quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
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.

If you did indeed lock-up or, hide the liquor in the face of a thirsty, mischievous kid, then you can't be accused of willful negligence.
However, if you're like many parents who do allow their kids to underage drink but under the conditions only at the house, we(parents) have to be present and no driving afterwards, yet junior gets out and goes for a spin...I would think you can be charged for enabling and negligence.

I guess the question as it pertains to this case, is IF the parents HAD secured/locked up their guns, but junior still finds a way to get them, can the parents still be charged like in this case? Does all it take is junior finding the combo or, password under the keyboard and you can charge the parents of negligent homocide? Does the same apply to the kid who's out late stealing cars, trashing stores and tagging-up buildings?

By all accounts, these were shitty parents who took little interest in raising their son or, their interest was more along the lines of treating him like an accessory but, never put in any hard work in creating a healthy family.

That wasn’t what I asked/posted. Forget handing liquor to your kid. What happens when he takes it without your knowledge? Who locks up their liquor cabinet or takes all the car keys? Nobody. Locking up a gun that is 6x6 inches is one thing. Putting a cable lock through a bar is a bit tougher. What happens when your kid sneaks a bottle out under your nose and takes your car? This precedent has legs that you might not like, that probably aren’t “justice”.

Based on the limited information here, I have to agree with the slippery slope folks.

A few questions:

Why does anyone care if the atty has long flowing hair?

Why is dad being tried at a separate, later date?

Lots of deets I don’t need, and lots missing.

The parents are somewhat scapegoats. It should be overturned, doesn't mean it will, though. I think the school was far more derelict.

North Korea puts the entire family in a camp often along with the grandparents. We are not advocating for that,but too often parents accept no responsibilitiy. There wwere plenty of resources in the communiity to treat this kid. Michigan has money for this if the parents are destitute.

I don't there is any "treating" of these people. Just a fantasy people tell themselves.

I'm in the camp of not charging parents equally for something a child does as long as it wasn't advance knowledge, encouraged, or directed. What if he would have stolen the car (or bought one for him) and a resulting accident caused fatalities? Poor judgement is not doing the deed.

I want to ask a question of our legal minds,... are there already laws on the books which they did violate, thus charging the parents for what they truly are responsible for?

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
I do not like the idea of holding parents responsible for the crimes of their kids.

That isn't what happened, here. They were charged with involuntary (aka: "negligent") manslaughter. This is "the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied" or "negligently causing the death of another person."

The prosecution's position was that by failing to address the boy's clear and long-standing mental illness and furnishing him with access to a deadly weapon, knowing he was deeply troubled, they negligently enabled a crime that resulted in the deaths of others.

So the parents aren't being charged with committing the crime, per se, but negligently enabling it.

I wonder what would be the opinion of those opposed to this prosecution and verdict if the child had committed suicide with the firearm, rather than killing others? Would you still hold the parents blameless for the death?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
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.

I'm often in disagreement with jljones. This is not one of those times.

Assuming the "news" accounts were even remotely accurate: These "parents" appear to have been egregiously negligent in their actions. Not only did they fail to seek treatment for the young man's reportedly clearly deeply disturbed mental state and provide him with ready access to a deadly weapon, but, on the day of the tragedy couldn't be sussed with addressing an immediate problem with him at school.

How many times have we seen on these pages members decrying how parents abrogate their responsibilities as parents and leave it to the schools to do, yet here is a case where parents clearly did just that and it resulted in four other families losing their children.

I agree the school bears some responsibility in this tragedy. They, likewise, knew the child was deeply disturbed. Why they did not insist the parents come fetch their child, why they did not at least inspect his backpack, is beyond me. Those actions strike me as being equally as negligent as those of his parents.

'Involuntary Manslaughter' IS the crime of killing someone, NOT enabling it! Involuntary Manslaughter occurs when an 'individual' kills another person without intent, or unintentionally.

NO question the parent were negligent, and at an inconceivable/unimaginable level, but 'they' didn't kill anyone! VERY Bad precedent here!

^^^ Yup, charge her with something that's "on the books" (as jones put it), but not the BS "involuntery manslaughter". IANAL, btw.

Listen to the Alan Dershowitz opinion in the first 3 or 4 minutes of this video (the rest is about Trump but early on it is about MI mom).

He seems to think that there is a lot of grounds for appeal and from what my non-legal mind gathers that the "crime" was made up to fit the circumstances.

I tend to agree but it is interesting nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
This strikes me as extremely dangerous.

Now, it’s possible the parents behavior went completely behind the pale, but this seems like something which is incredibly dangerous as a precedent.

If this stands, letting your kid drive, if you know the kid gets drunk/high at times/not sending them to anger management if they get in fights/issues with suicide/etc.

It abrogates the idea of maturity as the child ages.

We have the opposite problem in our society. We need to be encouraging more autonomy of the youth, not less.

This is all about parental care or (as in this case) the lack of it. A resounding YES, to the question of whether a parent should be held accountable if they allow their child to drive a motor vehicle if the kid is known to get "drunk or high" (WTF does "on occasion" mean anyway?)!!! Children are supposed to be under the care and control of their parents.

Yes, they can be given additional privileges as they prove themselves capable of being responsible, but "autonomy" isn't just handed out to kids that have proven themselves to be dangerous to themselves and/or others. If a child is sick (mental illness DOES count), they need to be given care. If the child has shown him/herself to be aggressive towards others (I think they're called VICTIMS), or is demonstrating signs of being suicidal, a parent that ignores these issues is morally as well as legally negligent. This isn't a matter of the "State" abrogating the idea of a child becoming mature, it's about those who brought the child into this world having the inherent responsibility of exercising proper care and control of the child until that child is considered an adult and recognized as capable of making adult decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
That wasn’t what I asked/posted. Forget handing liquor to your kid. What happens when he takes it without your knowledge? Who locks up their liquor cabinet or takes all the car keys? Nobody. Locking up a gun that is 6x6 inches is one thing. Putting a cable lock through a bar is a bit tougher. What happens when your kid sneaks a bottle out under your nose and takes your car? This precedent has legs that you might not like, that probably aren’t “justice”.

Ok, I see what you're saying; obviously each case has its own set of circumstances as it pertains to the background of the accused and if the parents are more involved, either in enabling or, giving tacit approval. For sure the ruling though, as others have pointed-out, has great potential to be a slippery slope towards the Lefty end-game of confiscation.

I think we still have the basic issue of, are parents responsible for their children's behavior? I think it's one thing if the kid has definite mental issues, however if the parents or, guardians aren't doing anything to curtail and address it, who's liable when they do harm to others? Hit them with a civil suit?

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
'Involuntary Manslaughter' IS the crime of killing someone, NOT enabling it! Involuntary Manslaughter occurs when an 'individual' kills another person without intent, or unintentionally.

That isn’t close to correct.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I hope this verdict sends a message. The school has an obligation as well.

This verdict sends zero message to school officials. As near as I can tell, there are 3 criminal trials (shooter who plead guilty, negligent Mom in this verdict, and Negligent Dad with trial scheduled next month) and none against anyone in the school system.

However, last May a federal judge (i.e. different judge than this criminal trial which occured in Oakland County Circuit Court) ruled that both the counselor, Hopkins, and dean of students, Ejak, civil trials against them can proceed. Dismissed civil claims against 6 other school officials (superintendent, principal, 3 teachers, and restorative practices coordinator). The civil suit against the school district remains and the taxpayer will be on the hook for this.

In other words, the civil case against the counselor and dean of students may send a message to school system employees nationwide.

I agree with you. The school bears some responsibility. In my earlier post I clearly stated that equal amounts of money need to be paid to an onsite clinical psychologist as well as security. This kid sticks out as a sore thumb. Most of these teens can be identified and removed from the school. Psychiatric services are avaiable in Michigan. Some kids need long term residential care and some are budding criminals. Our Federal prison system has plenty of psychologists why don't the schools?

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
'Involuntary Manslaughter' IS the crime of killing someone, NOT enabling it! Involuntary Manslaughter occurs when an 'individual' kills another person without intent, or unintentionally.

That isn’t close to correct.

Please do elaborate then...

Most of what's easily found re: Involuntary Manslaughter under Michigan Law refers to the Penal Code and is specific to the penalty, not the definition of the crime. I did find this regarding 'Michigan Model Jury Instructions' in cases where the defendant is charged w/ Involuntary Manslaughter:

M Crim JI 16.10 Involuntary Manslaughter

(1)​[The defendant is charged with the crime of _______________________/ You may also consider the lesser charge of] involuntary manslaughter. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2)​First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].

[Use (3) when gross negligence is alleged:]

(3)​Second, in doing the act that caused [name deceased]’s death, the defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner.1

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I agree with you. The school bears some responsibility. In my earlier post I clearly stated that equal amounts of money need to be paid to an onsite clinical psychologist as well as security. This kid sticks out as a sore thumb. Most of these teens can be identified and removed from the school. Psychiatric services are avaiable in Michigan. Some kids need long term residential care and some are budding criminals. Our Federal prison system has plenty of psychologists why don't the schools?

When I looked up the civil trial, one of the things that jumped out at me was the idiot school system had a restorative practices coordinator. Taxpayer money would be much better spent on having a clinical physchologist.

Regardless, if a kid's mental health sticks out that much someone in faculty should have had school resource officer or LEOs check the backpack for weapons regardless of whether they're thinking suicide or mass shooting. The pistol was in the backpack the whole time the assclownery between parents and school faculty was occurring.

quote:

Our Federal prison system has plenty of psychologists why don't the schools?

I think there are more of them than you might think, but that's a double edged sword isn't it?

What if your boy Sam starts thinking he's Suzie, and we have schools full of psychologists that not only encourage that behavior, but will also not share that information with you.

Schools are supposed to teach kids. English, math, science, etc. They shouldn't be hospitals. They shouldn't be therapists. They shouldn't be jails. They shouldn't be babysitters. If there are problem students, they need to be removed from the school environment and properly placed elsewhere.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
'Involuntary Manslaughter' IS the crime of killing someone, NOT enabling it!

Incorrect.

quote:

Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing. The basis of the charge may come from criminal negligence, recklessness, or dangerous or impaired driving.

[Emphasis added] Ref: Involuntary Manslaughter Overview (FindLaw)

quote:

Involuntary manslaughter is negligently causing the death of another person.

Ref: manslaughter (Cornell Law School)

This is essentially the application of the legal concept of Criminal negligence resulting in death.

Excerpt from the above:

quote:

United States

Examples of criminally negligent crimes are criminally negligent homicide and negligent endangerment of a child. Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, willful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment, unless the criminal is insane (and then in some cases the sentence is indeterminate).

IANAL and I wasn't present at the trial, but, from what I saw reported in the "news," all the elements necessary to establish criminal negligence were present. Unintentional death resulted. Thus: Involuntary manslaughter.