Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 3 2021 10:53am)

The degree to which parents can be responsible for the choices of their children is decidedly murky, which is no ground in which to plant the burden of criminal liability beyond a doubt. We can't even decide on how parents should raise kids or what degree the state should be allowed to compel them, we certainly can't go out and start creating a criminal liability that assumes total responsibility for independent choices, especially those the parents tried to stop. I mean, one society could say that allowing your child to read radical right-wing internet forums creates a criminal liability for indoctrinating them into hate groups and lock up parents who let their kids on jsp. Another society could say that encouraging your kid to identify as a transgender two spirit atheist anarchist is child abuse and church inquisitors should put a swift and violent end to their heresy.

There are degrees to which liability can exist, when its plain, immediate and direct. If a wahabbi-islamist family takes their kids to a remote compound and trains them to be jihadists and puts guns in their hands and tells them to kill Americans. But whatever hypotheticals or comparisons I could make, it wouldn't matter to the facts of this case we've seen so far. Unless they're hiding some amazing ace up their sleeve

Quote (thundercock @ Dec 3 2021 02:12pm)

Based on what I've seen, the parents are going to be destroyed in civil court given that they purchased the gun for him, knew he was a danger, etc. The question is if a criminal conviction is within the realm of possibilities and I think you need to look at Michigan's manslaughter laws. Obviously, first and 2nd degree murder charges shouldn't even be pursued because that doesn't even make sense. Criminal negligence though? I could see that.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 3 2021 11:20am)

https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/parents-of-oxford-school-shooting-suspect-ethan-crumbley-to-be-charged/

breaking now that me mom text her son "ethan dont do it" then dad rushed home to check their gun stash and found the pistol missing. pretty clear evidence they knew he was the shooter before it was announced and that he had planned to do it before that day and that they were aware of the danger he posed.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 3 2021 02:20pm)

https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/parents-of-oxford-school-shooting-suspect-ethan-crumbley-to-be-charged/

breaking now that me mom text her son "ethan dont do it" then dad rushed home to check their gun stash and found the pistol missing. pretty clear evidence they knew he was the shooter before it was announced and that he had planned to do it before that day and that they were aware of the danger he posed.

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 3 2021 01:20pm)

https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/parents-of-oxford-school-shooting-suspect-ethan-crumbley-to-be-charged/

breaking now that me mom text her son "ethan dont do it" then dad rushed home to check their gun stash and found the pistol missing. pretty clear evidence they knew he was the shooter before it was announced and that he had planned to do it before that day and that they were aware of the danger he posed.

Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 3 2021 02:34pm)

Its circumstantial evidence that they had suspicions and concerns, its hardly a basis for murder charges.
If I heard that there was a police standoff with a gunman up near my cabin, I'd be pretty sure it was my schizo neighbor from a few houses down.
Its such a gigantic, preposterous leap from "knew this kid was unhinged" to "criminally liable for murders he commits"

I've heard so much bellyaching from liberals over the past few years on the felony murder rule being applied to getaway drivers and co-conspirators in bank robberies or muggings despite the clear mens reas of choosing to commit an inherently dangerous felony. Now look at stretch to saying mere awareness of the potential for danger- that exists outside of your control or choice- is criminal liability.

Quote (Goomshill @ Dec 3 2021 11:42am)

So if I'm reading this right, the evidence the prosecutor gave of "red flags the parents ignored" are the same exact things the school administration examined at their meeting with the kid hours before the shooting- and determined it didn't merit disciplinary action or pose an active threat and then returned him to class. Shouldn't the school administrators be indicted for involuntary manslaughter too? Under the prosecutor's theory of the crime, they knowingly put a dangerous psychopath back into the classroom without taking any precautions to ensure he wasn't armed. They didn't even look in his bag. How is their supposed negligence not similarly criminal? We already know from earlier details that they had a substantial history of red flags being thrown up, the incident with the deer head, the email they sent to parents claiming there was no active threat and no precautions needed. Even by the absurdist standard of custodial liability, the school possesses that same custodial arrangement while children are in class.
I'm trying to wrap my head around this moon logic.

Quote (thundercock @ Dec 3 2021 02:46pm)

If you think really hard, I'm sure you can determine the difference between the school and the parents. I'll give you a hint: what object do you need to commit a shooting. That doesn't mean the parents are guilty of manslaughter but you can't really compare the school with the parents...

BTW, the incident with the deer head was someone else apparently. I too made the same mistake.