the locked drawer itself was not a clue to a kid as where the gun was located.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...-gun-locked-hidden-unaware-threat/9001826002/

 

[mgidm86]

Hell yes, manslaughter, minimum!

Proposed law by me:
If you buy your child a gun and he or she uses it to kill people, you are criminally liable.

It is already against federal law for a child under 18 to own or possess a handgun. If the parents bought it for him they should be criminally liable for the kid's actions.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/

federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18. 15,16 Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition.

Sound reasonable?

 

[Meadmaker]

Hell yes, manslaughter, minimum!

Proposed law by me:
If you buy your child a gun and he or she uses it to kill people, you are criminally liable.

It is already against federal law for a child under 18 to own or possess a handgun. If the parents bought it for him they should be criminally liable for the kid's actions.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/minimum-age/
Sound reasonable?

What do you think? If the feds tried to prosecute based on the handgun possession law, would they succeed?


Your proposed law sounds fine to me, but it's a proposed law, not an existing law.

One of the things that is happening is that there is lots of talk about how the parents "gave him the gun". If they ever let him have it or use it unsupervised, I might be on board with the prosecution, but I haven't read anything that ever said he was ever in possession of the gun at any time his parents were not present, except of course when he took it from their bedroom the morning of the shooting.)

I also think it should be illegal to store it the way they did, but it isn't.

 

[Meadmaker]

When it comes to the parents, I guess I'm in a sort of "society is to blame" mode.

I see a couple of general themes among people who want to prosecute the parents, including the actual prosecutors.

First, there's the "they should have known" theme. I don't disagree with that, but if we locked up all the bad parents or even just the parents who were unaware of or just underestimated their kids' mental health issues, the jails would be overflowing. Did your parents really understand you as a teenager? Mine didn't. 40 years later I was still rolling my eyes as my mother would explain what happened to me in my teen years, and get it so incredibly wrong. I thing parents are among the absolute worst judges of their own children's issues. Yeah, they were bad parents, but I'm not going to lock people up for that.

Then there's the access to the gun theme. That's where I really go with "society is to blame". These morons were doing what they have been encouraged to do by a very large segment of American society. We have congressmen posing with their guns on their Christmas cards. Our society is insane. What these parents did, with keeping an unlocked, loaded, gun in the house, ought to be illegal. Sadly, it isn't. Can we prosecute the Republican Party for manslaughter?

So, what's left? I won't prosecute them for gun access, because it is legal. As insane as that is, it's legal. I won't prosecute them for being bad parents because there are lots of bad parents. And...who cares what I think, but I think the prosecutor will have a hard time finding a jury that won't think the same way. But, there is one other angle that might work, with me, and with a jury. If the prosecution can show that the parents actually did know of his mental health issues, and concealed that information, that's a different story. Likewise, if the prosecution can show that the mental health professionals recognized the danger, and sought information, and the parents concealed it, then you have a concrete, affirmative, act that a case can hang on. I think that's their task, but I'm not optimistic they can achieve it.

Believe it or not, I want the parents to be guilty. However, more than that, I think the rule of law is important. People should only be prosecuted based on what the law is, not what it should be. I also really dislike the trend of interpreting the law in a way that is so broad that it catches the most people in the net. I think the opposite should be true. In order to get a conviction, people should have to violate the plain provisions of the law, not the most expansive possible interpretation. I look at the concept of manslaughter, and I see a very high bar before it can be used to prosecute neglect or stupidity.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

When it comes to the parents, I guess I'm in a sort of "society is to blame" mode.

I see a couple of general themes among people who want to prosecute the parents, including the actual prosecutors.

First, there's the "they should have known" theme. I don't disagree with that, but if we locked up all the bad parents or even just the parents who were unaware of or just underestimated their kids' mental health issues, the jails would be overflowing. Did your parents really understand you as a teenager? Mine didn't. 40 years later I was still rolling my eyes as my mother would explain what happened to me in my teen years, and get it so incredibly wrong. I thing parents are among the absolute worst judges of their own children's issues. Yeah, they were bad parents, but I'm not going to lock people up for that.

Then there's the access to the gun theme. That's where I really go with "society is to blame". These morons were doing what they have been encouraged to do by a very large segment of American society. We have congressmen posing with their guns on their Christmas cards. Our society is insane. What these parents did, with keeping an unlocked, loaded, gun in the house, ought to be illegal. Sadly, it isn't. Can we prosecute the Republican Party for manslaughter?

So, what's left? I won't prosecute them for gun access, because it is legal. As insane as that is, it's legal. I won't prosecute them for being bad parents because there are lots of bad parents. And...who cares what I think, but I think the prosecutor will have a hard time finding a jury that won't think the same way. But, there is one other angle that might work, with me, and with a jury. If the prosecution can show that the parents actually did know of his mental health issues, and concealed that information, that's a different story. Likewise, if the prosecution can show that the mental health professionals recognized the danger, and sought information, and the parents concealed it, then you have a concrete, affirmative, act that a case can hang on. I think that's their task, but I'm not optimistic they can achieve it.

Believe it or not, I want the parents to be guilty. However, more than that, I think the rule of law is important. People should only be prosecuted based on what the law is, not what it should be. I also really dislike the trend of interpreting the law in a way that is so broad that it catches the most people in the net. I think the opposite should be true. In order to get a conviction, people should have to violate the plain provisions of the law, not the most expansive possible interpretation. I look at the concept of manslaughter, and I see a very high bar before it can be used to prosecute neglect or stupidity.

I tend to agree, more or less. The prosecutor is trying to do some gymnastics to get around the plain fact that unsafe storage of firearms is not illegal in that state, as insane as that is.

Failing to prevent a child, even one who isn't as clearly mentally unstable as the example here, from accessing a firearm strikes me as wildly reckless, so maybe they can get the charges to stick even without an explicit safe storage law, but I have my doubts.

Vague standards like "recklessness" exist for a reason, it's not feasible for lawmakers to anticipate every stupid and reckless things that people might do that results in harm, so while I am somewhat skeptical of the current legal theory I await the complete evidence.

 

[newyorkguy]

...I haven't read anything that ever said he was ever in possession of the gun at any time his parents were not present, except of course when he took it from their bedroom the morning of the shooting...

Of course. But the exception you mention was on the day he used the gun to go on a shooting rampage at his high school and shot eleven people, killing four of them. The day the parents were called to the school, shown 'the feelings won't stop, help me' drawings and then refused to take Ethan home. They said they had to get back to work.

He also posted the photo below on Instagram of his "new beauty." Were his parents supervising him at the time? The fact is, did his parents ever allow Ethan unsupervised access to the handgun in the five days since they bought it for him? I don't think anyone knows, and I don't think it's knowable. Unless Ethan or the parents discuss this, which I don't expect them to do.

 

[plague311]

The fact is they didn't know where the gun was at all. The mother said it was in her car, and the father just said it wasn't at home.

 

[Warp12]

Failing to prevent a child, even one who isn't as clearly mentally unstable as the example here, from accessing a firearm strikes me as wildly reckless, so maybe they can get the charges to stick even without an explicit safe storage law, but I have my doubts.

I guess it could be considered reckless, in many cases. But, I can tell you I grew up from probably age 11-12 with 100% access to every firearm in the house. We probably had 30 or so, at one point in my teens. This included high capacity handguns and "assault" weapons, such as AR-15, Mini-14, SP-89's, etc.. This included access to the ammo, and knowing the combination to the large safe that most of the weapons were housed in.

I didn't shoot up any schools. Or anyone, for that matter. I had a lot of training and supervision early on (probably shooting before age 8), I suppose. It didn't seem a big deal.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I guess it could be considered reckless, in many cases. But, I can tell you I grew up from probably age 11-12 with 100% access to every firearm in the house. We probably had 30 or so, at one point in my teens. This included high capacity handguns and "assault" weapons, such as AR-15, Mini-14, SP-89's, etc.. This included access to the ammo, and knowing the combination to the large safe that most of the weapons were housed in.

I didn't shoot up any schools. Or anyone, for that matter. I had a lot of training and supervision early on (probably shooting before age 8), I suppose. It didn't seem a big deal.

Hey, most drunk drivers end up safely parked in their garages too.

That said, I think unsecured guns alone is going to be hard sell for a jury to meet a criminal recklessness standard. Lots of people think it's fine to just leave guns unsecured, as dumb as that is. Then again, if the DA comes in with reams of evidence showing the parents knew that the kid was unstable, that might tip the scales.

 

[plague311]

Hey, most drunk drivers end up safely parked in their garages too.

That said, I think unsecured guns alone is going to be hard sell for a jury to meet a criminal recklessness standard. Lots of people think it's fine to just leave guns unsecured, as dumb as that is. Then again, if the DA comes in with reams of evidence showing the parents knew that the kid was unstable, that might tip the scales.

Multiple news sources, well pretty much all of them, have reported that the DA has multiple texts from the son to the mother telling her how distressed and unstable he was.

 

[Meadmaker]

Multiple news sources, well pretty much all of them, have reported that the DA has multiple texts from the son to the mother telling her how distressed and unstable he was.

I've read of the existence of those texts, but I'm not aware of their contents. I suppose it's another thing we will have to wait for trial for.

 

[theprestige]

I'm taking school officials' word for it.

The issue for me is that the school officials have a vested interest in saying things that paint them in a better light.

On top of that, I don't trust the media to accurately relay the actual statements of interested parties to me.

On top of that, early reports and claims are often incomplete, or inaccurate, or misleading, or some combination.

I'd like to see the school official's claims corroborated, ideally by a disinterested third party, before I weigh them too heavily in my interpretation of events.

 

[Meadmaker]

The issue for me is that the school officials have a vested interest in saying things that paint them in a better light.

On top of that, I don't trust the media to accurately relay the actual statements of interested parties to me.

True all around. Everyone involved has incentive to hide or to lie.

Maybe a few trials will sort it out, or not.