Oxford High School, Michigan, school shooting.

[JoeMorgue]

Every other comparable Western Style secular democracy has managed to figure out how to go more than "How long it takes to make good chili in the crockpot" timeframe without a school shooting so at this point the only logical explanation is we see them as a net positive.

 

[Warp12]

People think that increasing penalties is going to make a significant difference. However, its effect will be marginal. If a person is not intending to commit a crime, the penalty for that crime isn't a deterrent. The Crumbleys had no idea that their gun would be used to kill anyone. Charging them with murder wouldn't have any effect, because they couldn't imagine that happening anyway.

They should be held responsible for not keeping their gun locked up, but that's it. That should probably include being sued by the families for contributing to the wrongful death. So, they end up with possibly some jail time, at least a criminal record, bankrupt, a son rotting in jail for the rest of his life, and a guilty conscience knowing they enabled it. That seems enough in the way of punishment. More punishment wouldn't benefit anything, because the next yahoos that leave their guns accessible won't imagine that it will happen to them, either.

I don't know about that. I mean, if law requires you take certain safety precautions or face extremely harsh penalties, I think that does matter. In this case the child also had known behavioral issues. The parents had just been at the school about it, and I am guessing not the first time, a few hours prior.

I don't see any reason for the parents not to face stiff criminal charges in these cases.They basically handed him the murder weapon, it would seem. Now, if the kid broke a lock or something to get to it, that would be a mitigating factor.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't see any reason for the parents not to face stiff criminal charges in these cases.They basically handed him the murder weapon, it would seem. Now, if the kid broke a lock or something to get to it, that would be a mitigating factor.

"Stiff criminal charges" don't bother me, but they didn't commit murder. (At least, with the conceivable exception of "felony murder", but see my previous ETA.)

If they broke the law, they should be punished, and based on the prosecutor's comments yesterday, I expect that they will be punished, but we will see more about what happened as time goes by.

 

[Disbelief]

How about the parents also facing murder charges in cases like this?

The prosecutor is looking into manslaughter charges for them.

 

[Meadmaker]

Dozens of schools around metro Detroit are closed today due to an abundance of caution related to anything which could be interpreted as a threat.

 

[Mike!]

If a gang goes into a bank to rob it, and one of them shoots and kills a teller, all of them are charged with murder, even the poor schlep that's sitting out in the get away car. I think this should apply to the parents in this case, if they were stupid enough to leave the weapon out where the kid could get to it.

 

[plague311]

I don't know about that. I mean, if law requires you take certain safety precautions or face extremely harsh penalties, I think that does matter. In this case the child also had known behavioral issues. The parents had just been at the school about it, and I am guessing not the first time, a few hours prior.

I don't see any reason for the parents not to face stiff criminal charges in these cases.They basically handed him the murder weapon, it would seem. Now, if the kid broke a lock or something to get to it, that would be a mitigating factor.

I don't think the solution is to make any penalty more harsh. We have some fairly harsh penalties and still the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's obvious that these penalties aren't a significant deterrent.

I would assume there's a better way, but doing the same thing over and over is insane. That's exactly what we're doing as a country. School shooting, tots and pears, what a horrible tragedy, move on, school shooting, tots and pears, what a horrible tragedy, move on.

As others have said, this country is already comfortable sacrificing any number of people to have guns. Even warp12 said it, school shootings are but a drop in the ocean of US gun deaths. We just shrug it off and keep going. The US would rather have the corpses than be without guns.

It's the same thing as the "I'd rather 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be locked up" mantra. The US would rather have 30,000 dead bodies over 1 man not being able to have his pew pew to defend himself when the baddies come.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If a gang goes into a bank to rob it, and one of them shoots and kills a teller, all of them are charged with murder, even the poor schlep that's sitting out in the get away car. I think this should apply to the parents in this case, if they were stupid enough to leave the weapon out where the kid could get to it.

First it would have to be something that was a felony for that to be legally valid, this isn't like adultery which is a felony in michigan.

And few states have such stringent mandatory securing of firearms.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If a gang goes into a bank to rob it, and one of them shoots and kills a teller, all of them are charged with murder, even the poor schlep that's sitting out in the get away car.

And in some jurisdictions if the cops shoot at those robbers and kill an innocent bystander, the gang is then charged with that bystander's murder. Chains of causality are pursued in some matters but not others.

 

[Meadmaker]

If a gang goes into a bank to rob it, and one of them shoots and kills a teller, all of them are charged with murder, even the poor schlep that's sitting out in the get away car. I think this should apply to the parents in this case, if they were stupid enough to leave the weapon out where the kid could get to it.

That's the "felony murder" we've heard so much about lately. I'm not sure it applies, because there has to be an intent to commit a crime, even if that crime isn't murder. However, I don't know Michigan law on the subject. It also might depend on exactly how the gun got into his hands. After reading mom's blog entries, I could imagine someone as dumb as her actually deliberately giving him the gun.

He called it his gun in a social media post. If the parents were aware the gun was in his possession I might change my mind and agree that they really are guilty of felony murder, in a meaningful way.

I'm confident the prosecutor will charge them with something, and probably with the most severe charge she can make stick. I don't get the feeling that she was inclined toward sympathy in this case.

 

[Thermal]

I don't think the solution is to make any penalty more harsh. We have some fairly harsh penalties and still the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's obvious that these penalties aren't a significant deterrent.

I would assume there's a better way, but doing the same thing over and over is insane. That's exactly what we're doing as a country. School shooting, tots and pears, what a horrible tragedy, move on, school shooting, tots and pears, what a horrible tragedy, move on.

As others have said, this country is already comfortable sacrificing any number of people to have guns. Even warp12 said it, school shootings are but a drop in the ocean of US gun deaths. We just shrug it off and keep going. The US would rather have the corpses than be without guns.

It's the same thing as the "I'd rather 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be locked up" mantra. The US would rather have 30,000 dead bodies over 1 man not being able to have his pew pew to defend himself when the baddies come.

Disagreed. They want the pew pews to shoot paper targets on the weekend and show their buddies and talk about how dangerous they are, and some who want to kill when given a legal pretext. Actual defense is not usually a factor. YMMV.

 

[Sherkeu]

In the old days I could have called this thread "Responsible gun owner buys new gun and lets teenage kid access it."

In the old days, there would be more kids with guns on campus (unloaded, except when allowed).

High School Gun Clubs wikihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_gun_clubs_and_teams_in_the_United_States

Supported by organizations like the Civilian Marksmanship Program, school-based gun education was routine for much of the 20th century. It was common for high school teams to compete with .22 caliber rifles. In recent years, air rifles have gained in popularity as a more affordable and safer alternative to .22 rifles.

According to John Lott:

Until 1969 virtually every public high school—even in New York City—had a shooting club. High school students in New York City carried their guns to school on the subways in the morning, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach during the day, and retrieved them after school for target practice. Club members were given their rifles and ammunition by the federal government. Students regularly competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships.

Also- I think gun control can do some good in terms of making people go through more to get and keep them safely. But that does not apply to the mental state of these teen boys who now see this as an option for their woes.
I think in the "old days" this option of lethal actions would not have even "occurred" to a kid.

In the last few decades, these shooters may be seen as heroes for other teens who feel bullied or unfairly treated. (If you look at what precedes it, it is often getting in trouble, e.g. suspended, expelled, humiliated in front of peers, etc...)

The rise in shooting is not in some vacuum of just these kids and parents....it points to additional mental problems of many more who don't go through with it. There are new inputs in the environs of these kids that is giving these outputs, and it isn't really about the guns themselves but more about an increase to see them as a solution. Find the largest driver of these issue and address that proactively.

(what that is, I can't say with any confidence!!)

 

[Cain]

Of course passive defence like that isn't "sexy" and doesn't allow the homeowner to fantasise about being the hero, saving their family, in a home invasion scenario.

Liberals do not want men to dream about saving their family. No, that's a thought crime. They don't want men to have families at all, unless they're gay. The left wants men to become women, and that's wrong. Tucker 2024.

 

[abaddon]

That is a good point; but on the other hand, one could argue the intent isn't so much to deter future shooters, but rather the parents of potential future shooters. It's been reported - with a lot of caveats about a lack of solid verification - that the shooter in this incident used a weapon his father had just purchased online. It's also been reported that the kid had posted some kind of photos showing off this particular weapon on social media.

If that's all true, and it turns out that after buying the gun the parents never bothered to take responsible steps to make sure it was secure and couldn't be accessed by people who shouldn't be accessing it (like, you know, kids), that kind of decision-making definitely needs to be deterred.

Re: The highlighted. How does that work? Order it. Pay for it and UPS turn up with it at your door? Or what?

 

[Matthew Best]

As I say, these "child sacrifices" are hardly of any concern in the grand scheme.

Yes, we've noticed.

 

[azazal]

Re: The highlighted. How does that work? Order it. Pay for it and UPS turn up with it at your door? Or what?

You could do it that way, but then you've committed a federal felony.

The correct process when buying from an online store, you go to web site, purchase said firearm, have it sipped to your FFL holder of choice (Federal Firearms Licensee) The FFL then runs a normal background check on the purchaser (same thing you would do when buying from a store in person) and if all is good, transfers the gun to the purchaser.

However, you can "purchase" a firearm from anyone online, and not have to deal with the background check. You need to purchase the firearm from a private seller, not a store or other business. The buyer and seller need to meet in person to physically transfer the gun between the two, no shipping allowed.

That's the Cliff Notes version. The private seller option has a ton of loopholes and caveats that would fill it's own thread though.

 

[Meadmaker]

Re: The highlighted. How does that work? Order it. Pay for it and UPS turn up with it at your door? Or what?

In news stories I've read, there has been no mention of him buying the gun online, just that he bought it Friday.

 

[plague311]

In news stories I've read, there has been no mention of him buying the gun online, just that he bought it Friday.

I went looking around and I didn't see anything about it being purchased online either. Just that he got a deal on it because he purchased it on Black Friday.

 

[Meadmaker]

In the old days, there would be more kids with guns on campus (unloaded, except when allowed).

High School Gun Clubs wikihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_gun_clubs_and_teams_in_the_United_States



Also- I think gun control can do some good in terms of making people go through more to get and keep them safely. But that does not apply to the mental state of these teen boys who now see this as an option for their woes.
I think in the "old days" this option of lethal actions would not have even "occurred" to a kid.

In the last few decades, these shooters may be seen as heroes for other teens who feel bullied or unfairly treated. (If you look at what precedes it, it is often getting in trouble, e.g. suspended, expelled, humiliated in front of peers, etc...)

The rise in shooting is not in some vacuum of just these kids and parents....it points to additional mental problems of many more who don't go through with it. There are new inputs in the environs of these kids that is giving these outputs, and it isn't really about the guns themselves but more about an increase to see them as a solution. Find the largest driver of these issue and address that proactively.

(what that is, I can't say with any confidence!!)

Shooting clubs in schools doesn't seem totally weird to me, but carrying them to school on the subway seems a bit odd.


I was actually referring to the forum "old days". There were lots of threads started with titles along the lines of "Responsible gun owner shoots wife.". Or "Responsible gun owner shoots self in leg.". It was poking fun at gun rights advocates always talking about the rights of responsible gun owners

 

[smartcooky]

Instead of using their legislative powers to require adults to securely store guns, it seems some Michigan lawmakers want to arm and train teachers so they can shoot their students.

https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/ne...debate-over-michigan-gun-policies/8820389002/