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

[BrownRice]

Unfortunately, "suck it up," is a pretty common way of parenting. Tough love, and all that...

In EC's case, I doubt another type of parent could have fared any better because I think EC is a psychopath.

I suppose they could have put him on psychotropic drugs, but haven't other mass shooters been taking those?

I think EC was a ticking time bomb and that he would have gone off sooner or later, no matter who parented him. Sometimes, I think madness is inborne and there's no real escaping it.

JMOO

I guess we will never know if he could have had a better outcome if he had received appropriate parenting and mental health support. Would have been helpful to have had family members or long time family friends comment on his behavior, coping mechanisms, relationships, etc.

I assume there’s plenty of psychopaths amongst us who live normal lives (whatever that means) with treatment and medication. Not all have parents who dismiss them and leave them to fend for themselves, resulting in school shootings.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks for the link @cottonweaver.

Im just sitting here thinking how extremely sad it is that shooting safety assessments are such a huge thing now in our schools and society. We never had this problem back in my day. Now kids practice on the regular what to do when a shooter attacks. (We had other problems in my days, but not shootings.) But here we are. What a cluster. I’m angry.

From the article you linked: “The report released Monday examines the high school’s current threat and suicide assessment procedures, as well as safety and security policies. The report found that Oxford’s policies largely follow leading national best practices, but pointed out some improvements, including an inconsistency in how often staff ask students assessed for threats about access to weapons.”

The full report is here - it's long but skim-able and there's a short version, the ' Executive Summary '
https://www.scribd.com/document/681194508/Final-Report-Ocs-Investigation

I wouldn't like to be a teacher these days. Having said that OHS threat assessments were deficient according to the report.

 

[GRT]

Do you think parents should ever be legally a responsible party, too, if their teenager takes the household gun to school? Or do you think that no matter what, the parents should be legally immune? Do you think we should look at which cases cross that line and why, or do you think the line simply can't be crossed?

I think that's a fair question.

I think parents can (and should) be held responsible if their actions are criminal. But, I think they can only be held responsible for what they were liable for--in EC's case--I think they might be guilty of child endangerment, maybe of child neglect too, but probably not of a charge that links them to the killings. To me, that's a stretch--given the two legal descriptions of the crime given to the jury. I don't think the parents meet either of those levels.

I think it's a case-by-case basis. One of the problems I see is that if the jury finds JC guilty of manslaughter based on her lack of judgment in not taking EC out of school or not getting him psychiatric help--that sets a precedent that gives the state power to overrule basic parental choices.

I think EC's age plays a role, too. Had he been in 2nd Grade and he put the gun in his backpack and shot his classmates, I think there would be a much stronger case against his parents.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

One said the jury needed to find that she had a legal duty to the victims. I think that would be very hard to establish. That would mean every person has a legal duty to every other person on the planet. I think that's a stretch.

Sometimes every person does have a legal duty toward the public, though, such as when deciding whether to drive after consuming drugs or alcohol, for example. Or allowing a very intoxicated friend to drive. Why is it different when a parent decides to provide a teenager (and an unhappy one, at that) with a weapon that he could easily use impulsively? Why would there be a different duty of care?

 

[ChatteringBirds]

If Jennifer is found "not guilty," do you think they might charge James with something different or add an additional charge?

 

[GRT]

Sometimes every person does have a legal duty toward the public, though, such as when deciding whether to drive after consuming drugs or alcohol, for example. Or allowing a very intoxicated friend to drive. Why is it different when a parent decides to provide a teenager (and an unhappy one, at that) with a weapon that he could easily use impulsively? Why would there be a different duty of care?

I think legal duty, as you mention it, is clearly defined in the law. We have actual legal alcohol limits for driving. When a driver is intoxicated, they're breaking the law as soon as they get behind the wheel.

But, there is no law (in MI) against buying a firearm for a minor, and many families buy their children guns and then take them to the range to shoot or take them hunting.

So, to me, EC's case hinges on whether JC could have predicted that her son would be a mass shooter. And I don't think the prosecution has come close to establishing that. MOO.

EC might have been depressed, and I think he was a spoiled brat, but there's a long way from those personality issues to killing classmates. I don't think JC could have foreseen it, and as I understand it, that's what the jury must find to convict her.

Why didn't they charge her with something more easily established?

There's always a chance the jury will convict, but from what I've heard in the trial, I could not do it in good conscience in this case.

 

[GRT]

If Jennifer is found "not guilty," do you think they might charge James with something different or add an additional charge?

IF JC is found not guilty, I think the state will either not charge James or will charge him with something easier to prove, like child endangerment.

If JC is found guilty, I think they will charge James with the same charges, because both parent's lack of awareness and judgment are very similar.

However, I think guilty convictions could be overturned on appeal.

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't remember the prosecution questioning the woman who sold the gun to JC and EC being questioned about any comments they made about the gun being a gift for EC.​

Did I miss it?​

​

The dealer that sold the gun used in the Oxford High School shooting is being sued​

JUNE 29, 2022 7:47 PM ET

'The suit filed by the Mueller family alleges negligence on the part of both the school district and Acme. It claims the dealer sold the gun to Crumbley's father "despite actual and/or constructive knowledge that the father was engaging in an illicit straw purchase ... and that the Acme gun was intended for the shooter."

A straw purchase is when an individual purchases a gun on behalf of someone else while falsely claiming the purchase is for themselves. According to the lawsuit, both Crumbley and his father made comments in Acme's store that indicated the gun was actually intended for the then-15-year-old. The sales clerk sold the gun to the father anyway.'

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108698652/oxford-high-school-shooting-gun-dealer-sued

The manager witness is not the employee who sold the Sig Sauer to JC on 26th but JC did sign the form to certify that he was buying the gun and that it was not for somebody else because that would be illegal, at 12mins at the video link.

James C's trial supposed to start next month, this point might be raised there - the seller was negligent not me?

 

[Gardenista]

I go back and forth on this all the time. We all know how juveniles who commit crimes often have terrible parents. When a juvenile gets arrested, should we charge their parents with a crime? I actually think I'd be ok with that lol

 

[Cool Cats]

Thrust or no trust she was texting Kira within 1.5 minutes of leaving the school parking lot about her riding lesson later in the day( she didn't cancel it) and asking if the vet had been there yet for Billy's leg.
It's a prime example of where her priority was immediately after leaving the school meeting.

I don't remember if the state grilled her and got any answer from her on what "stupid" and "dumb" thing was she in fear that her son would do?

She did testify that she gave James the papers to start looking for mental help for EC.

When she called her horse trainer right after the school meeting she tried to fit Ethan into her schedule rather than bend her schedule to better fit him.

She said he couldn't be left alone so she would bring him with her and have him look at horses. Both she and the horse trainer agreed it would be good therapy for him. Note, she didn't ask Ethan what he wanted to do. I think her priorities were to work, horse ride and have affairs and Ethan had to be fitted in to her schedule. This being a prime example.

She did text Ethan to tell him he could talk to them about anything - no judgement. Unfortunately, by this time it was too little too late.

2 Cents

 

[cottonweaver]

I go back and forth on this all the time. We all know how juveniles who commit crimes often have terrible parents. When a juvenile gets arrested, should we charge their parents with a crime? I actually think I'd be ok with that lol

Same. IDK what the answer is on precedent

Minor gang member who lives with parents in MI and parents know he has a gun & parents know he is a proven delinquent ( although not mentally sick) shoots up the convenience store, killing two.

I appreciate that the appeal court said the Crumbley case is unique circumstances but you can certainly see parallels.

 

[MrsWatson]

I'm also bothered by EC not testifying. To me (again, all MOO), that smacks of not allowing the defendant to have the best defense possible. I get that his attorney may not want him testifying--or that they fear he would take the fifth--but he's still the best witness, and I feel we should have heard from him. I think that might pave the way for an appeal right off the bat.

Ethan's attorney made clear he would be invoking his constitutional right to remain silent.


The judge presiding over the trial of Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley’s mother said she would not allow the gunman to testify if he invokes his Fifth Amendment right, as his attorneys have previously indicated he would.

The Fifth Amendment protects a person from being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The amendment is often invoked to avoid answering specific questions during testimony.

“It’s not that I’m saying you can’t call him as a witness, but two of his attorneys have said in no uncertain terms that he’s taking the Fifth,” Judge Cheryl Matthews told defense attorney Shannon Smith in court Friday.


“I am going to prohibit you from putting any witness on the stand who takes the Fifth in front of the jury, that is strictly prohibited,” the judge said.

***

Ethan Crumbley’s attorneys have indicated they will not waive privilege or confidentiality for his medical records, the testimony of his doctors, or his own testimony. A Sunday letter from his attorneys indicated he’s been advised to invoke his Fifth Amendment right if called to testify as the appeal of his life sentence without the possibility of parole remains pending.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/26/us/ethan-crumbley-fifth-amendment-testimony/index.html

 

[Cool Cats]

This is from 2022. I would like to find out what happens with this case. Can the plaintiff prove the gun dealer knew the gun was for Ethan?

The dealer that sold the gun used in the Oxford High School shooting is being sued​

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108698652/oxford-high-school-shooting-gun-dealer-sued

This is the first federal lawsuit filed in relation to the shooting at Oxford High School that brings claims specifically against Acme Shooting Goods, the weapons dealer.​

The suit filed by the Mueller family alleges negligence on the part of both the school district and Acme. It claims the dealer sold the gun to Crumbley's father "despite actual and/or constructive knowledge that the father was engaging in an illicit straw purchase ... and that the Acme gun was intended for the shooter."

A straw purchase is when an individual purchases a gun on behalf of someone else while falsely claiming the purchase is for themselves. According to the lawsuit, both Crumbley and his father made comments in Acme's store that indicated the gun was actually intended for the then-15-year-old. The sales clerk sold the gun to the father anyway.

 

[cottonweaver]

Unfortunately, "suck it up," is a pretty common way of parenting. Tough love, and all that...

In EC's case, I doubt another type of parent could have fared any better because I think EC is a psychopath.

I suppose they could have put him on psychotropic drugs, but haven't other mass shooters been taking those?

I think EC was a ticking time bomb and that he would have gone off sooner or later, no matter who parented him. Sometimes, I think madness is inborne and there's no real escaping it.

JMOO

I tried to read all the different psych tests and evaluations done on him, Defense and Pros experts ( Miller hearing is on Youtube) but I don't recall any which found inherent psychopathy.

I agree that he seemed like a ticking time bomb but the reasons for that might be found in his early years development. ( Posted the links to details on that in the last thread. If you're really interested in it, it's quite jaw-dropping. The recollections from family friends, in the media, about the parenting of EC was also shocking but that didn't come in to Jennifer's trial)
If one was to raise a child in this way, imo you could expect trouble down the line.

 

[Cool Cats]

I tried to read all the different psych tests and evaluations done on him, Defense and Pros experts ( Miller hearing is on Youtube) but I don't recall any which found inherent psychopathy.

I agree that he seemed like a ticking time bomb but the reasons for that might be found in his early years development. ( Posted the links to details on that in the last thread. If you're really interested in it, it's quite jaw-dropping. The recollections from family friends, in the media, about the parenting of EC was also shocking but that didn't come in to Jennifer's trial)
If one was to raise a child in this way, imo you could expect trouble down the line.

I am very interested. What page?

 

[IAMWAN]

If Jennifer is found "not guilty," do you think they might charge James with something different or add an additional charge?

I wonder about this as well however I do think that there is a chance they feel they have a stronger case against him as the person who actually purchased the weapon.

 

[cottonweaver]

I am very interested. What page?

the posts are scattered across pages but here are two on one page

GUILTY - MI - 4 students killed, 6 injured, Oxford High School shooting, 30 Nov 2021 *Arrest incl parents* *teen guilty* #5

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/opinion/mother-homicide-court-crumbley.html This is a wonderful comprehensive article from the New York Times about this case. It is behind a paywall though. There is a reason parents are not usually charged in cases like this-- it is a tall order to get a...

www.websleuths.com

and here's another one on that thread ( not sure if it's got the ' dig the hole and bury your own dog' details, or being desensitised to violent adult horror- Movies like Saw from aged 6. Somewhere there's also the family friend's account EC puts himself to bed at aged 6 at whatever time he wants, unsecured weapons too )

GUILTY - MI - 4 students killed, 6 injured, Oxford High School shooting, 30 Nov 2021 *Arrest incl parents* *teen guilty* #5

I think the difference is that this was Ethan's gun. Not anyone else's gun, his. He had made references in social media and his journal when he got it and how pleased he was with it. It was supposed to be an early Christmas present for him. MOO I agree with you. It’s hard to explain, but I...

www.websleuths.com

maybe the kid would've been better off being raised by one of the grandparents if willing but there's a social stigma against that too

 

[cottonweaver]

I wonder about this as well however I do think that there is a chance they feel they have a stronger case against him as the person who actually purchased the weapon.

If the Crumbleys were separated , James didn't live in same house where weapons were all stored maybe so.

and if Jennifer hadn't constantly referred to it as Ethan's gun, Ethan's early Christmas gift,
if she hadn't shown she approved of the purchase and EC having access to it on his own,
if she hadn't said stuff like ' just don't get caught ' 'did you show the teacher your gun? LOL' conversations.... maybe so

On cross, she said she was ticked off they'd gone to buy the gun on Black Friday only because it ate into time for an event she'd scheduled, not because they'd gone to buy Ethan the gun per se.

Anyway, verdict watch live stream

 

[IAMWAN]

If the Crumbleys were separated , James didn't live in same house where weapons were all stored maybe so.

and if Jennifer hadn't constantly referred to it as Ethan's gun, Ethan's early Christmas gift,
if she hadn't shown she approved of the purchase and EC having access to it on his own,
if she hadn't said stuff like ' just don't get caught ' 'did you show the teacher your gun? LOL' conversations.... maybe so

On cross, she said she was ticked off they'd gone to buy the gun on Black Friday only because it ate into time for an event she'd scheduled, not because they'd gone to buy Ethan the gun per se.

Maybe I didn't phrase my reply correctly -- What I meant was that, at the very LEAST, James is guilty of a straw purchase of the gun for Ethan. That is something they can prove, even with just the evidence that was admitted in Jennifer's case. So, while the purchase may have been approved of by both parents and both parents were aware that the gun was his, James is the one who purchased the gun in his name and signed the paperwork stating that the purchase was for HIM, while knowing that EC was paying for the gun and it was going to be "owned" by him regardless of what the paperwork said.

 

[cottonweaver]

Maybe I didn't phrase my reply correctly -- What I meant was that, at the very LEAST, James is guilty of a straw purchase of the gun for Ethan. That is something they can prove, even with just the evidence that was admitted in Jennifer's case. So, while the purchase may have been approved of by both parents and both parents were aware that the gun was his, James is the one who purchased the gun in his name and signed the paperwork stating that the purchase was for HIM, while knowing that EC was paying for the gun and it was going to be "owned" by him regardless of what the paperwork said.

Ah okay. what's the penalty for straw-purchase? if the state was to add that charge? It might be worth it.
Can the state now add that on this late? His trial due to start on March 6