Japan Today
world

Michigan school shooter's parents sentenced to 10 years in prison for not stopping a 'runaway train'

56 Comments
By ED WHITE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


56 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

A huge precedent. Want kids? Love guns? Be prepared for a whole new regime of personal responsibility for yourself.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

If you make all efforts to keep your guns safely and securely; unloaded, locked, separate from ammunition etc, and your kid somehow gets hold of it and uses it in an inappropriate manner, I don't think you should be held accountable.

However, that's not what happened here. It's impossible to believe that these parents couldn't have seen something like this coming. There were plenty of warning signs.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

However, that's not what happened here. It's impossible to believe that these parents couldn't have seen something like this coming. There were plenty of warning signs.

Yes, these parents were grossly negligent. That was proven in court, and why they were found guilty.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Yes, these parents were grossly negligent. That was proven in court, and why they were found guilty.

If clarifying that makes you feel better about yourself, I'm happy for you. Any comment on the article?

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

Hopefully the first of many goobers to be held to account for not being responsible with firearms.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

This will send shock waves through the gun-owning community. Lock up the guns or be locked up. Think twice before buying your kids a gun.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

If clarifying that makes you feel better about yourself, I'm happy for you. Any comment on the article?

Yeah - I hope they serve as a good warning to other parents who are negligent with their guns.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

HawkToday 11:24 am JST

If you make all efforts to keep your guns safely and securely; unloaded, locked, separate from ammunition etc, and your kid somehow gets hold of it and uses it in an inappropriate manner, I don't think you should be held accountable.

Depends, did you look after their mental health appropriately? Kids aren't stupid so you aren't going to be able to rely on just checking the legal boxes to keep yourself out of prison. Of course you can always go without firearms...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

“She blamed the school for not giving her the “bigger picture” about Ethan”

I think buying him a gun for an 15 year old and keeping it unsecured was to blame.

10 years is too short for such idiotic parents and hopefully is a warning to others to at least follow basic gun safety if common sense is too difficult.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

“She blamed the school for not giving her the “bigger picture” about Ethan”

And she got to say it in court. And the jury decided she was still in the wrong based on all the evidence.

She can think about that for the next decade in jail.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

School, doctors, the shop, politicians, gun lobby, mental illness. Am I seeing a pattern of obfuscation. We must blame everyone else and everything by else except the stupid gun laws.

The law that says a kid can have, hold and shoot a gun. Riiiiiiiiight! I’m clearly missing something. But you can’t give a 15 year old a beer. Sorry! Now it’s blame the parents and lock them up.

I wonder who they’ll come after next? The teacher? The doctor? The counselor….. certainly not the shop.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Abe234Today 01:29 pm JST

The parents gave their kids a gun. They are clearly enablers of the gross laws.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I wonder who they’ll come after next? The teacher? The doctor? The counselor….

Only if they are criminally negligent like these parents were.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

TaiwanIsNotChina,

Depends, did you look after their mental health appropriately? Kids aren't stupid so you aren't going to be able to rely on just checking the legal boxes to keep yourself out of prison. 

I guess I should have said 'legally accountable,' which would only require ticking those boxes. There's not much you can do beyond that. Not looking after your kid's mental health - whatever that means in the individual context - is bad parenting but I don't think it's a crime per se.

Of course you can always go without firearms...

As many do. But if you feel the need to own one, well, the law says you can.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

15 year-olds cannot own a handgun in Michigan,

6 ( +7 / -1 )

“These convictions are not about poor parenting,” Oakland County Judge Cheryl Matthews said. “These convictions confirm repeated acts, or lack of acts, that could have halted an oncoming runaway train."

That is the definition of poor parenting though.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

This will send shock waves through the gun-owning community.

No, it won't because this particular case is unique in that the parents knew their kid had a mental problem and still purchased a firearm for the kids, now that is as stupid as it can get.

Lock up the guns or be locked up.

Most people do, I do, my parents did.

Think twice before buying your kids a gun.

It depends, each state is different

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

They should make the parents serve their time with their son. Same room.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Think twice before buying your kids a gun.

It depends, each state is different

Do they have the same second amendment or did it get amended in each state?

I mean the second amendment says nothing about mental illness or age or criminal background. So you might argue anyone is permitted to own a gun, if you were a second amendment absolutist.

Common sense and decency however would argue that second amendment absolutists are wrong and hypocritical.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

They should have seen all the warning signs, or at the very least, a few of them. The sentences are just.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Do they have the same second amendment or did it get amended in each state? 

Rhetorical question.

I mean the second amendment says nothing about mental illness or age or criminal background. So you might argue anyone is permitted to own a gun, if you were a second amendment absolutist. 

You are right, it doesn't, that is why I think we should more money on mental illness, care, and in-house and out-of-house treatment.

Common sense and decency however would argue that second amendment absolutists are wrong and hypocritical.

I disagree with that statement, that is what common sense tells me.

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

They should have seen all the warning signs, or at the very least, a few of them. The sentences are just.

I agree, this is on the parents in large part, so the ruling and sentencing are justified

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

A 15 year-old with a semi-automatic handgun? a weapon that has little purpose for most people, but can be effective at killing humans and is easily concealed when carried into schools, churches, clubs and movie theaters. Owned by gangbangers and others that are insecure. Parents that give a 15 year-old a semi-automatic handgun should be held accountable.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

There's heavy responsibility with having firearms in your house with children.

My dad was an ex-Marine and we had lots of guns in the house. BUT the handguns were hidden or locked up. There was one gun that had bullets in it but it was locked in a box that my dad could quickly open just in case of a break in. (I couldn't open it all.)

All the other guns were unloaded, placed in high out of reach places in the back of closets, and with bullets in separate places from the guns. The rifles were on racks in one of the rooms, but once again, all unloaded with the bullets hidden.

More people in the US need to take gun accessibility more seriously.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

owzerToday  01:59 pm JST

They should make the parents serve their time with their son. Same room.

There are four dead kids whose parents will never get to spend another day with them. Why in the world would you think it’d be a good idea to “punish” these two by letting them spend the next 10 to 15 years with their son?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

HawkToday 01:40 pm JST

Of course you can always go without firearms...

As many do. But if you feel the need to own one, well, the law says you can.

The law is under no obligation to make it easy for you.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

There are four dead kids whose parents will never get to spend another day with them. Why in the world would you think it’d be a good idea to “punish” these two by letting them spend the next 10 to 15 years with their son?

Or children that were brought up by the state, homeless kids, so when they run amok, who should take responsibility?

-15 ( +0 / -15 )

Or children that were brought up by the state, homeless kids, so when they run amok, who should take responsibility?

What a profound question from the "pro-life" crowd.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

bass4funkToday 02:22 pm JST

There are four dead kids whose parents will never get to spend another day with them. Why in the world would you think it’d be a good idea to “punish” these two by letting them spend the next 10 to 15 years with their son?

Or children that were brought up by the state, homeless kids, so when they run amok, who should take responsibility?

The foster parents but no foster parent is dumb enough to keep firearms in the house.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The law is under no obligation to make it easy for you.

What?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass4funkToday  02:22 pm JST

There are four dead kids whose parents will never get to spend another day with them. Why in the world would you think it’d be a good idea to “punish” these two by letting them spend the next 10 to 15 years with their son?

Or children that were brought up by the state, homeless kids, so when they run amok, who should take responsibility

Who or what are you responding to? You comment makes no sense with regards to what I wrote.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

What a profound question from the "pro-life" crowd.

No, a very important question, something the "end-life" crowd refuses to address.

The foster parents but no foster parent is dumb enough to keep firearms in the house.

My parents kept a plethora of guns in the house, but it was locked and we were raised never to touch them without their permission, so it depends on your upbringing.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Who or what are you responding to?

Everyone

You comment makes no sense with regards to what I wrote.

If you think so...

-13 ( +0 / -13 )

bass4funkToday  02:47 pm JST

If you think so.

I do because it doesn’t.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

I do because it doesn’t.

Well, that is your opinion then.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Common sense and decency however would argue that second amendment absolutists are wrong and hypocritical.

I disagree with that statement, that is what common sense tells me.

So you believe any US citizen should have a gun. Criminals, children, the mentally ill.

That is what second amendment absolutism means.

It’s not a very common sense approach is it?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

There are four dead kids whose parents will never get to spend another day with them. Why in the world would you think it’d be a good idea to “punish” these two by letting them spend the next 10 to 15 years with their son?

Or children that were brought up by the state, homeless kids, so when they run amok, who should take responsibility?

> > bass4funkToday  02:55 pm JST

I do because it doesn’t.

Well, that is your opinion then

Feel free to explain what kids brought up by the state or homeless kids have to do with my disagreeing with the notion that letting the Crumbleys be jailed with their son would be a worse punishment than being jailed separately from him.

The Crumbleys are going to be jailed. I never said anything about whether or not I agreed or disagreed with that. I never said anything about whether or not I thought they were or were not responsible for what happened. My comment was simply in response to another poster who seemed to think it would be a worse punishment for them to be jailed with their son.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So you believe any US citizen should have a gun.

If they show competency and be responsible absolutely.

Criminals, children, the mentally ill. 

No, but the criminals will always have access to guns and the mentally ill, depends.

That is what second amendment absolutism means. 

Yes

It’s not a very common sense approach is it?

I think it is

The Crumbleys are going to be jailed.

Yes

I never said anything about whether or not I agreed or disagreed with that. I never said anything about whether or not I thought they were or were not responsible for what happened. My comment was simply in response to another poster who seemed to think it would be a worse punishment for them to be jailed with their son.*

And?

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

bass4funkToday  03:28 pm JST

And?

Lol. You have yourself a good day.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Several states allow handgun ownership from 16 but the age should be 20 years across all states. You can have a handgun at 16 but can't buy a beer until 20.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

So you believe any US citizen should have a gun. 

If they show competency and be responsible absolutely.

Second amendment doesn’t say that.

So you think the second amendment shouldn’t be taken literally or has exceptions.

Criminals, children, the mentally ill. 

No, but the criminals will always have access to guns and the mentally ill, depends. 

Second amendment doesn’t say that.

So you think the second amendment shouldn’t be taken literally or has exceptions.

That is what second amendment absolutism means. 

Yes

It’s not a very common sense approach is it?

I think it is

But you don’t think that. As you stated above the second amendment has exceptions and is not absolute.

Either that or you are very confused.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

MAGA child-rearing guidance..."Take away their books and give them guns"...raise them to be stupid and violent, just like on Jan 6th...

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Second amendment doesn’t say that. 

No, it in layman’s terms it does allow me the right to bear arms, and every other 2nd amendment hating liberal is not going to change that.

So you think the second amendment shouldn’t be taken literally or has exceptions. 

I never said that.

Second amendment doesn’t say that. 

Whoa now you want to make a selective unwinnable argument?

So you think the second amendment shouldn’t be taken literally or has exceptions. *

Again, that is not what I said.

No, I’m not doing it But you don’t think that. As you stated above the second amendment has exceptions and is not absolute. 

Either that or you are very confused.

No, neither, but you think, as you like, every state will have certain restrictions, or some states may have less restrictions, but the absolute right to own a firearm is in shrine in the second amendment, and that’s not going to change the right, won’t change or bad abortion, and left won’t ban guns ever under any circumstances

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

No, it in layman’s terms it does allow me the right to bear arms,

And what does "bear arms" mean - carry a catapult, carry a machine gun, carry a hand grenade? It seems US law has no problem making certain types of "arms" illegal.

and every other 2nd amendment hating liberal is not going to change that.

I don't think "liberal" applies to placing restrictions on things.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The shooting was another horrible tragedy, a kid killing other kids with a gun is an additional demerit against the US and its gun culture, it will be interesting to see whether the extremists in the gun owning crowd plus guns and ammo industry will once try to claim this was a false flag incident done by some mystical force, imagined only in their warped minds, to try to restrict gun ownership. RIP to the young folks slaughtered, condolences to their families and friends. The parents need to be held responsible, maybe a message will be sent to some parents considering buying a gun for a child. My advice don't do it. Though when I grew up in a mountainous area of the Pacific coast, lots of young folk living in outlying area had guns and/or access to them to be used for hunting and pest control, but they also had responsible parents closely watching over them.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How many young school children will be slaughtered in mass shootings before something is done.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

And what does "bear arms" mean - carry a catapult, carry a machine gun, carry a hand grenade?

No, it means, I can own a firearm, ANY.

It seems US law has no problem making certain types of "arms" illegal.

And?

I don't think "liberal" applies to placing restrictions on things.

They are the ones that complain the most about the 2nd amendment.

The shooting was another horrible tragedy, a kid killing other kids with a gun is an additional demerit against the US and its gun culture,

It was tragic, no doubt about it.

it will be interesting to see whether the extremists in the gun owning crowd plus guns and ammo industry will once try to claim this was a false flag incident done by some mystical force, imagined only in their warped minds, to try to restrict gun ownership. RIP to the young folks slaughtered, condolences to their families and friends.

Yeah, I honestly don’t really care what the defenders of abortion think. But yeah, still amusing, they don’t mind the death of a child, but owning a gun is sacrilegious, give me a break. Lol!

The parents need to be held responsible, maybe a message will be sent to some parents considering buying a gun for a child. *

Maybe, maybe not.

My advice don't do it. Though when I grew up in a mountainous area of the Pacific coast, lots of young folk living in outlying area had guns and/or access to them to be used for hunting and pest control, but they also had responsible parents closely watching over them

Well, there you go. You just made my point for me.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

No, it means, I can own a firearm

So why doesn't the 2nd amendment say that?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

lots of young folk living in outlying area had guns and/or access to them to be used for hunting and pest control, 

But I did not know anyone that had a semi-automatic handgun, in part because a weapon like that has limited use, except to poor shooters that want to increase their chances of killing or seriously harming another person.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Poor parents....

Living in a society where giving a 15 year old a weapon is considered normal.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

No, a very important question, something the "end-life" crowd refuses to address.

I'm all for gun control, baby, something you can't say.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

So why doesn't the 2nd amendment say that?

Technically it does.

Under the Second Amendment, law-abiding citizens who are not restricted from owning firearms, like convicted felons or people with certain mental health issues, have the right to own guns.

lots of young folk living in outlying area had guns and/or access to them to be used for hunting and pest control, 

Feral hogs as well and other nasty vermin

But I did not know anyone that had a semi-automatic handgun, in part because a weapon like that has limited use, except to poor shooters that want to increase their chances of killing or seriously harming another person.

Doesn’t matter, so under the 2nd amendment, I can, and if the left don’t like it, oh well….

The Dems had their chance to do gun reform, 2008 and in 2020 they didn’t, so them whining about gun deaths and claim republicans are to blame, no one with a shred of sense believes or listens to that garbage.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

So why doesn't the 2nd amendment say that?

Technically it does.

Trump refuses to allow his MAGA-fans to bring guns to his rallies...do you agree with this?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

So why doesn't the 2nd amendment say that?

Technically it does.

Under the Second Amendment, law-abiding citizens who are not restricted from owning firearms, like convicted felons or people with certain mental health issues, have the right to own guns.

I accept that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to allow possession of firearms. But it doesn't specifically refer to firearms - just "arms". The meaning of "arms" can be debated, but I think it is generally understood to mean weapons, and some say it more specifically means military weapons. It seems that legislation is allowed to restrict certain types of weapons - hand grenades, bladed weapons, chemical weapons, certain types of machine gun, etc. So if some types of "arms" can be restricted, why not firearms? Why do I think it's not because of the 2nd amendment, but because a lot of people simply like guns?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I accept that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to allow possession of firearms. But it doesn't specifically refer to firearms - just "arms". The meaning of "arms" can be debated,

Yes

but I think it is generally understood to mean weapons, and some say it more specifically means military weapons.

Again, debatable.

It seems that legislation is allowed to restrict certain types of weapons - hand grenades, bladed weapons, chemical weapons, certain types of machine gun, etc.

True.

So if some types of "arms" can be restricted, why not firearms?

Why should they, and what is a firearm, the AR-15 is not one of them.

Why do I think it's not because of the 2nd amendment, but because a lot of people simply like guns?

Many people do, I do very much so.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Perhaps the homicidal gang members' fathers should also go to jail for not being there for children as they grew up to become the losers they are.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites