Why are ty hey charging the parents in the Michigan school shooting?

Probably pure politics. Are the parents guilty of something? Likely they screwed up royally, but this is Michigan and election year is next year (which is only a month away). Maybe they can scare parents into not buying guns because their offspring might be bat shit crazy. Right now, we don't know enough to make an informed decision. It is all speculation. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

If one doesn't know enough to make an informed decision, it's probably because one hasn't heard all the evidence presented by the prosecutor and sheriff or what ever his title is. How anybody after hearing what I heard, would ask the question why are the parents being charged is beyond perplexing. There is a mountain of evidence including his mother telling him don't worry about looking up while in class, how and where to by ammo for his new birthday present that his father and mother acting as a straw buyer, gave him by texting him "LOL just be more careful not to get caught".


I'll admit that not everybody has the kind of time I have to listen to all the evidence but I can assure you, this is a slam dunk for the prosecutor with what she has.

Sounds crazy af. Originally Posted by WTF

Look it up!

If one doesn't know enough to make an informed decision, it's probably because one hasn't heard all the evidence presented by the prosecutor and sheriff or what ever his title is. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I heard enough from a supervising arresting officer describing the PC upon which the arrest was based to conclude they had PC and apparently a Judge agreed since a warrant was in place for their arrest.

WTFDoIKnow aka WTF hasn't researched it yet ...



IMO if more "parents" got arrested and convicted some of this school shit would stop.

I heard enough from a supervising arresting officer describing the PC upon which the arrest was based to conclude they had PC and apparently a Judge agreed since a warrant was in place for their arrest.

WTFDoIKnow aka WTF hasn't researched it yet ...



IMO if more "parents" got arrested and convicted some of this school shit would stop. Originally Posted by LexusLover

PC? Parent Conference?

Someone with greater legal acumen than I might speak to the meaning of this but didn't the mother post on social media that the gun was the son's 'Christmas present?' It is said this resulted in charges due to failed responsibilities of a gun holder.

Someone with greater legal acumen than I might speak to the meaning of this but didn't the mother post on social media that the gun was the son's 'Christmas present?' It is said this resulted in charges due to failed responsibilities of a gun holder. Originally Posted by FLWriter

There were several involvements of the parents right up to the day of the massacre, which included knowledge their son was buying ammo and had mental issues about which the school was also aware.

That's what I heard mentioned as part of the PC for arrest warrants.

Which might explain why they fled and hid.

...

Which might explain why they fled and hid. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Will the flight exacerbate the charges?

... WHY were the parents charged??

... bleedin' obvious... Parents are prolly Trump supporters.
Why else?

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

You may be on to something there Salty.

If one doesn't know enough to make an informed decision, it's probably because one hasn't heard all the evidence presented by the prosecutor and sheriff or what ever his title is. How anybody after hearing what I heard, would ask the question why are the parents being charged is beyond perplexing. There is a mountain of evidence including his mother telling him don't worry about looking up while in class, how and where to by ammo for his new birthday present that his father and mother acting as a straw buyer, gave him by texting him "LOL just be more careful not to get caught".


I'll admit that not everybody has the kind of time I have to listen to all the evidence but I can assure you, this is a slam dunk for the prosecutor with what she has. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Did you listen to the bond hearing this morning where the Defense Lawyers laid out their version of events? I did, they broadcast this live.

There were several involvements of the parents right up to the day of the massacre, which included knowledge their son was buying ammo and had mental issues about which the school was also aware.

That's what I heard mentioned as part of the PC for arrest warrants.

Which might explain why they fled and hid. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Will the flight exacerbate the charges? Originally Posted by FLWriter

Please do not listen to LL...his POV is that o FCC a DA who rubber stamps any and all nonsense.

You may want to hear what their lawyers have to say.

Okay, I did some reading. The parents are being charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. In Michigan, that is when someone not directly connected with a death of a person but who had the power to affect the outcome. Like giving a friend several drinks and then putting him into this car to go out on the highway and kill a bus full of orphans and nuns. However, that is a direct action whereas in this case it would negligence by not taking action. The prosecutor is hanging the case on a few things; the pistol was purchased by the father for the son's Christmas present, the mother, when advised that her son was searching for ammunition while at school, told him to "not get caught", and when informed of some disturbing drawing made by their son, neither parent acted to secure the pistol or find its location. Michigan has no statute about allowing children to access firearms.
I don't think (given what we know right now) that the prosecutor can successfully prosecute this case beyond a reasonable doubt. The straw purchase, which the father is not being charged with, is difficult to prove. The boy was underage but they have to prove that he was in control of the pistol. Fathers have been giving guns to children for years and the vast majority never end badly. My own father gave me a rifle at 13 years old but it stayed with the other guns in the house. I bought my first rifle at 16 years old and that stayed in my room. When I returned from the Persian Gulf during the hostage crisis, my dad stood in so I could buy a single action pistol days before I turned 21. It is very common place and one could suppose that the gun dealer and sheriff could have both been held accountable if I had shot someone.
Then there is the negligence charge...the parents could easily make the case that they are not medical experts and the school is not either. That any opinions offered by counselors or teachers were just that, opinions.

One thing that stands out is that the prosecutor wants to charge the boy with terrorism. The FBI definition of terrorism is the threat of, or use of violence, to affect a political goal or change. This looks like pandering on the part of the prosecution.

The prosecutor, Karen McDonald, went ronin at a press conference announcing the charges and tried to make an emotional case about gun ownership and parental responsibilities. Like I said, pandering to the woke mob. I also think she is overcharging the boy just like in Kenosha.

Karen McDonald is an elected judge having only served 11 months of a term. She is a registered democrat and a former judge.

Look it up! Originally Posted by LexusLover

How do you continually keep quoting a person you claim to have on ignore?

Were you just lying again?

Last night and throughout the day, we were in contact with our clients — they were scared, they were terrified, they were not at home, they were figuring out what to do, getting finances in order," attorney Shannon Smith said.

The Crumbleys, who were charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter over the shooting their 15-year-old son Ethan is accused of carrying out at Oxford High School, were found early this morning in a building in Detroit and arrested after police conducted a manhunt following the couple's failure to appear for a Friday arraignment.
"Our plan was to drive to the Novi district court this morning, because arraignments were supposed to start at 8:30 [a.m. ET] for any county arraignment, and we had plans to meet them at 7:30, to text the Fugitive Apprehension Team to get to the court by 8:30 so they could be arraigned first thing. Those were plans we made and solidified, and we did not announce it because unlike the prosecution, we weren't attempting to make this a media spectacle," Smith said.

Okay, I did some reading. The parents are being charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter. In Michigan, that is when someone not directly connected with a death of a person but who had the power to affect the outcome. Like giving a friend several drinks and then putting him into this car to go out on the highway and kill a bus full of orphans and nuns. However, that is a direct action whereas in this case it would negligence by not taking action. The prosecutor is hanging the case on a few things; the pistol was purchased by the father for the son's Christmas present, the mother, when advised that her son was searching for ammunition while at school, told him to "not get caught", and when informed of some disturbing drawing made by their son, neither parent acted to secure the pistol or find its location. Michigan has no statute about allowing children to access firearms.
I don't think (given what we know right now) that the prosecutor can successfully prosecute this case beyond a reasonable doubt. The straw purchase, which the father is not being charged with, is difficult to prove. The boy was underage but they have to prove that he was in control of the pistol. Fathers have been giving guns to children for years and the vast majority never end badly. My own father gave me a rifle at 13 years old but it stayed with the other guns in the house. I bought my first rifle at 16 years old and that stayed in my room. When I returned from the Persian Gulf during the hostage crisis, my dad stood in so I could buy a single action pistol days before I turned 21. It is very common place and one could suppose that the gun dealer and sheriff could have both been held accountable if I had shot someone.
Then there is the negligence charge...the parents could easily make the case that they are not medical experts and the school is not either. That any opinions offered by counselors or teachers were just that, opinions.

One thing that stands out is that the prosecutor wants to charge the boy with terrorism. The FBI definition of terrorism is the threat of, or use of violence, to affect a political goal or change. This looks like pandering on the part of the prosecution.

The prosecutor, Karen McDonald, went ronin at a press conference announcing the charges and tried to make an emotional case about gun ownership and parental responsibilities. Like I said, pandering to the woke mob. I also think she is overcharging the boy just like in Kenosha.

Karen McDonald is an elected judge having only served 11 months of a term. She is a registered democrat and a former judge. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Holy crap barleycorn might be finally getting one right.

I agree with much of what you posted cornhole! Keep up the good research and next time a little less a bout you.

[SIZE=3]If one doesn't know enough to make an informed decision, it's probably because one hasn't heard all the evidence presented by the prosecutor and sheriff ] Originally Posted by HedonistForever

So you did not hear their defense attorneys rebuttal?

Obviously not. Maybe LL can school you on the fine art of having a tad more evidence than just from one side.