Oxford High School, Michigan, school shooting.

[smartcooky]

I think smartcooky is over egging the pudding. I think the response to these messages is neither here nor there in the larger context of what happened. I think smartcooky's earnest outrage over this point is gratuitous and comical.

There's enough not to like about these people, without having to flip out over these text messages. They bought the kid a gun, and he shot up a school on the their watch. Smartcooky here ranting about text messages like that's how we should judge them.

Observing how a family communicates gives you window on its level of dysfunctionality.

 

[theprestige]

Observing how a family communicates gives you window on its level of dysfunctionality.

I do not accept your qualifications to describe how a family communicates. If you simply claimed your outrage as your own, I would respect it. But you're pitching it as some sort of authoritative judgement we should all buy into, and share in your outrage. Over these text messages.

Now you're going to attack me for deprecating your outrage. Like it's some sort of objective truth I'm not supposed to deny.

 

[Checkmite]

If you simply claimed your outrage as your own, I would respect it. But you're pitching it as some sort of authoritative judgement we should all buy into, and share in your outrage. Over these text messages.

Now you're going to attack me for deprecating your outrage. Like it's some sort of objective truth I'm not supposed to deny.

What he's doing is giving an opinion. You are disagreeing with it; and he, in turn, is making arguments supporting it.

This is a very standard exchange between two people who don't share concurring views.

 

[smartcooky]

I do not accept your qualifications to describe how a family communicates.

This is your take, and no-one else's. I have made no claim to be qualified for such, and I still don't. In any case, I need no qualifications to have an opinion.

If you simply claimed your outrage as your own, I would respect it.

For certain definitions of outrage maybe?

But you're pitching it as some sort of authoritative judgement we should all buy into, and share in your outrage. Over these text messages.

Nowhere did I claim any authority to judge. If you think I did, perhaps you can point out where?

Now you're going to attack me for deprecating your outrage. Like it's some sort of objective truth I'm not supposed to deny.

If you regard the statement "Observing how a family communicates gives you window on its level of dysfunctionality", as an attack on you, then you have a, perhaps, somewhat unique idea of what constitutes an "attack"!

What he's doing is giving an opinion. You are disagreeing with it; and he, in turn, is making arguments supporting it.

This is a very standard exchange between two people who don't share concurring views.

Edited by xjx388: 

<SNIP>
Rule 11; Rule 12

 

[plague311]

The Crumbley's Go to Trial:

The Crumbley parents appeared in court Thursday for the second half of their preliminary exam, where witness accounts revealed new details and gave new perspective about events leading up to and following the fatal mass shooting. District court judge Julie Nicholson ultimately decided that James and Jennifer Crumbley will stand trial for their charges.

There's some new evidence in there too.

ETA: I encourage people to read the article to see just how big of pieces of **** his parents were. He basically begged them for help with his mental health issues and they laughed at him and told him to "shrug it off".

 

[mgidm86]

The parents should do more time than him, my gawd. This pretty much verifies that the parents bought their under-aged son a handgun which is a federal crime.

This kid asked for help every step of the way. What a tragedy. Parents should be held criminally responsible, if at all legally possible.

 

[smartcooky]

My god, they really are certifiable pieces of human waste aren't they!!

 

[Planigale]

The Crumbley's Go to Trial:



There's some new evidence in there too.

ETA: I encourage people to read the article to see just how big of pieces of **** his parents were. He basically begged them for help with his mental health issues and they laughed at him and told him to "shrug it off".

On the other hand this entry may help them,

Willis also testified that Crumbley referenced the gun as his own, and not his father’s, by writing, “I will have to find where my dad hid my 9 mm before I can shoot the school.”

It implies the father had taken action to try and make sure he did not have unsupervised access to the gun.

 

[smartcooky]

On the other hand this entry may help them,


It implies the father had taken action to try and make sure he did not have unsupervised access to the gun.

Pretty much irrelevant though. I can take action to prevent my son from having access to his own laptop, one that I gave him, by hiding it away somewhere. That doesn't mean the laptop isn't his.

If it is clearly understood that the father bought this weapon for his son, then he has broken the law, even if the paperwork says its his.

 

[Meadmaker]

There are about 1.4 million high school students in the state of Michigan.

I'm willing to bet that in at least 1% of households, there is a gun that is "their gun", in exactly the same sense that the murder weapon was Ethan's gun. i.e. The gun was purchased by the parents and the parents maintain it and are responsible for it, but within the family it is known as the kid's gun. That would be 14,000 people who bought a gun for their kid.

Those people aren't criminals.

The vast majority of those guns are hunting rifles, but in terms of "buying a gun for someone else", it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. Besides, I'll bet that there are plenty of families in Michigan, hundreds, if not thousands, who also target shoot together, and there is one gun which is "their gun".



The Crumbleys are bad parents. No doubt about that. Jennifer in particular strikes me as mentally ill and thoroughly unfit.

 

[smartcooky]

There are about 1.4 million high school students in the state of Michigan.

I'm willing to bet that in at least 1% of households, there is a gun that is "their gun", in exactly the same sense that the murder weapon was Ethan's gun. i.e. The gun was purchased by the parents and the parents maintain it and are responsible for it, but within the family it is known as the kid's gun. That would be 14,000 people who bought a gun for their kid.[/quote]

Irrelevant.

Those people aren't criminals.

Those people didn't give a gun to their mentally disturbed teenager who promptly went out and killed four school students with it.

The vast majority of those guns are hunting rifles, but in terms of "buying a gun for someone else", it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. Besides, I'll bet that there are plenty of families in Michigan, hundreds, if not thousands, who also target shoot together, and there is one gun which is "their gun".

Wrong

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/6978

"Michigan prohibits issuance of a handgun purchase license to any person under age 18. If the handgun is to be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, the applicant must be age 21 or older."

 

[mgidm86]

Pretty much irrelevant though. I can take action to prevent my son from having access to his own laptop, one that I gave him, by hiding it away somewhere. That doesn't mean the laptop isn't his.
If it is clearly understood that the father bought this weapon for his son, then he has broken the law, even if the paperwork says its his.

Especially when the son says "...hid MY 9mm...". It's evidence anyway. It is against federal law for this kid to even possess a handgun, much less own one.

You don't hide a gun, you lock it in a safe where your son can't get to it at all. This kid's life is over (as well as others) because of his drugged out parents.

 

[Suddenly]

"Michigan prohibits issuance of a handgun purchase license to any person under age 18. If the handgun is to be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, the applicant must be age 21 or older."

I grew up in an area where closer to 80% of kids had what was "their" gun for hunting. 8-9 year old kids out there gunning down Thumper.

Still, had a kid had a handgun as "their" gun it would have been a massive scandal.

 

[Thermal]

Wrong

https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/6978

"Michigan prohibits issuance of a handgun purchase license to any person under age 18. If the handgun is to be purchased from a federally licensed dealer, the applicant must be age 21 or older."

The hilited makes this statute irrelevant. Ethan was not buying.

Federal laws are more applicable, but even they are vague. Broadly, a minor can possess and carry a handgun in public with a note from mommy, under certain conditions (hunting, target shooting, work, etc, not general carry). So the way the parents bought it "for" the kid may be kinda sorta technically legal, if the kid did not have free access to it and he only got his mitts on it under supervision in public.

There are no laws which say a minor cannot possess at home, or under adult supervision. The statutes refer almost entirely to purchase, and public possession.

Obviously not that the little punk didn't violate law, or the father should be off the hook for improper securing. But those would be different laws.

 

[ZirconBlue]

The hilited makes this statute irrelevant. Ethan was not buying.

Federal laws are more applicable, but even they are vague. Broadly, a minor can possess and carry a handgun in public with a note from mommy, under certain conditions (hunting, target shooting, work, etc, not general carry). So the way the parents bought it "for" the kid may be kinda sorta technically legal, if the kid did not have free access to it and he only got his mitts on it under supervision in public.

There are no laws which say a minor cannot possess at home, or under adult supervision. The statutes refer almost entirely to purchase, and public possession.

Obviously not that the little punk didn't violate law, or the father should be off the hook for improper securing. But those would be different laws.

According to the article posted above:

An office manager from the store where the gun was purchased was called to the stand Thursday. She testified that a trigger lock was provided to James Crumbley with the purchase of his gun, as all gun purchases come with one. She also testified that by signing a certain form, James Crumbley acknowledged that he understood that it is illegal to purchase a gun for someone else.

So, at least a gun store manager, and James Crumbley believe that it was illegal.

 

[Thermal]

According to the article posted above:



So, at least a gun store manager, and James Crumbley believe that it was illegal.

Right, but there is a qualitative difference between a straw purchase and a guardian who provisionally "gifts", while not releasing it to the other party. If you straw purchase, you relinquish control of the weapon to the other party.

 

[plague311]

So, at least a gun store manager, and James Crumbley believe that it was illegal.

Yeah, I think what Thermal is saying is that the specific form you're referring to is a federal form.

It's illegal, no doubt about it, for the father to buy Ethan the gun. There is no doubt of that at all and Ethan made a dozen or so comments about how it was his gun, no one else's.

A bit to Thermal's point, Ethan seemed to have no concerns at all about telling his teachers\counselors that he went target shooting with that same 9mm and no one reported it to the police. If it were illegal I would assume that would have been the first phone call.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Gifting a firearm is not a straw purchase. It says explicitly so on ATF form 4473 in the supplemental info, page 4 section 21a.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

The difference between a gift and a straw purchase is who's ultimately paying for it. I'm guessing our teenage shooter wasn't fronting the cash for this thing, but I could be wrong. A parent buying their child a gun as a gift (not using the kid's money or expecting repayment in any way) is not a necessarily a straw purchase.

It could still be a straw purchase problem if the gift recipient is prohibited from owning it. Many state laws allow for children to own rifles and shotgun for their obvious hunting and sporting uses, but not pistols, which are more associated with lethal force and criminality.

My understanding of Michigan law is that it's flatly illegal for an 18 year old to own a pistol, making even a legit gift purchase illegal.

 

[Thermal]

Just saying "the gun is Ethan's" doesn't really mean anything. In legal terms, the gun belonged to the father. In practical terms, the father kept control over the weapon and it was used under his supervision as Ethan's guardian, also legal. If it had been tossed to Ethan with a "have fun, son", then it is all bad.

Kind of like a parent buying a car for their underage kid. The parents bought it as "the kid's car", and the kid may treat it as such till the legal change of ownership. Also, shades of Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[plague311]

In all honesty, the straw purchase part is a bit of a red herring since no one is being charged with it. At least as of now, I suppose the feds could be waiting to see how the rest of it shakes out, but getting pegged with a straw purchase is pretty low on the concern scale for the Crumbley's.

The question is will the prosecution have enough to convict the parents. I hope they do because I think they deserve prison time. They were obviously neglecting their child every chance they got.