Why the Crumbly's are the first parents to be charged with their child's shooting.

Since Columbine, the parents have never been charged with the murders caused by their children. Personally I've wanted parents to be held accountable for quite some time. However, why are the Crumbly's the first to be charged. Why not any of the other parents?

I think the primary reason is because the school administration knows that it is culpable for the murders as well. The school administration had the right and the duty to search his bags. They did not. A very quick charging and blaming on the Crumbly's is basically covers this up. It also allows the school to silence the parents and prevent them from offering the condolences which most parents of shooters has given. It's a pretty good PR stunt.

The Crumbly's seem to be unfamiliar with the law and not rich or politically connected. They're easy targets.

The question is whether this will also happen to rich, politically connected parents.

 

Except for the fact that if they had done that they would have been sued for violating students rights.

 

I think that you are exactly right. The school board and certain faculty should have been charged as well. Also if the father actually locked the gun and the son defeated the device and stole it anyway, it will take away much of the prosecution’s case. Clearly the kid had mental issues all in charge of him dropped the ball on.

 

No.

New Jersey v T. L. O. (1985)

 

Based on what has been reported, they are being changed on the basis of their own actions. Simply being the parent of a child who kills people doesn't automatically make the parent guilty of anything. Whether the charges against them are valid or legitimate is a different question.

Even if that is true, it wouldn't change the actions of the parents. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I disagree. If anything charging and bringing a court case against the parents will bring more attention to all of the events that led up to the tragedy, including the actions of the school administration.

 

A quick look on the internet seems to indicate that regular or random searches would not be allowed, there would have to be some reason for the search.

 

Like the kid drawing a picture of himself killing classmates and saying something about not being able to stop himself?

 

Which are different from many parents of other school shooters in what way?

No one has said or implied this here.

No, it focuses the attention on the parents as your post has demonstrated.

 

Maybe parents in other cases could/should have been charged too. Maybe some weren't because the prosecuting authorities were worried about negative media/public reactions exactly like yours here. I certainly see no logical reason why the prosecutors would have any interest in protecting or covering up for the school or how charging the parents would achieve that in the long run.

You started a thread about the parents. If you want to raise any alleged failings of the school authorities, maybe you should have started a thread about that?

 

That would do.

 

The parents bought him the gun and the mother took him to a gun range to teach him how to shoot???

 

From what I’ve read the parents were summoned to the school the morning of the shooting. Given 48 hours to get the kid in counseling and take him home. They refused. Obviously, school officials didn’t handle that situation well though I wonder if there was any precedent: parents refusing to take their kid.

Then why did they withdraw cash and flee after the kid was charged and force police to hunt them down and arrest them? The whole thing is weird.

 

per this site, it seems views on guns are changing, many on the right support arresting the parents, I have not seen that before

 

You're basically saying that any parent that teaching a child to shoot is liable for whatever the child does with the weapon. However, if someone neglects their child and the child finds a gun and shoots someone, that's ok.

 

The kid shot someone in a couple of hours. The school has multiple full time counselors. The school agreed to keep him at school in the end. There was no refusal. The school could have ejected the kid if they wanted to, with or without the parent's permission.

Likely because they were scared and not of law enforcement. If one was running away from the law, one tries to make it to Mexico - not Detroit.

 

There is the issue of “in loco parentis”*
I.O.W, the school takes on the role of parent when the child is in their care.
This also gives the the same burden themselves so they are trying to lay on the parents.
I parents are negligent in many ways, and so is the school, but the bottom line is the kid took the gun to school and used it.
So moving on… we have problems of violence in lots of schools. Are all parents of dangerous kids responsible for stabbings, beatings, and other mayhem? No they won’t because we expect that of them, but not of white kids with poor white trash parents.
It is time to forbid backpacks in school until they have a search system.

*https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+loco+parentis#:~:text=In loco parentis is a legal doctrine describing,a young person, without formally adopting that person.

 

Perhaps if school folks were armed this might not have happened. By making schools unarmed zones of opportunity, liberal folk have made schools protected hunting zones from these kinds of seriously mentally ill shooters.

 

Who on the right support arresting the parents?

 

Yes, like that.

 

quite a few here, read those threads

 

The schools mirror the cities. In the Big Blue Slums, the criminals are armed inside the school and out.
In this school shooters case, the school personnel were probably afraid to get proactive because if they were wrong the would get sued and financially ruined by the legal system. (“Justice” Plan B)

 

I really doubt the DA is going to be able to make the manslaughter charges stick.

I must admit this opens the door to a lot of interesting legal discussions. Should we be able to charge parents it other crimes their children commit? Theft, possession, trafficking, arson etc... If this becomes a trend it may lead to better parenting or a lot less kids.

 

It does not seem to be happening to Alec Baldwin. Of course he only killed one person. Maybe it takes 4 or more victims for the state to act?

This Oxford event seems very similar to Parkland IMO.

 

Hmm.. so you just asserted it. I am unaware of conservative voices here supporting government prosecuting you for the actions of others.

 

many on the right think parents should be held responsible for their childrens actions