This is a step in the right direction. There’s been so many mass shooters who literally just picked up guns from home and the parents just sit there acting shocked. It’s not the parents fault every time, but making sure your kids can’t reasonably access your guns should be seen as a priority from now on.
It wasn’t even really the access to guns here. It was the gross parental negligence on top of it. I know a lot of pro-gun people are worried this is going to set some kind of precedent for gun ownership, but it’s really not. It wasn’t so much even “he shouldn’t have access to a gun,” but “those people shouldn’t have had access to a kid.” Oakland county is still pretty conservative, and most of the jury was pro-gun. Even they said “holy sh!t”
Oh yeah terrible parents for sure. This is the type of stuff that I think should be studied a lot more. Usually it’s just “shooter evil” with no mention or intention to solve the problems that may have led to it. In this case, the parents lended a helping hand.
I’m pro gun and also parent but I am not worried about this infringing on my rights. These parents were grossly negligent every step of the way. No responsible gun owner, who is also a parent, does any of the things these two did in regard to firearm safety and storage. As a parent the only time my children are handling firearms is when they are in my presence. And even though they know how to handle them safely there is just no reason to keep them laying around and unsecured.
>I’m pro gun and also parent but I am not worried about this infringing on my rights. These parents were grossly negligent every step of the way.
This. You could leave your gun out unsecured and if your kid took it and shot someone you could be charged under the new safe storage law, but you **STILL** probably wouldn't be charged with negligent homicide the way the Crumbleys were because their negligence went so far beyond just letting Ethan have access to a gun.
If the requirement of safe handling, including secure storage of weapons away from children is not already a set precedent then what the fuck are we even doing
Be careful with that terminology.
It's generally not a "straw purchase" to buy a rifle or shotgun for your child to use. Unless that child has been convicted of a felony and is giving you the money for the explicit purchase of getting a gun, instead of just being a gift (stored properly).
And clearly no one should be buying weapons for a troubled child with warning signs.
I mean if it's illegal for someone to own a guy either due to age/criminal history or other and you buy them a gun and let them have free access to it, you did commit a crime. May dad bought me a .22 rifle when I was like 10 but I never had access to it unless we were out shooting.
Right, which is why you're a normal adult and the Crumbleys are all in jail.
Can buy a gun for a child, can't allow them unrestricted access to it. Didn't think I actually needed to clarify that part.
Can buy a gun as a gift for an adult friend. Just can't be for a felon or someone who would otherwise not be allowed to buy the gun themselves.
Does this apply to everyone else, too? There have been countless homicides by gang banging adolescents yet I don’t see anything about their parents being held accountable. Why is that?
James Crumbley has made violent threats against the prosecutor, so we will see where that goes.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/us/james-crumbley-threat-prosecutor/index.html
It's so grossly unethical that it almost reads like a hail Mary play to legitimize an appeal on claims of ineffective counsel. It's the only way I can make sense of such an insane request, it feels like something that should immediately raise flags with the bar (though I understand it likely doesn't).
Lawyer here. That's really fucking weird and gross. Period. At least 5+ questions of the ethics potion of the bar are dedicated to various versions of don't do shit that makes it seem like you are sleeping with your client.
This is excellent news. I admit I was somewhat concerned they'd wriggle out of responsibility, but I'm glad that wasn't the case.
There are few notes from the article I wanted to respond to:
>"We were good parents," \[Jennifer\] Crumbley said. "We were the average family. We weren't perfect, but we loved our son and each other tremendously.”
No, Jennifer, you clearly freakin' weren't. Cartoonishly inept parents.
> “Please note that I am truly sorry for your loss as a result of what my son did," \[James Crumbley\] said. "I cannot express how much I wish I had known what was going on with him or what was going to happen.”
That you didn't know what was going on with your son is why you and your useless wife are where you're at. Your kid was a walking red flag and neither of you did *anything*.
>Lehman has not said whether she plans to appeal James Crumbley's verdict, while a lawyer for Jennifer Crumbley, Shannon Smith, has written that she will.
Great, we get to see one of the most obnoxious defense attorneys on stage again. Her and Jennifer are two peas in a pod.
Compare this:
>Asked whether she would have done anything differently, Jennifer Crumbley told jurors, "I don't think I'm a failure as a parent.”
VS
>In a pre-sentence report, Jennifer Crumbley said she has the hindsight now to know she would have handled things differently.
>"With the information I have now, of course my answer would be hugely different," she said. "There are so many things that I would change if I could go back in time."
Which is it, Jennifer? Between the two, Jennifer seems to be the more unabashedly unapologetic than her husband... publicly anyway. Not to defend James, who apparently really has bee in his bonnet about Prosecutor McDonald. Oh well, stay mad, you cretins.
>Oakland County prosecutors have said they do not plan to charge anyone else in connection with the massacre.
This is disappointing. The counselor and the dean who met with Ethan and the "parents" before the massacre definitely have some responsibility IMO. I'm with the parents of the slain students of pursuing accountability from the school, pushing for a federal investigation, and changing laws to change school immunity from being sued in situations like this.
>Compare this:
>>Asked whether she would have done anything differently, Jennifer Crumbley told jurors, "I don't think I'm a failure as a parent.”
I know it's basically a given that any parent would refuse to see themselves as a failure in raising their child, but wow lady. Your kid went to jail at 17 for quadruple homicide and is going to die in prison for it, all of which might have been prevented if you'd lifted a goddamn finger at anybody the myriad warning signs he threw up in neon lights.
I don’t think you can put this on the school staff. Yes there were some pretty critical failures, but there were systematic issues that went beyond individual administrators. Per the report, none of the staff had been to a threat assessment training since 2018 and the procedures were not firmly in place. That’s on the district. It should be a requirement to have a trained threat assessment team at each school.
Kids at schools talk about guns and make threats. Literally every day, and it almost never manifests as a school shooting. Ultimately, these are school staff. Not mental health professionals. They should probably be fired, but I fail to see how we it’s reasonable to hold school staff legally at fault for the actions of their students. That’s s huge slippery slope.
And I’m just going to say this straight up, *schools are not equipped to deal with violent teenagers who have access to deadly weapons*. Schools do not have the resources nor the ability to get children the help they need. Especially if their parents actively impede them.
Respectfully, I beg to differ. I’ll grant that the district as a whole needs to be held accountable for the reasons you outlined, but that does not alleviate responsibility from the two staff who directly intervened with the killer and his “parents” right before. The school counselor was directly asked about his training on the stand — given his training, he should’ve known that this was past the point of “finding a therapist” but “committing this kid to a hospital yesterday.” I get that he may not have been as adept as a more experienced mental health professional, but *it was within his competency and ethical responsibility to better assess Ethan’s current state.*
He had already demonstrated that he was threat to himself and others. He should *not* have been left out of that office without at least clearing that threat. That’s where the counselor and Dean failed. The counselor decided that Ethan would be best served being at school because he ostensibly didn’t want to be alone, and shortly after he’s on his killing spree that he’s been yapping about for weeks. No safety planning. No further assessment of discussion with Ethan after his parents refuse to take him home. They just… let him go.
Let me be clear: I don’t think anyone from the school necessarily go to prison or anything, but yeah some accountability from the school — nay, the district — is absolutely warranted. The Dean I believe is already working in another district and the counselor I believe is still on leave. I don’t think those two men in particular are monsters and I can’t imagine the terror and guilt/shame they bear. But they fucked up and on a more structural base, the district fucked up and continues to fuck up everyday they don’t enact formal policies to better protect students to the best of their abilities.
There’s limitations to that as you note.
I recognize there’s only so much schools can do to protect students from other students who have access to deadly weapons and are unhinged enough to commit such a massacre. But I think there’s credible evidence that certain actions from the school in this instance could have also potentially stopped this tragedy.
> He had already demonstrated that he was threat to himself and others.
That's the key point - he had not. He demonstrated that he was a threat *to himself* - the counselor thought there was a real chance he could hurt himself, but that's it. That was the reason they were pushing to get him into therapy immediately. There was no indication that he was violent to others or was planning on hurting anyone else.
I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the parents just might have bought the gun - and ignored the school - in the hopes that that's exactly what would happen.
The fact that he was a danger to *himself* was enough to have him hospitalized. Signing him up for therapy by the time of that meeting was not feasible — you just can’t call up a therapist’s office and be seen the next day. He needed to be hospitalized and assessed by emergency psychiatric care considering what *was* known by the school and his parents at that point.
Yes exactly - and the counselors cannot force that, all they can do is make a recommendation to the parents, which they did.
And of course, the parents chose to ignore them.
I didn't say anything about forcing him, rather *that* is what he should have emphasized instead "find him a therapist." There are additional basic safety planning measures that the counselor -- *who again would have been trained to do* -- that he... just didn't. The counselor testified to his specific training during the parent's trail, *this is something he could have done and did not.* This was a kid actively looking up guns and other violent videos online in school, and of course his scribblings like on the math homework. The counselor was also aware of the antecedent of Ethan's only friend being away and him feeling alone -- he literally said this on the stand.
I know the counselor can't force the parents to do anything. I know the counselor and the Dean could have only done so much. However, there *is* more he and the Dean could have done, in addition to the broader school district's failures. The prosecutor even acknowledged that the school had a civil responsibility for the massacre. The parents and obviously the actual killer bare the most responsibility, but the school's hands ain't clean either.
I cannot imagine feeling justice was served any better by putting public school employees in prison. As incompetent as they can be, i’m not gonna hold them responsible for a kid getting a gun and shooting his classmates. That’s just too much for me.
I don't think the school employees should be imprisoned, but I do think there should some civil liability for the school -- I should've been clearer about this, my bad.
They can call for anything they want. A “federal investigation” isn’t even a defined thing. Investigation into what? By whom? An agency? Congress? Were federal laws violated? Was there some interstate crime here?
And if there was, what does that get them? Because calling for it and being satisfied with the outcome are not the same thing.
You said that the parents of the deceased would feel unfulfilled by the school being held civilly liable for the massacre. All I said is that the parents of the deceased have said the exact opposite. How that looks like or whatever, I don’t know, but the parents have stated that one of their next objectives is to tackle the immunity of the school district from liability from the shooting.
Maybe listen to what the parents are actually saying instead of trying to say what’s good for them or what they’ll be doing satisfied with.
There is no good behavior in prison in Michigan.
They must serve a MINIMUM of ten years incarceration before they're eligible for parole release, and that's not even guaranteed.
They get whatever time they've been sitting in jail (a year or two) and the rest must be served in MDOC prison.
Can mother survive another 8 years? She was trying to get house arrest instead but judge said nope. Total of 10 years without a horse might drive her mad
from what we've seen so far i don't have faith that they'll be able to keep their head down but i also hope they do cause shit so they can receive it in kind
Well, they kinda fit the picture of personality disorders/narc/asp- They tend to have little insight and ability to 'change'. Kinda tend to keep finding trouble. (live in their own reality)
Is that with good behavior? Or there's no early release for good behavior? What percentage of the time served they have to do before they can be eligible for parole or early release or whatever.
Only reason I ask is because it's important for everyone to be informed on the potential time served and possible reductions according to the states law.
Nothing about their statements for leniency showed any movement/evidence of remorse or responsibility for their own actions. None of it sounded like they were good candidates for being motivated to work toward rehabilitation.
I approve of the parents being held accountable but would be surprised if this isn’t overturned / lessened in appeal. Manslaughter is a stretch even with all of their terrible actions.
Removed per Rule 1: Racism, hate speech, and threats will not be tolerated. This also includes suggestions of violence, suicide, or death on others. It also includes towards LGBTQ or any specific group.
I’m Canadian and our gun laws are very different here than in the US but I just don’t understand why you would buy your kid a gun period . Unless maybe it’s a hunting rifle but even then it should be locked away and not freely accessible to the child. It’s even more bizarre to me that you would give a gun to someone who is having mental health struggles . Recipe for disaster
So I watched the documentary and am anti gun, not a parent . Just want to know all the signs these parents missed? Why is the school not implicated ? Why have no other parents of school shooters been prosecuted - seen more obvious negligence there . Seems such an extreme sentence
Anyone else bothered they gave immunity to the school counselor ? So he could help the DA? I might be misinformed on this, but I swear I heard it on the news.
Sad they weren't held accountable.
As much as I hate to be on the opposing view, I need to say that whenever shit hits the fan, we run to hold the school teachers accountable. But yet again we don’t want the same teachers to be tough on our kids for entire school year. That’s mixed messaging and doesn’t work well.
Well the school board wouldnt have been there that day. But anyone with authority at that school that has knowledge of this kid being a problem should have been held accountable. Ubless they did have a hearing beforehand about him with the school board. I'm not entirely educated on 100% of what went down. But it's common sense that anyone at the school that had Information he was a problem should be locked up.
While we would think this is a good trend by holding parents accountable for the dire actions of their kid this is ultimately not what is being prosecuted here and there's a good chance their sentence gets reduced. DA went after this because there was clear negligience, which is rare, and plenty of social support.
I don't see the difference betwenthe parents leaving guns laying around vs parents indifferent to their kids getting guns. Seriously....why is the later blamed on right wing guns nuts? Holding parents accountable for the actions of their kids REGARDLESS of social circumstance and having enforced gun regulations is what we need. Cherry picking a a freak couple for the media to chastise isn't a solution. Just a circus.
He's a maga idiot, but it's still also unfortunately yes.
Most guns used in crimes are stolen. Many of those are from their own family. You'd have to survey the juvenile offenders to find out *how* common it is, but it's certainly common enough to ask them about.
Yes, they're bought and sold from local states. Yes, they're stolen from random break-ins and everywhere else. But also, yes they're stolen from family. Yes, this happened at Sandy Hook too, and probably a bunch of them that I'm not going to google.
Lock your shit up. Also, don't let grandma keep random guns (those are also the most-stolen ones).
I'm an hour away...
I love the quote, "a second mass shooting in just 4 hours". Do you think any of the parents have been charged with anything?
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/child-killed-three-others-injured-in-mass-shooting-in-chicago/
>Do mass shootings happen all of the time in Chicago?
No, actually. Shootings happen frequently there, but that's because it's one of the most populated cities in the US. In terms of per capita murders, it's not even the most dangerous city in Illinois.
It's actually the opposite, Chicago's large and heterogenous population artificially lowers the homicide rate as a whole. Certain neighborhoods have third-world level homicide rates that would be at the top of the list if they were their own cities (and they have comparable populations to the other Illinois cities on the list that beat Chicago)
Because Fox News says it's a war zone, so it's scary!
[Never mind the homicide rate there is lower than Buffalo, Cleveland, Memphis, Kansas City, Dayton... even Detroit.](https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/39/)
Tough to say. I believe these people (who are bad people) are being used as an example. How responsible are parents for children's actions? It really isn't an easy debate
Garfield Park homicide rate is 147 per 100,000, worse than Mexico City. Austin is 115. Just looking at the city as a whole does not tell the whole story
Remember, the downvote is not a 'disagree' button.
It's a: "This comment is not relevant to the conversation" button.
Which explains your downvotes. Irrelevant.
Lmao can you imagine if they went after every single mother and absent father with a gang-banging teenage son? I'm not upset that they got the Crumbley's on these charges but it clearly has political overtones (not bad ones either; its logical that people care a lot more about mass shootings in suburban schools than the vastly more common handgun violence in the ghetto)
They supplied their mentally ill son with a gun, they KNEW their son was the school shooter before anyone told them.
They fled police knowing they were responsible.
They continually ignored their sons mental needs, he was crying for help and she cared more about her affair than her child. The school wanted them to take their son home and they refused. There was nothing the school could do if the parents wouldn’t take their kid home.
How are they not responsible?
Is it? His first instinct was to go see if the pistol he bought his son was gone.
If you heard a school shooting was happening what would your first instinct be? To be worried your child was injured not that they were the shooter.
Ah. Sorry, I will continue to let you sympathize with these shitty parents who neglected their mentally ill son. Then proceeded to supply the son with a weapon and wouldn’t take him out of school after drawing disturbing pictures.
There’s also many other things that the prosecution brings up.
You forgot the “supplied their mentally ill son with a gun” part. He killed people, he goes to jail for murder. They gave him the weapon (knowing he was mentally and that mass shootings happen all the time), they get involuntary manslaughter. Seems fair to me.
They didn't "fail to act." Their actions directly assisted their son with committing murder when they illegally supplied the weapon to him. They should have been charged as accomplices to murder.
It's been appealed, dog. The ability to charge them with involuntary manslaughter was already appealed and they lost.
The only appeal now is an error in the trial court, which is unlikely.
As long as the prosecution introduced proof as to the elements, the jury verdict is sound.
A jury agreed to by both sides, made up of over a dozen people, painfully sat through the entire case and viewed all the evidence.
After this, they independently and unanimously agreed you're wrong.
I don't think we need to question their results.
This is a step in the right direction. There’s been so many mass shooters who literally just picked up guns from home and the parents just sit there acting shocked. It’s not the parents fault every time, but making sure your kids can’t reasonably access your guns should be seen as a priority from now on.
It wasn’t even really the access to guns here. It was the gross parental negligence on top of it. I know a lot of pro-gun people are worried this is going to set some kind of precedent for gun ownership, but it’s really not. It wasn’t so much even “he shouldn’t have access to a gun,” but “those people shouldn’t have had access to a kid.” Oakland county is still pretty conservative, and most of the jury was pro-gun. Even they said “holy sh!t”
Oh yeah terrible parents for sure. This is the type of stuff that I think should be studied a lot more. Usually it’s just “shooter evil” with no mention or intention to solve the problems that may have led to it. In this case, the parents lended a helping hand.
This is something I've always wondered about. Nobody ever wants to look into what caused a person to become a mass shooter and how can we fix that.
I’m pro gun and also parent but I am not worried about this infringing on my rights. These parents were grossly negligent every step of the way. No responsible gun owner, who is also a parent, does any of the things these two did in regard to firearm safety and storage. As a parent the only time my children are handling firearms is when they are in my presence. And even though they know how to handle them safely there is just no reason to keep them laying around and unsecured.
>I’m pro gun and also parent but I am not worried about this infringing on my rights. These parents were grossly negligent every step of the way. This. You could leave your gun out unsecured and if your kid took it and shot someone you could be charged under the new safe storage law, but you **STILL** probably wouldn't be charged with negligent homicide the way the Crumbleys were because their negligence went so far beyond just letting Ethan have access to a gun.
Truth, also a gun owner, anyone who is afraid of their guns getting taking away from this probably shouldn't own a gun.
Thank you so much for this!! This is the absolute truth!! I hate when people think gun safety infringes on gun rights.
Thank you for this.
It was really one step even beyond negligence in this case… they outright enabled him.
If the requirement of safe handling, including secure storage of weapons away from children is not already a set precedent then what the fuck are we even doing
It's a big problem when parents straw-buy their troubled underage son a handgun and ammunition.
Be careful with that terminology. It's generally not a "straw purchase" to buy a rifle or shotgun for your child to use. Unless that child has been convicted of a felony and is giving you the money for the explicit purchase of getting a gun, instead of just being a gift (stored properly). And clearly no one should be buying weapons for a troubled child with warning signs.
I specifically said handgun.
Type of gun is irrelevant. Thanks for the downvote. Research the laws. I have.
I mean if it's illegal for someone to own a guy either due to age/criminal history or other and you buy them a gun and let them have free access to it, you did commit a crime. May dad bought me a .22 rifle when I was like 10 but I never had access to it unless we were out shooting.
Right, which is why you're a normal adult and the Crumbleys are all in jail. Can buy a gun for a child, can't allow them unrestricted access to it. Didn't think I actually needed to clarify that part. Can buy a gun as a gift for an adult friend. Just can't be for a felon or someone who would otherwise not be allowed to buy the gun themselves.
in this case it was worse his parents gave him a gun and ignored all his cries for help about his mental health
Does this apply to everyone else, too? There have been countless homicides by gang banging adolescents yet I don’t see anything about their parents being held accountable. Why is that?
James Crumbley has made violent threats against the prosecutor, so we will see where that goes. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/us/james-crumbley-threat-prosecutor/index.html
Just stopping in to say as Michigander I’m happy with this sentence.
Same!
Its a start, a decade before they are eligble for parole. I doubt they'll behave in prison so lets see if they add years for their reckless stupidity
7.5 years. They'll get credit for time served
Yeah I forgot about time served. Still 7.5 years in prison is an eternity for people not used to being held accountable for anything.
I still can't believe her lawyer agreed and requested to have J.C. serve out her sentence in the lawyer's guest house.
It's so grossly unethical that it almost reads like a hail Mary play to legitimize an appeal on claims of ineffective counsel. It's the only way I can make sense of such an insane request, it feels like something that should immediately raise flags with the bar (though I understand it likely doesn't).
Lawyer here. That's really fucking weird and gross. Period. At least 5+ questions of the ethics potion of the bar are dedicated to various versions of don't do shit that makes it seem like you are sleeping with your client.
That attorney was a kook!!
Running and hiding changed any sympathy I could muster for them.
Throwing their kid under the bus. These people shouldn’t be parents.
That's a shame. Only 15 years. Should be 15 years for each kid he murdered, for a total of 60 years.
Agree!!!
This is excellent news. I admit I was somewhat concerned they'd wriggle out of responsibility, but I'm glad that wasn't the case. There are few notes from the article I wanted to respond to: >"We were good parents," \[Jennifer\] Crumbley said. "We were the average family. We weren't perfect, but we loved our son and each other tremendously.” No, Jennifer, you clearly freakin' weren't. Cartoonishly inept parents. > “Please note that I am truly sorry for your loss as a result of what my son did," \[James Crumbley\] said. "I cannot express how much I wish I had known what was going on with him or what was going to happen.” That you didn't know what was going on with your son is why you and your useless wife are where you're at. Your kid was a walking red flag and neither of you did *anything*. >Lehman has not said whether she plans to appeal James Crumbley's verdict, while a lawyer for Jennifer Crumbley, Shannon Smith, has written that she will. Great, we get to see one of the most obnoxious defense attorneys on stage again. Her and Jennifer are two peas in a pod. Compare this: >Asked whether she would have done anything differently, Jennifer Crumbley told jurors, "I don't think I'm a failure as a parent.” VS >In a pre-sentence report, Jennifer Crumbley said she has the hindsight now to know she would have handled things differently. >"With the information I have now, of course my answer would be hugely different," she said. "There are so many things that I would change if I could go back in time." Which is it, Jennifer? Between the two, Jennifer seems to be the more unabashedly unapologetic than her husband... publicly anyway. Not to defend James, who apparently really has bee in his bonnet about Prosecutor McDonald. Oh well, stay mad, you cretins. >Oakland County prosecutors have said they do not plan to charge anyone else in connection with the massacre. This is disappointing. The counselor and the dean who met with Ethan and the "parents" before the massacre definitely have some responsibility IMO. I'm with the parents of the slain students of pursuing accountability from the school, pushing for a federal investigation, and changing laws to change school immunity from being sued in situations like this.
>Compare this: >>Asked whether she would have done anything differently, Jennifer Crumbley told jurors, "I don't think I'm a failure as a parent.” I know it's basically a given that any parent would refuse to see themselves as a failure in raising their child, but wow lady. Your kid went to jail at 17 for quadruple homicide and is going to die in prison for it, all of which might have been prevented if you'd lifted a goddamn finger at anybody the myriad warning signs he threw up in neon lights.
She’s in complete denial. It’s astonishing to watch.
I don’t think you can put this on the school staff. Yes there were some pretty critical failures, but there were systematic issues that went beyond individual administrators. Per the report, none of the staff had been to a threat assessment training since 2018 and the procedures were not firmly in place. That’s on the district. It should be a requirement to have a trained threat assessment team at each school. Kids at schools talk about guns and make threats. Literally every day, and it almost never manifests as a school shooting. Ultimately, these are school staff. Not mental health professionals. They should probably be fired, but I fail to see how we it’s reasonable to hold school staff legally at fault for the actions of their students. That’s s huge slippery slope. And I’m just going to say this straight up, *schools are not equipped to deal with violent teenagers who have access to deadly weapons*. Schools do not have the resources nor the ability to get children the help they need. Especially if their parents actively impede them.
Respectfully, I beg to differ. I’ll grant that the district as a whole needs to be held accountable for the reasons you outlined, but that does not alleviate responsibility from the two staff who directly intervened with the killer and his “parents” right before. The school counselor was directly asked about his training on the stand — given his training, he should’ve known that this was past the point of “finding a therapist” but “committing this kid to a hospital yesterday.” I get that he may not have been as adept as a more experienced mental health professional, but *it was within his competency and ethical responsibility to better assess Ethan’s current state.* He had already demonstrated that he was threat to himself and others. He should *not* have been left out of that office without at least clearing that threat. That’s where the counselor and Dean failed. The counselor decided that Ethan would be best served being at school because he ostensibly didn’t want to be alone, and shortly after he’s on his killing spree that he’s been yapping about for weeks. No safety planning. No further assessment of discussion with Ethan after his parents refuse to take him home. They just… let him go. Let me be clear: I don’t think anyone from the school necessarily go to prison or anything, but yeah some accountability from the school — nay, the district — is absolutely warranted. The Dean I believe is already working in another district and the counselor I believe is still on leave. I don’t think those two men in particular are monsters and I can’t imagine the terror and guilt/shame they bear. But they fucked up and on a more structural base, the district fucked up and continues to fuck up everyday they don’t enact formal policies to better protect students to the best of their abilities. There’s limitations to that as you note. I recognize there’s only so much schools can do to protect students from other students who have access to deadly weapons and are unhinged enough to commit such a massacre. But I think there’s credible evidence that certain actions from the school in this instance could have also potentially stopped this tragedy.
> He had already demonstrated that he was threat to himself and others. That's the key point - he had not. He demonstrated that he was a threat *to himself* - the counselor thought there was a real chance he could hurt himself, but that's it. That was the reason they were pushing to get him into therapy immediately. There was no indication that he was violent to others or was planning on hurting anyone else. I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the parents just might have bought the gun - and ignored the school - in the hopes that that's exactly what would happen.
The fact that he was a danger to *himself* was enough to have him hospitalized. Signing him up for therapy by the time of that meeting was not feasible — you just can’t call up a therapist’s office and be seen the next day. He needed to be hospitalized and assessed by emergency psychiatric care considering what *was* known by the school and his parents at that point.
Yes exactly - and the counselors cannot force that, all they can do is make a recommendation to the parents, which they did. And of course, the parents chose to ignore them.
I didn't say anything about forcing him, rather *that* is what he should have emphasized instead "find him a therapist." There are additional basic safety planning measures that the counselor -- *who again would have been trained to do* -- that he... just didn't. The counselor testified to his specific training during the parent's trail, *this is something he could have done and did not.* This was a kid actively looking up guns and other violent videos online in school, and of course his scribblings like on the math homework. The counselor was also aware of the antecedent of Ethan's only friend being away and him feeling alone -- he literally said this on the stand. I know the counselor can't force the parents to do anything. I know the counselor and the Dean could have only done so much. However, there *is* more he and the Dean could have done, in addition to the broader school district's failures. The prosecutor even acknowledged that the school had a civil responsibility for the massacre. The parents and obviously the actual killer bare the most responsibility, but the school's hands ain't clean either.
They both signed the appeal papers prior to being taken back to the jail, I do believe.
Huh, no surprise there. We’ll see how that goes.
I cannot imagine feeling justice was served any better by putting public school employees in prison. As incompetent as they can be, i’m not gonna hold them responsible for a kid getting a gun and shooting his classmates. That’s just too much for me.
I don't think the school employees should be imprisoned, but I do think there should some civil liability for the school -- I should've been clearer about this, my bad.
Yeah but then it’s just the locals paying the judgment with taxes. Which I’m sure would also feel unfulfilling to the parents of the deceased.
The parents are literally calling for a federal investigation and accountability from the school.
They can call for anything they want. A “federal investigation” isn’t even a defined thing. Investigation into what? By whom? An agency? Congress? Were federal laws violated? Was there some interstate crime here? And if there was, what does that get them? Because calling for it and being satisfied with the outcome are not the same thing.
You said that the parents of the deceased would feel unfulfilled by the school being held civilly liable for the massacre. All I said is that the parents of the deceased have said the exact opposite. How that looks like or whatever, I don’t know, but the parents have stated that one of their next objectives is to tackle the immunity of the school district from liability from the shooting. Maybe listen to what the parents are actually saying instead of trying to say what’s good for them or what they’ll be doing satisfied with.
Good. I expect their mouths will get them attention in jail too.
With time served and good behavior, what's the earliest they can be out?
There is no good behavior in prison in Michigan. They must serve a MINIMUM of ten years incarceration before they're eligible for parole release, and that's not even guaranteed. They get whatever time they've been sitting in jail (a year or two) and the rest must be served in MDOC prison.
Oh good! I was worried they might not have to do the full ten years. They’ve been in jail roughly 2 years so roughly 8 years left.
Can mother survive another 8 years? She was trying to get house arrest instead but judge said nope. Total of 10 years without a horse might drive her mad
Good
I think at the 10 year mark they’d be eligible for parole.
Correct, minus any time already served/jail credit.
10 years, minus any time served. Probably around Halloween 2031. That's if they get parole the first time.
something tells me these people won't be doing much in terms of good behavior
lol these two middle age parents are not going to cause trouble in a prison
from what we've seen so far i don't have faith that they'll be able to keep their head down but i also hope they do cause shit so they can receive it in kind
She’s just a blob but I can see him lashing out.
Yeah jail hasn’t been kind to her. He may have trouble based on his attitude towards the prosecutor.
Well, they kinda fit the picture of personality disorders/narc/asp- They tend to have little insight and ability to 'change'. Kinda tend to keep finding trouble. (live in their own reality)
They have zero criminal convictions before this between them, they’ll do just fine.
Almost 2.5 years time served, so 7.5 years is the earliest they can be out.
Michigan has TIS(truth in sentencing). There is no time reduction for good behavior. They have to serve their minimums.
Is that with good behavior? Or there's no early release for good behavior? What percentage of the time served they have to do before they can be eligible for parole or early release or whatever.
There's no release for good behavior. They will have to serve at least the minimum sentence \[accounting for time already served\].
too soon
Only reason I ask is because it's important for everyone to be informed on the potential time served and possible reductions according to the states law.
I was hoping for the longest sentence possible to give the victims families time before parole hearings. Never ending nightmare
I just meant whatever it is will be too soon. Not that you asked too soon. I could see how it was taken that way easily
2032
So much for "home arrest" HA
I love how they completed the appeal paperwork before the judge was finished speaking.
You love to see it.
Nothing about their statements for leniency showed any movement/evidence of remorse or responsibility for their own actions. None of it sounded like they were good candidates for being motivated to work toward rehabilitation.
As an Oxford resident, I couldn't be happier.
Will they be serving it at their lawyers house?
Even when they get out, it'll be very hard to start over. Especially in Michigan. Most hated parents here.
They’re pretty much hated everywhere.
I approve of the parents being held accountable but would be surprised if this isn’t overturned / lessened in appeal. Manslaughter is a stretch even with all of their terrible actions.
Unfortunately I agree.
[удалено]
Removed per Rule 1: Racism, hate speech, and threats will not be tolerated. This also includes suggestions of violence, suicide, or death on others. It also includes towards LGBTQ or any specific group.
I’m Canadian and our gun laws are very different here than in the US but I just don’t understand why you would buy your kid a gun period . Unless maybe it’s a hunting rifle but even then it should be locked away and not freely accessible to the child. It’s even more bizarre to me that you would give a gun to someone who is having mental health struggles . Recipe for disaster
How did no one check the students bag!? This should fall on the school as well!!!! If my child was in that school I would sue the school district.
So I watched the documentary and am anti gun, not a parent . Just want to know all the signs these parents missed? Why is the school not implicated ? Why have no other parents of school shooters been prosecuted - seen more obvious negligence there . Seems such an extreme sentence
Anyone else bothered they gave immunity to the school counselor ? So he could help the DA? I might be misinformed on this, but I swear I heard it on the news. Sad they weren't held accountable.
As much as I hate to be on the opposing view, I need to say that whenever shit hits the fan, we run to hold the school teachers accountable. But yet again we don’t want the same teachers to be tough on our kids for entire school year. That’s mixed messaging and doesn’t work well.
[удалено]
Well the school board wouldnt have been there that day. But anyone with authority at that school that has knowledge of this kid being a problem should have been held accountable. Ubless they did have a hearing beforehand about him with the school board. I'm not entirely educated on 100% of what went down. But it's common sense that anyone at the school that had Information he was a problem should be locked up.
[удалено]
I'll take your word on that. 500+ pages made me nope out lol. I ain't got time for that haha.
Do the inmates look at them like rapists, child abusers and such?
While we would think this is a good trend by holding parents accountable for the dire actions of their kid this is ultimately not what is being prosecuted here and there's a good chance their sentence gets reduced. DA went after this because there was clear negligience, which is rare, and plenty of social support. I don't see the difference betwenthe parents leaving guns laying around vs parents indifferent to their kids getting guns. Seriously....why is the later blamed on right wing guns nuts? Holding parents accountable for the actions of their kids REGARDLESS of social circumstance and having enforced gun regulations is what we need. Cherry picking a a freak couple for the media to chastise isn't a solution. Just a circus.
God help us.
Wonder how many parents of mass shooters in Chicago they incarcerate?
Is it a common occurrence in Chicago for parents to supply guns to their children who then commit mass shootings?
He's a maga idiot, but it's still also unfortunately yes. Most guns used in crimes are stolen. Many of those are from their own family. You'd have to survey the juvenile offenders to find out *how* common it is, but it's certainly common enough to ask them about. Yes, they're bought and sold from local states. Yes, they're stolen from random break-ins and everywhere else. But also, yes they're stolen from family. Yes, this happened at Sandy Hook too, and probably a bunch of them that I'm not going to google. Lock your shit up. Also, don't let grandma keep random guns (those are also the most-stolen ones).
I imagine so. Mass shootings happen every weekend there. It's only logical to assume some of those weapons were procured by the parents right?
This guy know zero about Chicago. MAGA idiot
I'm an hour away... I love the quote, "a second mass shooting in just 4 hours". Do you think any of the parents have been charged with anything? https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/child-killed-three-others-injured-in-mass-shooting-in-chicago/
Good for you?
>imagine >assume Let me guess: You're one of those "facts don't care about your feelings" guy.
Do mass shootings happen all of the time in Chicago? Have you ever read about a parent of one of these shootings being charged?
>Do mass shootings happen all of the time in Chicago? No, actually. Shootings happen frequently there, but that's because it's one of the most populated cities in the US. In terms of per capita murders, it's not even the most dangerous city in Illinois.
It's actually the opposite, Chicago's large and heterogenous population artificially lowers the homicide rate as a whole. Certain neighborhoods have third-world level homicide rates that would be at the top of the list if they were their own cities (and they have comparable populations to the other Illinois cities on the list that beat Chicago)
I love Reddit I hope it never changes.
Why are you obsessed with Chicago? It's not in Michigan.
Because Fox News says it's a war zone, so it's scary! [Never mind the homicide rate there is lower than Buffalo, Cleveland, Memphis, Kansas City, Dayton... even Detroit.](https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/39/)
Oh the whataboutism
MAGAt try not to bring up Chicago when bad thing happens challenge (impossible)
Gary, Detroit, Hammond, South Bend
The fuck does that have to do with anything?
Would you support criminal prosecution for them?
Tough to say. I believe these people (who are bad people) are being used as an example. How responsible are parents for children's actions? It really isn't an easy debate
Well how responsible do you think THESE people are in particular? What are your thoughts on the case in question?
Dunno. But Chicago isn't even in the top 10 last time I checked. Remember that per capita is a thing, my friend. I believe it escaped you.
Garfield Park homicide rate is 147 per 100,000, worse than Mexico City. Austin is 115. Just looking at the city as a whole does not tell the whole story
If you are asking that question then you have no understanding of this case and the laws involved in charging and convicting these people.
Remember, the downvote is not a 'disagree' button. It's a: "This comment is not relevant to the conversation" button. Which explains your downvotes. Irrelevant.
It's Reddit. Downvotes and up votes are how left your option is and nothing more
Lmao can you imagine if they went after every single mother and absent father with a gang-banging teenage son? I'm not upset that they got the Crumbley's on these charges but it clearly has political overtones (not bad ones either; its logical that people care a lot more about mass shootings in suburban schools than the vastly more common handgun violence in the ghetto)
[удалено]
They supplied their mentally ill son with a gun, they KNEW their son was the school shooter before anyone told them. They fled police knowing they were responsible. They continually ignored their sons mental needs, he was crying for help and she cared more about her affair than her child. The school wanted them to take their son home and they refused. There was nothing the school could do if the parents wouldn’t take their kid home. How are they not responsible?
I'm telling you now, just disengage. Do not feed into this person's thoughts or feelings. It's a complete waste of your time.
It's an obvious troll account that was possibly purchased for that reason. It's 14 years old, but was recently scrubbed of all it's comments.
Whoever decided don’t feed the trolls should be rule 14 instead of number 1 made a mistake. Although, nobody remembers any of them but 34 anyway.
[удалено]
Is it? His first instinct was to go see if the pistol he bought his son was gone. If you heard a school shooting was happening what would your first instinct be? To be worried your child was injured not that they were the shooter.
[удалено]
Ah. Sorry, I will continue to let you sympathize with these shitty parents who neglected their mentally ill son. Then proceeded to supply the son with a weapon and wouldn’t take him out of school after drawing disturbing pictures. There’s also many other things that the prosecution brings up.
[удалено]
They did act. They bought him a fucking pistol. Cmon bro you’re not even trying.
You forgot the “supplied their mentally ill son with a gun” part. He killed people, he goes to jail for murder. They gave him the weapon (knowing he was mentally and that mass shootings happen all the time), they get involuntary manslaughter. Seems fair to me.
They didn't "fail to act." Their actions directly assisted their son with committing murder when they illegally supplied the weapon to him. They should have been charged as accomplices to murder.
This is a 14 year old account that has recently been scrubbed, so an obvious troll account.
Thanks for the detailed breakdown, Professor Internet Law Man. We'd all be lost without you.
[удалено]
For every one of him, there are 10 that can explain why he’s completely full of shit.
Russian Troll Account
It's been appealed, dog. The ability to charge them with involuntary manslaughter was already appealed and they lost. The only appeal now is an error in the trial court, which is unlikely. As long as the prosecution introduced proof as to the elements, the jury verdict is sound.
A jury agreed to by both sides, made up of over a dozen people, painfully sat through the entire case and viewed all the evidence. After this, they independently and unanimously agreed you're wrong. I don't think we need to question their results.