• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

James Crumbley, the father of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter

Reptile

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
28,008
Likes
20,274
Feedback: 123 / 0 / 0

James Crumbley, the father of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for failing to safely store the gun his 15-year-old son used to kill four students​

  • James Crumbley, 47, has been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the Oxford school shooting
  • His son Ethan opened fire at the school in Oxford, Michigan , and murdered Hana St. Juliana, Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, and Justin Shilling
  • Crumbley and his wife Jennifer are the first parents in the US to be held responsible for a child carrying out a mass shooting at school

www.dailymail.co.uk

James Crumbley found guilty of involuntary manslaughter

Crumbley, 47, joins his wife Jennifer Crumbley who was also found guilty on February 6 of involuntary manslaughter for their part in the Oxford shooting that their son Ethan carried out.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk


5 Cases When Parents Were Convicted After a Shooting by Their Child​

The mother and father of a Michigan teenager who carried out a school shooting are among the parents who have been convicted of crimes in the aftermath.

www.nytimes.com

5 Cases When Parents Were Convicted After a Shooting by Their Child

The mother and father of a Michigan teenager who carried out a school shooting are among the parents who have been convicted of crimes in the aftermath.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Last edited:
Drix said:
I'm down for this conviction. Parents need to have some kind of responsibility for their children.
Click to expand...
Nope. This is criminalizing "failure to act". Criminal convictions are for something you did, not for something you didn't do. If the school was that worried, they should have called the cops, not sat on their hands after the parents left.

Now, sue their hind legs off, which does nothing to bring back the dead. However, "You didn't do this, so he did that, so then something occurred" is a rabbit hole we don't need to go down.

EDIT: Typo "dis" for "did".
 
Last edited:
Toast said:
Nope. This is criminalizing "failure to act". Criminal convictions are for something you dis, not for something you didn't do. If the school was that worried, they should have called the cops, not sat on their hands after the parents left.

Now, sue their hind legs off, which does nothing to bring back the dead. However, "You didn't do this, so he did that, so then something occurred" is a rabbit hole we don't need to go down.
Click to expand...
These parents did more than "fail to act". They purchased the gun for Ethan and allowed him to maintain it unsupervised. It wasn't simply not locking it up in an approved container. The parents had knowledge of Ethan's disturbed mind and texted him right before the shooting worried that he was about to do exactly what he did. The school did not know that the parents had provided him with this gun and had they known they may have taken action as you suggested.
 
eboos said:
These parents did more than "fail to act". They purchased the gun for Ethan and allowed him to maintain it unsupervised. It wasn't simply not locking it up in an approved container. The parents had knowledge of Ethan's disturbed mind and texted him right before the shooting worried that he was about to do exactly what he did. The school did not know that the parents had provided him with this gun and had they known they may have taken action as you suggested.
Click to expand...
No, despite your wanting it to be otherwise, with respect to the actual shooting all they did was fail to act, which is not justification for a criminal prosecution. None of their actions were illegal. Stupid, yes, illegal, no. Grounds for civil action, but not criminal.

Folding to the urge to punish someone for the acts of another is exactly why firearm ownership in Massachusetts is a Kafkaesque nightmare. Not stepping on the train is the first step to not being on it.
 
Toast said:
No, despite your wanting it to be otherwise, with respect to the actual shooting all they did was fail to act, which is not justification for a criminal prosecution. None of their actions were illegal. Stupid, yes, illegal, no. Grounds for civil action, but not criminal.

Folding to the urge to punish someone for the acts of another is exactly why firearm ownership in Massachusetts is a Kafkaesque nightmare. Not stepping on the train is the first step to not being on it.
Click to expand...
Purchasing your underage mentally ill son a firearm is not failure to act, it is acting.

He then, predictably, shot up his school just 4 days later. The parents had an idea that he would do this and failed to act on that information.

Failure to act satisfies #2, but not point #1.
 
Last edited:
Drix said:
Purchasing your underage mentally ill son a firearm is not failure to act, it is acting.

He then, predictably, shot up his school just 4 days later. The parents had an idea that he would do this and failed to act on that information.

Failure to act satisfies #2, but not point #1.
Click to expand...
Swing and a miss.

It may be a crime to buy the gun for him, and you seem to be implying that they illegally executed a straw purchase. However, if your theory held any water, a charge to that effect would have been filed against them as part of the typical "throw it all and see what sticks" mode of prosecution. As no such charge was filed, the action of buying the firearm would seem to be legal. Your "point #1" theory therefore fails.

With that established, it wasn't manslaughter as there's no criminal act that the parents performed that was incidental and directly linked to an illegal act of the parents. You're way out over your skis with "predictably", and despite your desire for vengeance, there is no cause for a criminal action on some trumped up theory of prosecution of manslaughter without a wholesale redefinition of the term.
 
Toast said:
Swing and a miss.

It may be a crime to buy the gun for him, and you seem to be implying that they illegally executed a straw purchase. However, if your theory held any water, a charge to that effect would have been filed against them as part of the typical "throw it all and see what sticks" mode of prosecution. As no such charge was filed, the action of buying the firearm would seem to be legal. Your "point #1" theory therefore fails.

With that established, it wasn't manslaughter as there's no criminal act that the parents performed that was incidental and directly linked to an illegal act of the parents. You're way out over your skis with "predictably", and despite your desire for vengeance, there is no cause for a criminal action on some trumped up theory of prosecution of manslaughter without a wholesale redefinition of the term.
Click to expand...

I didn't state at all they made a straw purchase, a gift is a gift, especially between a parent and child.

Fact is, both Crumbleys have been found guilty of multiple counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Guess that is what happens when you buy your kid who hears voices a gun.
 
Toast said:
Swing and a miss.

It may be a crime to buy the gun for him, and you seem to be implying that they illegally executed a straw purchase. However, if your theory held any water, a charge to that effect would have been filed against them as part of the typical "throw it all and see what sticks" mode of prosecution. As no such charge was filed, the action of buying the firearm would seem to be legal. Your "point #1" theory therefore fails.

With that established, it wasn't manslaughter as there's no criminal act that the parents performed that was incidental and directly linked to an illegal act of the parents. You're way out over your skis with "predictably", and despite your desire for vengeance, there is no cause for a criminal action on some trumped up theory of prosecution of manslaughter without a wholesale redefinition of the term.
Click to expand...
Nobody's talking about a straw purchase here but basically like if your kid is talking Ragtime about committing arson and then you buy him 20 gallons of gasoline right after and then somebody in the legal system gets pissed off at you over it and then charges you with being an accessory to arson when somebody's house gets burned down by your kid.
 
So, can a parent be held liable for the death of a fetus (child, in some places), if they fail to lock up their 15-year old that's in an embarrassing way, and they get an abortion?

Can a parent be held criminally liable if a kid opens the unlocked liquor cabinet or weed stash, and plays bumper-tag with a school bus?
 
MisterHappy said:
So, can a parent be held liable for the death of a fetus (child, in some places), if they fail to lock up their 15-year old that's in an embarrassing way, and they get an abortion?

Can a parent be held criminally liable if a kid opens the unlocked liquor cabinet or weed stash, and plays bumper-tag with a school bus?
Click to expand...
Parents are held liable for providing children alcohol regularly, as are bars and package stores.
 
Are you an accomplice if you furnish your children with tools to commit a crime despite being concerned that your child will commit said crime with the very same tools you provided?

Abso-f***ing-lutely. You knew it was a possibility, gave mental thought of concern a voice (text, in this case), and yet still let the kid have free access to the guns. No one knows your kids better than you do.


When does a parent no longer bear full responsibility for the actions of their child is the question we are asking. Where does it stop?
 
Last edited:
Drix said:
Parents are held liable for providing children alcohol regularly, as are bars and package stores.
Click to expand...
I think also like at least in a civil sense a typical jury is going to see a hugr difference between a kid breaking into the parent's liquor stash and the parent buying the kid a couple handles of vodka.... 🤣 one is just happenstance the latter is a "what did you think was going to happen, moron?" Type deal.
 
drgrant said:
I think also like at least in a civil sense a typical jury is going to see a hugr difference between a kid breaking into the parent's liquor stash and the parent buying the kid a couple handles of vodka.... 🤣 one is just happenstance the latter is a "what did you think was going to happen, moron?" Type deal.
Click to expand...
True, I knew locally of a case of parents who hosted a party for their high school son and friends and provided alcohol, someone died in a drunk driving accident on the way home and they were held criminally responsible, but it's a bit different depending on circumstances.
 
Agnotology said:
Are you an accomplice if you furnish your children with tools to commit a crime despite being concerned that your child will commit said crime with the very same tools you provided?
Click to expand...
There wsa reference to the kid looking for the gun his father hid. So, the father did appear to have sufficient concern not to allow his kid unsupervised access to the gun, but choose very poorly in how he implemented the access denial protocol. Hiding guns from kids does not work.
 
Drix said:
I didn't state at all they made a straw purchase, a gift is a gift, especially between a parent and child.

Fact is, both Crumbleys have been found guilty of multiple counts of involuntary manslaughter.

Guess that is what happens when you buy your kid who hears voices a gun.
Click to expand...
FFS, no one is debating if they were found guilty. It's a point of applying manslaughter to a clearly non-manslaughter situation in an attempt to "do something" and about how they were able to talk 24 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty into going along with them.

Drix said:
Parents are held liable for providing children alcohol regularly, as are bars and package stores.
Click to expand...
Because, stay with me now, there are explicit laws against that.
 
I mean what next? Stealing daddy's Charger and driving into a crowd of people, killing some and then daddy gets charged with involuntary manslaughter? Don't you people of the gun like to draw the line of what's a crime and what is bullshit?
 
G4Y4HK said:
I mean what next? Stealing daddy's Charger and driving into a crowd of people, killing some and then daddy gets charged with involuntary manslaughter? Don't you people of the gun like to draw the line of what's a crime and what is bullshit?
Click to expand...
Where is the line though. If my 11 year hits a baseball, and it goes through your window, I'm responsible as the parent for the damages my daughter caused. And it doesn't matter if she stole my baseball and bat to use or if I was pitching to her. It's still on me.

So where between wholesale murder and breaking a window should the line be drawn for parental responsibility for the actions of their children?
 
Agnotology said:
Where is the line though. If my 11 year hits a baseball, and it goes through your window, I'm responsible as the parent for the damages my daughter caused. And it doesn't matter if she stole my baseball and bat to use or if I was pitching to her. It's still on me.

So where between wholesale murder and breaking a window should the line be drawn for parental responsibility for the actions of their children?
Click to expand...
Civil vs criminal matters. Daddy absolutely will be sued and must pay for the window. Daddy doesn't have to go to jail for a trigger pulled by the son. Why can't we retroactively charge Nikolas Cruz's parents, or the Columbine kids' parents?
 
G4Y4HK said:
Civil vs criminal matters. Daddy absolutely will be sued and must pay for the window. Daddy doesn't have to go to jail for a trigger pulled by the son. Why can't we retroactively charge Nikolas Cruz's parents, or the Columbine kids' parents?
Click to expand...

So if the parents just got sued, you'd have no issue with it? It's the criminal trial / conviction you take issue with?

Nobody is or pressing charges suing Cruz's parents. His father is unknown, his mother was an addict (now dead) , and put him up for adoption. His first set of adoptive parents died, his adoptive mother 3 months before the shooting.

Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris parents both got sued by parents of children affected by the shooting.
 
G4Y4HK said:
I mean what next? Stealing daddy's Charger and driving into a crowd of people, killing some and then daddy gets charged with involuntary manslaughter? Don't you people of the gun like to draw the line of what's a crime and what is bullshit?
Click to expand...
I kept think of this analogy reading the whole thread. And for me the line in the sand isn't the kid took the keys, or they were even left in the ignition. But that, there was obvious concern the kid might try to run down a crowd of people with a car.... you don't go buy him a car, and hand him the keys.
Involuntary Manslaughter doesn't exactly fit in my definition. But there is clearly gross negligence of some sort.
 
Toast said:
No, despite your wanting it to be otherwise, with respect to the actual shooting all they did was fail to act, which is not justification for a criminal prosecution. None of their actions were illegal. Stupid, yes, illegal, no. Grounds for civil action, but not criminal.

Folding to the urge to punish someone for the acts of another is exactly why firearm ownership in Massachusetts is a Kafkaesque nightmare. Not stepping on the train is the first step to not being on it.
Click to expand...
This right here. As hard as it is for me to agree with the post, it's correct.

This conviction is a be careful what you wish for. Another slippery avalanche.

This country is so toast. I'm starting to think Canada is the footprint of what is to come. F'n scary.
 
peterk123 said:
This right here. As hard as it is for me to agree with the post, it's correct.

This conviction is a be careful what you wish for. Another slippery avalanche.

This country is so toast. I'm starting to think Canada is the footprint of what is to come. F'n scary.
Click to expand...
This country is already falling in the abyss. We just haven't hit bottom, yet
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
School Shooter Ethan Crumbley's Mom is convicted of manslaughter
Replies
5
Views
422
hillman
hillman
2 men found guilty of murder in Jam Master Jay killing
Replies
9
Views
264
inerlogic
inerlogic
Samuel Whittemore - The inventor of FAFO
Replies
7
Views
368
gerrycaruso
gerrycaruso
Nashville School Shooting: Federal Judge Orders Release of Transgender Shooter’s Journals
Replies
7
Views
267
bejay
B
TN Senate Passes Bill Allowing Armed Teachers After Covenant School Shooter Struck School with Least Security
Replies
1
Views
61
MaverickNH
MaverickNH
Back
Top Bottom