Michigan Mother Convicted for Son's School Shootings: Larger Implications?
GoSlugs said:
"Despite her attempt to deflect fault onto him, as their son used a semi-automatic handgun bought by James Crumbley to kill four high school classmates in 2021, a jury ultimately found her guilty — the first time in the U.S. that a parent was held criminally responsible for a school shooting perpetrated by their child."This seems like a pretty ground breaking change in the way liability (criminal and, presumably civil) is assigned in these matters. Do people think it should be applied more broadly?
Define "more broadly". It would appear that in the case, the degree to which the parents both neglected and enabled their child was pretty egregious.
tjohn said:
Define "more broadly". It would appear that in the case, the degree to which the parents both neglected and enabled their child was pretty egregious.
Well, should people who provide firearms and ammunition to individuals when they should have a reasonable expectation that those items will be used in the commission of a crime be liable for that crime even if the provision of the weapons and ammo was legal (as it was in this case)?
GoSlugs said:
tjohn said:
Define "more broadly". It would appear that in the case, the degree to which the parents both neglected and enabled their child was pretty egregious.
Well, should people who provide firearms and ammunition to individuals when they should have a reasonable expectation that those items will be used in the commission of a crime be liable for that crime even if the provision of the weapons and ammo was legal (as it was in this case)?
Yes. I would what to see a high standard for reasonable expectation.
MSNBC Discussion of Case
This seems like a pretty ground breaking change in the way liability (criminal and, presumably civil) is assigned in these matters. Do people think it should be applied more broadly?