Father of Michigan school shooter found guilty of manslaughter weeks after mother’s conviction

[Toggle Almendro]

Why? It worked with Big Tobacco, another killer.

Because the American people are not going to let you violate our civil liberties.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Better to litigate the firearm manufacturers for liability first.

Not going to happen. The American people will not let you violate our civil liberties.

Recreation shooting can be far better regulated, as for example, keeping handguns locked up at the range.

Also not going to happen. You are not allowed to violate people's civil liberties.

This all became a problem because America has a gun culture that makes it easy to obtain firearms with few limits, no licensing, no registration, little accountability.

That is incorrect. There is no problem.

A firearm can kill from a distance, is designed solely for killing (technically),

That is incorrect. Self defense firearms are for eliminating threats.

Target shooting guns are not even for firing at living creatures.

We have no problem regulating explosives, toxins, dangerous gases, and medications, yet we cannot adequately regulate firearms.

That is incorrect. We adequately regulate firearms.

The lax regulations for commerce in firearms makes them easily available to those with criminal intent.

Fake news.

The regulations are not lax.

The privilege of owning firearms has created a sea of lethal weapons throughout the population.

That is incorrect. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected right.

That prevalence has resulted, over the years, in hundreds of thousands of deaths (and many more injuries). Denying that 2A is responsible for that public health crisis is just not correct.

That is incorrect. Since gun control is not even about trying to save lives, blocking gun control does not cost any lives.

Gun manufacturer have been specifically excused from liability by law.

Rightly so. That prevents you from abusing the system to violate our civil liberties.

 

[Individual]

You don't think inmates should be encouraged to behave?

I doubt prison guards will agree.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is incorrect. His mental issues were not so clear.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Being a parent doesn't make you an expert on mental illness.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except they didn't know really.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michigan was the first government on the planet to abolish the death penalty for murder.



Are you in favor of executing wrongfully convicted people?

Are you claiming he was wrongly convicted?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Are you claiming he was wrongly convicted?

No. But many wrongfully convicted people are released when they appeal their sentence.

If you start executing people without appeal, you're going to be executing some innocent people.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Hmm...is this enough precedent to start going after the parents of gang members that kill people?

Yes.

Can we now go after the parents of drug dealers, rapists and Trump supporters?

Yes, yes, and no.

This could be fun! We could just start prosecuting anyone and everyone associated with someone that commits a crime! Did you turn a blind eye when your buddy that 6 pack from the convenience store? Now YOU can get hooked up for the crime too!

Correct.

Look, I didn't follow the whole trial and maybe the parents screwed up but unless they had some kind of foreknowledge that the kid was going to do what he did and then let it happen I kind of have an issue with them getting hooked up like this. I mean, people in the school seemed to know the kid was a problem and didn't do anything either so why aren't those people on the hook too? I fear that we're setting a REALLY bad precedent by pushing prosecution by popular demand.

Your fears are well founded.

 

[Individual]

No. But many wrongfully convicted people are released when they appeal their sentence.

If you start executing people without appeal, you're going to be executing some innocent people.

My post was about this one instance. When there is no doubt, why allow wasting money on appeals or delays?

 

[Northern Light]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/14/us/james-crumbley-manslaughter-trial-thursday/index.html

James Crumbley, the father of the teenager who killed four students at a Michigan high school in 2021, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in a trial that comes a month after the shooter’s mother was convicted of the same charges.

Crumbley was convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter, a charge that carries a maximum punishment of up to 15 years in prison, which would run concurrently.

Jury deliberations that concluded Thursday came more than two years after his son, Ethan Crumbley, then 15, used a SIG Sauer 9mm to kill four students and wound six students and a teacher at Oxford High School on November 30, 2021....

I support this.

I support the Second Amendment and I also think firearm owners are responsible for the secure storage of their firearms and the safety of firearm use. I took three firearm safety courses before I was 16 years old. There's no excuse. Constitutional rights don't mean you get to leave your guns lying around -- especially if your child has known mental health issues.

This type of ruling should be much more common and then maybe firearm-owning parents around America will start waking TF up.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

My post was about this one instance. When there is no doubt, why allow wasting money on appeals or delays?

Executing people without appeal is executing people without appeal. It doesn't matter if you think they are absolutely guilty when you execute them. If you are going to do that, you are going to kill innocent people.

And again, it won't be happening in Michigan. Michigan was the first government on the planet to abolish the death penalty for murder.

We're proud of that, and we aren't going to change.

 

[Individual]

Executing people without appeal is executing people without appeal. It doesn't matter if you think they are absolutely guilty when you execute them. If you are going to do that, you are going to kill innocent people.

And again, it won't be happening in Michigan. Michigan was the first government on the planet to abolish the death penalty for murder.

We're proud of that, and we aren't going to change.

So you are claiming this person may have been wrongfully convicted?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

So you are claiming this person may have been wrongfully convicted?

See #154.

 

[Individual]

See #154.

We're talking about this one case. Is there any doubt about his guilt?

 

[molten_dragon]

Enjoy your prison sentence if any of you have a kid and they ever kill someone.

I do have kids and if I'm ever such an terrible father that one of my kids murders 4 people due, in part, to my actions then I deserve prison.

 

[Spock]

I support this.

I support the Second Amendment and I also think firearm owners are responsible for the secure storage of their firearms and the safety of firearm use. I took three firearm safety courses before I was 16 years old. There's no excuse. Constitutional rights don't mean you get to leave your guns lying around -- especially if your child has known mental health issues.

This type of ruling should be much more common and then maybe firearm-owning parents around America will start waking TF up.

Do you favor changes to the liability protections for firearm manufacturers?

 

[Spock]

Not going to happen. The American people will not let you violate our civil liberties.



Also not going to happen. You are not allowed to violate people's civil liberties.



That is incorrect. There is no problem.



That is incorrect. Self defense firearms are for eliminating threats.

Target shooting guns are not even for firing at living creatures.



That is incorrect. We adequately regulate firearms.



Fake news.

The regulations are not lax.



That is incorrect. Keeping and bearing arms is a protected right.



That is incorrect. Since gun control is not even about trying to save lives, blocking gun control does not cost any lives.



Rightly so. That prevents you from abusing the system to violate our civil liberties.

The future is Firearm Owner Liability Insurance, IMO:

Do Americans Need ‘Gun Insurance’? Here's How To Get It

On Jan. 25, 2022, San Jose fired a shot heard ‘round the country. By an overwhelming majority, the city council mandated that homeowners and renters in this wealthy California community who own firearms must have gun liability insurance. It is the first in the nation to do so, according to the Los A

www.forbes.com

 

[Toggle Almendro]

We're talking about this one case. Is there any doubt about his guilt?

Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one case.

And every time, you will always be confident that the person in that particular case is definitely guilty.

Most of the time you will be right.

Some of the time you will be wrong.

The entire nature of being wrong means that you don’t realize that you are wrong.

So when you advocate executions without appeal, your proposed policy will inevitably execute innocent people.


And what is the justification for such a draconian punishment? As I understand it, this kid was mentally ill, asked for help from both parents and teachers, and was denied any help. That hardly sounds like a cold blooded killer deserving of no mercy.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The future is Firearm Owner Liability Insurance, IMO:

Unconstitutional.

You can’t both mandate insurance and make it difficult to acquire at the same time.

 

[Spock]

Unconstitutional.

You can’t both mandate insurance and make it difficult to acquire at the same time.

Nonsense. By your reasoning, no one could charge for firearms because that would make it difficult to acquire them.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Nonsense.

That is incorrect. You are not permitted to make it difficult or impossible for people to exercise their civil liberties.

If you wanted people to buy gun liability insurance, you shouldn't have made gun liability insurance difficult to acquire.

By your reasoning, no one could charge for firearms because that would make it difficult to acquire them.

Making guns too expensive to acquire would indeed be unconstitutional.

 

[Spock]

That is incorrect. You are not permitted to make it difficult or impossible for people to exercise their civil liberties.

If you wanted people to buy gun liability insurance, you shouldn't have made gun liability insurance difficult to acquire.

Complete fantasy.

Making guns too expensive to acquire would indeed be unconstitutional.

What is "too expensive"?
How absurd!!

 

[AmNat]

Hmm...is this enough precedent to start going after the parents of gang members that kill people? Can we now go after the parents of drug dealers, rapists and Trump supporters? This could be fun! We could just start prosecuting anyone and everyone associated with someone that commits a crime! Did you turn a blind eye when your buddy that 6 pack from the convenience store? Now YOU can get hooked up for the crime too!

Look, I didn't follow the whole trial and maybe the parents screwed up but unless they had some kind of foreknowledge that the kid was going to do what he did and then let it happen I kind of have an issue with them getting hooked up like this. I mean, people in the school seemed to know the kid was a problem and didn't do anything either so why aren't those people on the hook too? I fear that we're setting a REALLY bad precedent by pushing prosecution by popular demand.

This is hyperbolic, but not by much. The gist of the prosecution's case was that the Crumbleys were generally bad people, and that if they'd been good people they would have known (somehow) that this was going to happen.

 

[roguenuke]

This is hyperbolic, but not by much. The gist of the prosecution's case was that the Crumbleys were generally bad people, and that if they'd been good people they would have known (somehow) that this was going to happen.

This is not at all what the case was.

The case involved the Crumbleys having absolutely plenty of information for a reasonable person to be able to see a legitimate threat being presented by their child. Despite that legitimate threat being present, they bought their son a handgun, which is not legal to do, and they even actively ridiculed and/or denied access to mental health services for him when he told them he needed it, begged them to get him help for obvious problems he was having. Then, on the day of the shooting, they had at least one more chance to finally do something, several things in fact, that could have reasonably prevented the shooting, killing of others but instead argued that they couldn't do that at the time and didn't even give the school a heads up that it was possible that their son could have a weapon, as he had access. Given the information they had about their son, including knowing he was having mental health issues, knowing he had access to a handgun and ammo that he believed was his, and showing indication that he was imagining shooting, harming, killing others. That is why they were found guilty. All those factors together to make up the whole picture of highly negligent and culpable parents for what they basically allowed their son to do.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

The case involved the Crumbleys having absolutely plenty of information for a reasonable person to be able to see a legitimate threat being presented by their child.

Sounds like the case was based on falsehoods. How is an ordinary parent suppose to know the difference between normal teen angst and a genuine mental health crisis?

Despite that legitimate threat being present, they bought their son a handgun, which is not legal to do,

Nonsense. What law forbids it?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Complete fantasy.

That is incorrect. That you are not permitted to violate people's civil liberties is not fantasy.

What is "too expensive"?

Well, if the price increase makes it difficult for average people to acquire a gun, that is out of bounds.

But even a small and manageable price increase, if there is no reason for the increase, is out of bounds.

Had you not made it difficult for people to acquire liability insurance, it may have been okay to mandate it.

But now that you have needlessly made liability insurance difficult to get, no. Now you cannot mandate it.

How absurd!!

That is incorrect. That you are not permitted to violate people's civil liberties is not absurd.

 

[Individual]

Every time you talk about executing someone without appeal, you will always be talking only about that one case.

And every time, you will always be confident that the person in that particular case is definitely guilty.

Most of the time you will be right.

Some of the time you will be wrong.

The entire nature of being wrong means that you don’t realize that you are wrong.

So when you advocate executions without appeal, your proposed policy will inevitably execute innocent people.


And what is the justification for such a draconian punishment? As I understand it, this kid was mentally ill, asked for help from both parents and teachers, and was denied any help. That hardly sounds like a cold blooded killer deserving of no mercy.

Yes, always one case, and the will always be those one cases where there is absolute certainty of guilt.

Yet he proved himself to be a cold blooded killer, showing no mercy for his victims.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Yes, always one case, and the will always be those one cases where there is absolute certainty of guilt.

And there will eventually be a case where you are certain of guilt but are completely wrong.

Yet he proved himself to be a cold blooded killer, showing no mercy for his victims.

That is incorrect. A person who is having a mental health crisis is not a cold blooded killer.