Interesting column, though I think the analogy fails.
First, the parents are receiving trials.
Second, no one is talking about rounding up the grandparents and aunts and uncles.
Third, in the examples given, innocent minor children are imprisoned for the alleged crimes of their parents. In this case, the question is not one of the parents' innocence (the parents are clearly not "innocent") but of legal culpability, since they purchased the gun then failed to supervise its use.
I'm not sure the correct verdict was reached here (I'm sure this verdict will be appealed) , but it is not the sign of a totalitarian government to expect parents to act responsibly in providing a troubled child with a gun.
If the child were a licensed driver and used the family car to run down a crowd of people, would the parents be "not innocent" for letting that child have the keys? If a parent handed the child an ax, and told him to go chop wood, and the child instead used the ax to murder a neighbor, would the parents be "not innocent" for handing the child an ax? What about a knife? A length of rope? What if the parents had given the child martial arts lessons, and the child killed another child with his bare hands?
In what instance would a parent not be liable for the actions of their child? You focus too much on the instrument.
Ok, first, my use of "innocence" in quotes, followed by the term "legally culpable," I was clearly separating out legal responsible from parental responsibility.
But moving on, let's flesh out your automobile example, so that the situation is similar to the one in question.
Let's say the parents have recently discovered that their troubled son has been regularly using alcohol and drugs. A few days later, they buy him a car and allow him to take it to a party without having determined whether there is adult supervision. Later that evening, after consuming a number of alcoholic beverages, the son deliberately plows into a group of kids gathering outside the party, killing several of them.
Setting aside legal culpability, would you call those parents "innocent" in this situation?
I am not against guns. I am not against parents purchasing guns for their children, then teaching them proper gun use. However, I am against parents putting a lethal weapon (whether a gun or an automobile) in the hands of a child who is clearly unstable.
As conservatives, we oppose the government taking on parental responsibilities. As such, we should insist on parents exercising their responsibilities, and I think this is a good case for allowing the legal system to play out while we grapple with the question of whether there comes a time when we assign legal culpability to a parent whose failure to parent led to lethal consequences.
I am not answering this question, but the jury did and now it is time to for the legal system to do its job.
so refreshing to read comments that take a pause, consider the facts, make rational accurate comparisons and not get clouded by emotions and over simplification. Completely agree with your rationale.
The Prosecutor for Michigan tried Ryan as an adult, therefore he was completely responsible for his actions. They then prosecuted his Mother and Father for being negligent in their care and supervision of their child. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
Valid point, though, again, I'm not sure that it holds up.
Say your went for a ride with your friend. He says he has to make a quick stop, then goes in to rob a convenience, shooting and killing the clerk. In most states, you can be prosecuted for felony murder (murder that occurs during the commission of a felony) even though you had no idea when you got in the car what your friend was going to do.
I'm not saying these situations are the same, but it is an example where a person who took no overt action to commit a crime can nevertheless be prosecuted based on the actions of another.
When you have a parent knowingly putting a weapon (whatever that weapon may be) into the hands of their troubled minor child (no matter how the child is prosecuted), there is far more culpability than in the above example of felony murder.
I have no idea how this case will come out on appeal. I'm no lawyer and no expert in the nuances of law.
But I do believe it is a question worth asking. The prosecutor asked the question and the jury responded. Now the appeal courts will have to consider the issue and will, hopefully, provide clarity.
It is tiresome to see the claims of mythic, magical power attributed to firearms. It's appalling that parents are being tarred with evil intent for not reciting the cant condemning the Evil Gun.
As a matter of philosophy, I believe we are each responsible for our own wrongdoing, but not for the wrongdoing of others. I do think, however, that the prosecution in this case was fed by
1. anti-gun hysteria (despite the fact that every day large numbers of guns legally change hands and are never used in any crime, or are only used to deter crime), and
2. plaintiff attorneys trying to extort payment from various insurance companies. (We americans have a particular penchant to "go for the (legal) gold" . . . sigh)
Consider: every day, parents of teenagers entrust CARS (trucks, etc.) to their children. Most have taken (or been compelled to take) their child to drivers ed. Has anyone suggested that such parents intend to facilitate their child's driving through pedestrians in a crosswalk? The demonstrable carnage created by teen drivers is way higher than caused by those evil talisman guns.
A very emotive and extreme comparison being made here, very 2024 :( The article wilfully avoids specific detail for comparison and jumps straight for the 'this is what the Nazis did' logic. Yes the subject of holding parents legally accountable needs to be treated with the utmost care and attention, but that doesn’t mean the concept of seriously negligent parenting should be immune from prosecution, especiaally when it leads to the murder of innocent children. Perhaps if there were more accountability placed on parental responsibility there would be less issues in society to deal with. However its very difficult when considering families from poor households and with single parents etc, and so prosecution needs to make sure this is taken into account. In this case the teenage boy clearly had struggles and had shown signs that should have made the choice to purchase and train him with a handgun EXTREMELY questionable. Just because it is legal to do it doesn’t mean you should do it! I agree that the verdict may get appealed given the weakness or lack of due diligence of the prosecution, but the principle of parents being held legally responsible for their children isn’t 'the west becoming a soviet gulag' in my opinion!
I strongly support gun ownership rights but this essay is inappropriate hyperbole. The comparison to punishment of extended family members in North Korea or Nazi Germany is without merit.
There was a trial and the jury brought a conviction based on evidence presented. Many states have requirements that firearms be secured to prevent minors from having access to them. Even if not a state legal requirement, that's a reasonable and appropriate expectation for gun ownership. Ethan was a minor with troubling behavior that apparently could be described as mental health issues. All the more reason to take proper steps to secure the gun.
I appreciate Konstantin's willingness to present challenging topics. Yet, in this case he is promoting an essay with misleading comparisons and fearmongering. No one in the US is sending extended family members to death camps (or subjecting them to arrest) due to actions of someone else. In this case, the parents are being held accountable for a valid expectation of properly securing a firearm in their home.
Traditionally, and historically, civil damages (from a lawsuit by an alleged injured party) was BASED ON SOME *WRONGFUL BEHAVIOR* of the defendant. Can you articulate what behavior of either parent was legally wrongful? Money is not supposed to be awarded as if a person won a golden ticket due to their loss and not due to the negligence of the defendant.
The goal of this prosecution is to chill gun ownership in general. If the conviction is not overturned on appeal at the State level, my bet is that it ends up at the Supreme Court, where it will be overturned. This is lunacy.
An excellent article. States like Michigan are veering dangerously close to the edge between democracy and totalitarianism - whether it be punishing parents for the crimes of their children, or for their opposition to transgender policies or DEI mandates. Getting to be a lot like Britain in many respects.
Most gun homicides in the U.S., including mass shootings, are committed by black gang members, many of who are underage. Will their parents be held liable? I would think that most of these parents know, or should know, that their kids are participating in gang activity.
A complicated one for sure...arguments could be made ad nauseum, - how old was the boy? Do school shooters usually come from nice and healthy families? What justice is anyone chasing here, except vengeance.
Even with that, I agree with you Konstanin. A dangerous precedent.
Marko I disagree with your question," Do school shooters usually come from nice and healthy families?" Which implies immediately that the parents must be wrongins and are at fault. I grew up with a boy with better parents than the one I had. He learnt to play the violin. They were loving, kind people. They helped my mum a lot to lookafter her kids as she was a single mum.. But their boy, was arrested for stealing other people's pets and hanging them to death over the railway bridge. You can't judge a book by its cover, and you can't judge a parent for the deeds of their children.
The failure of my child is my failure as a parent.
That is always true.
I don't judge a book by it's cover, as you've described a cover in the story about the boy, such cruelty is usually real psychopathology. Darkness can lurk behind that love and kindness.
There's always anomalies, of course
And no, I can't judge every parent of every child, up to a point...
So, you agree if your child kills you should be punished for their crimes? There many irresponsible and cruel parents out there who need legal judgement for the treatment and neglect of their child. However, I disagree with taking away responsibility from the child for their actions whether their parents are bad or good. I blamed my mother for my bad choices in life, taking no responsibility at all for them. "It was my bad up bringing." No, it wasn't. The moment I took soul responsibility for my life and the bad choices I made, I grew up and started making better choices. Teaching childern that it is their parents fault for their bad behaviour, takes away that feeling of responsibility and it gives them justification to continue to exhibit bad behaviour.
I had another friend in school who's parents were both alcoholics and did terrible things to her. They were horrible people. Rose grew up to be a good kind person and works as a nurse helping abused kids. If there are bad parents it is not necessarily that the child will be bad. Same goes for parents that are good doesn't mean the child will be good. It is draconian and totalitarianism to lay judgment and punishment like that with a prejudice blanket rule. KK is 💯right.
I wonder if the outcome would have been different had the kid used a knife? My guess this is really a case against those evil gun owners. Let us all hope this is overturned on appeal.
If this stands then it’s only a matter of time until grand parents , uncles, aunts , cousins and in laws are charged. After all the knew the kid was a sick POS.
This is the most logical explanation I've read (from a commenter on an article at The Free Press) about why the mother bears responsibility: her actions (or lack of actions) on the day of the murders. Think about it. On the day of the shootings, the Crumbleys had more than one opportunity to prevent the violence. They were called to the school because of the violent doodles on the math paper. They knew their son had access to a gun. The school recommended they take their son home. Why didn't they? The school questioned the son's mental health. They insisted that their son was fine. Finally, they neither alerted the school to the fact that their son owned a gun, nor did they take responsibility to make certain the gun was safely at home.
No one can be expected to predict ahead of time which troubled student with access to a gun is going to commit the next school shooting. However, if on the day of the tragedy, the mother had taken the opportunities she was given to take her son's issues seriously and make sure he didn't have the gun at school, Jennifer Crumbley would not be facing prison time today.
David: Kid was underage, parents bought the gun, parents share accountability....we can't pick and choose which stuff parents are accountable for. Not guns, yes for gender change....crazy.
Consider a different analogy. Suppose I build and program robot. I send the robot out to get groceries and instead it kills a pedestrian. The easy conclusion is that I am responsible for that death. There was no intent but nonetheless I am culpable. A parent with a child is in the process of programming a new person. During that process the parent is responsible for making sure, to the extent possible, that the child does no harm to others. When maturity is reached, the responsibility transfers to the child. I think the principle is clear though the boundaries are not.
Interesting column, though I think the analogy fails.
First, the parents are receiving trials.
Second, no one is talking about rounding up the grandparents and aunts and uncles.
Third, in the examples given, innocent minor children are imprisoned for the alleged crimes of their parents. In this case, the question is not one of the parents' innocence (the parents are clearly not "innocent") but of legal culpability, since they purchased the gun then failed to supervise its use.
I'm not sure the correct verdict was reached here (I'm sure this verdict will be appealed) , but it is not the sign of a totalitarian government to expect parents to act responsibly in providing a troubled child with a gun.
Leading to fourth: the verdict can be appealed.
If the child were a licensed driver and used the family car to run down a crowd of people, would the parents be "not innocent" for letting that child have the keys? If a parent handed the child an ax, and told him to go chop wood, and the child instead used the ax to murder a neighbor, would the parents be "not innocent" for handing the child an ax? What about a knife? A length of rope? What if the parents had given the child martial arts lessons, and the child killed another child with his bare hands?
In what instance would a parent not be liable for the actions of their child? You focus too much on the instrument.
Ok, first, my use of "innocence" in quotes, followed by the term "legally culpable," I was clearly separating out legal responsible from parental responsibility.
But moving on, let's flesh out your automobile example, so that the situation is similar to the one in question.
Let's say the parents have recently discovered that their troubled son has been regularly using alcohol and drugs. A few days later, they buy him a car and allow him to take it to a party without having determined whether there is adult supervision. Later that evening, after consuming a number of alcoholic beverages, the son deliberately plows into a group of kids gathering outside the party, killing several of them.
Setting aside legal culpability, would you call those parents "innocent" in this situation?
I am not against guns. I am not against parents purchasing guns for their children, then teaching them proper gun use. However, I am against parents putting a lethal weapon (whether a gun or an automobile) in the hands of a child who is clearly unstable.
As conservatives, we oppose the government taking on parental responsibilities. As such, we should insist on parents exercising their responsibilities, and I think this is a good case for allowing the legal system to play out while we grapple with the question of whether there comes a time when we assign legal culpability to a parent whose failure to parent led to lethal consequences.
I am not answering this question, but the jury did and now it is time to for the legal system to do its job.
so refreshing to read comments that take a pause, consider the facts, make rational accurate comparisons and not get clouded by emotions and over simplification. Completely agree with your rationale.
The Prosecutor for Michigan tried Ryan as an adult, therefore he was completely responsible for his actions. They then prosecuted his Mother and Father for being negligent in their care and supervision of their child. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
Valid point, though, again, I'm not sure that it holds up.
Say your went for a ride with your friend. He says he has to make a quick stop, then goes in to rob a convenience, shooting and killing the clerk. In most states, you can be prosecuted for felony murder (murder that occurs during the commission of a felony) even though you had no idea when you got in the car what your friend was going to do.
I'm not saying these situations are the same, but it is an example where a person who took no overt action to commit a crime can nevertheless be prosecuted based on the actions of another.
When you have a parent knowingly putting a weapon (whatever that weapon may be) into the hands of their troubled minor child (no matter how the child is prosecuted), there is far more culpability than in the above example of felony murder.
I have no idea how this case will come out on appeal. I'm no lawyer and no expert in the nuances of law.
But I do believe it is a question worth asking. The prosecutor asked the question and the jury responded. Now the appeal courts will have to consider the issue and will, hopefully, provide clarity.
Concur. Well said.
It is tiresome to see the claims of mythic, magical power attributed to firearms. It's appalling that parents are being tarred with evil intent for not reciting the cant condemning the Evil Gun.
As a matter of philosophy, I believe we are each responsible for our own wrongdoing, but not for the wrongdoing of others. I do think, however, that the prosecution in this case was fed by
1. anti-gun hysteria (despite the fact that every day large numbers of guns legally change hands and are never used in any crime, or are only used to deter crime), and
2. plaintiff attorneys trying to extort payment from various insurance companies. (We americans have a particular penchant to "go for the (legal) gold" . . . sigh)
Consider: every day, parents of teenagers entrust CARS (trucks, etc.) to their children. Most have taken (or been compelled to take) their child to drivers ed. Has anyone suggested that such parents intend to facilitate their child's driving through pedestrians in a crosswalk? The demonstrable carnage created by teen drivers is way higher than caused by those evil talisman guns.
A very emotive and extreme comparison being made here, very 2024 :( The article wilfully avoids specific detail for comparison and jumps straight for the 'this is what the Nazis did' logic. Yes the subject of holding parents legally accountable needs to be treated with the utmost care and attention, but that doesn’t mean the concept of seriously negligent parenting should be immune from prosecution, especiaally when it leads to the murder of innocent children. Perhaps if there were more accountability placed on parental responsibility there would be less issues in society to deal with. However its very difficult when considering families from poor households and with single parents etc, and so prosecution needs to make sure this is taken into account. In this case the teenage boy clearly had struggles and had shown signs that should have made the choice to purchase and train him with a handgun EXTREMELY questionable. Just because it is legal to do it doesn’t mean you should do it! I agree that the verdict may get appealed given the weakness or lack of due diligence of the prosecution, but the principle of parents being held legally responsible for their children isn’t 'the west becoming a soviet gulag' in my opinion!
I strongly support gun ownership rights but this essay is inappropriate hyperbole. The comparison to punishment of extended family members in North Korea or Nazi Germany is without merit.
There was a trial and the jury brought a conviction based on evidence presented. Many states have requirements that firearms be secured to prevent minors from having access to them. Even if not a state legal requirement, that's a reasonable and appropriate expectation for gun ownership. Ethan was a minor with troubling behavior that apparently could be described as mental health issues. All the more reason to take proper steps to secure the gun.
I appreciate Konstantin's willingness to present challenging topics. Yet, in this case he is promoting an essay with misleading comparisons and fearmongering. No one in the US is sending extended family members to death camps (or subjecting them to arrest) due to actions of someone else. In this case, the parents are being held accountable for a valid expectation of properly securing a firearm in their home.
Best and most logical, sane response made. Can we all just damp down the emotional BS, and
step up to being accountable.
I wonder if this will apply to the parents of teens involved in gang shootings? Probably not.
Prison time for parents due to actions of their children seems absurd, but monetary damages are another matter.
I think this makes sense. If a kid tossed a rock through the window, the parents would be liable for damages.
Um, I don't think your legal analysis is correct.
Traditionally, and historically, civil damages (from a lawsuit by an alleged injured party) was BASED ON SOME *WRONGFUL BEHAVIOR* of the defendant. Can you articulate what behavior of either parent was legally wrongful? Money is not supposed to be awarded as if a person won a golden ticket due to their loss and not due to the negligence of the defendant.
I guess that is what the plaintiff in the lawsuit would allege and have the burden to prove.
The goal of this prosecution is to chill gun ownership in general. If the conviction is not overturned on appeal at the State level, my bet is that it ends up at the Supreme Court, where it will be overturned. This is lunacy.
An excellent article. States like Michigan are veering dangerously close to the edge between democracy and totalitarianism - whether it be punishing parents for the crimes of their children, or for their opposition to transgender policies or DEI mandates. Getting to be a lot like Britain in many respects.
Most gun homicides in the U.S., including mass shootings, are committed by black gang members, many of who are underage. Will their parents be held liable? I would think that most of these parents know, or should know, that their kids are participating in gang activity.
A complicated one for sure...arguments could be made ad nauseum, - how old was the boy? Do school shooters usually come from nice and healthy families? What justice is anyone chasing here, except vengeance.
Even with that, I agree with you Konstanin. A dangerous precedent.
Marko I disagree with your question," Do school shooters usually come from nice and healthy families?" Which implies immediately that the parents must be wrongins and are at fault. I grew up with a boy with better parents than the one I had. He learnt to play the violin. They were loving, kind people. They helped my mum a lot to lookafter her kids as she was a single mum.. But their boy, was arrested for stealing other people's pets and hanging them to death over the railway bridge. You can't judge a book by its cover, and you can't judge a parent for the deeds of their children.
The failure of my child is my failure as a parent.
That is always true.
I don't judge a book by it's cover, as you've described a cover in the story about the boy, such cruelty is usually real psychopathology. Darkness can lurk behind that love and kindness.
There's always anomalies, of course
And no, I can't judge every parent of every child, up to a point...
So, you agree if your child kills you should be punished for their crimes? There many irresponsible and cruel parents out there who need legal judgement for the treatment and neglect of their child. However, I disagree with taking away responsibility from the child for their actions whether their parents are bad or good. I blamed my mother for my bad choices in life, taking no responsibility at all for them. "It was my bad up bringing." No, it wasn't. The moment I took soul responsibility for my life and the bad choices I made, I grew up and started making better choices. Teaching childern that it is their parents fault for their bad behaviour, takes away that feeling of responsibility and it gives them justification to continue to exhibit bad behaviour.
I had another friend in school who's parents were both alcoholics and did terrible things to her. They were horrible people. Rose grew up to be a good kind person and works as a nurse helping abused kids. If there are bad parents it is not necessarily that the child will be bad. Same goes for parents that are good doesn't mean the child will be good. It is draconian and totalitarianism to lay judgment and punishment like that with a prejudice blanket rule. KK is 💯right.
I don't agree, nor did I say or wrote such a thing.
There are many, yes, too many...
You should never take away responsibility from a child, learning responsibility it invaluable.
Ah, there we go, it's a bit personal, yes?
You are right, it is you, and so is her by extension, doesn't mean she needs conviction or you forgiveness.
You can't choose family, only how you live with them... Or apart. I salute the child which rises above a horrible family...
It is Draconian and totalistic, I also agree with KK, wrote nothing different.
I wonder if the outcome would have been different had the kid used a knife? My guess this is really a case against those evil gun owners. Let us all hope this is overturned on appeal.
If this stands then it’s only a matter of time until grand parents , uncles, aunts , cousins and in laws are charged. After all the knew the kid was a sick POS.
This is the most logical explanation I've read (from a commenter on an article at The Free Press) about why the mother bears responsibility: her actions (or lack of actions) on the day of the murders. Think about it. On the day of the shootings, the Crumbleys had more than one opportunity to prevent the violence. They were called to the school because of the violent doodles on the math paper. They knew their son had access to a gun. The school recommended they take their son home. Why didn't they? The school questioned the son's mental health. They insisted that their son was fine. Finally, they neither alerted the school to the fact that their son owned a gun, nor did they take responsibility to make certain the gun was safely at home.
No one can be expected to predict ahead of time which troubled student with access to a gun is going to commit the next school shooting. However, if on the day of the tragedy, the mother had taken the opportunities she was given to take her son's issues seriously and make sure he didn't have the gun at school, Jennifer Crumbley would not be facing prison time today.
David: Kid was underage, parents bought the gun, parents share accountability....we can't pick and choose which stuff parents are accountable for. Not guns, yes for gender change....crazy.
There were a lot of teens committing homicides in Michigan yet these are the only parents meeting held accountable in this way? I wonder why.
Consider a different analogy. Suppose I build and program robot. I send the robot out to get groceries and instead it kills a pedestrian. The easy conclusion is that I am responsible for that death. There was no intent but nonetheless I am culpable. A parent with a child is in the process of programming a new person. During that process the parent is responsible for making sure, to the extent possible, that the child does no harm to others. When maturity is reached, the responsibility transfers to the child. I think the principle is clear though the boundaries are not.
Stupid question. Of course such “parents” (as in this case) must be prosecuted.