|Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
You have this unfavorable opinion because you're a rational thinking person.
This verdict is shameful, and our justice system is an absolute joke.
Those who are in favor of this conviction of the mother probably have also not followed this trial very closely at all.
Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country
Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan
"Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle
Really? No one on this forum is going to agree with that; you know it. ChicagoSigMan is simply expressing his opinion - nothing wrong with that. Respect that.
For Christmas during my sophomore year of high school (I think I was 15 then), my parents got me a Savage Anchutz .22LR target rifle. I had a nice soft-side case for it and it lived in my closet...except for the bolt and ammo. My father kept that. My folks were being responsible, not like this kid's parents.
I will agree this verdict comes with a slippery slope and I will be interested to see what comes out of the father's trial and any appeals.
“A man’s treatment of a dog is no indication of the man’s nature, but his treatment of a cat is. It is the crucial test. None but the humane treat a cat well.”
-- Mark Twain, 1902
this is stupid as fuck
another version of somebody else to blame
this sets a horrible precedent and opens the door to god knows what
bad parents-sure, but culpable for involuntary manslaughter?
We all live for a little while and then die sooner than we planned.
It looks to me like she was convicted for what her son did. That’s a terrible precedent. Had she been found guilty of bad parenting or negligence, okay, I can see that. But until now she would have to actively been involved in the crime to get that conviction. This will go very bad places.
You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier
|quarter MOA visionary
You have to be careful with subjective laws as these.
Much is just someone with an agenda or someone trying to get their pound of flesh from anyone in the peripheral view.
Don't know if this is true negligence or not?
Sometimes even kids need to be responsible for their own actions.
You wanna really blame someone?
Blame the media in all forms of their "it bleads, it leads headlines" and coverage to glorify these actions by making horrific events famous along with the perp's 15 min.
|Imagination and focus
Yes, the verdict was bullshit! I have friends who have three or four kids and three out of the four have never been in trouble. Then there is the fourth kid who is, and has been a problem for years. Why are three out of four kids good kids, and the fourth is not? Is it bad parenting? I say it is not.
Always enjoy your posts. Well said
Prosecutors would need to show willful negligence on the part of the parents, the parents knowingly enabled the kid to drive drunk or, gave Junior a high-performance sportscar that was beyond the kid's driving skills. At what point, are parents & guardians legally responsible for their children?
I think this case showed the parents willfully enabled this kid in the face of all the mental issues he was showing in school. The parents not only ignored the issues brought to them by all of the parent-teacher conferences but, they bought the gun in the midst of all these meetings & notices. Can the same standard be applied to parents who allow their high school kids to roam around late night on Fri-Sat-Sun, mob-looting stores? stealing cars? flashing a gun intimidating & harassing others? It's 1am Mrs Smith, do you know where your son is at?
It’s not as dangerous as letting minors have access to a firearm. I’m not willing to let reckless guardians skate because I’m worried that as precedent, it could be abused in court.
Let me correct my statement, involuntary manslaughter is ridiculous. But allowing access is reckless and should be punished.
|Frangas non Flectes
I'm with you guys. This is a bad precedent with all kinds of really bad implications.
Carthago delenda est
if they're going after the mother and father, they should also go after the principal of the school for exactly the same reason
if anything, the school probably had more contact with the kid than anyone else
This may be rare, and that is for good reason. We have been, and should be very reluctant to hold third parties responsible for criminal acts. What a slippery slope that is, even for parents, who may have some enhanced responsibilty for their children. Even if this is the egregious case (which I don't know because I didn't hear the evidence), it makes the next, less egregious case easier to bring. I think this is a very dangerous precedent. Parents, then teachers, then psychiatrists, pastors . . .
I also can't help but think that this is also partly the result of gun-phobia, and general hysterics about guns. It may even be a back-door attempt at chilling gun ownership.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything.
Ok but who defines willful negligence. Did you lock up the liquor cabinet? Did you remove the keys from the house? Like I said earlier, I wouldn’t cheer this verdict just yet. She’s a shitty mom and you are glad she is paying for that. Understandable. Doesn’t mean it’s justice or a good precedent.
There are few decent parents with bad teens. The bad seed theory is pure fantasy. Look below the surface of these so called decent parents. I think you would be shocked at what you find.
So what's next? Your kid gets red flagged in school about some abnormal behavior and part of that red flag requires all the guns to be removed from your house and your ability to purchase any is revoked until the kid is deemed to be good or becomes an adult and moves out of your house?
This thing is an octopus for the anti's.
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to mans stupidity" - George S. Patton
|The Main Thing Is
Not To Get Excited
Beg the question much? Show us the straw purchase and then we all have a place to stand to draw our line in the sand.
|The Main Thing Is
Not To Get Excited
I agree with you. +1 and all that.
As I've looked at this for the last several days I've looked as a parent, a neighbor, a school board director (once upon a time) and a citizen concerned with using courts to send messages. Obviously neither I nor we have all the facts the jury heard but the smells I smell from the verdict aren't pleasant.
|Sigforum K9 handler
Each time theirs a mass shooting and there’s a push for gun control, we sound the rally cry “Enforce the laws on the books”. This is what that looks like.
But, what we mean to say is “we’re going to say ‘enforce the laws on the books’, but we really don’t want that either because slippery slope and whatnot.”
Rational people don’t draw the conclusions that somehow I can leave a loaded firearm within access to someone that is mentally ill and then when they misuse it that I couldn’t have seen that coming. Too many people are trying to have it both ways. And largely that level of hypocrisy is what’s wrong today.
"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"
Someone has to be responsible for a child's actions.
My father told me all while I was growing up, if I did something, it wouldn't be me who they put in jail but them.
So either the parents are responsible for their children or the state is.
It can't be both.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.
|Powered by Social Strata
|Page 1 2 3 4 5 6