And again, he's being charged with two criminal counts of murder in the second degree, four counts of involuntary manslaughter and eight counts of cruelty to children.
The murder charges are a crime which requires intent, not negligence. Those are elements of involuntary manslaughter. By charging him with murder, the prosecution is saying he acted knowingly to cause lethal harm to children.

And one can say that not having a gun safely and securely tucked away, Is tantamount to being Fully aware that that could lead to Dangerous usages of firearms.

E/ I love a good Legal debate, However, I have to be at work early tomorrow so I will have to bow out, 🙇‍♂️

This post was edited by ScionCapital on Sep 5 2024 11:16pm

Well one could if they disregarded all the elements of a murder charge. That requires mens rea, actus reus, harm, causation and concurrence of those elements.
Was the father the proximate cause of these murders by the act of simply owning a gun which his child could access, and the purposeful act of buying a gun with the potential his child could use it in some future crime constitute malice aforethought, and all that somehow amounts to felony cruelty to child despite being removed by an arbitrarily long amount of time?

I said it before, the jury would have convicted Derek Chauvin of debasing currency, blaspheming against the prophet muhammed and regicide if those charges had been on the docket. "Legal theory" is more like "What can a legal system theoretically get away with"

I'd say the doctor that prescribed the shooter puberty blockers and feminine hormones.
The last few years we've had like 4 tranny school shooters.

I wouldn't have a problem with these flawed legal theories if they were equally applied to black single mothers, or girlfriends of gangbangers who go out and buy their boyfriend a nation gun.
They are never charged with even straw purchasing, let alone manslaughter.

This post was edited by PapaPsych on Sep 5 2024 11:49pm

Lets take and say someone breaks into your home or car, steals a gun, and uses that to kill people.
Should the victim of burglary be held criminally liable?

That's not the same, No one can predict when they will be robbed, But ended the visual can predict reasonably that a person who lives in their home would likely if they had access. Remove their firearm from its area and use it as they see fit. There's no expectation if it's a burglar, However if it's a roommate, A spouse, Or anyone who you are patently aware of who has access, Or can have access. Let's say it was in a extremely secure fireproof burglar proof bolted to the floor Locker. I don't think they would have a legal foot to stand on.. Seeing as it obviously wasn't they have a foot to stand on?

Apparently amazon Charge me a $100 for nothing. Which is why I'm still awake.. Try to work that out

What about the crumbleys in MI their firearm was locked up and the kid got into it anyways.
They were given no legal foot to stand on despite neither of them violating the law they were charged with.

A murder charge requires concurrence and purpose. At the moment the father gave his son access to the weapon, he had to foresee and intend that his son would commit murder with it. Essentially that is the charge of contact killing- you can be found guilty of murder even if you did not pull the trigger, if you purposefully set in motion the events and had the intent to have someone killed at the moment you set it in motion (not at separate times, not by unforeseeable consquences).

If parents don't intend for anyone to be murdered, and don't purposefully give their child access to a gun, and there's no foreseeable likelihood that he'll commit murder, and indeed the odds were probably 99% that he wouldn't- and the state itself already cleared him of any immediate suspicion and school returned him to class- how do you construct those elements of the crime? The answer, of course, is simple. That American law and civil liberties are a farce and nothing I said matters and they already decided to try this kid as an adult before even getting a basic psychological profile and decided to try the parents of the next school shooter months before it took place

I think punishing the parent is a PR move and a slippery slope of mob lynching.

Should every person around the criminal be arrested?
Should their grand parents be arrested?
Should their aunts and uncles be arrested?
Should their school friends be arrested?

Because surely these people should have noticed and done something.

In reality, this is anti-gun.
Suddenly owning an object not only makes you responsible for your own actions, but those around you.

By this standard owning a gun makes you responsible for every person you come in contact with.

And people will cry out, but guns are scary and can kill people, The owner should be responsible.
Hey moron, you own a vehicle don't you?
Should you be responsible if someone steals your car and runs over someone? <- this was the only real question I asked in this post. The rest were rhetorical.

Why are there so many double standards for firearms but not the plethora of other objects that can be used to create mass death.

This post was edited by Mondain on Sep 6 2024 03:28am

And to that point- over 5000 people a year are killed in car crashes with a young driver given access to an automotive by their parents. Compared to about 5-10 per year in school mass shootings.
Apply the same standard. We could have started with parents knowingly allowing children who drink and drive and call it negligence by the parents. But this goes further, we say that the mere potential that a child could be a dangerous driver is enough, even if that kid stole the car from his dad. Even if his dad locked the car and tried to hide the key, if its in the same house as the kid, that's enough. Its not like we're talking about some fanciful contrived scenario here, there are indeed cases where parents are clearly allowing dangerous kids to drive and it results in preventable deaths, even those where a reasonable person could anticipate they'd get someone killed. It happens all the time.

What makes access to guns special? Something something repeal the second amendment?
Well here they go torching the 5th amendment in the process