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

[panamaican]

They're still being punished for someone else's actions. I believe that he was charged as an adult, as well.

No, they're being punished for their actions. If they were being punished for someone else's actions, they would be punished for premediated murder.

I'll try to explain it differently: Would you say that they were negligent in how they secured their firearms?

 

[Dalarna3]

No, they're being punished for their actions. If they were being punished for someone else's actions, they would be punished for premediated murder.

I'll try to explain it differently: Would you say that they were negligent in how they secured their firearms?

Usually, a person that has X item taken from them, and used in commission of a crime is not also punished for said crime.

 

[panamaican]

Usually, a person that has X item taken from them, and used in commission of a crime is not also punished for said crime.

But we're not talking about X item. We're talking about firearms, which have rules. And we're talking about parents, who have a duty as it relates to their children. And we have plenty of parental liability laws and "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" laws for when minors commit criminal acts.

But I haven't asked you about the kid's actions. I'm only asking you about the parents, independent of what their kid did. Specifically:

Would you say that the adults were negligent in how they secured their firearms?

 

[Dalarna3]

But we're not talking about X item. We're talking about firearms, which have rules. And we're talking about parents, who have a duty as it relates to their children. And we have plenty of parental liability laws and "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" laws for when minors commit criminal acts.

But I haven't asked you about the kid's actions. I'm only asking you about the parents, independent of what their kid did. Specifically:

Would you say that the adults were negligent in how they secured their firearms?

Alcohol has rules, but I don’t think we imprison parents when their teenager gets into the liquor cabinet, and gets a DUI or commits vehicle manslaughter. As far as I’m aware, contributing to the delinquency of a minor inducing, aiding, or encouraging a crime.

 

[Zankou]

Alcohol has rules, but I don’t think we imprison parents when their teenager gets into the liquor cabinet, and gets a DUI or commits vehicle manslaughter. As far as I’m aware, contributing to the delinquency of a minor inducing, aiding, or encouraging a crime.

If the parent gave them the alcohol knowing they were going to drink it, you certainly would face liability. The question is whether you acted as a reasonable person did in securing the dangerous item. Locking the liquor up is reasonable even if somebody breaks in. Leaving the cabinet open even though you know a teen will likely drink it is not.

 

[Zankou]

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.

I think they should be safe and inaccessible period.

I have my shotgun disassembled, a lock through the chamber, then it’s locked in a case, then the ammo is in another case that is hidden and locked … with a different lock.

To keep firearms stored in a way that is readily accessible to children is insane, whether they are showing signs of harming others or not. Firearm usage should be under active adult supervision.

 

[Poon Goon]

I think they should be safe and inaccessible period.

Multiple state governments agree and made purchases of safes tax exempt. I learned this the hard way when I bought a safe today.

 

[Zankou]

Multiple state governments agree and made purchases of safes tax exempt. I learned this the hard way when I bought a safe today.

Yes and California makes very clear that if you store firearms unlocked and children use them to inflict harm on themselves or others, you will be liable. You need to lock them up to avoid liability.

Now if your children find the key and unlock it, they could hurt somebody, but as long as you took reasonable precautions to prevent access you can’t be held liable for their acts.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I think they should be safe and inaccessible period.

I have my shotgun disassembled, a lock through the chamber, then it’s locked in a case, then the ammo is in another case that is hidden and locked … with a different lock.

To keep firearms stored in a way that is readily accessible to children is insane, whether they are showing signs of harming others or not. Firearm usage should be under active adult supervision.

I agree guns should be secured.Key word being secured not quite the same as locked away and disassembled but very similar .... But to store them in that way defeats the purpose of having one. You ever do a drill to see how fast you can go from oh my god shit is going bad right this second , to how fast you can get that gun in play ? I find that one always takes people (myself included)longer than they think and thats under fake stress not the real deal.

I do get what you are saying I just cant really resist the urge to autism

 

[ineverpost]

3 well regulated militia members incarcerated, the country now at risk for invasion clearly.

 

[Dalarna3]

If the parent gave them the alcohol knowing they were going to drink it, you certainly would face liability. The question is whether you acted as a reasonable person did in securing the dangerous item. Locking the liquor up is reasonable even if somebody breaks in. Leaving the cabinet open even though you know a teen will likely drink it is not.

Criminal liability for not locking your liquor cabinet up?

 

[oldshadow]

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?

Him being a convicted felon told her he was a danger.

But ok, I'll be satisfied if the give her the max. 15 years in a federal prison.

That should be the minimum I a case like this.

How about criminal control as we have plenty of gun control now.

 

[Seano]

Not too sure about punishing people for crimes someone else commits. Seems like a pretty slippery slope.

 

[BIKES!]

This may be the biggest steaming pile of racism in today’s one-sided injustice system.

Notice how this only applies to legal guns and parents that are in the house. The 90%+ of gun violence caused by gangs and kids with dead beat parents have nothing to worry about. The left condones parents walking away and breeding, at all costs avoiding blame or holding them accountable for their murdering shit children. They blame the gun manufacturers.

There are two sets of laws in the DemoKKKrat world. Those for the races they pander to in hopes of votes, and those for tax payers.

 

[Confucamus]

Not too sure about punishing people for crimes someone else commits. Seems like a pretty slippery slope.

Yes and no. I'm positive these parents did not want Ethan to do what he did, but it's undeniable that their extreme negligence allowed it to happen. They knew he was disturbed and bought him a gun. The day of the shooting, they were called to the school after Ethan had made disturbing threats. They were IN the principals office with Ethan and his backpack. If you were in this situation, would you not put 2+2 together and think to look inside the backpack?

On the other hand, negligent or no, they were just doing what they thought was right. Probably a horrible situation to have your child do that and then find yourself in court as well. 4 people were murdered. I do think this is more of a case to set a precedent and make parents think twice before giving their disturbed child the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ShadBo]

Not too sure about punishing people for crimes someone else commits. Seems like a pretty slippery slope.

These people are being punished for their own actions. Not someone else's.

Read the thread Mr. Magoo.

 

[panamaican]

Him being a convicted felon told her he was a danger.

But ok, I'll be satisfied if the give her the max. 15 years in a federal prison.

That should be the minimum I a case like this.

How about criminal control as we have plenty of gun control now.

I don't know what your last line has to do with anything. She was arrested and sentenced for her criminal actions. She conducted illegal purchases of a firearm for a felon and was sentenced for it. That's criminal control.

 

[panamaican]

Alcohol has rules, but I don’t think we imprison parents when their teenager gets into the liquor cabinet, and gets a DUI or commits vehicle manslaughter. As far as I’m aware, contributing to the delinquency of a minor inducing, aiding, or encouraging a crime.

So, you're basically never going to address the question about if the parents were negligent in how they stored their firearm?

You made a big deal about people being punished for other people's actions but when I ask you only about the parent's actions, you keep avoiding the question. Here's how I'm going to interpret it:

You are refusing to address whether or not the parents were negligent in how they stored their firearm because you know that they did not store the weapon properly. You also know that if you say the parents were negligent, my next question is going to be about whether or not they should be punished specifically for their negligence in how they stored their firearm. Since neither question is related to what a 3rd party did with the firearm, it would undercut the idea that they are being punished for someone else's actions. Why? Because the storage of the firearm is entirely under the firearm owners control.

So, you're seeing the potential problem. If you say they shouldn't be punished for negligence in how they stored the firearm, you'd be saying that they don't have to follow the law. And if you say that they should be punished for negligence in how they stored the firearm then you open the door to what is appropriate punishment in such a case and criminal negligence would make them liable for foreseeable dangers that they disregarded.

Either way, you've realized that they're not being punished for the son's actions but for their own and you don't want to acknowledge that.

I say good day sir.

 

[BIKES!]

Yes and California makes very clear that if you store firearms unlocked and children use them to inflict harm on themselves or others, you will be liable. You need to lock them up to avoid liability.

Now if your children find the key and unlock it, they could hurt somebody, but as long as you took reasonable precautions to prevent access you can’t be held liable for their acts.

And yet, the parents of gang bangers who don't pay taxes have zero accountability because the guns are illegal. Yeah totally makes sense to attack legal guns with great gusto and blame gun manufacturers for 95% of the gun violence caused by illegal guns.

 

[BIKES!]

So, you're basically never going to address the question about if the parents were negligent in how they stored their firearm?

You made a big deal about people being punished for other people's actions but when I ask you only about the parent's actions, you keep avoiding the question. Here's how I'm going to interpret it:

You are refusing to address whether or not the parents were negligent in how they stored their firearm because you know that they did not store the weapon properly. You also know that if you say the parents were negligent, my next question is going to be about whether or not they should be punished specifically for their negligence in how they stored their firearm. Since neither question is related to what a 3rd party did with the firearm, it would undercut the idea that they are being punished for someone else's actions. Why? Because the storage of the firearm is entirely under the firearm owners control.

So, you're seeing the potential problem. If you say they shouldn't be punished for negligence in how they stored the firearm, you'd be saying that they don't have to follow the law. And if you say that they should be punished for negligence in how they stored the firearm then you open the door to what is appropriate punishment in such a case and criminal negligence would make them liable for foreseeable dangers that they disregarded.

Either way, you've realized that they're not being punished for the son's actions but for their own and you don't want to acknowledge that.

I say good day sir.

Ahh yes, penalize the upstanding parents when the kids steal their alcohol but not the those kids stealing from the grocery store, stealing a car and wiping a family in a mini van from the earth. Yes Sith Lord, go after tax payers and contributors at all cost and let the degenerates flow. Flow degenerate shit head parents, flow.