The parents sound bad themselves.

Lmfao so true

If you wanna get technical it did lead to your idol being overthrown 80 years ago...

I'm trying to imagine any legally coherent argument where one adult can be charged with depraved indifference homicide for the independent actions of another adult. There's simply no nexus of causality if party A is not responsible for the actions of party B. With the custodial liability of the parents thrown out the window by charging the child as an adult, it would be no more of a burden of liability on the parents than a straw purchaser buying a gun for someone else, or a bartender selling someone a beer, or gun shop owner selling a wacko a gun. I mean, even if we treat the gun purchase as an illegal straw purchase, that only really matters to a lesser crime, it doesn't have a bearing onto whether are responsible for the murders, so that's largely a legal red herring. So we can look at it like a gun shop owner selling a gun to someone. We could construct a hypothetical scenario where the gun shop owner knows that someone is mentally unstable and dangerous and likely to shoot people, and sells him a gun anyway, and then the state charges the owner with involuntary manslaughter. Its imaginable, specific statutes the NRA lobbied for to remove such liability aside. So lets say that's the whole legal argument, liability by being able to predict the substantial likelihood that someone else will commit a crime. What evidence can the state produce that bridges that gap? Merely being worried or knowing he's depressed or knowing he's interested in firearms or ammunition isn't remotely enough.

The parents pretty obviously were buying their kid a gun with the intention of it being a legal and responsible firearm owned for normal uses like target practice and self-defense and the other stuff of normal gun ownership. There's no evidence that they intentionally bought it for him to carry out the killings like he's a hitman acting on their behalf. So to navigate between what they intended and the reckless negligence required to create a murder liability is a gigantic gap, or at least it should be in a reasonable court. Probably not when politics is injected into the equation.

Pshhhh

He needed a haircut, some better clothes, and maybe two seasons of team baseball to teach him social skills, discipline, and management of emotions.

The parents were definitely negligent. They made like ten misrakes leading up to this.

That's why I said he shouldn't be charged as an adult. Under their responsibilities as parents, when a pattern of behavior by their child is exposed, and they either willingly ignore or attempt to disguise said behavior, and the behavior results in what happened, there's a level of responsibility they bear. School administration also bears some of this responsibility.

I'm fine with them getting tried as many times as possible and financially ruining them. They are majorly responsible for this event



Based on what was posted previously the school demanded he get therapy within 48 hours.

What, in your opinion, should they have done? and is there any other examples where schools took more action? I don't know what reasonable action here for the administration looks like.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 4 2021 10:23am

And I think if you're old enough to have murderous intent, you're old enough to be responsible for your actions. Charging him as an adult is the one part I think they did right



You like the idea of the state intentionally abusing their prosecutorial discretion to try to ruin the lives of private citizens by means of financial burden and onerous court cases?

Ugg, facepalm.

In this specific case, sure.