GUILTY MI - 4 students killed, 6 injured, Oxford High School shooting, 30 Nov 2021 *Arrest incl parents* *teen guilty* #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sun, March 26, 2023 at 2:18 PM EDT·

The parents of a boy who murdered students at a Michigan high school and the father of a man who opened fire on a Fourth of July parade in Illinois are facing charges in the killings in what marks an uncommon move by prosecutors and raises questions about who can be held accountable for mass shootings.

It's "incredibly unusual" for parents or guardians to be charged in relation to crimes committed by their child, said Dmitriy Shakhnevich, a criminal defense attorney and adjunct assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

The cases are among the first times parents have been charged in a mass shooting committed by their child, said James Densley, co-founder of the Violence Project, a nonprofit research center. "I can see this becoming more common if it sets a precedent," he said.
 
Sun, March 26, 2023 at 2:18 PM EDT·

The parents of a boy who murdered students at a Michigan high school and the father of a man who opened fire on a Fourth of July parade in Illinois are facing charges in the killings in what marks an uncommon move by prosecutors and raises questions about who can be held accountable for mass shootings.

It's "incredibly unusual" for parents or guardians to be charged in relation to crimes committed by their child, said Dmitriy Shakhnevich, a criminal defense attorney and adjunct assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

The cases are among the first times parents have been charged in a mass shooting committed by their child, said James Densley, co-founder of the Violence Project, a nonprofit research center. "I can see this becoming more common if it sets a precedent," he said.
RBBM
I don't think it will become "common" although DAs around the country may seek to charge more parents of non-adult shooters more frequently. It's quite a high bar, as this case demonstrates. But for the appeals court ruling, there would be no trial for the Crumbley parents.

I also think quality of counsel makes a big difference. IMO, the C's attorneys are not very skilled or effective although I don't anticipate an appeals court agreeing with my opinion should they be convicted.

NEGLECT of EC is the issue here IMO. I think the case will fail unless neglect is proven to a jury. Without a history of CPS intervention in this family as evidence of neglect, the "proof" may only be from school personnel interactions that happened very close in time to the mass murder event.

Not many parents serving on this jury are going to agree that the C's are culpable because EC's mental health/potential psychiatric issues are difficult - if not impossible - to blame entirely on his parents. Neglect may have exacerbated them but the cause is very debatable even with clearcut diagnosis(es).

It will be interesting to see what the jurors find most compelling no matter how they ultimately decide this case. Their perspectives & weight given to facts after seeing evidence from both sides will inform any possibility of future prosecutions occurring or succeeding.

Just my quickly depreciating 2 cents
 
RBBM
I don't think it will become "common" although DAs around the country may seek to charge more parents of non-adult shooters more frequently. It's quite a high bar, as this case demonstrates. But for the appeals court ruling, there would be no trial for the Crumbley parents.

I also think quality of counsel makes a big difference. IMO, the C's attorneys are not very skilled or effective although I don't anticipate an appeals court agreeing with my opinion should they be convicted.

NEGLECT of EC is the issue here IMO. I think the case will fail unless neglect is proven to a jury. Without a history of CPS intervention in this family as evidence of neglect, the "proof" may only be from school personnel interactions that happened very close in time to the mass murder event.

Not many parents serving on this jury are going to agree that the C's are culpable because EC's mental health/potential psychiatric issues are difficult - if not impossible - to blame entirely on his parents. Neglect may have exacerbated them but the cause is very debatable even with clearcut diagnosis(es).

It will be interesting to see what the jurors find most compelling no matter how they ultimately decide this case. Their perspectives & weight given to facts after seeing evidence from both sides will inform any possibility of future prosecutions occurring or succeeding.

Just my quickly depreciating 2 cents

The justice system works on precedents. If these 3 parents are found guilty then it sets a precedent and will cause more DA's to charge parents.

Definition of Precedent​

  1. A legal decision made by a court of authority, which serves as an authoritative rule in future, similar cases.
  2. A rule of law established by a higher court that is subsequently referred to in deciding similar cases.


Judicial precedent is a ruling or legal case law which establishes a rule or principle that courts and other bodies of the justice system can apply when deciding a similar or subsequent case. It is not a mandatory system which a judge, jury, or panel of judges must use to determine the outcome of a case. According to the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts must honor the findings of laws made by a higher court within the course of appeals when there are similarities in place for the matter at hand.
 
Last edited:
The justice system works on precedents. If these 3 parents are found guilty then it sets a precedent and will cause more DA's to charge parents.

Definition of Precedent​

  1. A legal decision made by a court of authority, which serves as an authoritative rule in future, similar cases.
  2. A rule of law established by a higher court that is subsequently referred to in deciding similar cases.


Judicial precedent is a ruling or legal case law which establishes a rule or principle that courts and other bodies of the justice system can apply when deciding a similar or subsequent case. It is not a mandatory system which a judge, jury, or panel of judges must use to determine the outcome of a case. According to the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts must honor the findings of laws made by a higher court within the course of appeals when there are similarities in place for the matter at hand.
Right, as usual, concerning the law.

Whether charging parents will become a norm? I still think not, regardless of legal precedent. It's still a very high bar in these types of cases to invoke culpability under the law & new cases will still have to reach that bar. Perhaps if the C's are convicted, the high bar will be a little bit mitigated.

Prosecutors usually are parents, too. In fact I would go so far as to say that the appeals court judges being parents influenced their decision. I think parents in our society are not ready to look dispassionately enough at these crimes to not take such decisions to charge other parents personally - something that also extends the high bar. Parents know it's often a crap shoot as to the choices their non-adult children make.

A) The fact that most people are parents & many parents serve on juries leads me to seriously doubt a new precedent of charging parents whose non-adult children commit these grievous crimes will lead to many convictions.

B) Also, as attorneys begin to specialize in representing parents so charged, the conviction rates will concomitantly drop IMHO.

So precedent or not, A & B remain steep obstacles to conviction.

BTW - I think this case has 2, not 3, parents charged? What have I missed?

MOO
 
Last edited:
Right, as usual, concerning the law.

Whether charging parents will become a norm? I still think not, regardless of legal precedent. It's still a very high bar in these types of cases to invoke culpability under the law & new cases will still have to reach that bar.

Prosecutors usually are parents, too. In fact I would go so far as to say that the appeals court judges being parents influenced their decision. I think parents in our society are not ready to look dispassionately enough at these crimes to not take such decisions to charge other parents personally - something that also extends the high bar. Parents know it's often a crap shoot as to the choices their non-adult children make.

A) The fact that most people are parents & many parents serve on juries leads me to seriously doubt a new precedent of charging parents whose non-adult children commit these grievous crimes will lead to many convictions.

B) Also, as attorneys begin to specialize in representing parents so charged, the conviction rates will concomitantly drop IMHO.

So precedent or not, A & B remain steep obstacles to conviction.

BTW - I think this case has 2, not 3, parents charged? What have I missed?

MOO
All good points.

I think if the Crumbley's had not bought the gun and EC got the gun from somewhere else without them knowing, they wouldn't have been charged. The gun really puts it over the top.

If more DA's start charging parents I think one thing that will happen is that some parents who were going to buy a handgun for their kid, will think twice.

Pretty common to get kid's a rifle. They even have Cricket rifles for little kids. Parents teach their kids how to shoot rifles and how to hunt, time honored tradition in many families.

The Crumbley's went further and for no good reason bought their son a handgun, much easier to hide than a rifle. Other shooters have had big guns but not from parents giving them as Christmas gifts.

I think also parents will lock up their guns better, think more about it.
I would hate to see parents charged left and right, DA's overcharge as it is.

Aside from the gun, the big hurdle for the defense is a 15 year old boy actually asking for mental health help and the mom not answering those types of texts and ignoring him, even ignoring him leaving him home alone overnight. Then the dad telling him to "suck it up."

These things will get them convicted:

1.) Buying the gun
2.) Ethan only 15, asking for mental health help
3.) Ethan showing multiple instances of mental distress
4.) Parents ignoring his cries for help, not getting him any help

Didn't the mom complain online that it was too expensive to get him counseling? She was complaining about money online. No excuse, they had $ for their horse hobby. Buying horses, boarding horses, equipment for horses, vet care for horses, food for horses. Plus all the time in the world to spend with their horses.

2 Cents
 
All good points.

I think if the Crumbley's had not bought the gun and EC got the gun from somewhere else without them knowing, they wouldn't have been charged. The gun really puts it over the top.

If more DA's start charging parents I think one thing that will happen is that some parents who were going to buy a handgun for their kid, will think twice.

Pretty common to get kid's a rifle. They even have Cricket rifles for little kids. Parents teach their kids how to shoot rifles and how to hunt, time honored tradition in many families.

The Crumbley's went further and for no good reason bought their son a handgun, much easier to hide than a rifle. Other shooters have had big guns but not from parents giving them as Christmas gifts.

I think also parents will lock up their guns better, think more about it.
I would hate to see parents charged left and right, DA's overcharge as it is.

Aside from the gun, the big hurdle for the defense is a 15 year old boy actually asking for mental health help and the mom not answering those types of texts and ignoring him, even ignoring him leaving him home alone overnight. Then the dad telling him to "suck it up."

These things will get them convicted:

1.) Buying the gun
2.) Ethan only 15, asking for mental health help
3.) Ethan showing multiple instances of mental distress
4.) Parents ignoring his cries for help, not getting him any help

Didn't the mom complain online that it was too expensive to get him counseling? She was complaining about money online. No excuse, they had $ for their horse hobby. Buying horses, boarding horses, equipment for horses, vet care for horses, food for horses. Plus all the time in the world to spend with their horses.

2 Cents

Will the texts from Ethan to his mother asking for help be admissible at trial without Ethan on the stand? Or will the defense be able to cross-examine Ethan about the texts and other matters that are key to the prosecution's case.

I do wish that the Crumbley's had more experienced and expert attorneys, given the potential precedent-setting nature of this case. I think any parents who are in this position with a case of this nature for the first time should have the best counsel available. Maybe someone will step in. Has the trial date been set?
 
All good points.

I think if the Crumbley's had not bought the gun and EC got the gun from somewhere else without them knowing, they wouldn't have been charged. The gun really puts it over the top.

If more DA's start charging parents I think one thing that will happen is that some parents who were going to buy a handgun for their kid, will think twice.

Pretty common to get kid's a rifle. They even have Cricket rifles for little kids. Parents teach their kids how to shoot rifles and how to hunt, time honored tradition in many families.

The Crumbley's went further and for no good reason bought their son a handgun, much easier to hide than a rifle. Other shooters have had big guns but not from parents giving them as Christmas gifts.

I think also parents will lock up their guns better, think more about it.
I would hate to see parents charged left and right, DA's overcharge as it is.

Aside from the gun, the big hurdle for the defense is a 15 year old boy actually asking for mental health help and the mom not answering those types of texts and ignoring him, even ignoring him leaving him home alone overnight. Then the dad telling him to "suck it up."

These things will get them convicted:

1.) Buying the gun
2.) Ethan only 15, asking for mental health help
3.) Ethan showing multiple instances of mental distress
4.) Parents ignoring his cries for help, not getting him any help

Didn't the mom complain online that it was too expensive to get him counseling? She was complaining about money online. No excuse, they had $ for their horse hobby. Buying horses, boarding horses, equipment for horses, vet care for horses, food for horses. Plus all the time in the world to spend with their horses.

2 Cents
And 5.) Failure to mention at the school meeting that EC had been given a gun.
6.) Not removing him from school that day
7.) Not immediately confirming the location of said gun.

JMO
 
I would hate to see parents charged left and right, DA's overcharge as it is.

But school shootings are happening left-and-right. Current law and thinking has failed.

What might help, considering that many times the parents knew there was a weapon in the home?
Do we go on like this forever?
 
But school shootings are happening left-and-right. Current law and thinking has failed.

What might help, considering that many times the parents knew there was a weapon in the home?
Do we go on like this forever?
How does charging parents after the fact help when the damage is done already?

It is preventative measures that need to take place.

But, yes, more parents do need to be held accountable because according to statistics:

One thing that would help to avoid this:


Is to get gun storage laws on a Federal level. Not only did MI not have gun storage laws, they wouldn't even pass those laws after the Oxford shootings. No, it took students getting shot and dying in the recent MSU shootings for the new storage laws to get passed.

Wouldn't have this problem on the Federal level. Federal gun storage laws would encompass all 50 States and do away with all this patchwork confusion of what State has what law? And do away with politicians afraid to pass gun laws for fear of not being re-elected.

Clear Federal laws so parents understand all their gun responsibilities in regards to the minors in their homes, not just their own children but all minors in their homes, would be a step in the right direction.

And this includes people who do not have under aged children but children visit their property. These adults are responsible also to keep guns locked up, laws need to be clear about this too.

Every gun owner is responsible to keep their guns locked away from minors. Period. Good Federal Laws that spell it out clearly to all 50 States could actually help.

TV and radio segments can help educate the public about the gun laws and responsibilities towards minors.

Required gun safety classes and meeting with a gun safety instructor should be mandatory in certain situations.

Free gun safety programs with gun safety experts offered throughout the Country would also be helpful. A big push for this would educate alot of people. Many people enjoy volunteering and would enjoy educating people on gun safety and gun laws.

People who love guns love to talk about guns.
 
Last edited:
How does charging parents after the fact help when the damage is done already?

People are typically charged for their contribution to violent crimes after the crime has occurred. Because victims deserve justice. IMO.

Required gun safety classes and meeting with a gun safety instructor should be mandatory in certain situations.

Why only in certain situations?
 
People are typically charged for their contribution to violent crimes after the crime has occurred. Because victims deserve justice. IMO.



Why only in certain situations?
I'm sure you can come up with some answers.
 
Pontiac — Prosecutors balked at a request from James and Jennifer Crumbley to attend the hearing that will determine if their son will have the chance to be released on parole after killing four people in a shooting at Oxford High School in November 2021.

The Crumbleys' attorneys filed a motion March 27, asking their clients be allowed to attend their son's May 1 Miller hearing, where Judge Kwamé Rowe will hear testimony to indicate if there are mitigating factors that would make it unconstitutional to sentence their son to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

This hearing is "of paramount importance" to the Crumbleys, their attorneys, Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman, wrote. They have not been allowed to have contact with their son, though they have received "sufficient" updates from family members and from their attorneys on how he is doing, according to the request...

The parents now take an interest in their son? Got it.
 

This hearing is "of paramount importance" to the Crumbleys, their attorneys, Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman, wrote. They have not been allowed to have contact with their son, though they have received "sufficient" updates from family members and from their attorneys on how he is doing, according to the request...

The parents now take an interest in their son? Got it.
RSBBM
These two are a real piece of work. A neighbor who knew him ages 6-12 speaks out again in a new article.

Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley's neighbor reveals parents left him alone to 'go out and drink'
"Ethan Crumbley's neighbor says the quiet boy next door "was never, ever OK" years before he executed a mass shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan on Nov. 30, 2021."
Jinerson had offered to babysit the preteen when his parents were out socializing and drinking – something they often did, without their son – so that he could spend time with her son and husband instead of being home alone.

"They would go out and drink and leave him home alone," Jinerson said, echoing the prosecution's depiction of the Crumbleys as absent parents. "He was scared. He would come over to my house and say, 'I can't be here because I'm going to get into trouble.'"
 
Pontiac — An Oakland County judge has denied a request from the parents of the Oxford High School shooter to attend their son's hearing that will determine if he will be eligible for parole.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews denied the request Wednesday, but did not give a reason. She did not give either side a chance to do oral arguments, which was scheduled for April 12.

Prosecutors balked at the March 27 request, filed by the Crumbleys' attorneys Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman...
 
Pontiac — An Oakland County judge has denied a request from the parents of the Oxford High School shooter to attend their son's hearing that will determine if he will be eligible for parole.

Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Cheryl Matthews denied the request Wednesday, but did not give a reason. She did not give either side a chance to do oral arguments, which was scheduled for April 12.

Prosecutors balked at the March 27 request, filed by the Crumbleys' attorneys Shannon Smith and Mariell Lehman...
Good. I think it was all a show. They didn't show that level of interest when they went to school about that drawing.
Or when he said he was seeing people in the house. Or when he asked about therapy.
 
"Ethan didn't have a prayer as a child," she told the Free Press, adding that she doesn't know what her family "could have done differently."


Maybe this neighbor could have alerted a mandated reporter or CPS about their concerns. I realize that's a difficult step to take, but we as a society have to figure out how to help troubled children before they become troubled teens.
 
"Ethan didn't have a prayer as a child," she told the Free Press, adding that she doesn't know what her family "could have done differently."


Maybe this neighbor could have alerted a mandated reporter or CPS about their concerns. I realize that's a difficult step to take, but we as a society have to figure out how to help troubled children before they become troubled teens.
I am not sure she didn't. We don't know.

The problem with EC's parents is emotional neglect. He was fed & housed, went to school, etc.

I wouldn't call him a "troubled child" without more evidence of him acting out at society in his pre-teens. When did his hallucinations & mental health issues, like hallucinations (if real) start? Has his mental health ever been properly evaluated even now? If so, what is the diagnosis/es?

Ethan's horrific descent into mass murder merits him being sequestered from society & his sentencing is coming up.

While I want to see him pay for those actions, when will he ever know the kindness & care that seems largely missing from his childhood? Even now he is alone the great majority of the time. Should we care? Does it matter?

JMO
 
I am not sure she didn't. We don't know.

The problem with EC's parents is emotional neglect. He was fed & housed, went to school, etc.

I wouldn't call him a "troubled child" without more evidence of him acting out at society in his pre-teens. When did his hallucinations & mental health issues, like hallucinations (if real) start? Has his mental health ever been properly evaluated even now? If so, what is the diagnosis/es?

Ethan's horrific descent into mass murder merits him being sequestered from society & his sentencing is coming up.

While I want to see him pay for those actions, when will he ever know the kindness & care that seems largely missing from his childhood? Even now he is alone the great majority of the time. Should we care? Does it matter?

JMO
It does matter. I hope he is getting some kindness and care and I believe he is... He’s pled guilty and I feel he did that because he is getting proper care and guidance - IMO he does have remorse and he is not a lost cause. It’s just so tragic this happened.
 
Last edited:

"These defendants abandoned their son the moment that they thought charges against them were possible," wrote Keast, who scoffed at the Crumbleys' assertions that they are "very concerned" for their son.

"They left it to the court to find him an attorney. They emptied his bank account. And they used that money to find themselves an attorney and flee from apprehension."

Keast, in urging the judge to deny the Crumbleys' request to attend their son's hearing, stressed: The parents' "concern remains for themselves, not their son."

"As Jennifer Crumbley put it on the day of the shooting, the shooter ruined his own life, 'now we have to take care of ourselves,' " Keast wrote.
 

"These defendants abandoned their son the moment that they thought charges against them were possible," wrote Keast, who scoffed at the Crumbleys' assertions that they are "very concerned" for their son.

"They left it to the court to find him an attorney. They emptied his bank account. And they used that money to find themselves an attorney and flee from apprehension."

Keast, in urging the judge to deny the Crumbleys' request to attend their son's hearing, stressed: The parents' "concern remains for themselves, not their son."

"As Jennifer Crumbley put it on the day of the shooting, the shooter ruined his own life, 'now we have to take care of ourselves,' " Keast wrote.
The Michigan Court of Appeals last month concluded there was enough evidence to send the case to trial, though the Crumbleys will appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

My first time hearing about this appeal of the Appeals Court ruling. Does this mean their trial is still on hold?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
2,228
Total visitors
2,425

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,255
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top