Mental health experts? Who we talking about?

"To win their case, prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crumbley, who has been jailed along with her husband since December 2021, was guilty of manslaughter based on one of two legal theories. Under one theory, she failed to perform a legal duty to protect the victims of the shooting from a foreseeable threat posed by her son. Under the other, her behavior was “grossly negligent” based on what she knew about the circumstances and failed to act."

A parent can never be with every single child all the time and as such, we can never be fully in control of what our kids do. We can try to teach them as best we can and be good role models, but ultimately, if any 10-18 year old decides to do something they shouldn't, how can the parents be held responsible unless they had prior knowledge of what was gonna happen? Based on the quote above, there should be similar charges against every single person from the school that knew of the drawing on the math sheet as well as the prior incidents, to include the top administrators, guidance counselor as well as the friend he texted with about the drawing. The school systems are shielding people that otherwise should have been put in a nut farm.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
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.

Some people are just broken and there's no amount of good parenting that will fix it. Kids now have figured out that they can do pretty much what they want and parents are powerless to stop it. All a child has to do is say that a parent is being emotionally or physically abusive and that's that! Teachers, social workers, and the police then become involved which leads to a lack of punishment from the parents in fear of being on the wrong side of the law. How can a parent be a good or even "decent" parent without the ability to properly discipline a child?


As for access to firearms? Can't say that any one of the millions of kids growing up pre-Columbine couldn't have gone off the rails and killed a bunch of people, but we didn't. Most of us had easy access to multiple firearms and ammunition, yet we still didn't go around killing for the sake of killing. Guess all those pre-Columbine parents were shitty people because they allowed us access to those guns?

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
I'm pondering what a "restorative practices coordinator" actually is, IF the school actually had one.


So yeah, that Obama era “disparate impact” junk might actually be in play here.

Read my earlier post about the civil lawsuit. The school definitely had one as the federal judge dropped the restorative practices coordinator from the civil lawsuit.

quote:

Restorative practices coordinator

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The job description seems to have been written by a college freshman with limited knowledge of teens,the school system and just plain life in general. Using words to convey nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:
I'm pondering what a "restorative practices coordinator" actually is, IF the school actually had one.


So yeah, that Obama era “disparate impact” junk might actually be in play here.

Read my earlier post about the civil lawsuit. The school definitely had one as the federal judge dropped the restorative practices coordinator from the civil lawsuit.

Desperately trying to not be shocked by this.

I agree that she was guilty of a crime, although I'm not sure Manslaughter fit. Gross criminal negligence resulting in death, child neglect, would be a better fit IMHO.

With that said, I think the school administrator that let the kid back into class when mom was 'too busy' was also liable. Especially when he had a reasonable enough suspicion to ask her to take him home, a search of the kids locker and backpack should have been justified. Not sure if things changed but when I was in school they'd cut the lock off your locker and search it. Too bad, so sad. A lot of steps could have been taken here but were not and the result was tragic. Yet no charges at all.

That’s the biggest problem here. They are only after the owners of the gun. If true justice was being sought, at least 3 others would be on trial. This is simply setting a precedent that allows for prosecution if a gun is left unsecured and later used in a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Seem to recall a thread here where it was discussed that many schools won't report these type of situations in order to reduce the total number of reports in a district, either for funding purposes or to hide the real problem numbers and make the district look better. Be interesting to know if the district has discouraged leo contact for that purpos

^^^^^^^^^^^^
LOL Talk about dumb. Lets see that post. Of course that absolves them of paying a mulimillion dollar lawsuit. Third grade logic.

The thread was a while back, much of it was discussed in the Marjory Stoneman School Shooting Thread, Link however there are countless articles to be found using google that explain how schools are underreporting or not reporting violent acts to the appropriate authority be it the State, School Board, consequently that means they do not contact law enforcement, since if they did the incident would be on record.

The Sun Sentinel's article is behind a paywall you are welcome to pay for it or research for a free copy, but it details the information they discovered about the practice

Link

^^^ I first heard about it during the Trayvon Martin case. Turned out the little shit was a thief and the school had caught him redhanded with stolen goods and burglary tools in his backpack. It didn't appear in Miami school systems report and the assumption is they didn't want to look like they have criminals selling stolen goods on school grounds.

Under reporting. Even in Real Estate you have to disclose certain things, like if a murder took place in the home. This is cheating plain and simple. Smacks of used car salesman. Sad

An opinion piece - Link

Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of a teenager who shot and killed four students and injured seven others at an Oxford, Michigan school in 2021, was found guilty Tuesday of all four counts of involuntary manslaughter. For this novel legal case, the jury of 12 deliberated for over 10 hours. Her son, Ethan Crumbley, who was 15 at the time of the shooting, pled guilty to one count of terrorism causing death, four counts of murder and 19 other charges related to the shooting and was sentenced last year to life in prison without parole. She’ll be sentenced on April 9.

Her defense attorney, Shannon Smith, said Ethan’s crime was so horrendous that “it was unforeseeable.” But prosecutors disagreed, saying that the teen’s parents were aware that he was in crisis and had access to a gun and willfully disregarded the warning signs anyway. They alleged the parents bought their 15-year-old a 9mm Sig Sauer SP 2022 pistol as an early Christmas gift, a purchase that violated Michigan law. In the judge’s instructions to the jury, the key concept in determining guilt was that of “gross negligence.”

Good Pupils
Although parents of mass shooters have been prosecuted in civil court before, the trial of Jennifer Crumbley (and that of the father, James Crumbley, set to begin in March) marks the first time in US history that parents have been charged in criminal court for a mass school shooting committed by their child –and now one has been convicted.

Prosecutors alleged that the Crumbley parents willfully disregarded warning signs that their son was in crisis, did not heed concerns of school administrators, bought him a gun days before the shooting and failed to lock it up. On the morning of the shooting, a teacher found a drawing on Ethan’s desk of a gun, bullet and shooting victim with the words “blood everywhere” and “the thoughts won’t stop, help me.” The teacher notified school authorities, who warned both Crumbley parents and said their son would require counseling.

According to one prosecutor, both parents “resisted the idea” of their son leaving school at that time and “failed to ask if their son had his gun with them or where his gun was located and failed to inspect his backpack for the presence of the gun, which he had with him.”

The question of who may bear responsibility when a minor carries out a shooting has gained fresh scrutiny in recent years, and it’s not just parents under the microscope. Others who could potentially bear liability but remain as yet undetermined range from gun manufacturers that advertise to children to weapons makers that create locks that allow customers to circumvent state bans on assault weapons. Attention has also fallen on Hollywood directors, who perpetuate false and misleading ideas about how guns are used in the real world.

Another trial currently underway in Buffalo, New York explores the role of social media platforms that are accused of emboldening another shooter, Payton Gendron, who was 18 when he killed 10 people and injured three others in a racist attack at a supermarket in May 2022. Most of the social media companies have generally been hesitant to comment publicly.

This case also involves novel legal theories, with plaintiffs arguing that social media and body armor companies enabled the killer. A representative for RMA Armament, the company that sold body armor to the accused Buffalo shooter, said in an email to the Buffalo News, “RMA Armament is saddened by the senseless act of violence that occurred in Buffalo … Our products are intended for the protection of law-abiding private citizens, police departments and government partners.” The armor Gendron was wearing prevented a retired police officer at the scene from stopping the shooting.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys contend that, like opioid drug products, these social media platforms, which include White supremacist content, are designed to create addiction. Yet last week, the social media companies asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing they cannot be held responsible for actions of third-party users. Like gun manufacturers, weapons dealers and others, they lay blame at the feet of only one person: the teen shooter.

Stemming the tide of gun violence
As gun laws are relaxed and guns and ammunition become increasingly lethal, it’s clear that simply pathologizing individual “bad actors” isn’t sufficient to stem the tide of gun violence in this country. The US has by far the highest rate of child and teen firearm mortality among peer nations, and in 2020, firearm injuries became the leading cause of death among US children and adolescents. In contrast, firearms do not make the top four causes of death for young people in any other similarly large, wealthy country.

Often, the risk to children resides right at home. According to the Giffords Law Center, “Studies show that between 70% and 90% of guns used in youth suicides, unintentional shootings among children and school shootings perpetrated by shooters under the age of 18 are acquired from the home or the homes of relatives or friends.”

In the Crumbley trial, there was a focus on how, and whether, guns were secured in the home. Currently, gun owners face criminal charges for the negligent storage of firearms where a child can gain access in 26 states and the District of Columbia. However, there are no federal laws requiring the safe storage of guns.

Yet, research shows that even parents who think their guns are inaccessible to minors are mistaken. For example, a 2021 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed even in homes where parents believed their guns were locked away, children said they could find and unlock them in under five minutes. And while many parents believe keeping guns stored “locked and loaded” will protect their families against potential home invaders, the greater risk actually is that the gun will be used by a member of the family.

Private interest, public harm
Although the Crumbley case is unusual as a case in criminal law, it’s not the first time that parents have been brought to court when their minor children or teens have harmed or killed others with a firearm. In these circumstances, parents have been sued under civil law for reckless conduct, neglect or negligent entrustment as a result of their actions, such as inadequate supervision or carelessness. Such cases are treated similarly in certain states (including Michigan) to car accidents caused by teen drivers, in which parents can be held liable.

For example, the father of a mass shooter in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois, on July 4, 2022 was accused of wrongdoing for signing his son’s application for an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification card months after his son displayed concerning behavior.

The father, Robert Crimo, Jr., ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor reckless conduct charges and agreed to serve 60 days in jail. The mother of a 6-year-old boy who shot his teacher at a Virginia school last year also faced charges; she pleaded guilty to a state child neglect charge and felony charges of unlawful use of a controlled substance while possessing a firearm and making a false statement while purchasing a firearm.

Distributed responsibility
Most parents want their children to be safe, yet many continue to enable household access to loaded guns.

The American legal system is structured to focus on the individual — getting to the truth via the adversarial system. Meanwhile, the American public typically wants a single, individual villain to be held accountable. Placing blame solely on the individual shooter is a stance staunchly promoted by the National Rifle Association and other powerful gun rights groups. In fact, a recent study shows that states often loosened gun laws after mass shootings, especially states with Republican legislatures.

Yet the Crumbley trial and other similar cases shine a light on how a shooter rarely acts “alone.” It’s a wake-up call, alerting us to the need for a cultural shift around this complex issue if we ever hope to change our country’s shameful standing when it comes to gun violence affecting children.

This case opens the door for parents to be held legally accountable, and reminds all parents of their responsibilities when it comes to gun safety. It also presents an opportunity to take a broader view of the multiple factors that contribute to the scourge of gun violence in this country. Everyone wants to find a single villain, but the reality is that everybody is at risk and many people are responsible.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I agree that she was guilty of a crime, although I'm not sure Manslaughter fit. Gross criminal negligence resulting in death, child neglect, would be a better fit IMHO.

Involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary. Please read my prior post. "Criminal negligence resulting in death" is one set of conditions that constitutes involuntary manslaughter.

Some of y'all are getting hung up on "manslaughter" as if "manslaughter" = "murder." It does not. Murder is intentional homicide. Manslaughter is unintentional homicide.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
That’s the biggest problem here. They are only after the owners of the gun.

Clearly inaccurate.

It's almost as if some of you have read nothing at all about the event or the trial.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Under reporting. Even in Real Estate you have to disclose certain things, like if a murder took place in the home. This is cheating plain and simple. Smacks of used car salesman. Sad

I wouldn't call it under reporting simply because these schools NEVER REPORT IT. It's politically driven with our tax dollars. Schools won't report any of this stuff because they are funded based on enrollment. Parents may not be too keen on moving a child to another district based solely on test scores, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that if a parent feels their child is unsafe at a particular school, they'd have them enrolled elsewhere so fast you could actually hear the dollars flying out the door behind them.

I hate the entire public school system and what it has become. It's one giant cesspool that breeds ignorance, intolerance, and the cause of many of the problems facing this country today. There's absolutely no accountability and this entire thread reinforces that idea. Think about how different it would be if schools were held to the same standard as this lady and her husband.



I'm gonna repost a part of the article I quoted before but we'll play with who the defendant is and see what happens.

"To win their case, prosecutors had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oxford High School officials , who have been jailed since December 2021, were guilty of manslaughter based on one of two legal theories. Under one theory, they failed to perform a legal duty to protect the victims of the shooting from a foreseeable threat posed by Ethan Crumbley . Under the other, their behavior was “grossly negligent” based on what they knew about the circumstances and failed to act."


How many of these school shootings have been perpetrated by students that the faculty knew had issues? 100%! I believe that every school system in the country would have an "OH SHIT" moment if any one of them had been prosecuted the way this case was. In my mind, that would have a far greater affect on future incidents. The schools wouldn't be able to hide behavioral/psychological issues by not reporting them, because if they did, they'd be going to pound you in the ass prison!

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:
That’s the biggest problem here. They are only after the owners of the gun.

Clearly inaccurate.

It's almost as if some of you have read nothing at all about the event or the trial.

The entire case hinged on the fact that there was a gun and it was accessible. Read the quote above with the changes in who the defendant is and tell me it's simply not about the gun. If you want to look at it a different way, remove the fact that mommy & daddy bought the gun and it was accessible. Probably wouldn't have been charged at all, much less have mom get convicted of Involuntary Manslaughter...It's ABSOLUTELY about the gun!

One of the many things that separate her and the husband from the school officials and others is their knowledge of the bigger picture.

More specifically, the school may not have known he had access to weapons and any behavior outside of what happened at school.

The parents not only knew there was a gun somewhere in the house, simple access, but possession. They bought their 15 year old delusional, mentally disturbed child the gun and had just given it to him as a present. They also knew what the school knew about his behavior plus a lot more.

That doesn't relieve the school officials of any responsibility in my book, but that's another case to be heard.

Take the gun part out and what do you think?
This is like handing your underage kid that draws pictures of running people over and doesn't have a drivers license, the keys to your car along with a bottle of Whiskey.
Then claiming you weren't responsible because you didn't know exactly where and when the event would occur.
A similar situation to the mother in the Sandy Hook case except she couldn't be prosecuted because he shot her first.

Most schools do not have psychologists at the school that can evaluate these kids. Guidance counselors do not have the training nor do teachers.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Most schools do not have psychologists at the school that can evaluate these kids. Guidance counselors do not have the training nor do teachers.

Yet they have access to ungodly amounts of money for football, baseball, and basketball. Imagine how easy it would be to get help or identify issues before they happened if there was a single point of contact that was accessible to all of the students and faculty rather than relying on parents to 1)admit there's a problem & 2)get the kid the necessary help. As you stated, most teachers and counselors aren't trained to evaluate these kids, but neither are the parents. Some may hear off color comments made by their kids and ignore them for what they probably are...simple off color comments made by every idiot kid since time began.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
One of the many things that separate her and the husband from the school officials and others is their knowledge of the bigger picture.

More specifically, the school may not have known he had access to weapons and any behavior outside of what happened at school.

They were fully aware of his behavior in school though and allowed him to remain instead of calling the SRO to take him for eval at the nearest qualified facility, or simply suspending him. The gun and it's accessibility is what this trial hinged on. We wouldn't know any of the names linked to this case if it was about a drunk kid that got into his mom's Prius and drove over the same people, whether she gave him the keys and booze or not.

Bottom line this is about: GUNS BAD and people that give access to guns, just as bad by extension!

A low six figure income would cover a clincal psychologist in the schools. An alternative would be to bill the parents for an inschool evaluation by a psychologist. I know of some private schools that have that service. BTW the kids often know who is trouble, oftentimes more than the teachers.

quote:

A low six figure income would cover a clincal psychologist in the schools.

You don't even need to hire one. You can subcontract these services from the local professionals. Our little district does, certainly larger districts could.

But then you get back to the problem of having your children speaking to adults about "secret" things that they don't have to tell you about. I'm not so sure that's the role of the school.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These things are subject to clincal judgement IN ADVANCE. For example issues related to suicide and homicidal thoughts are not confidential. Other things are covered with signed releases. Parents would have to grant consent in advance. School have no business knowing the kid's thoughts and fantasies unless there is a safety issue.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Most schools do not have psychologists at the school that can evaluate these kids. Guidance counselors do not have the training nor do teachers.

Marjory Stoneman had the money and access and provided it to Cruz, everyone knew, teachers, administrators, psychologists, none of it helped stop the 19 year old man.

From the Marjory Stoneman thread:

quote:

This is why the school district and the police are all so focused on guns. Otherwise, both would be facing some very hard questions.

"Florida’s Broward County, home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, was among the leaders in this nationwide policy shift. According to Washington Post reporting, Broward County schools once recorded more in-school arrests than any other Florida district. But in 2013, the school board and the sheriff’s office agreed on a new policy to discontinue police referrals for a dozen infractions ranging from drug use to assault.

(NOTE: There's included harassment, theft less then $300, vandalism under $1000, criminal mischief, alcohol, drugs, drug paraphernalia, disrupting school operation and others.) The number of school-based arrests plummeted by 63 percent from 2012 to 2016. The Obama administration lauded Broward’s reforms, and in 2015 invited the district’s superintendent to the White House for an event, “Rethink Discipline,” that would highlight the success of Broward and other localities’ success in “transforming policies and school climate.”

Confessed killer Nikolas Cruz, a notorious and emotionally disturbed student, was suspended from Stoneman Douglas High. He was even expelled for bringing weapons to school. Yet he was never arrested before the shooting. In a county less devoted to undoing school disciplinary policies, perhaps Cruz would have been arrested for one of his many violent or threatening incidents. When Cruz got into a fight in September of 2016, he was referred to social workers rather than to the police. When he allegedly assaulted a student in January 2017, it triggered a school-based threat assessment—but no police involvement. The Washington Post notes that Cruz “was well-known to school and mental health authorities and was entrenched in the process for getting students help rather than referring them to law enforcement.”
https://www.city-journal.org/h...gh-cracks-15741.html

Read the between the lines of that quoted section, The Obama Administration lauded the reduction in crime in those schools. Clearly the result of failure to report activity and not the actual reduction of any violent acts.

This mentality is a subset of the national push by democrats, soros and others platform to mainstream non punishment for criminal acts, disguised under the social platform of reducing police activity against minority groups.

JMO the parents culpability for buying the firearm and not having it locked up, for which I'd presume there is a law on the books in MI regarding firearms, minors and storage and that should have been the conviction.

It is a slippery slope, maybe it will send a message to ignorant parents who don't pay attention to their kids who have mental issues, but don't doubt for a minute some politicians are going to stand on it for press and to push for more gun laws.

Maybe it will make those parents who don't pay attention to the signals from problem kids think twice about how the deal with guns in the house.
The situation in MI was also the case in Connecticut, a mother with a crazed kid who buys him guns, doesn't keep them properly secured that he uses in a school shooting.

Imagine that if this was done with a kitchen knife the conversation wouldn't make the news other than a blotter feature about the act, but a gun changes the narrative and tends to get politicians something to stand on and bloviate.

If it helps change school policy of non reporting violence, informing parents of mental issues of children, that it may stop future school shootings then it would be a good thing for gun owners.