IL - July 4 Parade, Highland Park, at least 6 fatally shot, 4 July 2022 *son charged, dad guilty*

This may have been a case where there was a difference between what the professionals felt and the burden of proof needed to legally prevent the person from obtaining weapons.

Also, it can be very difficult even for the professionals to gauge who is truly dangerous and who is just, well, "acting up".

This is what I'm thinking, too. IANAL, the laws are likely written in a way that sets the bar very high to prohibit sales of arms based on mental health, etc. Some might refer to it as a "poison pill", provisions inserted into the language of the law that render it ineffective. This is done when lawmakers are desperate to get a law enacted and have to compromise too much. This is often done like this - setting the bar too high to trigger the law. Another way is to strip out real enforcement provisions, meaning if someone breaks the law, the punishment is negligible.

Here's a link to Illinois law pertaining to firearms restraining orders, which may not be applicable in this situation. The language of this law provides for family members to apply for the restraining order. Even then, its temporary, only 14 days. Lots of loops for the family to jump through.


Yep, it looks like this is the "red flag" law that was supposed to apply in this situation, according to the article linked below. It requires family members to file for the emergency order.

Illinois passed it’s own red flag law back in 2019. It allows family members to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others.

“So I think one of the things we need to do as a community is to do a better job of letting people know that these red flag laws exist,” Shelly Page, assistant law professor at Southern Illinois University Carbondale, said.

JMO, its not a good law in that it doesn't have any provision for preventing someone like this guy from purchasing a weapon in the first place. The process is also quite lengthy to get a gun removed from someone, most likely requiring the reporting person to hire an attorney.

The general public is under the impression that these laws create some database of names of mentally ill or dangerous people who can't buy a weapon. They think the gun store people run a query on this database when someone wants to buy a gun. That's not how this works. It's a retroactive regulation that is only effective AFTER the person has bought a gun and AFTER they have frightened their family enough to go hire an attorney and go through court hearings to have the gun removed.

JMO "Raising awareness" about the law won't help, either. If a family doesn't realize their relative is getting ready to commit mass murder, they aren't going to start the process to have the gun removed. The law puts the reporting burden on people who are most likely to face fatal retaliation by the mentally ill gun owner. Relying on medical or mental health experts to do this reporting is impossible. If a psychologist, etc. is treating a dangerous person, that person isn't going to admit they have firearms in their home.

Worth noting as we move forward on this kind of discussion. Show me the bill. Let me read the language.

All JMO
 
The father of Highland Park shooting suspect Robert “Bobby” E. Crimo III "may have responsibility in certain circumstances" of his son's deadly actions, police said Wednesday while stopping short of tying the dad to any criminal culpability.

The 21-year-old suspect was too young to get a gun permit in 2019 from the state of Illinois, but his father, Bob Crimo Jr., sponsored one for him despite previous threats by his son to harm himself and loved ones, authorities have previously said.

Crimo was still under 21 in 2020 when he purchased the AR-15-style weapon used in Monday’s attack — a purchase he could only make because his father sponsored his Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) application...
 
The requirement is apparently in place to prevent people under a certain age from purchasing weapons on their own accord.

Ideally, a responsible parent would put a brake on gun purchases by potentially dangerous people by declining to sponsor fire arms purchases by the individual. With out parental sponsorship, the individual cannot legally purchase weapons.

Thus, the requirement reduces the possibility of say, impulse weapons purchases by dangerous individuals under 21 and their use for mass shootings. Illinois probably hopes that some potential mass shooters will loose interest before they turn 21.

Though Crimo is over 21 now and legally able to purchase weapons as an individual, the weapon used in the shooting and another weapon brought to the shooting were apparently purchased via the sponsorship of his father.

So..... I am hoping for criminal charges against the father as he knew his son had been assessed as being potentially dangerous, yet still sponsored the weapons purchases.
You stated this perfectly. I wanted to respond, but I'm not very eloquent.
Totally agree that the purpose of the FOID is to reduce the possibility of impulse weapons purchases by dangerous or immature individuals under age 21. Parents can sponsor, but it is up to parents to judge whether they feel they 18-20 year is mature and responsible enough.
 
"The burden of proof" should lie with the applicant.
Good observation- and I believe in most legal situations, the person requesting the action or benefit does have the burden of proof.

And now, the big "but".....

This situation deals with effectively voiding an individual's constitutional right. As a result, I suspect that the burden of proof is then transferred to the State in establishing good cause (truly dangerous vs acting up).
 
Last edited:
The father of Highland Park shooting suspect Robert “Bobby” E. Crimo III "may have responsibility in certain circumstances" of his son's deadly actions, police said Wednesday while stopping short of tying the dad to any criminal culpability.

The 21-year-old suspect was too young to get a gun permit in 2019 from the state of Illinois, but his father, Bob Crimo Jr., sponsored one for him despite previous threats by his son to harm himself and loved ones, authorities have previously said.

Crimo was still under 21 in 2020 when he purchased the AR-15-style weapon used in Monday’s attack — a purchase he could only make because his father sponsored his Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) application...

The problem with this law is it's only effective after an accident or crime has been committed. JMO The "background check" mostly relies on info from the federal database. The flaws and loopholes in these laws aren't there by accident. JMO

 
MOO: Father had an ethical responsibility not to sponsor his son's FOID card, because obtaining the card between age 18-20 was the sponsor's responsibility. Since his son had issues, he should have used proper judgement. I don't know how the FOID card works, but it doesn't appear that Crimo III had a record that would prevent obtaining a card. (A police report without charges filed and no arrest is probably not enough..lots of people call the cops on family members to settle disputes without filing charges) Sponsoring a card was at the parent's discretion.
 
Last edited:
So Crimo allegedly attempted suicide in April, 2019. Then four months later he threatened to kill his family. About four months later, in December, his father sponsored his application so that he could buy guns.

It makes no sense.

All HUGE RED FLAGS! ALL THE SIGNS WERE THERE!
He was suicidal and homicidal and Daddy helped him buy guns. GOOD GRIEF!
 
Documents from 2019

Article is a bit confusing about "Clear and present danger"



https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/07/highland-park-shooter-depressed-druggie-02.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=791
highland-park-shooter-depressed-druggie-01.jpg

 
"It's like just a child's outburst, whatever he was upset about, and I think his sister called the police -- I wasn't living there."

Wait, hold up. He wasn't there? I had kinda figured it was his sister that called (won't go into the "why") But if dad wasn't there - how does he even know what happened? Plus with the animosity between the parents - the whole situation probably turned into a "he said-she said" type of deal. And I'm willing to bet dad took his son's "side".

With him not even being there - its impossible for him to speak about that incident - he simply doesn't know.

This just keeps getting "messier".




JMHO
The police report clearly shows that the father knew. Father was contacted and agreed to take the knives....

highland-park-shooter-depressed-druggie-02.jpg
 
If that is true - then I am really pessimistic about the future in the USA.

He was suicidal and threatened the family members.
Granted, his father later denied it - but, for a true professional, it should have been obvious that this person must be denied weapons at all cost.

Well, this doesn't look good.
Not at all.

If that's NOT considered RED FLAGS then we are in BIG trouble.
 
Last edited:
If that is true - then I am really pessimistic about the future in the USA.

He was suicidal and threatened the family members.
Granted, his father later denied it - but, for a true professional, it should have been obvious that this person must be denied weapons at all cost.

Well, this doesn't look good.
Not at all.

In a lot of states and in a lot of Illinois cities, a specialty MH team come out to evaluate the person with the police. Highland Park looks to have a model of substantial police training in MH crisis response. They certified in 2021 but that probably their approach in 2019.
Unfortunately people in MH crisis can lie and say they are not going to harm themselves or anyone else once the police get on the scene.

 
"Suspect's father speaks out, says he raised son with 'good morals'

Nope.
He didn’t, he raised a son that says whatever is needed gets his goals.
Keep his dad taking with him, get out of school, get a tiny house, able to paint a creepy mural on the house, be able to get a FOID for 2 “school shooter” guns and 3 normal guns.
 
"Suspect's father speaks out, says he raised son with 'good morals'

A telephone interview

From the article:

"Thirteen hours earlier, I spent almost an hour with them sitting in the yard talking about the planet, the atmosphere and nothing. Great mood. I'm just shocked," Crimo said. "I think, three days before the fourth, my wife had asked him, 'hey, do you have any plans for the fourth?' And he simply said, 'no.'"

He also wasn't concerned by the social media posts his son made in the past, saying he hadn't seen them all and figured they had to do with his music.


First, who is THEM? He spent an hour with THEM - so who else was there and talking? And he admits not seeing those sick, nasty, disgusting posts - so how can he make statements about the person his son had become?

Again - in denial, making excuses - passing the buck. This guy really needs to just shut up! He's making the situation even worse - especially for himself. And, I bet he's angering a whole bunch of people as well as me!!!!




JMHO
 
From the article:

"Thirteen hours earlier, I spent almost an hour with them sitting in the yard talking about the planet, the atmosphere and nothing. Great mood. I'm just shocked," Crimo said. "I think, three days before the fourth, my wife had asked him, 'hey, do you have any plans for the fourth?' And he simply said, 'no.'"

He also wasn't concerned by the social media posts his son made in the past, saying he hadn't seen them all and figured they had to do with his music.


First, who is THEM? He spent an hour with THEM - so who else was there and talking? And he admits not seeing those sick, nasty, disgusting posts - so how can he make statements about the person his son had become?

Again - in denial, making excuses - passing the buck. This guy really needs to just shut up! He's making the situation even worse - especially for himself. And, I bet he's angering a whole bunch of people as well as me!!!!




JMHO

Did Robert Crimo use the pronoun THEM before the shooting? Or only AFTER the shooting?
 
Did Robert Crimo use the pronoun THEM before the shooting? Or only AFTER the shooting?
GOOD POINT! I didn't think about that. I was thinking it was either a typo in publication or the uncle was there - since the uncle lived with the dad.

We haven't heard anything about him using the they/them pronouns - but I guess it's a possibility. But the dad seems kinda old school - would he "agree" with something like that (using they/them)?



JMHO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
4,165
Total visitors
4,342

Forum statistics

Threads
593,568
Messages
17,989,299
Members
229,167
Latest member
just_a_shouthern_gal
Back
Top