Frank T Loc: New York, NY

https://apnews.com/article/james-crumbley-jennifer-crumbley-oxford-school-shooting-e5888f615c76c3b26153c34dc36d5436

James and Jennifer Crumbley were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the Michigan school shooting that their son carried out.
If they go to jail, this will be groundbreaking as no other case like it has resulted in the parents being incarcerated.
One of the issues brought up by the prosecution was that the multiple homicides could have been prevented by something as simple as a cable lock.

The Crumbleys will appear in court today to learn their fate.

pendennis

I've been following this case since the date of the murders. One of the common comments by criminal attorneys has been that prosecution for involuntary manslaughter has always required that the defendant has played a role in the actual crime; neither defendant was on the scene, therefore did not participate. The prosecutor is a leading candidate for the governor's office in Michigan in 2026, and she's using these prosecutions and convictions to pad her reputation. There are no instances in the U.S. where these charges have been filed.

There are literally thousands of cases in neighboring Wayne County/City of Detroit which have the same elements. A minor gets hold of a pistol at home and commits murder, manslaughter, etc. The Wayne County prosecutor has never filed charges against those parents.

The Crumbleys are indeed, lousy, crappy, parents, but even child neglect doesn't rise to the level of manslaughter.

The school district personnel are protected from prosecution based on contract immunity. That's also being challenged in state courts.

The Crumbleys have 45 days to appeal both the convictions and the sentences.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Gun owners should be held liable for irresponsibly storing their weapons which allows for something like this to happen. I support the second but I also think that gun ownership requires that the owner understand the potential danger of the misuse of a deadly weapon and take care in the storage and accessibility of their firearms.

pendennis

Holding a person civilly liable is a far stretch to charging that person with a felony.

You've cited the conundrum between rights and responsibilities. All amendments to the Constitution lack any mention of responsibilities in exercising those rights; that's what laws and courts are meant to do. Liability and criminal responsibility can't be necessarily predicted, so no law can be passed which foresees violations; it's called prior restraint.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I disagree, in my opinion there can be criminal liability associated with gun ownership that does not come into conflict with the second.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

Prior Restraint applies to the 1st Amendment and has nothing to do with this case.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

The judge sentenced both parents to 10-15 years in prison.
Case closed.

pendennis

Never said that abuse of rights didn't bring civil or criminal liability. Abusing the 2nd Amendment is covered by various civil and criminal laws, just as other torts and criminal liabilities are for other rights' abuses.

pendennis

Hardly. Both defendants are filing appeals. When this case gets into the appellate level, judges and justices will be deciding on issues of the law. That is a crap shoot. I wouldn't be surprised if this got into Federal courts. There are US Constitutional issues that will need addressing. The main one is the parents not participating the actual crime. U.S. law has long held that a person has to be a participant in a crime before they're charged with it.

pendennis

You are correct.

One cannot be prosecuted or sued before a crime or tort is committed.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

They supplied the gun.
That seams like participation.

pendennis

That's one of those hair-splitting conditions. Yes, the son took the pistol, but until someone proves positively that the Crumbleys intentionally left the gun safe unlocked (I believe both denied that), then it would have been nearly impossible to prove their intent.

According to attorneys who have defended these types of cases, case law requires direct participation to be accused of manslaughter/murder. The Crumbleys weren't at the scene of the murders.

I watched the defendants' sentencing hearing, and neither one seemed genuinely remorseful. Their statements were monotonously read by them, and likely lacked any remorse. There was a lawyer who stated that the Crumbleys would only perfunctorily provide statements. They couldn't admit to anything because their attorneys are filing appeals. Any statement(s) by defendants in open court could be used against their own interests. I didn't expect for those two to ever plead for forgiveness.