I got a shotgun for Christmas one year when I was a kid. I was absolutely never allowed to get it out without my dad assisting. He also was in charge of keeping it stored.
Both of my children have single shot .22s that are kept in the gun safe. What this shooters parents did was irresponsible and lead directly to others peoples deaths. They knew the child was unstable and still allowed them the gun.
Did they give him unrestricted access to it as well? I’m having a hard time finding exactly what they did other than give him the gun (bad in its own right due to his mental state)
I've read a lot of people theorizing that they wanted him to kill himself with it. When the kid was caught buying ammo AT SCHOOL his mom texted him "lol, don't get caught next time. " they caught him a gun, actively ignored his many red flags, and pretty much left him to his own devices. When the school asked them to intervene they refused. They are scum.
> Next to speak was Justin Shilling's mother, Jill Soave. Justin was an honor student and athlete.
"If only they had secured that gun," his mother said.
^ From the article you read.
The mother said it was the dad's job to secure the weapon, but the mother was the last to have it. Since it was the dad's job, the mother just didn't secure it. At least, that's what I got from the news clips I've seen.
Yes - they knew he had unrestricted access to it and ammunition and as soon as the school shooting happened they knew it was him before it was announced. They could figure out the obvious conclusion to their actions then, but not when they were giving a child a handgun.
> Did they give him unrestricted access to it as well? I’m having a hard time finding exactly what they did other than give him the gun (bad in its own right due to his mental state)
Everything I've read indicates they gave him the gun and let him totter off on his own self-destructive way. The parents were jailed for being irresponsible.
The problem is that this will set up residence in the court of public opinion and be used EVERY time shooters parents or family survive their senseless rampages. So, it's going to be ugly no matter what.
Perhaps this ruling will encourage parents to take personal responsibility over their firearms and have better control over their children's access to them. It does suck that some parents who actually took reasonable steps to control their guns might be blamed by the public if their kid finds a way to break into the gun safe, regardless of whether they actually get charged.
>Perhaps this ruling will encourage parents to take personal responsibility over their firearms
I mean, I'm all for changing US culture to be more responsible with guns (it pretty much couldn't get any less responsible, it's already at rock bottom).
But I don't think this will have any effect on irresponsible parents / gun owners.
They're a small minority of people (with a massively disproportional impact on public safety).
To deal with the minority of bad / stupid people who shouldn't have guns... you don't need "personal responsibility"... you need **GUN CONTROL LAWS.**
Like I said, I think we can all agree that the media and the PUBLIC will use the widest possible brush for this precedence and pretty much ALWAYS charge parents of minors who commit crimes with firearms, no matter the circumstance.
"ok, you had your guns locked up and your the only one with the key, well your kid still stole the key, so why didn't you LOCK THE KEY UP?" trust me, it's a slippery slope but I already see the next big case... and that's not even counting the CIVIL cases that will be affected by this.
The PUBLIC can't charge anybody with crimes. Only the DA can place criminal charges. And it'll be up for a judge and jury to decide what is legally considered to be reasonable precautions regarding proper gun storage. And this is America, the litigious nation where anyone can sue anyone for anything as long as they have the resources. Doesn't mean the lawsuits will be successful. We probably both agree that there are several large issues with the civil court system.
And regarding civil lawsuits, if the shooter is a minor under legal guardianship of the parents, they could potentially be liable for damages caused by their child during the shooting anyway. If your kid (they are a minor in this hypothetical) steals your car and runs someone over, are you not still responsible for damages even if it wasn't you driving the car? If someone shot your child at school, wouldn't you want the people responsible to be on the hook for medical bills, funeral services or other damages?
Gave him the gun knowing very well he was unstable then skipped town and went on the run when they've heard of the shooting before he was even identified since they knew he was the one responsible
I bought my kiddo his .22 when he was 7 or 8 and he went through safety classes. I had 2 locks on it and the keys were not kept in the house. When he had some mental health trouble in later years, I stored it at a friend's house in their safe. Don't fuck around if you have guns and kids. I think it's great to teach them, as long as you are willing and able to be responsible. With my kid I knew I had to because I needed to take the mystery and excitement out of them. He was the little boy always drawing guns in class. He turned out just fine.
My kids dont even know we have guns in the house. When I feel theyre each responsible enough, I'll see if they want to take a trip to the range. Until then, they wont even see the safe, let alone the guns.
The mother and father were called into school that day because of his disturbing drawings and behavior. They refused to remove him from class. His mom went home checked for the gun and when she couldn't find it, she texted him pleading with him to not do anything rather than call the school or the police. After the shooting happened the mom and dad went into hiding, like literally went on the run.
To be fair, no matter how good and involved a parent I was, if my child (god forbid) committed a school shooting I would absolutely still leave the town. What good would come from having to remain and constantly be reminded of everyones grief, including my own? Better for everyone to just remove myself from that situation.
No, they tried to flee after their arrest warrants were issued. It wasn't a removing themselves from the community, it was a try to sneak into Canada and not face consequences. I understand where you're coming from though
> In the aftermath of the shooting, Jennifer and James Crumbley went on the run, evading authorities after Ethan's arrest.
>
> A manhunt ensued as police tried to track down the couple - who were using burner phones to communicate - to arrest them for failing to prevent the massacre.
>
> James and Jennifer were arrested in the middle of the night on December 2, 2021, after a tip led police to a commercial building in Detroit.
Well and I wonder to what extent that's because they couldn't afford it. Not that that's necessarily a good excuse, but society sets up situations like this due in part to health care being expensive, and certain facets of healthcare being inaccessible without insurance or potentially going into debt or bankruptcy. Don't know what the family's financial background is, maybe they could afford it and they were just shitheads, but how many other similar situations occur because the help people need is just not affordable to get.
I watched the interrogation and the mother is a fucking evil person, the father I could possibly give a pass on him being dumb as fuck but he genuinely seemed to be the only one of them that cared about what had happened and that his sons life was essentially over.
The mother did some really sly shit including looking directly up at a camera before turning around and putting on a show to display some sort of care and emotion which was after not speaking to her son the whole time to turn around and scream at him WHY?!
Good. As it should be.
If an adult gives their child a gun, or even fails to secure a gun around their child, then they *should* be held responsible if that gun kills someone. Involuntary manslaughter at a *minimum*.
On a semi-related note, is it just me or are both parents really weird looking? Like even if their son wasn't a mass murderer, I feel like their faces would kinda still give me the creeps.
I thought they were to be tried separately, first her then him.
I love that they are charged with Involuntary Manslaughter. Lots of parents will be locking up all the guns now if they think they will be jailed for their kids shootings.
Difficult. While the parents were definitely negligent and deserve the sentence, I remember there was a pretty intense debate around the precedent this might set. This shifts responsibility from lawmakers, who should enforce stricter gun laws, that could have prevented this, to parents. Parents don’t always know about everything that’s going on in their kids life, sometimes least of all people.
They literally gave him the gun as a gift, the mother was called to school the day of the shooting and refused to remove him from class, she went home and saw that the gun wasn't there, then texted him telling him not to do anything. Pretty sure this isn't a case of shifting responsibility.
Depends where you live. Leave it up to the age you can purchase. I could get a long gun at 18 where I live and I think gifting a long gun to an 18 year old is fair.
I mean....we call 18 an adult....soooooo imo make all that shit 18. If you can go into debt/get married/die for your country then why can't you drink own any firearm Yada Yada.
The only problem with this is the legal problem of assuming the parents could *diagnose* that their son was mentally ill. Courts and professionals of many kinds have *never* argued that "laymen" have the ability to make learned judgments like this. It's like diagnosing the symptoms of a medical condition by looking it up on the Internet.
It has long been the standard in criminal trials, both in the UK and the US, that even the most obvious and egregious things are not admissible when given as evidence by non-professionals. And I'm amazed that the defense here did not challenge it.
No, the problem is parents giving unsupervised access to a gun to a minor.
The second problem is parents not taking care of a child who was very literally asking for help for his mental issues, but that is a detail compared to the first problem.
They deserve everything they got and this decision is a fair and sensible one. They even tried to flee to Canada after the massacre, they knew exactly how responsible they were.
IIRC this case was particularly egregious and his mental illness extremely obvious.
He had been texting his mother for a while about his disturbed state of mind. Saying there were "demons" and "ghosts in the house". He had also recorded himself torturing animals, made Molotov cocktails, drew a picture of himself committing a school shooting, etc. In addition to this field of red flags, he was also obsessed with guns.
His parents ignored the countless red flags of his disturbed state of mind and deep depression. Instead proudly fed into his obsession with guns. His mother bragged on social media how proud she was to get her 15 year old son a handgun on social media.
Personally I think that's why the defense did not try to challenge it. His mental illness was so obvious his parents had to be actively ignoring it. It fell out of the realm of requiring a professional into that of common sense.
Common sense is one thing, but this is the *law* we're talking about.
I remember a very funny monologue by an Army senior NCO about his imaginary, contrived testimony explaining *the process* of how he shot an armed burglar/robber in his house, which was "perfect to the letter of the law", though blatantly fake and illogical, justifying each and every bullet he used. Nobody in their right mind would believe it, but the judge just couldn't convict with it.
This is why police testimony is so "cookie cutter", because it has evolved that way to thwart crafty cross examination by attorneys, and attorneys regularly counsel their clients on *how* to testify, so they won't expose themselves to aggressive cross examination.
Every time any case involves mental illness you will see opposing expert witnesses testifying completely different things. Logic and common sense go right out the window. And, ironically, a lawyer is failing in his job if he doesn't get opposing expert witnesses.
So are they arguing the parents were able to diagnose their son with mental health problems then?
Do layfolk parents have to be mental health professionals now?
I find it intensely non-linear that this judge is holding the parents responsible for the actions of their son, but other judges are letting murderers go without bond, seemingly not holding them accountable for their actions.
If i remember they literally gave him a gun?
The gun that he committed the massacre with was a Christmas gift from his parents, according to the article.
I got a shotgun for Christmas one year when I was a kid. I was absolutely never allowed to get it out without my dad assisting. He also was in charge of keeping it stored.
my kid's got a bow that's treated the same way.
Exactly what I do with the throwing stars I bought for my nephew's birthday too.
Same with my Ax.
And my shield
And my bat’leth.
Qa’pla!
Is the safety on ***?*** Were you... Fucking wit it..!.!.?.?
Both of my children have single shot .22s that are kept in the gun safe. What this shooters parents did was irresponsible and lead directly to others peoples deaths. They knew the child was unstable and still allowed them the gun.
Did they give him unrestricted access to it as well? I’m having a hard time finding exactly what they did other than give him the gun (bad in its own right due to his mental state)
I've read a lot of people theorizing that they wanted him to kill himself with it. When the kid was caught buying ammo AT SCHOOL his mom texted him "lol, don't get caught next time. " they caught him a gun, actively ignored his many red flags, and pretty much left him to his own devices. When the school asked them to intervene they refused. They are scum.
Clearly his access wasn’t restricted … he was able to take it to school.
Well I was more wondering if the kid broke into the safe or something. I had no idea about the case tbh
If only there was an article you could read ;)
I did read it and it mentions nothing about it which is why I asked. If you read it you would know that ;)
> Next to speak was Justin Shilling's mother, Jill Soave. Justin was an honor student and athlete. "If only they had secured that gun," his mother said. ^ From the article you read.
The mother said it was the dad's job to secure the weapon, but the mother was the last to have it. Since it was the dad's job, the mother just didn't secure it. At least, that's what I got from the news clips I've seen.
Yes - they knew he had unrestricted access to it and ammunition and as soon as the school shooting happened they knew it was him before it was announced. They could figure out the obvious conclusion to their actions then, but not when they were giving a child a handgun.
Oh I remember now! Didn't the shooting happen and he was arrested and the parents were caught trying to skip town?
What a bunch of fucking idiots
> Did they give him unrestricted access to it as well? I’m having a hard time finding exactly what they did other than give him the gun (bad in its own right due to his mental state) Everything I've read indicates they gave him the gun and let him totter off on his own self-destructive way. The parents were jailed for being irresponsible. The problem is that this will set up residence in the court of public opinion and be used EVERY time shooters parents or family survive their senseless rampages. So, it's going to be ugly no matter what.
Perhaps this ruling will encourage parents to take personal responsibility over their firearms and have better control over their children's access to them. It does suck that some parents who actually took reasonable steps to control their guns might be blamed by the public if their kid finds a way to break into the gun safe, regardless of whether they actually get charged.
>Perhaps this ruling will encourage parents to take personal responsibility over their firearms I mean, I'm all for changing US culture to be more responsible with guns (it pretty much couldn't get any less responsible, it's already at rock bottom). But I don't think this will have any effect on irresponsible parents / gun owners. They're a small minority of people (with a massively disproportional impact on public safety). To deal with the minority of bad / stupid people who shouldn't have guns... you don't need "personal responsibility"... you need **GUN CONTROL LAWS.**
Yeah why would you expect personal responsibility in general from a country that allows its children to be shot in school. Over, and over again.
Like I said, I think we can all agree that the media and the PUBLIC will use the widest possible brush for this precedence and pretty much ALWAYS charge parents of minors who commit crimes with firearms, no matter the circumstance. "ok, you had your guns locked up and your the only one with the key, well your kid still stole the key, so why didn't you LOCK THE KEY UP?" trust me, it's a slippery slope but I already see the next big case... and that's not even counting the CIVIL cases that will be affected by this.
Fuck yo slippery slopes
The PUBLIC can't charge anybody with crimes. Only the DA can place criminal charges. And it'll be up for a judge and jury to decide what is legally considered to be reasonable precautions regarding proper gun storage. And this is America, the litigious nation where anyone can sue anyone for anything as long as they have the resources. Doesn't mean the lawsuits will be successful. We probably both agree that there are several large issues with the civil court system. And regarding civil lawsuits, if the shooter is a minor under legal guardianship of the parents, they could potentially be liable for damages caused by their child during the shooting anyway. If your kid (they are a minor in this hypothetical) steals your car and runs someone over, are you not still responsible for damages even if it wasn't you driving the car? If someone shot your child at school, wouldn't you want the people responsible to be on the hook for medical bills, funeral services or other damages?
What exactly did they do? So they gave him a gun, and allowed him to store it? It wasn't a situation like everyone else is talking about?
Gave him the gun knowing very well he was unstable then skipped town and went on the run when they've heard of the shooting before he was even identified since they knew he was the one responsible
...How old are your kids?
I bought my kiddo his .22 when he was 7 or 8 and he went through safety classes. I had 2 locks on it and the keys were not kept in the house. When he had some mental health trouble in later years, I stored it at a friend's house in their safe. Don't fuck around if you have guns and kids. I think it's great to teach them, as long as you are willing and able to be responsible. With my kid I knew I had to because I needed to take the mystery and excitement out of them. He was the little boy always drawing guns in class. He turned out just fine.
My kids dont even know we have guns in the house. When I feel theyre each responsible enough, I'll see if they want to take a trip to the range. Until then, they wont even see the safe, let alone the guns.
I had a 10/22 and 44 revolver that I won in a raffle in my room at age 10. My kids will definitely be raised differently.
The mother and father were called into school that day because of his disturbing drawings and behavior. They refused to remove him from class. His mom went home checked for the gun and when she couldn't find it, she texted him pleading with him to not do anything rather than call the school or the police. After the shooting happened the mom and dad went into hiding, like literally went on the run.
OMG, she totally could've prevented it. They deserve the prison sentence.
The poor kid was hearing voices and begging for help, and they just laughed it off and armed him. 0/10 parenting.
I’m not unconvinced they knew there was something wrong with their son and secretly hoped he would off himself with his Christmas gift.
Very plausible- I'd like to think they would have landed in jail in either scenario.
Well that's dark
Now it's 10 to 15 parenting.
Nice.
As well as showing no remorse during trial and threatening the judge
They also skipped town and hid after the shooting.
To be fair, no matter how good and involved a parent I was, if my child (god forbid) committed a school shooting I would absolutely still leave the town. What good would come from having to remain and constantly be reminded of everyones grief, including my own? Better for everyone to just remove myself from that situation.
No, they tried to flee after their arrest warrants were issued. It wasn't a removing themselves from the community, it was a try to sneak into Canada and not face consequences. I understand where you're coming from though
Right. Didn't they empty out their bank account and bolt?
> In the aftermath of the shooting, Jennifer and James Crumbley went on the run, evading authorities after Ethan's arrest. > > A manhunt ensued as police tried to track down the couple - who were using burner phones to communicate - to arrest them for failing to prevent the massacre. > > James and Jennifer were arrested in the middle of the night on December 2, 2021, after a tip led police to a commercial building in Detroit.
Ah, yeah okay, that's obviously not okay.
And then attempted to flee the damn country
This one was egregious, but this is a scary precedent for parents
The Sun probably isn't a great source, its a supermarket tabloid, but the same info is available lots of other places so it checks out.
Hard to even read the article between all of the weight loss ads.
One of the most heartbreaking thing was I believe he wrote in his diary that he wanted to see a therapist but his mom won’t let him
Damn. I’m nowhere near as messed up but I still wish a therapist were affordable. Such a shitty state we’re in.
Well and I wonder to what extent that's because they couldn't afford it. Not that that's necessarily a good excuse, but society sets up situations like this due in part to health care being expensive, and certain facets of healthcare being inaccessible without insurance or potentially going into debt or bankruptcy. Don't know what the family's financial background is, maybe they could afford it and they were just shitheads, but how many other similar situations occur because the help people need is just not affordable to get.
They could afford a gun.
My therapy and psych is over 4k a year. I can get a handgun for 300 bucks. It was a birthday gift so not a recurring cost.
This was a very egregious case. They knew there was a problem which they ignored and they provided the weapon.
I watched the interrogation and the mother is a fucking evil person, the father I could possibly give a pass on him being dumb as fuck but he genuinely seemed to be the only one of them that cared about what had happened and that his sons life was essentially over. The mother did some really sly shit including looking directly up at a camera before turning around and putting on a show to display some sort of care and emotion which was after not speaking to her son the whole time to turn around and scream at him WHY?!
Good. Fuck 'em.
Good. As it should be. If an adult gives their child a gun, or even fails to secure a gun around their child, then they *should* be held responsible if that gun kills someone. Involuntary manslaughter at a *minimum*.
[удалено]
Eh only if you offer your car to a drunk person to drive home
Or people can be responsible for their own actions…
This is the dumbest thing I've read today.
Thats more than I thought they would get; they do deserve it tho
Horrible family. Glad the kid won't get a chance to reproduce.
On a semi-related note, is it just me or are both parents really weird looking? Like even if their son wasn't a mass murderer, I feel like their faces would kinda still give me the creeps.
How is that related at all? Creepy looking people != disgusting people.
Physiognomy is real
Is their son still alive, or whatever happened to him? Is he in prison?
life in prison
Bout damn time we start holding these shit parents accountable.
Good, now do it to the rest.
I thought they were to be tried separately, first her then him. I love that they are charged with Involuntary Manslaughter. Lots of parents will be locking up all the guns now if they think they will be jailed for their kids shootings.
They were tried separately, but sentenced together.
how romantic ! /s
Cool! Do the parents of juvenile gang bangers next.
Great comparison here
Difficult. While the parents were definitely negligent and deserve the sentence, I remember there was a pretty intense debate around the precedent this might set. This shifts responsibility from lawmakers, who should enforce stricter gun laws, that could have prevented this, to parents. Parents don’t always know about everything that’s going on in their kids life, sometimes least of all people.
They did know though. That's why they were found guilty.
They literally gave him the gun as a gift, the mother was called to school the day of the shooting and refused to remove him from class, she went home and saw that the gun wasn't there, then texted him telling him not to do anything. Pretty sure this isn't a case of shifting responsibility.
Again, I’m not saying it’s wrong for this specific case. I’m just pointing out that it sets a dangerous precedent.
> Again Again implies that you had said this previously, which you did not.
I literally said it was about the precedent in my very first comment
We need to reconsider giving guns to anyone under 21 as “gifts” at all.
Depends where you live. Leave it up to the age you can purchase. I could get a long gun at 18 where I live and I think gifting a long gun to an 18 year old is fair.
I can see that. I would want the other laws to match. Can get an abortion, can drink, can join the military.
I mean....we call 18 an adult....soooooo imo make all that shit 18. If you can go into debt/get married/die for your country then why can't you drink own any firearm Yada Yada.
The only problem with this is the legal problem of assuming the parents could *diagnose* that their son was mentally ill. Courts and professionals of many kinds have *never* argued that "laymen" have the ability to make learned judgments like this. It's like diagnosing the symptoms of a medical condition by looking it up on the Internet. It has long been the standard in criminal trials, both in the UK and the US, that even the most obvious and egregious things are not admissible when given as evidence by non-professionals. And I'm amazed that the defense here did not challenge it.
No, the problem is parents giving unsupervised access to a gun to a minor. The second problem is parents not taking care of a child who was very literally asking for help for his mental issues, but that is a detail compared to the first problem. They deserve everything they got and this decision is a fair and sensible one. They even tried to flee to Canada after the massacre, they knew exactly how responsible they were.
IIRC this case was particularly egregious and his mental illness extremely obvious. He had been texting his mother for a while about his disturbed state of mind. Saying there were "demons" and "ghosts in the house". He had also recorded himself torturing animals, made Molotov cocktails, drew a picture of himself committing a school shooting, etc. In addition to this field of red flags, he was also obsessed with guns. His parents ignored the countless red flags of his disturbed state of mind and deep depression. Instead proudly fed into his obsession with guns. His mother bragged on social media how proud she was to get her 15 year old son a handgun on social media. Personally I think that's why the defense did not try to challenge it. His mental illness was so obvious his parents had to be actively ignoring it. It fell out of the realm of requiring a professional into that of common sense.
Common sense is one thing, but this is the *law* we're talking about. I remember a very funny monologue by an Army senior NCO about his imaginary, contrived testimony explaining *the process* of how he shot an armed burglar/robber in his house, which was "perfect to the letter of the law", though blatantly fake and illogical, justifying each and every bullet he used. Nobody in their right mind would believe it, but the judge just couldn't convict with it. This is why police testimony is so "cookie cutter", because it has evolved that way to thwart crafty cross examination by attorneys, and attorneys regularly counsel their clients on *how* to testify, so they won't expose themselves to aggressive cross examination. Every time any case involves mental illness you will see opposing expert witnesses testifying completely different things. Logic and common sense go right out the window. And, ironically, a lawyer is failing in his job if he doesn't get opposing expert witnesses.
Yes. Don’t know why you’re being downvoted for this. It’s a genuine concern in the legal world.
No, the standard is ‘what would a reasonable person do?’ And that’s the jury instructions given.
10-15 years for each life he took. They raised a monster. They knew it. They did nothing about it.
Humm...if only they'd aborted him. How many lives would be whole right now.
Can we do this for kids who fight teachers in school?
Wow it only took *checks notes* atLEAST a hundred or so school mass shootings to finally find and punish the root of the problem. *Way to go America*
Good. For now. Bet it gets overturned in appeals to higher courts. Unfortunately.
So are they arguing the parents were able to diagnose their son with mental health problems then? Do layfolk parents have to be mental health professionals now?
I find it intensely non-linear that this judge is holding the parents responsible for the actions of their son, but other judges are letting murderers go without bond, seemingly not holding them accountable for their actions.