2538
posted ago by XisDshizL ago by XisDshizL +2543 / -5

How many parents that raise these menaces to society are prosecuted? I can't recall any! Democrats constantly bleat on about "equity" but as we repeatedly see there are two sets of laws. One for them where they do as they please, and one for the rest of us where we go to jail for breaking the law. Its an outrage.

Comments (404)
sorted by:
184
jtt888 184 points ago +184 / -0

Are they prosecuting the school officials who allowed this kid back at school knowing he was unhinged?

94
JimEagle76 94 points ago +94 / -0

I read the morning of the shooting a teacher found a drawing he made of himself shooting kids. Sent to office, parents called in. School ordered the kid get a psych exam within 48 hours and asked parents to take him home, parents refused. 1 hour later he shot them.

57
Nanteen 57 points ago +59 / -2

And they never checked the kids backpack. I find that the artist thing in all of this how do you suspect a kid of having issues and don't look at his backpack

41
South_Florida_Guy 41 points ago +43 / -2

Also, how are the parents unaware of where their firearms are and that he took one?

42
unclebobinator 42 points ago +44 / -2

Because the gun was left easily accessible in a drawer, and they knew something was wrong with their son. Even if in denial, they knew and didn't do anything about it. Who the fuck does that?

They knew, because when news broke out they immediately assumed it was their son. His mom texting him telling him not to do anything, and his dad rushing home to check for the piece then reporting it stolen?

Fuck the double standards being applied to here, sure, but there parents went full retard with regards to raising their child and basic gun safety. I can easily understand why prosecutors are bringing charges.

16
AlohaChris 16 points ago +20 / -4

You cannot hold the parents criminally responsible for the actions of the child.

That said, if you own firearms you have a legal duty to keep them inaccessible to minors.

18
Secretyrussianspy 18 points ago +18 / -0

My dad taught me proper gun safety and took me shooting frequently. He didn't need to hide his guns from me when I was a kid because he raised me right in that department.

7
_Eric_Ciaramella_ 7 points ago +7 / -0

I'm guessing the color of your skin right now.. because you said dad

16
Deplora 16 points ago +16 / -0

if you own firearms you have a legal duty to keep them inaccessible to minors.

Absolutely wrong. Even if some states have laws to that effect, it is utterly unconstitutional. There have been multiple widely publicized cases where a minor has successfully used a firearm in their home to protect themselves and/or a family member from a violent intruder. And there have certainly been many unpublicized cases where a child did this without actually firing the gun. Parents have a right to train their children to do this and make sure they have access to a gun in case a need arises

My all-time favorite case was an 11-year-old girl whose mother's ex-boyfriend had a restraining order against him. He broke into the house and was in the act of strangling her mother, so the little girl got mommy's gun and shot the guy dead on the spot.

Most adolescents aren't homicidal maniacs. As for the ones who are, society needs to deal with that by locking up the homicidal kids, not by locking up the family's guns.

4
FuckChinaRaw 4 points ago +8 / -4

There is no law in Michigan that they need to be locked up.

They are liable since something happened. I don't know if these are the correct charges but parents obviously acted with extreme negligence.

13
Cyer6 13 points ago +13 / -0

Right, it's simple as that. You own firearms, you have to be on top of your game. Know where they are and who has access to them. I keep several of mine very accessible but If I had a teen boy or anyone that I couldn't trust in my home, I'd have to reassess how I keep those guns stored.

6
Trampus 6 points ago +6 / -0

How’s that gonna work though since he’s being charged as an adult? He’s a minor when it comes to giving him the gun but he’s suddenly an adult when he uses it.

2
_Eric_Ciaramella_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

check his skin color

1
BeardedNinjaPede 1 point ago +1 / -0

Minors have been charged as adults for sending nudes of themselves. Figure that one out. Honk honk.

2
Harper42190 2 points ago +2 / -0

Actually in some states you can... Michigan isn't one of them. These charges are malicious.

11
BULLDOGG 11 points ago +13 / -2

Exactly. All kinds of red flags. Parents just straight up ignored them.

6
Do_the_Math 6 points ago +7 / -1

The acorn probably didn't fall to far from the tree, so the parents thought it was perfectly normal.

8
Crucible 8 points ago +8 / -0

Still better parents than the Bidens.

6
South_Florida_Guy 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yeah I agree. Because then it impacts responsible gun owners when people are retarded like this.

2
Do_the_Math 2 points ago +3 / -1

Agree. Total negligence.

13
JimEagle76 13 points ago +14 / -1

No kidding. If it were my kid I would have. The parents were just in denial.

2
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 2 points ago +2 / -0

Was the kid being treated by a psychiatrist? Who is it? Have they treated any other patients who later became violent offenders? Do they have any political ties to people in DC or the intelligence community? Just asking.

0
Fourdoorsmoarwhores 0 points ago +2 / -2

Man this shit is exhausting. He was a psychopathic piece of shit kid with atrocious parents. The end. Lock me all up so next time maybe a parent turns their kid in to police so other parents who actually loved their kids don’t have to fucking bury them.

19
AngelMark 19 points ago +38 / -19

If this is true then the parents are at fault

35
TroutAndOatmeal 35 points ago +41 / -6

You guys have lost your minds. The failure to do something is not a crime. Michigan has no laws specifying gun storage requirements

3
tentonbudgie 3 points ago +6 / -3

I would usually go along with what you're saying and for the most part I think you're right. However. The negligent manslaughter charge is tailor made for this instance and I think it is worth looking at. A responsible gun owner would not have left a mentally ill kid with an unlocked pistol in the house due to the incredible increase in lethality in suicide attempts when a firearm is present. I don't think we need federal legislation about this, it should be obvious to anyone that you don't do that, but when one gets past the goalie we nail 'em up so everybody remembers for a few years not to do that shit. That's leaving aside the mass shooting, which is just heartbreaking that this kid did that.

I haven't seen it in the news yet but I bet that kid was taking antidepressants.

4
TroutAndOatmeal 4 points ago +4 / -0

People need to separate good judgment with criminal behavior. Extend the logic. These parents are facing criminal charges for not acting in whatever manner the government now (in retrospect) thinks they should have. Whether they should have done something or not does not hold them responsible for the actions of another. If anyone in the future knows someone is having mental health issues and then that person does something bad, is everyone who ever said ya we knew he was crazy now criminally liable?

3
_Eric_Ciaramella_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm going to chime in and state that if the commie school faggot teacher/principal ordered me to get my kid evaluated.. I'd tell them to eat a commie bag of dicks.

"Your son refuses to call his 6'3" 250lb bearded classmate a female. He needs evaluation immediately. Come remove him."

Just because the school told them he needs to be pulled for evaluation (exclusively on that rationale) is not enough for me to go "yah fuck the parents!"

They still probably suck.. but not for not bending to a bunch of pedophile commies.

1
tentonbudgie 1 point ago +1 / -0

They are being held responsible for their own negligent conduct, not the murders themselves. I realize where you're going with this, but I guess I see the logic in the law as well.

2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +2 / -0

same logic would state leaving car keys out and then kid runs someone over you are liable

stupid

-2
Fourdoorsmoarwhores -2 points ago +1 / -3

Who gives a shit if he was taking anti depressants ? Maybe if he had received proper mental health care this doesn’t happen.

3
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points ago +6 / -3

Read what he responded to.

0
JimmyJam 0 points ago +2 / -2

They supplied him the gun. And yes failure to do something can be a crime. If I have a lion I keep in a cage and I knowingly ignore a broken latch, and the lion gets out and kills people, that would be criminal negligence.

These people knew or should have known their son was a threat (based on 3 recent events they were aware of) they bought the weapon and allowed him to have unfettered access to it, they failed to inform the school of his access to the weapon, and then refused to take him out of school, sending him back to class after being made aware he just drew a scene of him killing kids with that gun.

We all have a duty of care to others when events in our control can contribute to injury of others. These parents are morons. They don’t represent gun owners. Just because anti-gunners are out for them doesn’t mean anyone in the 2A community should rally around them.

3
TroutAndOatmeal 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lions are different than humans.

0
JimmyJam 0 points ago +1 / -1

so we agree inaction can’t be a crime. I’ll take the concession.

These people illegally provided their son a gun and then ignored huge red flags and failed to take reasonable care to protect people from a situation they had full control over. Those are criminal actions.

2
TroutAndOatmeal 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tbh i didn't read most of what you wrote

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +2 / -1

he just drew a scene of him killing kids with that gun

So? That's only relevant now that a prosecutor can use it against him. Are we supposed to put everyone who's worked on a violent TV show or video game on a watch list now?

People can draw whatever they want whenever they want. It's a fundamental part of free expression.

1
JimmyJam 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can't be this stupid.

0
Fourdoorsmoarwhores 0 points ago +2 / -2

How are you not responsible for raising and arming a murderous psychopath ?

4 families are ruined because the crumbleys should have been the target of a drone strike.

5
TroutAndOatmeal 5 points ago +5 / -0

Imagine the slippery slope of responsibility with this logic.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

For the same reason selling a gun doesn't make you liable for its use.

17
snuggs316 17 points ago +28 / -11

it's more than that....the father bought him a handgun for Christmas, which is illegal. found that snippet of info on the daily mail, since we can't trust our press to report. the mother took the kid to the range to practice w/ the gun and apparently there's a text on his phone where he bought or attempted to buy ammo online, and his mother texted him, "next time, don't get caught, lol." by caught, i don't know if she meant the place where he was trying to purchase ammo or by her.

but i do agree with the general premise....maybe we need to start charging parents of minors who commit egregious crimes....maybe they'd start taking care of the kids they're spitting out. but we could start small, at school. you misbehave, then a parent has to come sit through the school day with you.

43
JudicialDredd 43 points ago +47 / -4

They will only be charging white parents with a precedent like this. Actual daily violence by black kids/young adults will not see their black parents held accountable.

Get with the program, man. It ain't about justice. This is about advancing the narrative of "muh evil white kids and their menacing parents". For every rare as fuck white kid school shooting there will be 10 black on black/Mexican/white etc shootings.

13
easyonthefiber 13 points ago +15 / -2

Hard to hold the father responsible if you don’t know who he is, or if you do, but can’t find him, or if he is incarcerated, or no longer among the living. ….

7
deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
7
deleted 7 points ago +8 / -1
4
Chitownpolak 4 points ago +4 / -0

Shieet more like a 100.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
2
Bringback45 2 points ago +2 / -0

True, would take forever to trace the fathers, assuming the mother knew what his name was.

28
AlohaSnackbar 28 points ago +31 / -3

None of those are damning, other than the headline they create.

I "bought" my son a car for his 15th birthday so we could work on it over the year leading up to his actual 16 th, If he grabbed it's keys on a Friday, that means jack and shit.

The ammo part? His mother told him the same thing I'd tell my son, fuck the cunt teachers, they're pussies, but next time don't get caught buying perfectly legal things by a lefty with "authority".

I'm glad he went to a range with his mom, all children should go to a goddamn range and learn firearm safety.

I'm not saying they're blameless, but nothing presented thus far is ANYTHING we wouldn't do.

You can make an argument for they should have raised him better, but shit, mental illness in your kid is a very tough thing, not getting him the help he needed is still their responsibility, but I promise we don't want to live in the world these charges will create, because just like the riots last year, the charges will only apply to one side of the equation.

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
AlohaSnackbar 2 points ago +4 / -2

Thanks for taking the time to read and understand. I get that people want blood here, and fuck, if I was a parent of one of the killed or even wounded kids, I'd have already butchered this kids family. But, there's a difference between vengeance and justice, and vengeance is appropriate, but justice sets a very, very bad precedent that will be used against every fucking one of us tomorrow. I am not OK with that.

3
slag 3 points ago +5 / -2

I "bought" my son a car for his 15th birthday so we could work on it over the year leading up to his actual 16 th, If he grabbed it's keys on a Friday, that means jack and shit.

If he got in an accident and deaths were involved, or if he wantonly drove it into a crowd, I imagine there would be some meaning. Criminal liability may be dubious, but civil liability undoubtedly.

Texas for instance recognizes criminal negligence if a child gets access:

https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html

3
AlohaSnackbar 3 points ago +4 / -1

Good news, we're in agreement! The problem is that these types of actions won't be used on the fatherless children that cause the majority of death in this country. And they won't often be used post facto. They'll be used by the state to further divide children from parents and remove more parental rights because hey, he "could" be the next school shooter.

This is a very dangerous path, and I again stress to anyone reading this, most of US have done similar. Maybe it wasn't ammo, but taking our kid out for ice cream after they got suspended for sticking up for themselves or a friend. Maybe it was getting our kid a gun that's "his" for a birthday that wasn't his 18th, with the understanding that it would be fully his when he turned 18 (or 25 in my case, I've been very upfront with my male children that they should not possess a firearm until they're out of the danger zone of 16-24).

The headlines in this parental saga look horrible, but they're very one sided, and I promise should one of our kids do the unthinkable, we'll have far "worse" facts come out about us.

2
HoosierHawk 2 points ago +2 / -0

A charge of involuntary manslaughter will require proving that the parents committed an illegal act that directly resulted in the death of others although there was no intent on their part to cause death.

We gave our son many privileges because he had earned our trust.

If he had tried to buy ammo BEHIND MY BACK, I would have realized that he wanted to use a gun behind my back, and I would have made it impossible.

0
AlohaSnackbar 0 points ago +1 / -1

You've just argued against yourself. It wasn't behind their back, it was with permission, you can tell because she said don't get caught (by the Karen's) next time.

Remove what he did from the equation, keep everything else the same and if he even got suspended 99.9% of the people here would be up in arms over the schools overreach.

THAT is the problem. I can stop 100% of crime in America if we just lock everyone up in a superMAX. Freedom has it's downsides, but the downside of everything thing that isn't freedom is far, far worse.

2
HoosierHawk 2 points ago +2 / -0

I was discussing my son and how I would react, wasn't I? How could I possibly be arguing against myself?

Are you really suggesting that keeping guns away from troubled children who are trying to acquire ammunition and are drawing pictures of shooting their classmates is an affront to our freedoms?

1
MawaDeBlanco1 1 point ago +1 / -0

you make a good point, but I know one thing. when my son wen through a period of mental health issues, the first, VERY first thing I did was go out and buy a great big liberty save and lock every firearm and hunting knife away in the polebarn. I didn't think my son would ever be a threat to anyone, but you don't take the chance. period. now that the kids are grown and gone, I can leave my guns all over the house, but not if I ever get any grandkids, then they get locked back up.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
6
PatPede1 6 points ago +11 / -5

If everything one reads is to be believed, then his parent's bear some pretty heavy burden for this massacre of innocents. They really do. Are the charges standing against them meant to withstand trial or just play to the cameras? It is the latter, because these charges are unprecedented. They definitely for not securing their weapons, period. They are responsible for gifting a weapon to a 15 year old without absolute supervised control over the access to the weapon. For his own well being and others. Then again, I have become far too familiar with false media narratives to believe much of anything these days.

5
CuomoisaMassMurderer 5 points ago +5 / -0

They definitely for not securing their weapons, period.

Even in full context that's not a sentence. Laws requiring guns to be stored in an unusable state effectively disarm the populace; that's a clear violation of 2A and any law that violates the Constitution is as if it doesn't exist.

You seem to be arguing for the most horrible thing here.

There are plenty of other things to blame the parents for if you want to do that.

2
PatPede1 2 points ago +2 / -0

My intent was to say the parent's are irresponsible for not securing their weapons. A sloppy edit obliterated that thought. I am not suggesting the weapon need be stored in an unusable state either. I am suggesting anyone with any sense keeps firearms in their possession secure. It is a hassle and an extra expense. The cost of not doing so can be considerably higher in every measure.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

My intent was to say the parent's are irresponsible for not securing their weapons

I'll agree with that if you modify it: they shouldn't have allowed their unstable Son to bring a handgun to school illegally. How exactly that's prevented isn't so cut and dry. I'm not suggesting they gave him permission, only that they didn't prevent it.

This may not be identical to what you mean by "securing their weapons." For example, either parent could have searched the backpack before he left for school; the school failed to do that but I place greater responsibility on the parents even though I think the school does have some responsibility here.

The range of what's at issue here is a gun grabber's wet dream. It's easy to go tinfoil hat, but what if the official story is factual?

I'd like to say any parent knows if their kid can handle a handgun responsibly and has need of it in any given situation. Restrictions on 2A are unconstitutional, period. Still, parents are supposed to be responsible and these parents blew it. Apparently they were caught fleeing at the Canadian border.

This is all messed up ...

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
HoosierHawk 2 points ago +4 / -2

The charge is involuntary manslaughter. People are dead because they acted illegally, but they had no intent to cause death.

Based on what I've read, that charge is probably justified in this case.

2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +2 / -0

The only reason you "secure" a weapon is if you don't shoot it (protecting your money). There's no point in having a gun for defense if it's locked up somewhere.

Regardless, a 15 year old should be familiar with guns anyway. So again, not a strike against the parents. Frankly, we should be seeing people with guns every day out in public, not worrying about how many locks they keep their guns behind.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
6
AlohaChris 6 points ago +6 / -0

It’s not illegal to buy a minor a handgun. It’s illegal for you to allow them to possess or control it outside of your immediate supervision.

1
snuggs316 1 point ago +1 / -0

thanks for the clarification.

4
BeefyBelisarius 4 points ago +4 / -0

the father bought him a handgun for Christmas, which is illegal.

Buying a firearm to give as a gift is not a straw purchase.

2
snuggs316 2 points ago +2 / -0

i didn't think minors could own a handgun; according to aloha chris, they can but the gun must be used under adult supervision. but the parents obviously didn't check to see that the gun was secure at home and the school didn't check his backpack, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

2
HoosierHawk 2 points ago +2 / -0

The law does not recognize that the minor is the owner. If you purchase the gun and say that it belongs to your underage son, that's fine say what you want, he can't have it until he's 18.

It's not the circumstances of the purchase that's at issue. The boy tried to buy ammo behind the parents back. That was a dead give that he wanted to use the gun behind their back, but they didn't secure the gun. He drew pictures of him shooting his classmates, and still they didn't make sure he didn't have the gun. There were warning signs that the gun needed to be secured, they did not do so, people died as a result.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only matters in court. There shouldn't be anyone here arguing that "the law is the law" when it comes to guns.

2
HoosierHawk 2 points ago +3 / -1

In Michigan, you must be at least 18 and obtain a license to own a handgun.

4
Secretyrussianspy 4 points ago +4 / -0

The parents are shit parents, but they shouldn't be at fault for murder.

0
HoosierHawk 0 points ago +1 / -1

They aren't being charged with Murder, involuntary manslaughter. They did something against the law which directly lead to the death of others, with no intent to cause harm.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Laws which shouldn't exist.

1
HoosierHawk 1 point ago +1 / -0

I like my guns as much as the next guy, but I recognize that they are tools not toys for kids. I'm strong on 2A rights, but owning guns is a responsibility. Freedoms and responsibility to society go hand in hand. I really hate having to hear stories about some 3-8 year olds finding a loaded pistol and shooting themselves or their brother or sister playing with it. So sad and so wrong. I don't like to see the parents prosecuted because I figure that they'll suffer enough. In this case, the children that were lost weren't the irresponsible parents kids. Hell yes prosecute them. If you don't think that laws holding irresponsible adults accountable for the damage caused by their firearms when kids get access to them are appropriate, we'll have to part company on what we think the 2nd amendment protects.

4
Nearlydearly2 4 points ago +4 / -0

How exactly?

13
TimeTravelingGiant 13 points ago +13 / -0

Asked the parents to take him home, and the parents refused...what? Why would they ask and why would that be an option to refuse. Take your kid, now. No exceptions. He's drawing pics of him shooting other kids, so he's no longer welcome here. Should be that simple.

7
CuomoisaMassMurderer 7 points ago +7 / -0

Agreed this is a big deal. Forcing parents to comply is a sticky issue though. It's not usually a problem.

I think the school shares some responsibility here for the reason you raise. Plus, nobody searched the backpack.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
JimmyJam 1 point ago +1 / -0

The school probably has a policy of refraining from police involvement to keep kids out of the system, because racism. So they probably just shrugged when the parents said no.

1
anotherthing 1 point ago +1 / -0

At that point, you'd think the school would have searched his bag. I've been out of school for decades, long before the school shooter stuff, and I had my bag searched for less.

4
killedmytv 4 points ago +4 / -0

"James and Jennifer Crumbley were "immediately summoned to the school," McDonald said. A counselor met with the parents and the boy, who had altered the drawing by scratching out the drawings of the gun and bloody figure, along with the words, according to McDonald."

So the parents may not have seen the picture or the written words. "The thoughts won't stop, help me," and "the world is dead" sound suicidal. Not all of these cries for help result in extreme violent behavior, though they should be treated seriously.

As for how "how could parents know so little about their children?", when humans want to hide something from other humans, they can sometimes be very good at it. How many suicides have been committed by people whose loved ones had no idea?

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
JimEagle76 1 point ago +1 / -0

They wanted the kid out immediately and to be seen by a mental health professional within 48 hours.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
JimEagle76 1 point ago +1 / -0

According to the administration, he didn't make an actual threat, and following the rules in place he could stay, but they wanted the parents to take him anyway.

4
Tejas_Pepe 4 points ago +4 / -0

The local DA needs to be charged too. This all stems from a program set up during the Obama administration where the Department of Education and DOJ worked with local school boards and DA's to not prosecute juvenile offenders or remove them from classrooms. They didn't want to little darlings having a record.

It's why the Cruz kid in Florida was still running loose and able to shoot up his school, it's why Treyvon Martin wasn't in juvenile detention, it's why a local high school nut job was still in the class room and stabbed a teacher to death at my old high school.

1
MamaLlama4DJT2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

You nailed it

1
Fourdoorsmoarwhores 1 point ago +1 / -0

Probably not since the NEA/AFT buy politicians. But we should embrace the focus on the scum bag trash parents rather than “ban all the guns”

And if you think your race is superior (it isn’t) why whine about being held to standard the race you look down on is not ?

1
ColonelKlink 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good luck finding the fathers.

54
J_Doe 54 points ago +55 / -1

I'm willing to go along with this, as long as every state abolishes their DCYF's and allows parents to actually parent without interference from the state. Until I am allowed to raise my child, then I would say the state should be held responsible for children's actions.

8
Behindleftlines 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yeah I'm totally down with being responsible for my child. Just don't take away my ability to teach them, then punish me when they don't do the right thing.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

DCYF? Don't Consider Yourself the Father?

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
42
helacus 42 points ago +45 / -3

Parents lol

22
MySidesGoUp 22 points ago +22 / -0

This right here. Took me a tad more than usual to pickup what you had put down-coffee time..🤛

8
South_Florida_Guy 8 points ago +10 / -2

Haha I was going to say, well I guess no black dude would ever need to worry about that!

4
d_bokk 4 points ago +4 / -0

A lot of the mothers of the these gang members take money from their criminal sons knowing full well where it came from.

35
Groundpounder 35 points ago +35 / -0

The kid is being charged as an adult. Doesn’t that absolve the parents of any wrongdoing?

15
deleted 15 points ago +16 / -1
7
Groundpounder 7 points ago +7 / -0

Sorry… clinging to old beliefs in the justice system

3
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points ago +3 / -0

We need to hold them to standards though

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +2 / -1

No. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think it would. Glad to hear the shooter isn't being excused, but I'm not sure trying the 15 year old as though he were 18 is appropriate in this situation. There are problems like crazy, including both parents and school, plus the shooter being more than a little immature is a factor here.

-1
Fourdoorsmoarwhores -1 points ago +1 / -2

He was mature enough to carry out a massacre. Piece of shit deserves a bullet not sympathy.

0
CuomoisaMassMurderer 0 points ago +1 / -1

I'm not saying sympathy. Neither am I saying execution is never appropriate for minors.

The last time MI executed anybody was 1830, they're not likely to do it now.

25
Ronpaulblican2 25 points ago +32 / -7

I’m not sure buying the kid a 9mm Sig was a great idea. I can see civil liability but unsure if criminal liability exists.

34
XisDshizL [S] 34 points ago +39 / -5

As far as I know they did not buy the gun for the kid. Do you have evidence to the contrary. The dad had many guns. He did take the kid with when he bought it, but that does not mean his intent was to give it to the kid.

And just because the kid knew how to access the gun (was in the dad's bedroom in a nightstand drawer) and posted that it was his new gun, does not mean the parents gave their permission. The kid was delusional.

34
Sendnudes 34 points ago +36 / -2

Solid news sources say the bought the gun for the kid directly after his troubling drawings and school intervention.

However the "don't get caught" comment reporting is missing serious context.

The kid was searching ammo prices in class when his mom told him when sho made that text to him.

MSM is making it seem she said it regarding the shooting.

19
JimmyJam 19 points ago +19 / -0

I disagree, I have only seen the "dont get caught" comment in regards to the monday incident about buying ammo. Which is damning. They knew this kid was fixating on this gun, and the knew he was making disturbing comments about the use of the weapon, intrusive thoughts, and murder. This alone would have caused any reasonable parent to immediately take inventory of their weapons, remove the kid form the school for his own safety and that of others and sit him down and have at least a conversation. If the school is telling you your kid needs a psych evaluation related to comments and actions, and you know you just bought him a gun 3 days earlier, what the fuck are you doing?

10
YOLOSwag_McFartnut 10 points ago +10 / -0

McDonald said Ethan Crumbley was there when his father bought the 9mm Sig Sauer SP 2022 on Nov. 26. The same day, the younger Crumbley posted photos of the weapon online, calling it his "new beauty." His mom said in a post the following day, "Mom and son day testing out his new Christmas present," McDonald said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/parents-of-accused-killer-in-michigan-school-shooting-arrested-after-vehicle-was-found-in-detroit/ar-AARr5uY?ocid=BingNews

How stupid are these people?

3
JimmyJam 3 points ago +3 / -0

As a gun owner, at an absolute minimum, if my child was making crazy statements at school and flaunting my gun ownership, I would have removed the child immediately, if at least to prevent exposing the family to such scrutiny, and for self preservation reasons alone would restrict the kid from any access to said weapons.

Who just leaves their kid in school, who two days in a row got in trouble for actions related to your guns? Even if you are not thinking he is gonna do something stupid - you set the kid straight and perhaps use those bad decisions as cause to limit his access to your weapons.

5
CuomoisaMassMurderer 5 points ago +5 / -0

This. Yes, absolutely. If this exposes the parents to criminal liability per State law I don't see the problem with them being prosecuted. Although the school seems to share some responsibility for not removing him or even searching the backpack.

None of this should result in the shooter not being prosecuted.

2
YOLOSwag_McFartnut 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly. It's this kind of wanton stupidity that gives the gun control lobby so much easy ammunition.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

flaunting my gun ownership

You'll never be someone who pushes boundaries.

1
JimmyJam 1 point ago +1 / -0

I specifically tell my children not to talk about me owning guns to other people. I also think we have an unspoken understanding to not sketch out murderous ideations at school. If you don't have those same ground rules, cool, you do you.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
2
JimmyJam 2 points ago +2 / -0

School should be responsible as well.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which is damning. They knew this kid was fixating on this gun, and the knew he was making disturbing comments about the use of the weapon, intrusive thoughts, and murder.

Quite the logical leap from buying ammo (or just looking online?) to what you say here.

You need to flesh that out

4
JimmyJam 4 points ago +5 / -1

He drew a picture on his desk of murdering someone with the gun and said he can't stop his thoughts and please help me. Pro tip, if you give a gun to a kid and they go on to indicate they are having thoughts of killing people, you might want to take some action to prevent it.

2
CuomoisaMassMurderer 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, those are important details.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Damning to who? There shouldn't be any restrictions on buying ammo.

1
JimmyJam 1 point ago +1 / -0

I respectfully disagree. 15 year olds should not being purchasing anything while in school, especially handgun caliber ammunition.

6
BeefyBelisarius 6 points ago +6 / -0

"Solid" news sources also say Trump is Hitler and we're a bunch of evil tiki torch toting nazis. You sure you want to believe them?

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
5
CuomoisaMassMurderer 5 points ago +5 / -0

Solid news sources say

You are the only one on all of .win who doesn't realize the logical impossibility of this statement. Full stop.

We know nothing about this aspect. We may never know the truth of that much. Anything on the news certainly doesn't. Mentioning what was reported, especially the first local report that was never repeated but instead was replaced with the official narrative is worthwhile, but still nowhere near muh "solid news sources say"

Get that Reddit tier thinking outta here and cook up a redpill breakfast. Wakey wakey!

2
MAGA_Marine 2 points ago +2 / -0

The gun was purchased 11/26. The school didn't say anything before that and definitely not that day.

2
Deplora 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think it was during or immediately before the shooting that she texted him "Don't do it", sounding like she had a pretty good idea what he'd been thinking of doing.

18
Thehumancentipede 18 points ago +19 / -1

What about the mom posting that the gun was the sons new Christmas present haha. It’s pretty clear.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
17
JimmyJam 17 points ago +17 / -0

Well, the kid posted an Instagram picture of himself alone with the gun - this tells you that he had unsupervised access to the weapon. He also made troubling posts on social media. On Monday his parents were called because he was caught buying ammunition for the gun on his phone during school. Then on Tuesday, the day of the shooting, his parents were summoned to the school because he drew on his desk a picture of the gun, a bullet, and a bloody dead person and wrote to the effect, "the thoughts wont stop, please help me" and other comments about death.

They had to know he had access to the weapon and was making unhinged remarks.

After they left the school, the parents heard about the shooting (but not who the shooter was). The mother's first thought was to text her son "Don't do it!" and the father's first thought was to rush home and take inventory of his guns. These were people who knew their son had the propensity to do harm. Even if that knowledge was in retrospect, it proves they should have known. No other parent in the school upon hearing about the shooting, assumed it was their kid.

These people, along with the inaction of the school, directly contributed to the death of these children. If they had taken any reasonable actions that a normal parent would have taken this would not have happened.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Important details there! Especially the "please help me" part. I'm familiar with suicidal ideation, that's a real bitch for people who suffer from it. While I'm not familiar with murderous ideation I don't see why it couldn't function the same way.

3
FinishTheBorderWall 3 points ago +3 / -0

If he literally asked for help in writing and they sent him back to class, the principal might as well be charged too. The kid has a strong insanity defense. That doesn’t make it ok, but god damn the school and parents messed up. The school probably more than the parents.

2
CuomoisaMassMurderer 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree that "the school" has at least some responsibility here. I think it's nuts to charge the parents with manslaughter, but I can see lots of other charges. Maybe the only person at the school with criminal liability is the Principal? If the teacher took a pic of the evidence and went up the chain of command maybe they did everything right?

9
QLARP 9 points ago +9 / -0

They are fucked that's why they are on the run.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
3
QLARP 3 points ago +3 / -0

If you buy your teenage kid a car and they run over people you are fucked btw

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
0
QLARP 0 points ago +1 / -1

They bought him a gun after being called into school for threats about a school shooting lol

1
JimmyJam 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you buy your 15 year old a car and you have reason to believe he will use it dangerously/illegally and then he draws a picture of himself driving through a parade killing people with the words “the thoughts won’t stop, please help me” and you don’t take the keys away, “have fun at the parade, don’t stay out too late!” That’s gonna get you fucked.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
JimmyJam 1 point ago +1 / -0

The issue is not that these parents are getting charged, it’s that the media is painting it as if they are just normal gun owners, not highlighting the actual criminal negligence they displayed which differentiates them from most parents. Mainly they had the chance to stop the attack and did nothing. He telegraphed it, and with their knowledge they should have acted to make sure their gun and their son could not kill people.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
12
BidensButtWiper 12 points ago +14 / -2

Ah yes, believing the MSM narrative once again. Bold strategy, cotton.

1
Ronpaulblican2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not sure I believe anything just asking questions.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
7
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 7 points ago +7 / -0

They are planning on filing charges on the parents related to exactly that. The misleadia is propagandizing the mom's letter to President Trump, but the actual charges are going to be buying the pistol as a gift for a minor.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is that the only charge against the parents?

2
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 2 points ago +2 / -0

As far as I know.

Edit:

I just read that they charged the parents with manslaughter as well, which is ridiculous. Only in Clown World.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well they charged the guy with the camera in the Aubrey case with felony murder. No one here could explain that but I heard a legal explanation that seemed plausible.

Are the parents fleeing with the shooter, and at large?

2
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 2 points ago +2 / -0

I heard that they tried to flee to Canada, but were caught. The shooter will surely never see the outside of jail/prison again.

As for the camera guy in the other case, it's common to charge anyone directly involved (part of the crime) as an accessory regardless of their level of actual involvement. This is how getaway drivers are charged in armed robberies. Usually they will let them plea down to a lesser charge, but since that case was 100% politically motivated it didn't surprise me at all that they slapped a full murder charge on him.

2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +2 / -0

felony murder is bullshit, on top of it incentivizing just killing someone if you're be charged with murder anyway

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can just see the defense attorney saying that, lol

4
slag 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
-2b- 2 points ago +2 / -0

I concur with this statement, based on how the law currently exists. If the law was changed so that parents have criminal liability for their children's actions, then hopefully that penalty would be equally prosecuted across the board- but you see how that is already (not) working out...

2
CuomoisaMassMurderer 2 points ago +2 / -0

Are you sure MI law has no such criminal liability?

2
-2b- 2 points ago +2 / -0

I do not know- I was just saying "in general." Individual states may have enacted criminal liability. I am not in MI and have not researched it, so I apologize that I do not know if MI law allows criminal liability-

18
Northpoint 18 points ago +18 / -0

Through out history in countries it was common for the whole family to suffer when someone violated the law. They would burn their crops, House and kill family members and cattle. I think the idea was to extinguish the family tree. Im thinking as far back as Sparta or Rome.

25
deleted 25 points ago +25 / -0
8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
2
ComTruiseWasRight 2 points ago +2 / -0

We've been conditioned to act victimized and not complain about it.

That was yesterday

Today is a new day

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which is obviously fucking dumb.

18
JimmyJam 18 points ago +18 / -0

The parents were beyond negligent. Their lack of action over the course of several days and them allowing him to have access to the weapon under the circumstances rises to criminal, IMO. This is not just a situation where unwitting parents had their guns taken by their kid. These people were criminally negligent in my opinion, and knew or should have known the danger, especially after the second school meeting in two days. That said, the school administration is complicit as well.

11
thingaboutarsenal 11 points ago +11 / -0

You already know the answer to this question. Timothy Simpkins vs. Kyle Rittenhouse.

11
Bullet3250 11 points ago +13 / -2

I suppose it is like if your dog mauls the 4 year old next door. Parents do end up responsible to a point... Not sure other shooter's parents have been charged across the Nation in similar situations...

It is a tragedy - not sure charging the parents is going to solve much.

13
footinmouth 13 points ago +13 / -0

Only if gross negligence or some deliberate act occurs. In your example it could be not securing the animal in a manner that most people would find reasonable, or letting the animal run freely in the neighbor hood. This is only for criminal charges, civil charges can have a lot lower bar in cases like this.

I would be all for charging parents for the crime of their children if there is gross negligence. But this is not enforced equally, how many black parents are charged when their 16 year old participates in a drive by?

9
JimmyJam 9 points ago +9 / -0

Unfortunately the media is making it sound like these parents are being charged because it is about time parents be held liable, meanwhile these particular parents happened to have been specifically negligent beyond that of a clueless parent. They pretty much participated in his access to the weapon, then ignored reasonable signs of trouble, and then failed to take any reasonable action to prevent would could have been easily foreseen. This is pretty much the definition of negligence.

4
Okguy2 4 points ago +4 / -0

So you're in favor of locking up black parents for negligently raising little gang bangers? 13/50 is a thing after all

4
JimmyJam 4 points ago +5 / -1

there is a difference between being an absent parent and contributing directly to situation with results in death. So yes, if a parent has reason to believe their child is about to do harm, and they actually provide the tools to do harm, they should be held accountable.

0
Okguy2 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ok fbi fag

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
Kendoextendo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes

-1
CuomoisaMassMurderer -1 points ago +1 / -2

Non sequitur. This isn't a case of generalized bad parenting, there are some specifics here that do seem criminal.

0
Okguy2 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sure glowie

6
Bullet3250 6 points ago +7 / -1

I would blame the school... before the Parents.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
Bullet3250 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's 'the environment'

I am guessing the kid not only had his own demons... but the students at the school ostracized him - forever. Teachers don't give a damn - so the kid just suffers every day.

No kid is going to 'go nuts' in a school that he feels is supporting him.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
Bullet3250 1 point ago +1 / -0

well I am really just guessing here.... but maybe:

This is not unlike 'battered wife syndrome'

The kid is basically helpless - could not defend himself (not uncommon for a young teen) - ends up isolated with no friends... cant' communicate the problems... nor even explain his anger.... the parents tell him what to do and where to go - the other kids at school torment him silently - the teachers just want to get home as fast as possible and don't need 'another problem child' as they quickly blame someone else.

The kid lives on the NET - and the little I saw of his social media - he ended up in very dark places there - because that was the only place left that would give him some kind of defense.

Revenge becomes the only way out. He may have even been suicidal - and wanted to 'take them with him' but then snapped out of it when the action went down.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the school shares some responsibility; they didn't remove the kid anyway, and they didn't even search the backpack. Since the school requested the parents take him out of school for the day and get a psych eval in 48 hours, the parents refusing places more liability on THEM.

1
Bullet3250 1 point ago +1 / -0

ah -

I did not know that had occurred...

I DO think the 'overall situation' was caused by the 'environment at school' - the kid did not 'bring a gun to school and shoot people' for no reason... he did it because of something at school.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Schools are terrible. I don't think we should excuse kids for shooting each other though. Apparently one of several drawings the shooter made depicting himself shooting people with a recently purchased handgun included the words "please help me. The thoughts won't stop."

I don't think we can blame the school for that, the kid was pretty messed up. We don't know if these thoughts were caused by his new toy but that angle will be played. It could be he's too immature to have a gun and MI law restricts handgun ownership to 18 with a license and CCW to 21. Gun grabbers will certainly use this to advance that cause. I don't know if MI law differentiates possession from ownership.

At issue is that particular drawing and whether it was shown to the parents when they were at the school, meeting over this before the shooting took place. I don't see how we can establish the fact unless all parties agree.

2
Bullet3250 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thanks

I did not know that.

-1
RedAppleG4L -1 points ago +4 / -5

well that’s dumb. the school tried to prevent it. The parents dropped the ball.

6
MAGA_Marine 6 points ago +6 / -0

The school didn't try very hard. They had a meeting with the parents that day said he needs to be pulled from the school the parents said no and the school just let him go back to class. The ball was dropped by several avenues we do know through reports the school sat on rumors and pictures he drew for a while before even meeting with the parents. Including one picture he drew that said "the thoughts won't stop. Help me!" The school should have said no he is not permitted on the premises until he is in therapy.

1
CuomoisaMassMurderer 1 point ago +1 / -0

School definitely should have searched the backpack and removed the kid from the premises despite the parents not cooperating. Saying he comes back once he's in therapy isn't a good benchmark. He could be ok before that and he could continue to not be ok after starting therapy.

2
MAGA_Marine 2 points ago +2 / -0

Anything would have been better than we need you to take him home.... no ok go back to class

0
CuomoisaMassMurderer 0 points ago +0 / -0

Definitely! I think the parents have more liability but I don't see how the school has none. Did the school show the parents the drawing with the words "please help me. The thoughts won't stop."

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
4
Michigirl 4 points ago +4 / -0

Also a slippery slope way to take away people's guns.

3
CuomoisaMassMurderer 3 points ago +3 / -0

The situation with the parents here is different though ...

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not its not. Dogs are legally property. Children aren't, especially at 15.

1
QLARP 1 point ago +1 / -0

Instead of a dog switch it with a car.

11
deleted 11 points ago +14 / -3
10
Truglow 10 points ago +10 / -0

The government is their parent(s).

3
SHALL_NOT 3 points ago +3 / -0

Then they should definitely be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
10
Johnlockedandloaded 10 points ago +10 / -0

If the stories I am hearing are true then they do need to be responsible to some degree. As a parent myself I have children old enough and responsible enough to have firearms(10 years old is old enough to hunt with firearms in Michigan). Handguns legally cannot be owned until 18. CCW not until 21. These parent bought a Sig Sauer for a 15 year old and did not supervise his usage.

That said I still don't understand how these charges include terrorism but the Waukesha transformer(is he a man, is he an SUV.... Did I just assume it's gender oh no) gets a pass on that specific charge.

5
MAGA_Marine 5 points ago +5 / -0

From the news report I heard yesterday the dad bought the gun for himself on Black Friday not for the child so he did not do anything illegal.

4
Okguy2 4 points ago +4 / -0

Waukesha guy black. That simple

3
JimmyJam 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Waukesha murderer, i think will have more charges to follow. These DAs, in both cases are liberal democrats so i think it is safe to assume an agenda in what charges are applied, but I would be surprised if the parade dude doesn't get another 30 or 40 charges added.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Handguns legally cannot be owned until 18. CCW not until 21.

Are you arguing that any of this is reasonable?

9
Rodger 9 points ago +9 / -0

What about the black kid in Texas that walked away the next day?

2
RedAppleG4L 2 points ago +3 / -1

His new trial is dec 10.

7
Okguy2 7 points ago +7 / -0

Is he in jail with a reasonable bail charge until then?

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
8
TraitorJoes 8 points ago +8 / -0

Something weird is going on here so I did some checking. Here is what I found. Read to the end, you are going to love the last few:

  • Oakland County Prosecutor Karen D. McDonald is a former Family Court Judge. She just finished her first 100 days. She is a self proclaimed Progressive and liberal. She supports ending bail, not prosecuting prostitution and other non-violent crimes and reducing sentences.

  • She is attached at the hip with Gov. Witmer and lauds her every statement on twitter.

https://twitter.com/karenmcdonaldmi

  • She upturned the life sentence for a murder conviction of man blamed for fire that killed 5 kids in suburban Detroit in 2000. Not because he didn't do it... because the paperwork was out of order.

https://apnews.com/article/fires-michigan-046deadb421091dbb4f5a4b6f1f8bdf6

https://www.downtownpublications.com/single-post/karen-mcdonald-interview

  • She filed Resentencing Notices for 22 Individuals Sentenced to Life Without Parole as Juveniles in Michigan. They were charged and convicted to life FOR HOMICIDE but she feels this is too much and too harsh, so she is releasing them early on to the street of Michigan. Strangely all 22 individuals are black.

https://www.oakgov.com/prosecutor/Documents/PR_02-16-21_Juvenile-Lifers.pdf

  • She is not only a Judge and a Lawyer but a Democratic Politician and self proclaimed Progressive. She supports BLM, LGBTXYZ and Hillary, Barry and Joe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_McDonald_(politician)

  • McDonald’s campaign endorsed by 87 Far Left individuals and organizations including Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist, Attorney General Dana Nessel, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy, and numerous local Democratic Party elected officials, party leaders, organizations and associations. All of which support O'Biden, BLM, BBB, and prison releases and lighter sentencing for criminals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_McDonald_(politician)

  • She issued the following statement regarding the verdict issued against Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin for the "murder" of George Floyd. She rambles on about how she is "relieved at the verdict" and how it will "heal the open wound left by his murder for millions of Americans" and "justice for Black Americans". Never once mentioning his vast violent past criminal record or his drug intoxication that caused his death.

https://www.oakgov.com/prosecutor/Documents/PR%2004.21.21%20-%20Chauvin%20Verdict.pdf

  • Here: She clearly states that she will give preferential treatment to persons who are not not white by lowering or eliminating bonds, bails and incarceration:

https://www.oakgov.com/prosecutor/Documents/PR_01-11-21_New%20Day-for-Oakland.pdf

  • Here: She condemn the Jan. 6th U.S. Capitol Protest and vowed to take part in the prosecution of any patriots that were involved. She stated "the actions of those who stormed the Capitol make a mockery of our country’s cherished values of pluralism and the rule of law. My office stands united with all of Oakland County against these, and all other acts of violence and hatred, and in mourning for those who lost their lives, including Capitol Police Officers Sicknick and Liebengood.”. “My office also stands ready to collaborate and assist municipal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies related to last week’s incidents in Washington, D.C. if called uponto do so.”

https://www.oakgov.com/prosecutor/Documents/PR_01-15-21_Capitol-Attack.pdf

  • She has charged the parents James and Jennifer Crumbley on manslaughter charges. The announcements were made before their arrests intentionally so it would appear that the couple were fleeing the charges. This allowed for the federal FBI, ATF and US Marshals Office to get involved even though the crime never crossed state lines. This also adds to the media shitshow and ability to convict them in the eyes of the uninformed viewers/readers.

https://kvia.com/news/crime/2021/12/03/lawyers-claim-parents-of-accused-michigan-high-school-shooter-facing-manslaughter-charges-arent-fugitives-but-fbi-u-s-marshals-join-search/

  • She is hanging her hat on a misinterpreted law under HB No. 5781 "AN ACT to amend 1927 PA 372" Section 15 (6) stating: "A federally licensed firearms dealer in this state shall post in a conspicuous manner at the entrances, exits, andall points of sale on the premises where firearms are sold a notice that says the following: “You may be criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by a person less than 18 years of age who lawfully gains unsupervised access to your firearm if unlawfully stored.”. But low and behold! This is just a requirement for the FFL to post a piece of paper. There is no actual law, only as suggestion (see next line item):

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/1999-2000/publicact/pdf/2000-PA-0265.pdf

  • Here is the ACTUAL Michigan gun law: MSP-203 (01/01) Michigan State Police STATE OF MICHIGAN Use & Storage of a Firearm in a Home Environment --- It states:

"You may be criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by a person less than 18 years of age who lawfully gains unsupervised access to your firearm if unlawfully stored. As such, a trigger lock, gun case or other device designed to prevent unauthorized access to a firearm is strongly recommended."

This is NOT A LAW. This is a 'recommendation" at best. There are no sections of the state code listed.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/msp-203_-_PDF_286476_7.pdf

  • Food for Thought:
  • Was the purchase of the fire arm(s) legal? Yes. ATF 4473 was completed and it passed the ATF BG check.

  • Did James and Jennifer Crumbley have the legal right to gift the gun (if they did)? Yes. This has been proven time and time again that you can gift a gun.

  • Morally, should they have gifted the gun to a minor child? Unclear. We know there was a drawing that depicted violence and stated displeasure. This was found after the purchase. There is no information showing there were red flags prior to the week of the shooting.

  • Why were the parents found in a large commercial property across town with $4000 from a ATM and their phones shut off? Don't know yet.

  • Why is Oakland County Prosecutor Karen D. McDonald throwing an obscure Michigan recommendation at the wall and hoping it will stick to the parents? Well, she has a proven record of involvement in anti-gun issues and clearly interprets the laws to fit her own ideals of progressive social justice. And she also supports anti-gun political parties on the local, state and federal levels. This will help her rise to Gov. of Michigan I'm sure! Don't forget - Mom wrote a letter to TRUMP stating she was a former Democrat that has changed parties!! Gotta get those "Orange Man Bad" points!

  • I'll leave the rest up to you to interpret and comment. I may add or delete more in the future but this is how I see this. She is overstepping her authority and creating a legal, judicial, politial and media circus to further her own causes and will throw people in jail while doing it.
2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +2 / -0

Only useful post in the whole thread.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TraitorJoes 1 point ago +1 / -0

I bet her husbands name is Brandon.

8
RohdKill_2020 8 points ago +8 / -0

This is what they do in North Korea! If you commit a crime your whole family Gets round it up and put in jail

7
cptkloss 7 points ago +7 / -0

"Does this mean we can start charging black parents for the sociopathic acts their kids perform"

no...this only means the bolsheviks can do whatever they want in order to destroy us , and nothing can be done to stop them.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
Not_your_King 4 points ago +4 / -0

Well from what little I've heard, so please take this with a grain of salt, but that they knew he was going to shoot up the school. The idea is that they sent him text telling him not to do it. Which I dunno if that is against the law that if you know someone is going to do harm and you don't report it.

2
LostSailor 2 points ago +2 / -0

Mandated reporters can be held criminally if is determined they knew about something and didn't report it. however, our justice system is so fucked. It depends on who the prosecuter and judge is as it appears they like making up laws.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why would you deliberately get your kid involved with the police if you could try something else?

100% chance of ruining their life and not getting them treatment.

4
killedmytv 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's not even a case. Uniformly, in the Michigan statues, manslaughter applies only to the actor, not to other parties. Since the perp is being charged as an adult, he, and only he, is responsible for his actions. If you want to claim the parents are responsible for manslaughter, you have to claim the perp is a child.

But our literal-Karen prosecutor is looking for revenge, not justice.

4
__I_dindu__nufin_ 4 points ago +4 / -0

Are the Tipton parents being charged?

4
Julia_J 4 points ago +4 / -0

The court is live now.

4
yudsfpbc 4 points ago +4 / -0

You'll have to find their dads first.

4
AngelMark 4 points ago +4 / -0

The parents knew the kid was fucked up but how could they know he would shoot people unless they handed him the gun?

1
HorribleDeplorable 1 point ago +3 / -2

They handed him the gun after he talked about shooting people

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
LoneWolfsBigIgloo 3 points ago +3 / -0

Parents are absolutely at fault here chief. School could’ve taken more steps, but the parents did nothing if encourage and enable the kid. I’m sure the FBI watched this unfold with glee, but regardless the parents did far more than just condone or be unaware of the situation.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
LoneWolfsBigIgloo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe texting their son “lol don’t get caught next time” when he’s shopping for ammo in class is a shit fucking move. There appears to be enough evidence for the parents, counselors, and entire school administrators to be accomplices

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
LoneWolfsBigIgloo 1 point ago +1 / -0

The whole situation is very well documented thanks to at least one teacher doing the right thing and reporting such troubling behavior. Kid was drawing and writing about murdering his classmates while in school.

You want to talk about accepting MSM narratives? You and I are both talking like this is a real event and happened. Why don’t you believe it was fake and staged? Because like me, you haven’t seen evidence to the contrary yet. But sure, cry to me about listening to the media even though as we speak, they’re the only ones telling us this event even happened

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
ImmuneResponse 3 points ago +3 / -0

Does this mean we can start charging black parents

I mean... if you can find them.

3
bigearl200 3 points ago +3 / -0

Not saying I agree, but.......

"You may be criminally and civilly liable for any harm caused by a person less than 18 years of age who lawfully gains unsupervised access to your firearm if unlawfully stored. As such, a trigger lock, gun case or other device designed to prevent unauthorized access to a firearm is strongly recommended."

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/msp-203_-_PDF_286476_7.pdf

3
Shadow1223 3 points ago +3 / -0

It might have to be the grandmas since many are basically children raising children.

3
xBigCoffinHunter 3 points ago +3 / -0

Let’s face it. The reality is their worse crime was posting a pro-Trump letter on a blog. I’ve seen few details and don’t know that I trust what I have seen so I’ll wait for the trial before passing judgement but that pro-Trump post might as well have been blood in the water.

2
Ocineaa 2 points ago +2 / -0

Blacks are the blessed class these days alongside the tribe. Can't criticize them. Hell it's illegal to criticize the tribe in many states.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
Papabravo12 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well those bangers generally don’t have a dad and the mom is on drugs, so of course they won’t do anything. Should prosecute themselves for instituting welfare

2
Avenatti2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good luck finding the dad

2
libertyhominid 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’m fine with this, and the gang bangers, too.

2
kornesque 2 points ago +2 / -0

So unless it's all prosecutorial and media lies, the parents bought him the pistol 4 days prior, then left it unlocked. Then when the school said "your son really wants to shoot the school up, keep him home" and they refused, the kid went full Baldwin.

I'd say, if this is indeed the case, full anathema.

2
JZinDetroit 2 points ago +4 / -2

They knew he took the gun to school and the mom texted him "don't do it"... They were white trash

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
Fourdoorsmoarwhores 1 point ago +1 / -0

To be fair they still are white trash. Absolute fucking scum. I’m surprised so many people here want to absolve them of the murders their little monster committed

2
Keepidahofree 2 points ago +5 / -3

The mom texted the kid 15 minutes after he did it "don't do it". She must have noticed the gun was missing. She should have called the school or the cops AND her child. Yes. She's kind guilty for part of this. We are safe gun owners. If my kid took a gun to school and had been threatening to shoot people. I would be telling the people who can intervene immediately

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
1
Fourdoorsmoarwhores 1 point ago +2 / -1

Nah gotta whine about the prosecutor and black people instead. Fuck this kid and fuck those parents.

2
Zanthippe 2 points ago +2 / -0

I grew up in gun culture. I've had guns my whole life even when I was child and Used them in military. My kids went to hunter safety and owned guns I gave them for birthdays and christmas and national honor society. As a parent, its your responsibility to know what is going on with your kids and the weapons they have. These parents were neglectful, but they were not criminals until they ran. Stupid move. They had a chance to plead out..now they look guilty. This sort of thing is the worst scenario for 2A rights because it is fodder for the left.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

They had a chance to plead out..now they look guilty.

So does everyone else charged with a crime when you have a small brain.

2
Bubblegumbro 2 points ago +2 / -0

Most Those parents are in jail already

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
GodKingHarambe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good luck serving pops.

2
Kpak76 2 points ago +2 / -0

From what I understand that happened, the parents do deserve to be charged with accessory to murder. It's like if someone told you they where about to kill someone or killed someone and you did nothing about it you will be charged as well. This is the same situation. The mom texted the kid "don't do it" before he shot up the school. This time the leftard prosecutor got it right by charging the parents.

Let the left bang the drum of equity. We should be interested in justice.

2
ViolentNPCS 2 points ago +2 / -0

Won't this disproportionately effect women of color if the parents of underage criminals are liable for their crimes?

Statistics say yes...

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
2
Balzenburg 2 points ago +3 / -1

I agree with this. Owners are responsible for their pit bull attacks.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pit bulls aren't capable of human reasoning and are not considered independent actors. Not equivalent whatsoever.

2
Eshasta 2 points ago +6 / -4

The parents were largely responsible for this one if you look into all facts and circumstances. The school administrators as well.

2
MAGA_Marine 2 points ago +2 / -0

I disagree the school sat on rumors and evidence he was troubled before they even set up a meeting. The kid wrote "The thoughts won't stop! Help me!" with a drawn picture of a gun and people with blood on them and they didn't immediately say anything and allowed him to go back to class.

1
Eshasta 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's why I said the school administrators as well.

The parents bought this child a gun. As soon as news of the school shooting broke out his mom texted him, "Dont do it", which should leave anyone believing she knew her kid was capable of this. Parents were called in the morning of the shooting for a meeting with the school. School suggested but didnt mandate he go home. Parents refused to bring him home.

Ethan is #1 at fault here, he is the one that did it. But the parents and school administrators had the opportunity to stop this and didnt, and the parents bought their obviously disturbed child a gun.

0
BidensButtWiper 0 points ago +2 / -2

Believing the MSM I see. Bold strategy, cotton.

1
Eshasta 1 point ago +2 / -1

I live a few miles away and don't watch msm, but ok.

2
Phaedrus_Wolfe 2 points ago +2 / -0

If they are charging the kid as an adult, then how can the parents be responsible for their child's "Adult Behavior"?

But if they charge the kid as a kid, only then does it make any sense to go after the parents.

Law as it exists in the USA today, always does everything in its power to take two bites at the apple.

2
Okguy2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lots of pedo fbi agents in here haha

2
wiseracer 2 points ago +2 / -0

If you’re under 18, the parents are responsible period.

2
Goatboy66 2 points ago +2 / -0

They should be Charged.

2
RustyShackleford777 2 points ago +2 / -0

LoL, ol mama Dindu better buckle up if that's the case.

2
ManFromKekistan 2 points ago +2 / -0

We can only hope.

2
MondayCoupleIsDead 2 points ago +2 / -0

But they eternally dindu nuffin, bigot! Imagine trying to force your white supreme pizza ideas on those poor, innocent browns and blacks!

Shame!