Ethan Crumbly's parents were more responsible for the death of those children than Ethan. At 15, Ethan's age when he committed the crime, neuroscientists tell us children's brains are not yet developed to the point they can fully understand the consequences of their actions. Add to that the obvious mental illness Ethan demonstrated in his drawings and writings, and he is even less culpable. Both Ethan's parents and the adults at the school let him down that fateful day. When his parents deserted him, the school, in loco parentis, realizing the severity of Ethan's problem, should have stepped up and called whatever juvenile resources the county/state had to remove him from the school. It was obvious from his notebook to anyone who has worked with youth, that he was in such a disturbed state that he might hurt himself or others. Even though no one knew about the gun, the one thought should have been to get Ethan to a safe space. The parents were legally negligent (which could have been worked out later). Ever heard of exigent circumstances? I would have had that boy in a safe space so fast your head would spin and worry about "parent's rights" after the fact. I suspect any juvenile court judge, seeing the notebook and hearing the parent's response to taking to child away from school, would have sided with child welfare's decision to remove Ethan from school and place him in a safe place. Then the gun could have been found and none of this would have happened. This is not 20/20 hindsight. My sister-in-law does this type of work every day in a SE Florida school district. Although nothing as tragic as Ethan's experience, she works with neglectful parents every day. There is usually where the problems begin and lie.
How long will it take for this precedent to roll down the slippery slope from 'parents with children who had obvious mental health issues' to just 'parents'? Not long, I imagine. Witness the 'safe, legal and rare' - a quote from President Clinton - to 'on demand' meaning 'not a baby till it leaves the hospital' - an entirely different quote by his wife a decade later. This is NOT an abortion discussion, this is just an example of public policy slipping down the hill. Yes, come at me with ad hominem attacks on abortion. It won't matter if I say I support it.
Many responsible parents have children who are out of control. No matter what measures are taken, some children will engage in destructive behavior. It sounds as if these parents were negligent, however, holding responsible parents responsible for their child's criminal behavior is very destructive in itself.
Novel legal theory, however well intended, ultimately unravels the rule of law, which is essential for our healthy society. If congressional lawmaking bringing accountability to parents is never going to happen, maybe there is a reason why. Also, maybe congress won't pass a law like the author wants, but states have jurisdiction here.
The fact pattern matters. While I understand the slipper slope argument presented by many here, the parents were, without question contributory here. They bought him a gun illegal for him to possess and did not secure the gun. They should be treated as accomplices. I say this as a target shooter and hunter. Guns need to be secured. Parents need to pay attention to their kids.
Former criminal law professional, both public defender and prosecutor,
There's no bright line principle here, and certainly no safe harbor, Each case has to be adjudicated on its own facts.
This one certainly seems like a fair result on the evidence. On the other hand, the Columbine killers went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their plans. Their parents would have had to be extremely intrusive to have found them out, which raises a whole slew of issues, since that sort of parenting raises issues of its own (adolescents of that age do have some rights - also, in the ordinary case, it's lousy parenting.)
The basic notion that parents can be culpable in some cases seems to me a good one,.
So, the well trained school administrators and, it seems, the teacher, were sure that this kid was a danger but they didn’t remove the kid themselves or notify the authorities that the kid was a danger. They just told the mother she should take the kid out of school. I suppose the mother probably should have taken the kid out of school but how can she be guilty of allowing the kid to commit the crime if the school administrators and the teacher have NO responsibility to do the same?
This is exactly what’s wrong with our institutions of higher education. The next step is (I promise you), the child bears no responsibility for the action and the parent bears all responsibility.
Let’s take this to its logical conclusion: the only reason mom didn’t stop the child is because her mother did not raise her properly and give her the tools necessary to teach the kid not to kill. We should put Grammy in jail too. This is just more ridiculous bullshit from the “it’s not his fault, it’s his upbringing “ group. NOBODY THAT DIRECTLY COMMITTED THE CRIME IS GUILTY, IT’S SOMEBODY ELSES FAULT.
I think it's an easy case to make that a parent is civilly liable for the misdeeds of their minor child. It's a much harder case to make that they are criminally liable.
We have laws on the books that establish when reckless or negligent conduct is a crime or constitutes being an accessory. Let's stick to those.
I’m not defending this mom, I think she was irresponsible and maybe should be charged with neglect or something. But she was prosecuted under a law that was not applicable to her. If prosecutors can do this, they can prosecute anyone for anything. The law basically becomes meaningless. If prosecutors want to prosecute parents for their crimes, then there needs to b a law put in place that says they can do so.
"Novel legal theory." THIS is what we need to throw the fear of God (or worse, the law) into these irresponsible parents. And they ARE irresponsible. I'm pro-2A, but I think owning a gun is like driving a car, it's not just a right, it's a *privilege* - and if you prove yourself to be too irresponsible to have either - by driving drunk or letting your kid access an unsecured gun, you are too stupid to own firearms (or drive). And it should come with a limit, like drunk driving: One infraction too many, and you lose your license permanently. Yeah, I know it won't stop people from driving or owning guns, but now they'll live with the lifelong fear of getting busted, and maybe going back to jail. The rights bring *responsibilities*. Too many 2A cheerleaders don't understand that. It's time we *make* them.
You’ve obviously havent studied “case law”…seinfeld season 9 episode 24…these people ARE gonna go to prison. Judged by a jury of their PEERS. Better hire jackie chiles.
You know how I know that you’re a queer leftist who has no children? This atrocity of an article. I hope you don’t get called back to write anything else for tFP.
If I wanted to read about lawyers who perverted the law in an effort to further punish people who suffered from a terrible tragedy I’d go to Reddit.
You actually and truly suck. Get some help. Nobody should have to live life so tormented.
However, you’re directing your anger at the wrong people. Why angry at the columnist and why angry at the prosecutor? It’s the jury you should be angry at. The first 2 are just doing a job. The prosecuting attorney even said “If the jury decides that they aren’t criminally culpable, I can live with that.”
This is vexatious litigation turned to nightmare. It’s like putting up some crackpot long shot legal theory because you know there’s a chance you’ll find 12 retards to agree or you’re a leftist in DC and trying to punish your enemy. Neither are ethical.
Now this will go to appeal and it will almost certainly be overturned. So what was accomplished?? I’ll tell you what: the children are still dead but the mother of one of the children (shooter) is now ruined as a human being (beyond already being ruined, now she’s financially ruined too). But yea, your winner takes all attitude is great for humanity. Never procreate please.
So, by an extension of this legal logic, if a parent has tried everything to get their troubled child the help they need with their mental illness but has been unable to access such help in a timely manner due to bureaucratic delays and indifference, will the bureaucrats involved then be held responsible for involuntary manslaughter? Will the politicians not funding this sort of help be held accountable?
My son, 17 years old, licensed to drive, picks up his friends after school, becomes distracted, gets into an accident and people die. I bought him the car.
If the author really believes that making an example of the Crumblys will somehow reduce the kind of shootings represented in this case, I invite him to explain why a life sentence and possible execution is powerless to prevent murder. They obviously didn't deter their kid. Why? He was mental. Mental people don't act rationally. Which is the very definition of the condition.
The author tries to make a rational case in an instance where rationality doesn't apply.
This particular verdict has been called by one writer, "caveman justice."
Ethan Crumbly's parents were more responsible for the death of those children than Ethan. At 15, Ethan's age when he committed the crime, neuroscientists tell us children's brains are not yet developed to the point they can fully understand the consequences of their actions. Add to that the obvious mental illness Ethan demonstrated in his drawings and writings, and he is even less culpable. Both Ethan's parents and the adults at the school let him down that fateful day. When his parents deserted him, the school, in loco parentis, realizing the severity of Ethan's problem, should have stepped up and called whatever juvenile resources the county/state had to remove him from the school. It was obvious from his notebook to anyone who has worked with youth, that he was in such a disturbed state that he might hurt himself or others. Even though no one knew about the gun, the one thought should have been to get Ethan to a safe space. The parents were legally negligent (which could have been worked out later). Ever heard of exigent circumstances? I would have had that boy in a safe space so fast your head would spin and worry about "parent's rights" after the fact. I suspect any juvenile court judge, seeing the notebook and hearing the parent's response to taking to child away from school, would have sided with child welfare's decision to remove Ethan from school and place him in a safe place. Then the gun could have been found and none of this would have happened. This is not 20/20 hindsight. My sister-in-law does this type of work every day in a SE Florida school district. Although nothing as tragic as Ethan's experience, she works with neglectful parents every day. There is usually where the problems begin and lie.
How long will it take for this precedent to roll down the slippery slope from 'parents with children who had obvious mental health issues' to just 'parents'? Not long, I imagine. Witness the 'safe, legal and rare' - a quote from President Clinton - to 'on demand' meaning 'not a baby till it leaves the hospital' - an entirely different quote by his wife a decade later. This is NOT an abortion discussion, this is just an example of public policy slipping down the hill. Yes, come at me with ad hominem attacks on abortion. It won't matter if I say I support it.
Many responsible parents have children who are out of control. No matter what measures are taken, some children will engage in destructive behavior. It sounds as if these parents were negligent, however, holding responsible parents responsible for their child's criminal behavior is very destructive in itself.
Novel legal theory, however well intended, ultimately unravels the rule of law, which is essential for our healthy society. If congressional lawmaking bringing accountability to parents is never going to happen, maybe there is a reason why. Also, maybe congress won't pass a law like the author wants, but states have jurisdiction here.
The fact pattern matters. While I understand the slipper slope argument presented by many here, the parents were, without question contributory here. They bought him a gun illegal for him to possess and did not secure the gun. They should be treated as accomplices. I say this as a target shooter and hunter. Guns need to be secured. Parents need to pay attention to their kids.
Former criminal law professional, both public defender and prosecutor,
There's no bright line principle here, and certainly no safe harbor, Each case has to be adjudicated on its own facts.
This one certainly seems like a fair result on the evidence. On the other hand, the Columbine killers went to extraordinary lengths to conceal their plans. Their parents would have had to be extremely intrusive to have found them out, which raises a whole slew of issues, since that sort of parenting raises issues of its own (adolescents of that age do have some rights - also, in the ordinary case, it's lousy parenting.)
The basic notion that parents can be culpable in some cases seems to me a good one,.
So, the well trained school administrators and, it seems, the teacher, were sure that this kid was a danger but they didn’t remove the kid themselves or notify the authorities that the kid was a danger. They just told the mother she should take the kid out of school. I suppose the mother probably should have taken the kid out of school but how can she be guilty of allowing the kid to commit the crime if the school administrators and the teacher have NO responsibility to do the same?
This is exactly what’s wrong with our institutions of higher education. The next step is (I promise you), the child bears no responsibility for the action and the parent bears all responsibility.
Let’s take this to its logical conclusion: the only reason mom didn’t stop the child is because her mother did not raise her properly and give her the tools necessary to teach the kid not to kill. We should put Grammy in jail too. This is just more ridiculous bullshit from the “it’s not his fault, it’s his upbringing “ group. NOBODY THAT DIRECTLY COMMITTED THE CRIME IS GUILTY, IT’S SOMEBODY ELSES FAULT.
I think it's an easy case to make that a parent is civilly liable for the misdeeds of their minor child. It's a much harder case to make that they are criminally liable.
We have laws on the books that establish when reckless or negligent conduct is a crime or constitutes being an accessory. Let's stick to those.
I’m not defending this mom, I think she was irresponsible and maybe should be charged with neglect or something. But she was prosecuted under a law that was not applicable to her. If prosecutors can do this, they can prosecute anyone for anything. The law basically becomes meaningless. If prosecutors want to prosecute parents for their crimes, then there needs to b a law put in place that says they can do so.
This article's mentality falls under "Someone has to pay for my grief and assuage my outrage."
"Novel legal theory." THIS is what we need to throw the fear of God (or worse, the law) into these irresponsible parents. And they ARE irresponsible. I'm pro-2A, but I think owning a gun is like driving a car, it's not just a right, it's a *privilege* - and if you prove yourself to be too irresponsible to have either - by driving drunk or letting your kid access an unsecured gun, you are too stupid to own firearms (or drive). And it should come with a limit, like drunk driving: One infraction too many, and you lose your license permanently. Yeah, I know it won't stop people from driving or owning guns, but now they'll live with the lifelong fear of getting busted, and maybe going back to jail. The rights bring *responsibilities*. Too many 2A cheerleaders don't understand that. It's time we *make* them.
You’ve obviously havent studied “case law”…seinfeld season 9 episode 24…these people ARE gonna go to prison. Judged by a jury of their PEERS. Better hire jackie chiles.
You know how I know that you’re a queer leftist who has no children? This atrocity of an article. I hope you don’t get called back to write anything else for tFP.
If I wanted to read about lawyers who perverted the law in an effort to further punish people who suffered from a terrible tragedy I’d go to Reddit.
You actually and truly suck. Get some help. Nobody should have to live life so tormented.
However, you’re directing your anger at the wrong people. Why angry at the columnist and why angry at the prosecutor? It’s the jury you should be angry at. The first 2 are just doing a job. The prosecuting attorney even said “If the jury decides that they aren’t criminally culpable, I can live with that.”
This is vexatious litigation turned to nightmare. It’s like putting up some crackpot long shot legal theory because you know there’s a chance you’ll find 12 retards to agree or you’re a leftist in DC and trying to punish your enemy. Neither are ethical.
Now this will go to appeal and it will almost certainly be overturned. So what was accomplished?? I’ll tell you what: the children are still dead but the mother of one of the children (shooter) is now ruined as a human being (beyond already being ruined, now she’s financially ruined too). But yea, your winner takes all attitude is great for humanity. Never procreate please.
So, by an extension of this legal logic, if a parent has tried everything to get their troubled child the help they need with their mental illness but has been unable to access such help in a timely manner due to bureaucratic delays and indifference, will the bureaucrats involved then be held responsible for involuntary manslaughter? Will the politicians not funding this sort of help be held accountable?
Just asking, but I think I know the answer.
My son, 17 years old, licensed to drive, picks up his friends after school, becomes distracted, gets into an accident and people die. I bought him the car.
Am I liable for involuntary manslaughter?
If u let him get drunk before he heads out u are. Nuance my friend, nuance.
If the author really believes that making an example of the Crumblys will somehow reduce the kind of shootings represented in this case, I invite him to explain why a life sentence and possible execution is powerless to prevent murder. They obviously didn't deter their kid. Why? He was mental. Mental people don't act rationally. Which is the very definition of the condition.
The author tries to make a rational case in an instance where rationality doesn't apply.
This particular verdict has been called by one writer, "caveman justice."