I know how legally murky things should shake out: the presumption of innocence, the unconstitutionality of overly vague laws, sine qua non and proximate causation.
When we let prosecutors run around willy nilly charging people with absurdist overreaches, it leads to capricious and arbitrary enforcement. Are we going to lock up every ghetto parent who ignores their kid wearing gang colors?

It was an attack that terrorized the victims.

Aren't they all locked up already because of our legal systems that are totally free of systemic racism??

That is not a sufficient condition for something to be labeled a "terrorist attack."

I means... You have to accept the death of innocent people because guns are compensating your small penis' frustration.

With every report the murkiness of the charge becomes less so imo.

if we made laws to punish gang members mothers we'd see a lot less gang members, imo. not that i support that generally. this case seems far more specific and a solid timeline than most.

I haven't seen any details that even attempt to bridge the gap between 'reason to be concerned' and 'criminal liability'.
Its pretty telling that the school went out of their way to claim there was no threat, took no action on the basis of the same evidence, and put him back in class with the other kids.

Folks really have a hard-on for trying to blame third parties for the actions of independent human beings. The whole erosion of personal responsibility and self-determination. They already know who murdered these kids, and convicting him won't be a problem. But its quite telling that a DA seizes an opportunity to crusade against gun ownership with the case of a pair of trump supporters

The DA pretty clearly wants to set a precedent, leaning on existing case law here isn't going to yield any results. maybe they succeed, with the current info i dont think they will but who knows, maybe they fail or the charges are lowered soon.

i personally think any person who has a reason to be concerned with their child around guns that doesnt then put those guns in a locked safe should be in jail if that kid then kills his classmates. how it happens and what charges make it happen idk, but my gut tells me they should be behind bars for that behavior. honestly unlocked guns in a household with children should be criminal nationwide, my grandpa (a gun salesman and NRA lifelong member) always preached that. if u cant afford a gun safe than u shouldnt own a gun if you have kids, its just a dumb idea even if they're not a schizo.

I think people are too focused on outcomes. The same conduct gets handwaved and ignored when nothing bad happens and then people turn around and cry bloody murder when someone dies. Look at what effort went into stigmatizing drunk driving to counter that kind of thinking. To make it a crime when you go behind the wheel drunk, even if you are so totally sure you're a safe driver don't worry trust me dude. If people are criminally negligent, I don't think the penalty should be less for those with no harm no foul, and I don't think it should be more for those responsible for tragedy. Its the same actus rea mens rea. But if its not a crime, there can't be liability. If the DA wants to crusade, she should go run for congress to try to pass legislation to make leaving weapons unlocked in Michigan illegal. And I don't think the penalty for it would be equivalent to murder charges.

in reality the only way unlocked weapons are charged is after a crime is committed, because they're not doing door to door searches. its when a kid accidentally blows a hole in their sibling or shoots up a school. similarly drunk driving charges largely are the result of a crime, swerving on the road, an accident, speeding, etc. DUI checkpoints are something im against personally, but im sure also account for a minority of charges statistically where they're implemented.