Should parents be held responsible?

[Newboomer]

@Paul Raley School shooting is what gets attention for the most part. More minors are killed in gang warfare than school shootings each year.

Part of the problem is in today's schools there is no conflict resolution. When I was in 10th grade a guy and I had an issue. The PE teacher put us in the boxing ring. We resolved our issue and are good friends 50 years later. I went boar hunting with him 6 weeks ago in Europe Today the teacher would get fired, and school sued.

That's the way we did it, too. We squared off and settled it right in front of everyone. If there was a disciplinary problem in High School the perpetrator put on the gloves with the principal. Principal 1, perpetrator 0 every time. Not many disciplinary problems. Guns. We all had guns all the time. They went to school with us and stood in the corner of the classroom and went home on the schoolbus with us.

 

[Areaonereal]

Mid Central illinois. 1965. We Stood in Line to read Outdoor Life or Field and Stream in Study Hall in the library… the marvelous 270 by Jack O Connor and his tales…we were the post war generation..today we are the retired farmers, state police officers, civil, electrical, and ceramic engineers, doctors , naval commanders, , school superintendinst, French teachers, truck drivers and union factory workers, Realtors, logistic analysts, all from a class 36 of which
only seven girls, not included in the above… what has changed?

 

[Doug3006]

I‘m all for holding parents responsible. Not just for kids who take their dad‘s gun and kill other kids at school. I’m for incarcerating the parents of all of the gang bangers, thugs and drug pushers too. They’re destroying our cities, looting retail stores, murdering the innocents. These people should be held to account for the monsters they create by having, but not raising, their kids.

 

[Tanks]

... I’m for incarcerating the parents of all of the gang bangers, thugs and drug pushers too. ...

Most likely the dad is already in jail. Part of the problem is having a single parent household.

 

[Doug3006]

Most likely the dad is already in jail. Part of the problem is having a single parent household.

Totally agree. Those who choose to procreate but refuse to raise the child need to be held accountable for the damage their offspring cause. It’s always possible that a bad egg can be come from a good home, but the lack of loving, concerned parents hurts kids. Not all broken homes produce monsters, but it’s amazing the percentage of monsters who come from broken homes.

 

[Newboomer]

That's the way we did it, too. We squared off and settled it right in front of everyone. If there was a disciplinary problem in High School the perpetrator put on the gloves with the principal. Principal 1, perpetrator 0 every time. Not many disciplinary problems. Guns. We all had guns all the time. They went to school with us and stood in the corner of the classroom and went home on the schoolbus with us.

Then you get the parents who say that their little baby wouldn't do anything like that. It's somebody else's fault. But what can you expect with both parents working and the whelps running amok with no supervision. Of course they're going to get into trouble, just looking for something to do, y'know.

 

[wesheltonj]

. . . But again if we are going to convict people for being stupid or for bad parenting then we would run out of jails.

I have some news for you, we ran out of bed space years ago.

 

[Anthonyt42]

I don't buy the idea that because they did a school meeting they should have known he would shoot up the school (streamlining the argument). This falls into that category of the signal to noise ratio. How many parents get a stiff talking to from schools. Versus how many school shootings happen. Like 9/11, there were warnings, somewhere in the files there are always warnings, sifting through what is an isn't likely is key. And throughout history, they often get it wrong on the big shows.

Parents are just as likely to have a kid who is unhappy, and try to figure out what hobbies the kid likes and support them. "maybe you should take him to the range more often". "Seemed like a good idea at the time".

There are also always the cases where such a move would be insane, just saying we have too many mandates in my opinion, and not enough commons sense. And part of the latter is that bad things do happen.

I agree with this on top of just not knowing enough details to have a valid opinion on it yet

 

[Tam Dl]

Secondly is comparing the use of a vehicle to the use of a firearm in a crime a fair comparison , is it comparing "apples with apples" ? In terms of attacks carried out by minors in the USA how many have involved minors using vehicles to intentionally kill others compared to how many have intentionally used firearms ?
My perception ( based on media reports ) is that firearms have been used in nearly all the attacks where minors are involved in the murders of others - if so why is that ?

As far as attacks with vehicles, they just had a doozie in Waukesha. It wasn't a kid.

I wasn't drawing a comparison to the Mi attack, for one thing driving at 120K almost never kills anyone. I was suggesting two things. That speeder who is taking it upon themselves to up their car's energy by 44% gets treated a lot more leniently, than anything to do with firearms. If there is an accident, that 44% is capable of causing a lot more damage, and is 1000 X more energetic than that 9mm. We routinely overlook behaviour in society that is far more egregious than what these parents did.

Secondarily, maybe we want it that way, do we all want to be at risk for life in prison when something bad happens in our families? Having kids is increasingly not a picnic. I had 3 but I would not recommend it under current circumstances, and I would not feel too great if the prosecutors invent a whole bunch of other reasons to mess with families, and apply punitive standards.

 

[Tam Dl]

I think some rot came into the system, and I thought it at the time, when courts started to get all busy over victim's rights. Our system in Canada and much of the commonwealth, and I thought it was the same in the US, was that when you break the law, you have insulted the sovereign, and you have to face that power and it's discontent. I am not in court because the guy I shot is pissed, or his family, I am in court because I wronged the sovereign.

When you make it all about the victim, bad things happen:

I) You get the number of victims multiplying and that has had toxic effects. We are at a point where people want to establish their victimhood.

2) You get weird effects, such that the prosecutor in the Mi case felt obliged to justify the charging of the parents because there were so many, and so badly affected victims. Kinda like Rumsfeld bemoaning that they had too few targets left to destroy in Afghanistan, about a month or so into the conflict. Oh well, I guess we will have to invent some. With the sovereign as the victim, you punish for breaking the laws, you don't invent new laws and perps simply because there are so many victims you have run out of fresh meat.

Politically it is hard to say "who gives a toss about the victims". But it actually works out better. Let the civil courts find for the victims, and the overcharging of perps makes it less likely that the civil courts will have much to work with, if the perps are in jail.

 

[Tam Dl]

I noticed a number of people mentioned the parent's flight. That was just more piling on the parents. by the media or prosecutors The parents were worried for their safety, so they did not stay in their house. They were in contact with their lawyer, and their lawyer was in full contact with the authorities. As soon as the charges were made, they arranged a surrender.

 

[Mr. 16 gauge]

I noticed a number of people mentioned the parent's flight. That was just more piling on the parents. by the media or prosecutors The parents were worried for their safety, so they did not stay in their house. They were in contact with their lawyer, and their lawyer was in full contact with the authorities. As soon as the charges were made, they arranged a surrender.

Not true..........they were discovered in an abandoned building in Detroit. They may CLAIM that they were in "fear for their lives", but to date no one has been able to prove that. If they were going to "turn themselves in", they had plenty of opportunity to do so; and didn't. They also stopped and got $4000 cash from an ATM before disappearing off the radar. If you were going to turn yourself in, why would you have to stop at the ATM? .....and their attorney, who stated that they were going to turn themselves in, stated that he lost contact with them and they weren't answering his phone calls.
........does that sound like the act of someone who was getting ready to turn themselves in?

By your logic Rittenhouse should have been convicted as well. "He should have known taking a gun to a demonstration might have gotten others to attack him". Which was what a lot of people on the left have said.

It doesn't matter what the parents said or did as long as it does not go against MI law. Also, nothing wrong with lawyering up their son, that is their Constitutional right.

I don't see a viable path to conviction here unless the prosecutor is going to try the case in the media in order to get the possible jury pool biased against them. It seems she is on the way to do that.

Now, the parents are not that smart with not turning themselves in right away. But again if we are going to convict people for being stupid or for bad parenting then we would run out of jails.

While I respect your opinion, your comparing apples to oranges here...........and you'll have to forgive me if I think that your comparisons are off base. Every time I disagree with someone on one of these threads, people start comparing me to some leftist anti gunner, such as Giffords or some other such thing......which is just utter nonsense.
It's also one of the reasons I usually don't comment on such message boards.
Forgive me if I feel your comparisons are nothing more than B.S.........this happened in MY back yard; one of the RNs I work with children were friends of the deceased, and were present at the incident. I think I know a little more about it than you...................

 

[Tanks]

...
Forgive me if I feel your comparisons are nothing more than B.S.........this happened in MY back yard; one of the RNs I work with children were friends of the deceased, and were present at the incident. I think I know a little more about it than you...................

Having an emotional attachment to deceased and acting on feelings trumps the actual law? The parents were stupid assuming the indeed thought they could run away. Though that does not make them guilty. The DA is milking her 15 minutes and already trying the case in public.

It is a tragedy, but bad parenting is not a crime. Also, the administrators could have told the parents to take their kid home for the day after the meeting, but did not. Are they also criminally culpable?

 

[YancyW]

Having an emotional attachment to deceased and acting on feelings trumps the actual law? The parents were stupid assuming the indeed thought they could run away. Though that does not make them guilty. The DA is milking her 15 minutes and already trying the case in public.

It is a tragedy, but bad parenting is not a crime. Also, the administrators could have told the parents to take their kid home for the day after the meeting, but did not. Are they also criminally culpable?

If we are talking about gross negligence or recklessness, which it appears that is the standard the prosecutor believes was met by the parents of the adult assailant, I can imagine the list of people who made an affirmative determination it was safe for him to attend school should also be very concerned.

 

[Tanks]

MI does not have a safe storage law, as a matter of fact the DA was lamenting that. In absence of that law I think the DA is reaching and over charging. Should the parents have been more mindful of their kid? Yes. Is that a crime? I don't think so.

 

[CBH Australia]

It's a slippery slope and could set a precedent.

Maybe they are guilty of something, negligent and guilty of a safe storage offence in their state.

The little bastard knew what he done. He knows right from wrong and planned this. .
As for the parents, should they be charged, worse still jailed? Only if the crime fits and they can really be held responsible. You can't be responsible for every action your child takes. Especially if he has a mental problem or just a behavioral problem.
He is the killer, not the parents.

 

[Doug3006]

Something I’m concerned about is when prosecutors decide to try a case with little chance of conviction. The process itself is meant to be the punishment. Months of trial and huge legal fees can bankrupt the accused. Then the trial is over and the defendants are ruined. Oh well Justice was served. Maybe the DA should have to reimburse the defendant when a not guilty verdict is the outcome.

 

[Tam Dl]

"Prosecutor Karen McDonald, In April 2019, McDonald took the unusual step of stepping down from her judgeship, announcing her intention to run for the Democratic nomination for Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney in the 2020 election, thus forcing the third-term incumbent prosecutor Jessica Cooper into a highly-contested primary election.McDonald campaigned on a progressive, reformist platform focused on limiting incarceration for non-violent crimes, and ensuring prosecutorial decisions are informed by racial justice considerations. (Wikipedia)."

 

[Tam Dl]

Not true..........they were discovered in an abandoned building in Detroit. They may CLAIM that they were in "fear for their lives", but to date no one has been able to prove that. If they were going to "turn themselves in", they had plenty of opportunity to do so; and didn't. They also stopped and got $4000 cash from an ATM before disappearing off the radar. If you were going to turn yourself in, why would you have to stop at the ATM? .....and their attorney, who stated that they were going to turn themselves in, stated that he lost contact with them and they weren't answering his phone calls.
........does that sound like the act of someone who was getting ready to turn themselves in?

You could be right, this is what the Daily Herald said:

"The parents of a teen accused of killing four students in a shooting at Oxford High School were found hiding in a Detroit building early Saturday, several hours after a prosecutor filed involuntary manslaughter charges against them, officials said. James and Jennifer Crumbley were captured in a commercial building that housed artwork, Detroit Police Chief James E. White said at a news conference."

So "hiding" and "captured" are judgements of the police, not facts, and they make the police look good.

"Several hours after the prosecutor filed..." Is completely consistent with their having given themselves in. Before the charges, weren't they free to do damn well what they pleased? And it must be one of the shortest great escapes that they were picked up after a few hours.

There were other things in the article that seem damning, like someone "spotted the car" So maybe someone who knew them well. The police don't normally hand out license numbers, or get responses in a few hours. But it is color that makes them look bad. Cops just go up to a neighbour and ask them whose car it is, and they report it, and you have another talking point.

Then you have your "abandoned building" that is used to store art.

The money, they are going to need a lot more than that.

------------------------------

This is what presecutors and police do, they ruin your reputation and try to stack the jury pool. And it also makes lawsuits pointless, because all this stuff is stuff they are legally able to do, and if you later sue and win, damages are reduced because your reputation was already ruined by the trial. And in high profile cases (probably a lot higher than this one, but still...) that means you have less potential to recover after the trial, and therefore are less valuable to council. So your chance of getting great representation goes down.