Crime Michigan School Shooter's Mom on Trial for Manslaughter (Update: Guilty on all 4 counts) (Update 3: Father guilty on all counts)

James has elected not to testify in his own defense, instead calling his sister to the stand to discuss what she saw during a family visit to the home.

Prosecution and defense have rested. Closing arguments and jury deliberation to come.

www.yahoo.com

Defense rests in manslaughter trial of Michigan school shooter’s father James Crumbley after calling one witness

The prosecution and defense rested their cases Wednesday in the manslaughter trial of James Crumbley, the father of the teenager who fatally shot four students at his Michigan high school in 2021, in a case that comes a month after the shooter’s mother, Jennifer, was convicted of the same charges.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
Jury deliberated for 90 mins Wednesday with no verdict. They are back in deliberations this morning.

www.yahoo.com

James Crumbley, who bought gun used by son to kill 4 students, guilty of manslaughter in Michigan

The father of a Michigan school shooter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Thursday, a second conviction against the teen’s parents who were accused of failing to secure a gun at home and doing nothing to address acute signs of his mental turmoil. The jury verdict means James Crumbley...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
KnockoutsGalore said:
Jury deliberated for 90 mins Wednesday with no verdict. They are back in deliberations this morning.

www.yahoo.com

James Crumbley, who bought gun used by son to kill 4 students, guilty of manslaughter in Michigan

The father of a Michigan school shooter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter Thursday, a second conviction against the teen’s parents who were accused of failing to secure a gun at home and doing nothing to address acute signs of his mental turmoil. The jury verdict means James Crumbley...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Thank you for keeping us updated.

What a terrible cry for help from the child and what a cold response from the parents to just hand waive it. I wonder if the father suspected something was wrong but was in denial or if he really didn't care to know.
 
Last edited:
The XL said:
This could lead down a very slippery slope and create a dangerous precedent. I'm not in favor of it.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s hard being logical. It’s entirely subjective and meant to target a specific race. It also implies only innocent kids in cases like this are important.

Surely, all the kids in gangs killing people will have the same type of investigation into their parents. And of course the dead beat fathers will be tracked down.
 
It's a result I'm happy with.

People have to be held accountable for their role in gun violence. And, yes, I think this should apply to low level crime as well, not just mass shootings.

If we want to protect the 2nd Amendment from excessive regulation then personal accountability must be enforced at a high level. If someone uses their right to bear arms to create a dangerous situation for other people, the right answer is not to restrict other people's right to bear arms. The right answer is to come down hard on the people who exercised their rights irresponsibly.
 
ColemanwastheGOAT said:
This sounds like a good idea, but the implications of this could be absolutely devastating for the black community. Now we're going to lock their moms up too?

This looks like a road to hell being paved with good intentions type scenario to me.
Click to expand...

Krixes said:
I agree with you. You could go arrest a lot of parents that have children out there bangin. Very slippery slope....
Click to expand...
Scrolled back to find other folks that get the big picture. The big picture is something the current flock of clapping seals never see.

We all know this isn’t really a “precedent” in that it is not intended to be applied fairly. There is a reason stories like this get unlimited media attention to drive false narratives and the far greater issues ignored.
 
I'm fine with this however why is it not done with a very similar case.

Here the only charge is gun related and nothing else. Even if convicted she will do very little time.

Why the difference.

"Woman's 'illegal buying spree' armed killer of 3 Minnesota first responders, prosecutor says"​


abcnews.go.com

Woman's 'illegal buying spree' armed killer of 3 Minnesota first responders, prosecutor says

Federal authorities say a woman has been charged with illegally buying guns used in the killings of three Minnesota first responders in a standoff at a home in the Minneapolis suburb of Burnsville
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

She should get the full 15 years plus be charged for the murders.
 
Should they have done more to prevent the shooting? Yes, but that’s a tort, not a crime. This is straying into collective guilt territory.
 
oldshadow said:
I'm fine with this however why is it not done with a very similar case.

Here the only charge is gun related and nothing else. Even if convicted she will do very little time.

Why the difference.

"Woman's 'illegal buying spree' armed killer of 3 Minnesota first responders, prosecutor says"​


abcnews.go.com

Woman's 'illegal buying spree' armed killer of 3 Minnesota first responders, prosecutor says

Federal authorities say a woman has been charged with illegally buying guns used in the killings of three Minnesota first responders in a standoff at a home in the Minneapolis suburb of Burnsville
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

She should get the full 15 years plus be charged for the murders.
Click to expand...
I think the difference is that the parents have a higher duty when it comes to their kid and they knew he was a potential threat to others since they had been told as much by school officials. They ignored the warnings.

In the case in your link, the buying was illegal but it doesn't appear that this woman had reason to know the guy was going to harm anyone.
 
Dalarna3 said:
Should they have done more to prevent the shooting? Yes, but that’s a tort, not a crime. This is straying into collective guilt territory.
Click to expand...
Not really. They're being convicted for their specific actions, not the son's. Hence involuntary manslaughter and not murder. They were criminally negligent but didn't intend for anything like this to happen.
 
panamaican said:
Not really. They're being convicted for their specific actions, not the son's. Hence involuntary manslaughter and not murder. They were criminally negligent but didn't intend for anything like this to happen.
Click to expand...
And they'll be punished for it appropriately and it will set a precedent that will be good moving forward. Win - win - win.
 
panamaican said:
I think the difference is that the parents have a higher duty when it comes to their kid and they knew he was a potential threat to others since they had been told as much by school officials. They ignored the warnings.

In the case in your link, the buying was illegal but it doesn't appear that this woman had reason to know the guy was going to harm anyone.
Click to expand...

She knew he was a felon she knew he was up to something.

She should be held accountable for the crime
 
panamaican said:
Not really. They're being convicted for their specific actions, not the son's. Hence involuntary manslaughter and not murder. They were criminally negligent but didn't intend for anything like this to happen.
Click to expand...
What actions? Buying the gun in the first place or not having it secure?
 
So what's the lesson here?

Stop buying your dork kids guns, ya hillbillies?
 
Dalarna3 said:
What actions? Buying the gun in the first place or not having it secure?
Click to expand...
Not having it secure while knowing that their minor son was having thoughts about harming others.

Responsible parents, when told by the school and a psychologist, that their son was thinking about such things would make sure that their firearm is locked up and inaccessible. Responsible gun owners, if they know they have a mentally unstable person staying in their home, would make sure their guns are properly secured away from that person.

These adults failed on both accounts - as responsible parents and as responsible gun owners.
 
oldshadow said:
She knew he was a felon she knew he was up to something.

She should be held accountable for the crime
Click to expand...
She is being held accountable for the crime that she reasonably could have foreseen - possession of illegal firearms.

But knowing that he's "up to something" doesn't mean she knows he's planning to kill anyone. And, per the article, it doesn't appear that this was premeditated killing from the dude. The Michigan shooter was definitely premeditated.

In your opinion, what part of the story tells us that this woman could reasonably have predicted that this man was going to kill someone?
 
Siver! said:
So what's the lesson here?

Stop buying your dork kids guns, ya hillbillies?
Click to expand...
Not really. When taught proper gun safety kids can handle the responsibility of dealing with a firearm just fine.

The lesson here is to keep your firearms secure and inaccessible to your kid if your they exhibit signs of self-harm or wanting to harm others.
 
panamaican said:
Not having it secure while knowing that their minor son was having thoughts about harming others.

Responsible parents, when told by the school and a psychologist, that their son was thinking about such things would make sure that their firearm is locked up and inaccessible. Responsible gun owners, if they know they have a mentally unstable person staying in their home, would make sure their guns are properly secured away from that person.

These adults failed on both accounts - as responsible parents and as responsible gun owners.
Click to expand...
They're still being punished for someone else's actions. I believe that he was charged as an adult, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,137
Messages
55,469,293
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top