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

LexusLover's Avatar
I just believe irresponsible control of a weapon is criminal. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
A problem with his "belief" is the phrase "irresponsible control," because of the vagueness of the two words. It lends itself to radical differences in application when applied to any given set of facts. Here is an example:

Toss out the motor vehicle laws with respect to the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways and allow law enforcement to apply a standard for the operation of a motor vehicle so that they may stop and arrest someone for "irresponsible control" of their motor vehicle.

And if you think there's a difference between "motor vehicle" and "weapon" take a look at the motor vehicle deaths compared to firearms ("weapon"?). The stats I've seen show gun violence (non-suicide) about 20,000 in 2020 and motor vehicle deaths to be about 39,000. If one must toss in suicides it was another 24,000 (?) so a total of about 44,000 gun deaths. Not too much of a distinction to earn a more aggressive rationale, particularly when there is no Constitutional privilege to posses and/or own a motor vehicle.
eccieuser9500's Avatar
From my view, the defense is arguing procedure and timing. Not the facts. The facts are the reason why they should be charged.
LexusLover's Avatar
From my view, the defense is arguing procedure and timing. Not the facts. The facts are the reason why they should be charged. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
"The law" is why they should be charged, if there is probable cause that the facts fit. That's why some folks say: "there ought to be a law" when the "facts" are offensive, but not "against any law"!
eccieuser9500's Avatar
A problem with his "belief" is the phrase "irresponsible control," because of the vagueness of the two words. It lends itself to radical differences in application when applied to any given set of facts. Here is an example:

Toss out the motor vehicle laws with respect to the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways and allow law enforcement to apply a standard for the operation of a motor vehicle so that they may stop and arrest someone for "irresponsible control" of their motor vehicle.

And if you think there's a difference between "motor vehicle" and "weapon" take a look at the motor vehicle deaths compared to firearms ("weapon"?). The stats I've seen show gun violence (non-suicide) about 20,000 in 2020 and motor vehicle deaths to be about 39,000. If one must toss in suicides it was another 24,000 (?) so a total of about 44,000 gun deaths. Not too much of a distinction to earn a more aggressive rationale, particularly when there is no Constitutional privilege to posses and/or own a motor vehicle. Originally Posted by LexusLover
I concede. The law is semantics. "What is the definition of is?"

Irresponsible to me means they should not have let him keep the gun when the school informed them of his behavior. Maybe my timing is off on the sequence of events, but I think they were aware of his "issue", if you want to call them that.

Control? I think his father told him not to get caught researching ammo and asking where to get it. He should have taken control of the weapon if he knew he had problems.

Again, not sure what they knew and when they knew it. I'm going off memory right now as I'm watching the AFC North rivalry. This from Associated Press reports.
eccieuser9500's Avatar
"The law" is why they should be charged, if there is probable cause that the facts fit. That's why some folks say: "there ought to be a law" when the "facts" are offensive, but not "against any law"! Originally Posted by LexusLover
And that's why it's taken to a judge to interpret the law with which they've been charged of violating. Sir. (Did I just really write that?)
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
School has culpability here too, imho.

The kid should not be allowed to walk free again.

The parents were in hiding. That doesn't really imply their willingness to surrender, despite what their lawyer said.

Unless you believe lawyers aren't trying to protect their clients. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

they most certainly do.


A counselor told the parents their son needed to get counseling, but Crumbley was able to return to class. His parents did not ask him about the firearm at that time, nor did they search his backpack, McDonald said.


at this point the school should have suspended him. on the spot. forcing the parents to take him home with them. the school also could have searched his backpack, they have the right while he's on school property. if they asked the parents and they refused or just didn't, the school should have.


they had grounds to suspend him, remove him from the school grounds to prevent exactly what happened. they should have searched the backpack. at that point they could have called the police. not a lawyer but i think the police could have confiscated the gun under the circumstances. eventually the parents could get it back but it would have defused the situation.


the school didn't cause this punk to do what he did but they certainly blew an opportunity to prevent it.
eccieuser9500's Avatar
the school didn't cause this punk to do what he did but they certainly blew an opportunity to prevent it. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I think the parents did as well. And they have more responsibility for his well being. Did the school do its part and the parents neglected their's?
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
I think the parents did as well. And they have more responsibility for his well being. Did the school do it's part and the parents neglected their's? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

clearly the parents have more culpability, it's their job to raise this kid not the school. still, the school should have acted more forcefully and didn't. they had clear warning signs of mental instability by a counselor who should have training in this area to evaluate a student's mental health and saw obvious evidence of that.
eccieuser9500's Avatar
Did the school do its part . . . ?

Not "it's ".

Should the school, or counselor, be held accountable? I don't think so.

Not completely. I thought they warned the parents.

Just asking. Just going off what I remember from listening to public radio.



(I have been drinking away a surprise win today. That's my caveat tonight.)
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 12-05-2021, 10:19 PM
From my view, the defense is arguing procedure and timing. Not the facts. The facts are the reason why they should be charged. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
More facts are emerging..
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/05/us/mi...day/index.html

On Monday, a teacher saw the suspect looking at photos of ammunition on his cell phone during class, which prompted a meeting with a counselor and another staff member. During that discussion, the student told them that he and his mother had recently gone to a shooting range and that "shooting sports are a family hobby," Throne wrote in the letter.

The school tried to reach the student's mother that day, but didn't hear back until the following day when his parents confirmed the student's story, Throne said.
After school officials reached out to Jennifer Crumbley regarding her son searching the web for ammunition, she texted him saying, "LOL I'm not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught," prosecutors have said.
The morning of the shooting
Then on Tuesday -- the day of the shooting -- a teacher alerted school counselors and the Dean of students to "concerning drawings and written statements" that the student had created, according to the letter. He was "immediately removed from the classroom" and taken to a guidance counselor's office, Throne explains.

The student told a school counselor that "the drawing was part of a video game he was designing and informed counselors that he planned to pursue video game design as a career," Throne said.
Following that discussion, the student stayed in the office for an hour and half as school staff called his parents and waited for them to arrive to the school, the letter noted. While waiting the student said he was concerned about missing his homework assignments and "requested his science homework, which he then worked on while in the office," the letter said.
"At no time did counselors believe the student might harm others based on his behavior, responses and demeanor, which appeared calm," Throne said.

Upon the parents' arrival, the school counselors asked the student "specific probing questions" about his potential for self-harm or harm toward others, Throne said. The answers he provided "led counselors to again conclude he did not intend on committing either self-harm or harm to others," according to the letter.

School counselors told the parents they must seek counseling for their son within 48 hours, otherwise the school would contact Child Protective Services, Throne wrote.
When asked to take their child home for the rest of the day, Throne said the student's parents "flatly refused," leaving their son behind to "return to work." And because the student had no prior disciplinary actions on his record, school counselors decided to allow him to return to his class, rather than send him to what they thought would be an empty home, Throne explained.
LexusLover's Avatar
Not "it's ".

..... I have been drinking away ... Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
Another grammar/spelling queen I see. More of your insecurity. And blame on the booze.
WTF's Avatar
  • WTF
  • 12-06-2021, 04:33 AM
Another grammar/spelling queen I see. More of your insecurity. And blame on the booze. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Are you saying you've never corrected one's grammar or spelling on here?

Are you still of mind that this couple is guilty?

Or are you only capable now of promoting Sports Illustrated?
... surely seem like reasonable behavour from the school officials.

### Salty
LexusLover's Avatar
... surely seem like reasonable behavour from the school officials.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
You just left him and his shadow, WTFDoIKnow, behind ...

... with the "school officials" reference.

GEDs don't require "officials" for guidance.
eccieuser9500's Avatar
Another grammar/spelling queen I see. More of your insecurity. And blame on the booze. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Easily triggered. But who cares what I think? Oh . . . wait. You.