Crumbley’s parents appeal charges related to Michigan school shooting


Should parents be held legally responsible if their child shoots people? That’s the question at the center of a Michigan case straight out of Law and order franchise. The case stems from a 2021 mass shooting at Oxford High School, in which Ethan Crumbley killed four people. Crumbley’s parents, James and Jennifer, have been charged with manslaughter. “The Crumbleys are the first American parents to be charged in a mass shooting at a school”, Remarks the Detroit Free Press.

Now, James and Jennifer Crumbley have appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. They suggest the state has no legal basis to bring such charges and is trying to change gun policy through criminal charges rather than legislation.

“The desire to hold someone accountable for the tragedy at Oxford High School on November 30, 2021 is certainly understandable, but ‘the temptation to stretch the law to fit evil is old, and should be resisted’ .” tells them call, filed on Monday. “There is little doubt that the charges against Mr and Mrs Crumbley … arose out of a desire to hold people accountable for criminal acts, where no legal justification exists to do so. However, extending the Law in such a way involves important political decisions with broad social consequences, going far beyond this single case, and such a task should therefore be solved through the legislative process, not through judicial innovation.

The state argues that James and Jennifer Crumbley are partly responsible for the shooting because they bought him the handgun he used, did not tell the school about the gun and allegedly did not failed to adequately address Ethan’s mental health issues.

The Crumbleys say they kept the gun they bought the son in a safe place and could not have known his mental health issues would lead him to commit a horrific crime.

If the case against the Crumbley parents were allowed, it would set a dangerous precedent. Perhaps most parents of teenage shooters don’t buy the guns their children use, but most could likely be accused after the fact of not adequately caring for the child’s mental health. When things go wrong, we often tend to assume that someone could have done it. After. And if that holds, it probably won’t be long before the rationale expands beyond school shootings to other scenarios where troubled teens commit crimes. But the sad reality is that in many cases there is not much parents can do. And punishing parents for the criminal acts of their children can only hurt innocent people and waste law enforcement resources.

In their appeal, the Crumbleys’ defense cites a 1961 Michigan Supreme Court decision decision involving “a man who was convicted of manslaughter for giving his car keys to a drunken man who was in a car accident that night killing himself and another motorist”, notes the Free press. “The Supreme Court eventually overturned that conviction, finding that the man who handed over his keys was not guilty of manslaughter because he was not present when the accident happened, and that nor did he advise the driver of the murder or participate in it.”

If convicted, James and Jennifer Crumbley could face up to 15 years in prison. Their trial is due to begin in October. Ethan Crumbley’s trial is scheduled for January 2023.


national interest explore “the misery of national conservatism”:

At the national level, the Conservative National Statement devotes considerable space to emphasizing the need to reaffirm institutions such as the traditional family and religion. It’s not hard to find conservatives who believe they’ve been overlooked by elements of the American right who have prioritized freedom. Here, the national conservatives have a few neoconservatives in mind, but above all libertarians, especially on the left.

Beyond these broad overtones, however, defining the content of national conservatism has not been easy. It is one thing to say that we want to reaffirm national sovereignty. However, what does this mean in practice beyond, say, the enforcement of unenforced border laws or the replacement of supranational institutions like the European Union and organizations like the World Economic Forum?

Likewise, simply saying that you want to strengthen traditional families or protect religious communities from aggressive progressives doesn’t tell us much about how you intend to do so. Holding congressional hearings on how America ended up with schools and libraries hosting weekly drag queen hours won’t strike many people as necessarily leading to much concrete action.


“Businesses are competitive” shouldn’t be news. In fact, it is the goal of all kinds of companies to outperform companies in similar situations. Yet, for some reason, when big tech companies do this, everyone freaks out. The idea that companies like Google, Apple, Amazon and Meta are trying to boost their own products over those of their competitors has been – and continues to be – the subject of much criticism from politicians and the media. .

The House Judiciary Committee investigating these companies for possible antitrust violations recently provided documents from its 2020 investigation to Politicswho reports that “the documents reinforce the committee’s claims that internet giants are illegally promoting their own products, a practice that pending legislation to update antitrust laws would make more difficult.”

It’s not illegal for tech companies to simply promote their own products, such as promoting Amazon-branded products higher in search results or pre-installing Google Chrome browsers on Google-owned Android phones. same way that it is not illegal for supermarkets to place a store. -branded products on the best shelves, or for magazines to choose not to accept ads from competing magazines, or for movie theaters to prohibit people from bringing their own food and drink. But some lawmakers want to make it illegal for big tech companies to do so.


• Legislation with the same name has been introduced at previous congresses (from 2009) but has never been put to a vote in the plenary chamber. More information on the current House bill here; supplementary bill in the Senate here.

• It may be too late to contain the monkeypox virus that is spreading around the world. In the nine weeks since multiple cases were detected in the UK, “the number of cases has soared to almost 13,000 in more than 60 countries across Europe, North and South America, the Middle East, new regions of Africa, South Asia and Australia”. “, reports STAT.

• Sixteen Democratic lawmakers, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Presley (Mass.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Cori Bush (Mo.) have been arrested with other abortion rights protesters outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

• Repeated lockdowns and security alerts in Uvalde: “nearly 50 between February and May alone”, reports the Associated Press – contributed to a “diminished sense of alertness” that may have worsened the shooting at Robb Elementary School, the Texas House of Representatives says in a new report. In South Texas, closures are often called when federal or state police chase migrants trying to cross the border.

• We could use an invigorated skeptical movement, suggests Freddie deBoer. “The fading light of mainstream skepticism seemed to contribute to the still metastasized cultural tumor of woo woo and irrationality.”

• Not everything is a national emergency.

• But of course:

• The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the state’s congressional map. “Previously submitted maps did not survive the anti-gerrymandering provisions of the state constitution,” Remarks NBC News. The “court ruled in a 4-3 decision that the proposed redistricting plan “unfairly favored the Republican Party and disadvantaged the Democratic Party.”

• “A gunman in an Indiana Mall offered better protection than 376 cops in Uvalde”, writes JD Tuccille.

• “The Idaho Republican Party changed its platform on Saturday to oppose abortion in all cases, including as a life-saving procedure for a pregnant woman,” writes Emma Camp.


Comments are closed.