I'm sure some of the jury started the trial thinking that as gun-owners themselves, they would need to be extra careful to get this verdict right.
What perhaps pushed them toward guilty? Maybe it was her coldness and "Why? Why?" (should we stay with you, son) portion of the police station video.
Or perhaps her testimony that she wouldn't change her parenting if she could go back in time. I think few can actually relate to or sympathize with her.
I would have found her guilty because she clearly knew her child was a threat. I know she knew that because, while almost all of us would assume our child was a victim of a shooting, she never considered that. That says she had the information needed to conclude he was a threat and chose to do nothing.
She ignored her child saying he was hallucinating, but was okay with giving him a gun as a gift and going to the gun range with him so that he could practice.
She wasn't vigilant about how the gun was stored. The lock box's code was the default 0000 code. It would not have mattered because Ethan himself said the gun was not locked. But, ofc, that part was not heard by the jury. But they were shown where the gun safety mechanism was still in the packaging/not being used.
You have a mentally ill son in the house, you should not even bring guns into the home, but if you do, lock it up properly and NOT with the default code. I don't care if she was not the one who went to the store and bought it. All of us should know how and where a gun is stored and that it is safe, if we are going to have one in our home.
She contradicted herself on the stand when she said that when she heard about the shooting, she sent that text saying not to do it because she thought he was about to unalive himself. She said she didn't think he was going to get the gun to harm anyone else, but to harm himself. She then said, inside of the same sentence, that she thought he was going to harm himself because that's what school shooters do. This still acknowledges that she knew he was the shooter, no matter the convoluted way she attempted to dismiss it.
Finally, despite being the ones who knew that Ethan had access to a gun, upon seeing the picture he drew of himself holding a gun that looks like his own gun, his parents did not check to make sure the gun was not on him. Or in his locker. They didn't go home to make sure the gun was where it should be. They argued w/faculty and refused to take him out of school. Not to mention his mom laughed about him looking up bullets when that was reported by the school.
Ethan literally could not have done this without his parents. They supplied the gun and the lessons. They ignored his cries for mental health help. They downplayed the school's concerns. They did absolutely nothing to prevent the shooting from becoming the ultimate outcome. I don't see how it's possible that they are not guilty.
My opinion is not an emotional one and it is highly offensive for people to suggest that. If you are worried about having to face charges for your underage child's criminal actions, I have to worry that you are a bad parent. We all do because we all have to go out into the world where your kids are. We all have to send our kids to these schools. (And I am using 'you' in a general sense.)
I think this jury got it right and I would have voted the same way. Hopefully the parents who are worried are making sure that their guns are safe and their kids' cries for help are not being ignored.
www.facebook.com
blog.google
I believe there will be much greater pressure on all the Search sites to refuse service on the basis of search words and phrases, rather than filter search results. There will be a strong inclination to use public-library level screening universally. And gaming? Where does that one end?
