I’d argue that speeding in itself, while a contributory factor in some bad collisions, isn’t quite on the same plane as someone showing significant indications of likeliness to willingly harm others. Yeah the 20 MPH over would certainly communicate a particular disregard for some level of safety, but it would depend more on the circumstances. 20 MPH in a residential area? Yeah, problem. On the interstate? Why were you impeding traffic?Originally Posted by FrankB
“Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”
Exactly! This is why this sort of case is dangerous to parents. Glenn E. Meyer is much more able to spot warning signs, and I wouldn’t want him on the stand as a witness for the prosecution in a case against me.
Considering the number of children who are injured or killed due to negligent storage of a firearm - if it causes any pause for people who then reconsider and provide adequate and safe storage - I actually don't have a problem with it.
I have a problem with laws that say, "You have to lock up your gun in your home, period."
I do not have a problem with, "If you fail to secure a firearm and your child uses that firearm to murder people, you are culpable for manslaughter."
Just like you could be culpable for manslaughter if your child accidentally kills themself playing with the loaded .45 you keep under your pillow.
Let's take your scenario out farther. The parents take the license, the keys, steering wheel lock, and then the ignition coils, the wheels, and the tires. The child goes and reassembles the car and uses it to plow 4-kids over. - Is a jury that sees those reasonable measures going to convict the parent of manslaughter?
In your situation - taking reasonable action to prevent injury is doing your job as a parent (and thus not neglectful).
What folks seem to be missing is some simple points here. The parents had multiple opportunities to prevent tragedy and failed to act on any of those. They had opportunities up to and including the ability to prevent the crime until almost the moment it occurred. They actively neglected their child's well being and then gave him the opportunities and means to murder and permanently injure multiple people.
You guys are letting the 'narrative' of 'parents are responsible, since child is responsible' paint your objectivity. When you take a moment and simply look at the facts of the case, it's actually a fairly straight forward case. If you have a legal responsibility (which you do as a guardian) and neglect that responsibility, and may in fact actively make things more likely to occur, you can and should be held criminally and civilly liable for your actions.
I'm not even sure what the real issue is here. Besides folks seemingly conflating "failing to act" and "not enough action" as being the same (they are not).
I think there are two threads here....
1. Are the parents guilty? ... and I think taken in isolation, the answer, in this specific case, is yes...
2. Under what set of circumstances does a parents action/inaction now, given this precedent, become criminal...
There are endless scenarios that we could discuss, straight out of reality, where a kid with a pattern of going against the rules winds up injuring someone..... I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder where this new line of criminal culpability for parents is now drawn...
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
In ancient days when I was in high school we had multiple incidents of the 'kids access booze and car keys while Mom and Dad are away' variety. IIRC 3 fatalities and a couple of maimings. There were zero incidents involving guns,
To my knowledge keys, booze, and guns were never secured. I'm not sure I knew gun safes existed - gun ownership was very common, but the closest thing to a safe was a wood and glass cabinet with hunting scenes etched into the glass, and the key left in the door. Most people has handguns in sock drawers and long guns leaning in a closet.
Today is much different, of course, In my state it's a felony if a kid access your guns, even if no harm is done.
I confess this seems a little odd to me. Imagine explaining to someone from Alpha Centauri: "if you drive drunk and kill someone, after you get out of prison you can never own a gun again, but of course you can have a car and booze". Or if you stab someone you can't have guns, but can have knives.
We're not going back to the Good Olde Days, but it seems a bit strange when you step back and look at it.
(If I were king, when you turned 18, you'd get a G-for-guns and A-for-alcohol endorsement on your license. If you did something wrong with a gun while sober, you lose the G. If you do something wrong while drunk, whether it involved guns, cars, or your fists, you lose the A.)
Admittedly, I haven't read a damn thing about this. One particular instance of parents being held liable doesnt concern me, the implications do. Parents, gun manufacturers, FFLs, and so on are not responsible for the acts of an individual. Children are however an obvious gray area, and this time may be obviously the parents at fault.
In many places school systems are considered "in loco parentis" with all the authority and responsibility of a parent. Should the school system be liable because they were "in loco parentis" when it occurred?
Food for thought.
The cogent risks to gun rights will be lawsuits against LGS, social media and manufacturers. If they don't break a law, I don't see them as legally responsible. On the other hand, if I were a manufacturer I would certainly cut down or modify the 'blood lust' or macho themes in advertising. That's being used in suits as priming aggressive ideation leading to incidents. The research is shaky on whether you can prime a normal person into becoming a rampager. Does the advertising channel the actions of someone already pathological, perhaps. For the LGS, problematic - how do you evaluate a kid just turned 18 with no noticeable firearms experience who wants an AR? A LGS near me said that the new NYS rifle permit laws cut down his business as a significant proportion of sales were those 18 year olds buying our NYS Frankstein ARs.
Cloud Yeller of the Boomer Age
@Cory makes an interesting point about the school's liability. I just got off the phone with a retired homicide detective whose son attended Oxford High, knew the killer, and passed him in the hall minutes before the shooting. He advised me that the SRO, who had the authority to pull young Crumbley out of school, was not included in either of the two faculty meetings about Ethan Crumbley prior to the shooting. Moreover, he advised me that under Michigan law the school authorities were "mandated reporters," but did not report the killer's homicidal ideations prior to the atrocity, and permitted him to remain on the premises.
Glad to see you chime in. Spoke with a friend recently and recommended he look into your thoughts on post-shooting as a deputy. He thinks you're "that flashlight guy" due to FDLE curriculum, and I had a good laugh.
While I'm certain the school will be civilly liable, I'm unsure about criminally. Do you have any insight?
Reply With Quote