MI - 4 students killed, 6 injured, Oxford High School shooting, 30 Nov 2021 *Arrest incl parents* #2

[everybodhi]

I do not think highly of the Crumbleys (see my past posts in this thread), and I may be gullible, but I do kind of believe that the “fugitives on the run” thing may have been a miscommunication. They could have been told their lawyers were taking care of the appoint for turning themselves in and did not know about this 4pm arraignment (because their phones were off? Because they thought all calls would go to their lawyers?). I believe the lawyers assumed that they would be informed. I believe they weren’t. Now parts are still sketchy… going out of contact was sketchy if true. But I’d be open minded to hear more.

I mean, were the Crumbleys reached about being required to show up at 4pm?

What time was the ATM retrieval and what time did notice to appear go through? Did they go to the bank in Rochester Hills to get the money for the retainer, so that the lawyers could put in NTA? And then go back to their hide out awaiting word on this appointment to turn themselves in? I’m no legal expert, welcome other thoughts.

How can one wait on word on an appointment to turn themselves in for an arraignment if they turn their phone off?

 

[Estelle]

I think laying blame on the parents of children who break the law has to be applied across the board, or not at all. Everyone who has raised a 15 year old child knows that parents know almost nothing about what their children are thinking at that age. I don't think the parents had any idea what their son was thinking or feeling about life at school.

After the shooting they noticed that the gun was missing, not before. No one at the school told them that they thought their son was going to shoot up the school, and it doesn't look like it occurred to the parents until after it happened.

I also take issue with the fact that the child is charged as an adult, meaning he had the ability to form the intent to commit the criminal act in the same way as an adult, but at the same time the child was so young that his parents should have managed him better. Which is it? Was he thinking as an adult, or did he still require parental intervention for guidance, supervision and mental health care?

I realise that you are speaking from a legal perspective, but my background is in psychology and from what I've seen from the SM posts the parents made and what the school discovered and knew about, IMO the writing was on the wall, so to speak. No preventative measures were taken by the school or the parents.

 

[RANCH]

If the Crumbley's went to Detroit for their safety from vigilantes why did they need $4000 in cash? Seems to me that they needed the cash to avoid LE tracing their whereabouts from credit/debit card transactions. JMO.

 

[passionflower]

JC wrote in a letter that her mother was a teacher so she knows the school system well. Yet didn’t co operate by taking her son home.

 

[ilovewings]

I think laying blame on the parents of children who break the law has to be applied across the board, or not at all. Everyone who has raised a 15 year old child knows that parents know almost nothing about what their children are thinking at that age. I don't think the parents had any idea what their son was thinking or feeling about life at school.

After the shooting they noticed that the gun was missing, not before. No one at the school told them that they thought their son was going to shoot up the school, and it doesn't look like it occurred to the parents until after it happened.

I also take issue with the fact that the child is charged as an adult, meaning he had the ability to form the intent to commit the criminal act in the same way as an adult, but at the same time the child was so young that his parents should have managed him better. Which is it? Was he thinking as an adult, or did he still require parental intervention for guidance, supervision and mental health care?

Michigan shooting suspect is among thousands of U.S. minors charged as adults yearly

This article discusses the pros and cons of charging juveniles as adults. For me, when a crime is so heinous as this one, I believe the juvenile should be charged as an adult. I believe he committed an adult crime regardless of his age.

 

[Snoopster]

I think laying blame on the parents of children who break the law has to be applied across the board, or not at all. Everyone who has raised a 15 year old child knows that parents know almost nothing about what their children are thinking at that age. I don't think the parents had any idea what their son was thinking or feeling about life at school.

After the shooting they noticed that the gun was missing, not before. No one at the school told them that they thought their son was going to shoot up the school, and it doesn't look like it occurred to the parents until after it happened.

I also take issue with the fact that the child is charged as an adult, meaning he had the ability to form the intent to commit the criminal act in the same way as an adult, but at the same time the child was so young that his parents should have managed him better. Which is it? Was he thinking as an adult, or did he still require parental intervention for guidance, supervision and mental health care?

I have a different opinion. Blanket approaches don't account for individual circumstances.
I agree that parents rarely know what is going on in their 15 year old's mind. And, they normally shouldn't be held accountable. But they were shown the drawing at school and they dismissed it. No rational parent would dismiss that. They were given evidence and they chose to ignore it (and right after they bought him a deadly weapon!)

 

[ilovewings]

I think laying blame on the parents of children who break the law has to be applied across the board, or not at all. Everyone who has raised a 15 year old child knows that parents know almost nothing about what their children are thinking at that age. I don't think the parents had any idea what their son was thinking or feeling about life at school.

After the shooting they noticed that the gun was missing, not before. No one at the school told them that they thought their son was going to shoot up the school, and it doesn't look like it occurred to the parents until after it happened.

I also take issue with the fact that the child is charged as an adult, meaning he had the ability to form the intent to commit the criminal act in the same way as an adult, but at the same time the child was so young that his parents should have managed him better. Which is it? Was he thinking as an adult, or did he still require parental intervention for guidance, supervision and mental health care?

You cannot apply the law across the aboard as you suggest because every situation is different. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

 

[MoeInVA]

Everything about this prosecutor's reaction to the shooting seems emotional rather than legal. It seems like selective information is released, and we have the prosecutor making statements like this:

"Owning a gun means securing it properly and locking it and keeping the ammunition separate," [prosecutor Karen McDonald] said.
​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/michigan-school-shooting-charges-1.6269907

"Michigan has no law covering the storage of weapons in private homes, and only limited ability to charge a gun owner if a carelessly stored"
​

The Detroit News

Why is the prosecutor stating that a gun must be properly secured and locked with ammunition in a separate location when there is no Michigan law covering the storage of weapons in private homes?

After checking the prosecutor's statements against Michigan gun law, I wonder whether the prosecutor doesn't know law, is trying to get people worked up, or is too emotionally involved to be factual.

I disagree with you in that I was very pleased with the prosecutor’s statements and swift prosecution of the parents in this case. I believe her words and actions - prior to this “offenders on the run” thing - were absolutely appropriate and would save lives by making parents think twice, three times etc. I believe that reality check is needed in the U.S.

I worry that they could have taken “aggressive prosecution” too far with failing to stick with normal courtesies. Eg make a courtesy call to the attorneys on record in media and in their texts/voicemails, even if there wasn’t a NTA filed yet?

If true, this could undermine case a bit in public eye. Moo- again not a legal expert. Unverified PR expert tho.

 

[angelainwi]

I think laying blame on the parents of children who break the law has to be applied across the board, or not at all. Everyone who has raised a 15 year old child knows that parents know almost nothing about what their children are thinking at that age. I don't think the parents had any idea what their son was thinking or feeling about life at school.

After the shooting they noticed that the gun was missing, not before. No one at the school told them that they thought their son was going to shoot up the school, and it doesn't look like it occurred to the parents until after it happened.

I also take issue with the fact that the child is charged as an adult, meaning he had the ability to form the intent to commit the criminal act in the same way as an adult, but at the same time the child was so young that his parents should have managed him better. Which is it? Was he thinking as an adult, or did he still require parental intervention for guidance, supervision and mental health care?

I view this case as very unique because a violent, graphic picture was drawn and discovered and shown to parents who had JUST purchased their son a gun. A 15 year old who draws that kind of picture should not have any access to guns. Even if there were no warning signs before that drawing, it was the largest red flag one could see. And the blatant non-response to the school regarding searching for ammo and instead texting her son just keeps piling on. How the parents refused to take him home is mind-blowing.

And I believe the school should have suspended him. He should NOT have been allowed to return to class until he was psychologically evaluated and cleared to be safe to return.

 

[otto]

For the 8,000th time, THAT'S NOT WHAT BEING CHARGED AS AN ADULT MEANS. I've already linked the Michigan law for you, YOU don't get to make up your own definitions when the law is clearly spelled out. His crime ticks every box for being charged in the adult system vs. the juvenile system, and it doesn't change the fact that the parents actively contributed (literally) to the crime. It is illegal to give a 15 year old a handgun, period. Moo.

They didn't give him a gun. They purchased a gift for Christmas, and it sounds like his mother intended to supervise him using the gun.

 

[otto]

I have a different opinion. Blanket approaches don't account for individual circumstances.
I agree that parents rarely know what is going on in their 15 year old's mind. And, they normally shouldn't be held accountable. But they were shown the drawing at school and they dismissed it. No rational parent would dismiss that. They were given evidence and they chose to ignore it (and right after they bought him a deadly weapon!)

The son said the drawing was related to a video game and it sounds like the school and the parents accepted that explanation. No one asked whether he had access to a gun after seeing the drawing.

 

[Turkeytrot]

I don't think for a second that his parents didn't *think* about him possibly having the gun at school that day. They just didn't bring it up.

I mean really, it was purchased just days before as a gift for him...they're called to the school, his violent drawing depicting a shooting..mom and dad didn't think to mention anything? I don't buy that.

Jmo

 

[otto]

You cannot apply the law across the aboard as you suggest because every situation is different. Each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

I'm skeptical of law that is applied unequally.

 

[Estelle]

I'm skeptical of law that is applied unequally.

Otto, you sound as if you should be their defense attorney!

 

[MoeInVA]

How can one wait on word on an appointment to turn themselves in for an arraignment if they turn their phone off?

Bodhi- please do not get me to write out the entire defense strategy for them. Let’s just say:

There are understandable reasons why phones could have been turned off. They may have given trusted sources an alternate contact.

BUT it seems like there was quite a stretch (how long?) where even their lawyers couldn’t reach them?? THAT seems problematic.

 

[ilovewings]

I'm skeptical of law that is applied unequally.

But it isn't applying the law unequally- each case is different- this case is a perfect example. Most prosecutors do not charge the parents of a student who shoots someone with involuntary manslaughter. However, the prosecutor evaluated the facts of this particular case and felt strongly that involuntary manslaughter was an appropriate charge in this case. The law is not black and white.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

School shooting suspect told counselors alarming drawings were for video game, superintendent says

... "When the parents were asked to take their son home for the day, they flatly refused and left without their son, apparently to return to work," Throne said. ...

This, plus their fugitive flight to Detroit, leaving their son on his own - almost sounds like they didn't / don't even want him. They specifically purchased and gifted him a gun ... were they hoping he would harm himself and/or others and they'd be rid of him? Really gotta wonder. JMO

 

[everybodhi]

States decide on gun law, presumably with a full understanding of all possible consequences. If parents of children with guns will be charged when a child uses the gun for murder, that should be included in the gun law. Every time a gang member under the age of 18 shoots someone, the parents should be charged as well. Make parents accountable 100% of the time, or not at all.

There is a bill that was introduced in MI this summer to hold parents responsible if they allow minors access to guns resulting in death but it is already illegal for a child to own a gun, so if a parent gives their child a 9 millimeter as an early Christmas gift, they are breaking the law.
There is also some precedent for parents being charged when their children kill with the parents gun

Parents of school shooters are rarely charged

Cevallos cited the 2018 case People v. Head in which the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a man was responsible for involuntary manslaughter after he allowed his kids to have access to a gun. The defendant's 9-year-old son was fatally shot by his 10-year-old daughter in November 2015 after a shotgun was left in a "readily accessible location in his home."

He said the charges are a "good strategic choice only because as recently as 2018, a similar theory of liability was upheld."

"They have a clear path to a conviction, if they have the evidence," Cevallos said. "Does this herald a new era of holding parents responsible for homicides committed by their children? Maybe."

Guns used in school shootings often come from a family member's home. In 45 percent of incidents involving school shooters under the age of 18 where the gun source was identified, 74 percent of shooters obtained the gun or guns from their home or the homes of relatives or friends

Michigan Sen. Rosemary Bayer, whose district includes Oxford High School, introduced a bill in the state Legislature in June seeking to hold parents accountable if they fail to secure firearms. Under that bill, if a minor obtains a gun and uses it to injure or kill others, the adult would face up to five years in prison.

"This kind of bill, specifically about making sure that children don't have access to your guns, reduces the number of times children use guns to shoot," Bayer told NBC News.

Mother of Indiana school shooter sentenced to probation

A Wayne County judge this past week accepted guilty pleas from Mary Ann York, 44, on four child neglect charges for not removing guns from her home after her son threatened to kill students and not making sure he received counseling and took medications for his mental health issues.

The judge sentenced York to 2½ years of probation that includes 60 hours of community service. Prosecutors dropped two other charges in the plea agreement.

York apologized during a court hearing, saying she wanted to work with children to spread mental health and suicide awareness, the Palladium-Item reported.

 

[Estelle]

School shooting suspect told counselors alarming drawings were for video game, superintendent says

... "When the parents were asked to take their son home for the day, they flatly refused and left without their son, apparently to return to work," Throne said. ...

This, plus their fugitive flight to Detroit, leaving their son on his own - almost sounds like they didn't / don't even want him. They specifically purchased and gifted him a gun ... were they hoping he would harm himself and/or others and they'd be rid of him? Really gotta wonder. JMO

BBM I have also been wondering this.

 

[MoeInVA]

I don't think for a second that his parents didn't *think* about him possibly having the gun at school that day. They just didn't bring it up.

I mean really, it was purchased just days before as a gift for him...they're called to the school, his violent drawing depicting a shooting..mom and dad didn't think to mention anything? I don't buy that.

Jmo

100 percent