pendennis wrote:
Don't get too smug. The county prosecutor is not on very solid ground, and convinced a local judge that involuntary manslaughter was the call based on the pistol only; there are no grand juries in Michigan, normally. The Crumbley's (assuming the husband is also convicted) will certainly appeal the verdict, either in state and/or Federal court.
What if the weapon had been a knife, or a baseball bat, etc.? Would the parents still be liable? The logical conclusion would be to prosecute any parent whose child used any weapon in a crime. By the time a juvenile gets to the murderer's age, "alea iacta est!".
Don't get me wrong. The Crumbley's are scum, but does that rise to the level of criminal culpability by them?
I've been following this local case since the shooting. There are a number of attorneys in the area who disagreed with the prosecutor. They're certainly guilty of child neglect statutes, but in every case prior to this, a person charged with involuntary manslaughter has to have been an active participant. If the prosecutor's logic is followed, then the passenger in a vehicle where the driver was drunk and k**led someone, could have the same culpability. i.e Why didn't the passenger take the keys from the driver?
Don't get too smug. The county prosecutor is not ... (
show quote)
You make valid points that may be addressed in appeals. However, for years gun owners have touted that they are entitled to gun ownership without restrictions. I have no dispute with this idea at this time. However, parents have always been held responsible for the actions of their children whether it is a broken window by a baseball or a dent in a car by a bicycle, parents assume the responsibility for their child's actions. This legal decision merely extends the parents' responsibility to greater acts of violence.