Jennifer Crumbley found guilty. Hope this opens the door for prosecuting parents for their children's violent crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you get a mentally ill teen -especially one over 18 “committed?” Where are these magical institutions that have beds available because I think my legally adult teen might be violent? Are they for adults or kids? If they are not state-run, I assume they can just check themselves AMA if they want? If not, who’s paying for it? Does the person’s right to freedom disappear if I am afraid they might commit a crime? Why hold Adam Lanza’s father responsible when he had to no ability to change the circumstances of his son’s condition? Was he supposed to forcibly imprison his son? Slip him an un prescribed medication? Smother him with a pillow? What’s the degree of responsibility for another person’s actions?

This is different. JC was living with her child. They had custody of a minor child, and they gave that child a GUN.

I know a family with a violent child. He was adopted. He is crazy, and the parents have moved mountains to help him. The child may end up in jail or worse. It is NOT the parents' fault. They have another adopted child who is healthy and a very sweet person.

But JC was a horror. She did nothing to help her child. She didn't even notice that her child was mentally ill. She is a sick woman.

Excuse me. What is wrong with giving a kid a gun? Just because you don’t hear does not mean it is odd or unusual. I am from a rural area and got my first rifle at 12.

If the kid goes on to kill someone with that gun, the parent should 100% be responsible.

+1 Not a coincidence that this just passed in Michigan.

And that law ONLY passed because of a Dem legislature and Dem governor. This would not happen in a red state.

Not only should safe storage be the law everywhere, it should apply to anyone not just people under the age of 18. Anyone who owns a firearm should have to register it, and should also have to carry liability insurance on it for any acts of violence perpetrated with it whether intentional or accidental, same as with a vehicle. And it is well past time that the firearms manufacturers implemented the fingerprint technology they have had for decades which would prevent a firearm being used by anyone but the lawful registered owner. Gun safes should also require fingerprint or iris/face scanning technology to prevent access by any but the lawful owner.

Of course the 2A fanatics and firearms industry doesn’t want to see these measures legislated because it will significantly reduce the firearms market.

+1 for sure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the guilty sentence was deserved. I live in DC. I would like to see parents of all the children carjacking and murdering also charged. The only hope of the U.S. is for us to demand better, more stable, more engaged parenting. Schools can't solve it all.

Now the dad needs to go to jail

Yeah, pretty sure the prosecutors won't accept a guilty plea in exchange for not going to trial. It will set off a sh&! storm where everyone argues mothers are held to a higher standard and he's the one who went with his son and bought the gun. He was also at school that day and didn't offer to take his son home, he also didn't mention that he had bought his son a gun that looked an awful lot like the picture his son drew just days prior. Yeah, that ahole needs to go before a jury too.

[Anonymous]

What halfway decent parent wouldn't immediately take their child home from school if they were summoned and presented with those drawings. I would be worried sick about my baby and wouldn't want him out of my sight. They are garbage people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In all the articles I’ve read about this family I’ve never seen anything mentioned about grandparents or aunts and uncles or cousins or anything. Seems like a really disconnected family.

The dad’s mom had recently died in Florida.

“He’s a quiet kid. He was being quieter than normal,” Crumbley said. She testified she could tell her son was “a little sad” but felt he was more stressed out because of his grades, which slipped after the family went to Florida for several weeks after the death of her son’s paternal grandmother.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/02/01/jennifer-crumbley-testimony-oxford-school-shooting/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What halfway decent parent wouldn't immediately take their child home from school if they were summoned and presented with those drawings. I would be worried sick about my baby and wouldn't want him out of my sight. They are garbage people.

+1. They saw no problem in ignoring him, or. pawning him off on anyone else. So gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you get a mentally ill teen -especially one over 18 “committed?” Where are these magical institutions that have beds available because I think my legally adult teen might be violent? Are they for adults or kids? If they are not state-run, I assume they can just check themselves AMA if they want? If not, who’s paying for it? Does the person’s right to freedom disappear if I am afraid they might commit a crime? Why hold Adam Lanza’s father responsible when he had to no ability to change the circumstances of his son’s condition? Was he supposed to forcibly imprison his son? Slip him an un prescribed medication? Smother him with a pillow? What’s the degree of responsibility for another person’s actions?

This is different. JC was living with her child. They had custody of a minor child, and they gave that child a GUN.

I know a family with a violent child. He was adopted. He is crazy, and the parents have moved mountains to help him. The child may end up in jail or worse. It is NOT the parents' fault. They have another adopted child who is healthy and a very sweet person.

But JC was a horror. She did nothing to help her child. She didn't even notice that her child was mentally ill. She is a sick woman.

Excuse me. What is wrong with giving a kid a gun? Just because you don’t hear does not mean it is odd or unusual. I am from a rural area and got my first rifle at 12.

If the kid goes on to kill someone with that gun, the parent should 100% be responsible.

+1 Not a coincidence that this just passed in Michigan.

And that law ONLY passed because of a Dem legislature and Dem governor. This would not happen in a red state.

Not only should safe storage be the law everywhere, it should apply to anyone not just people under the age of 18. Anyone who owns a firearm should have to register it, and should also have to carry liability insurance on it for any acts of violence perpetrated with it whether intentional or accidental, same as with a vehicle. And it is well past time that the firearms manufacturers implemented the fingerprint technology they have had for decades which would prevent a firearm being used by anyone but the lawful registered owner. Gun safes should also require fingerprint or iris/face scanning technology to prevent access by any but the lawful owner.

Of course the 2A fanatics and firearms industry doesn’t want to see these measures legislated because it will significantly reduce the firearms market.

PP, I'm curious why you think that would reduce the firearms market. It makes it a bit of a burden to use, but it doesn't prevent usage and certainly not a sale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

She was so worn out and checked out that she had plenty of time to create a log in on an adultery dating site, to support a long-time affair with one guy, which scheduling hookups on the app with other men (so she was cheating on her husband and her AP). She tried to argue that she only arranged her hookups while the shooter was in school. She also was so worn out that she made time to go out and tend to horses (horses are not a low-maintenance pass time) and go riding. She had plenty of time to go out drinking. Since they moved to Michigan when the shooter was in elementary school, they Crumbleys would routinely leave him home alone without a phone so they could go out to eat and drink. For hours on end. Enough that the neighbor called CPS on them more than once. The neighbor started calling CPS when he was 8 years old and he was 15 at the time of the shooting. So she had been neglecting him for 7+ YEARS.

She was not so worn out that she could develop a significantly long rap sheet of crimes and misdemeanors.

As for her job, the boss said the workplace was flexible. He said that she could have taken him out of school and brought him back to the office and that others had brougtht their kids to work. She could have taken the day off. And she admitted on the stand under oath that she would have been able to call in for the afternoon and go home with her son, but she didn't want to.

How about she put some of the time and energy she spent into her swinging lifestyle into her husband, son and home?

Also, although the jury was not supposed to use this as part of their rationale for conviction, the fact is that the parents were amazingly selfish. When the warrants for their arrests went out, they abandoned their son and fled. They took out $6000 cash, bought new clothing, burner phones, found a hideout, hid their car and went into hiding. They claim they were preparing to turn themselves in the next morning, but that doesn't explain buying enough clothes and food for a couple of weeks. That doesn't explain the need for two sets of burner phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still dumbfounded how the murderer's parents were not charged i the Sandy Hook shooting. It's infuriating.

These shootings nearly never occur in a vacuum, and both parents are responsible for not taking warning signs seriously.

So many parents abdicate responsibility by thinking their son could never go these lengths. The denial is massive, and I'm sure there are some parents on DCUM who are denial about their kids issues.

The shooter in Sandy Hook killed his mom first. He was, also, not a minor. That was such a horrible day.

You are right he was 20. His father was still alive when the shooting happened and he should have been held civilly accountable. He knew what was going on in that house. No excuses. The mother got what she deserved. Zero empathy for them only for the living brother of Adam.

Also, any supporter of Alex Jones can F off. You complete and utter subhuman monsters.

Virginia Tech shooter was not a minor either however I firmly believe his parents, VT and Fairfax counties schools all should have been held civilly accountable as well.

Personal responsiblity is one thing for an adult neither of these cases happened in a vaccum. Both could have been prevented.

He hadn't been a student at Fairfax county schools for years. How long is someone supposed to be "accountable" for a crime they did not commit?

Oh damn, the VT shooter stalked several women. Why am I not at all surprised?

As for your question, maybe there can be a statute of limitations on the non parental parties - but not the parental parties.

Absolutely ridiculous. Once people turn 18 they are in charge of their own lives legally unless for some reason cooerced and not of present mind. Sorry you don't understand the law. People are not responsible for others for eternity or even a day after age 18.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

People who don't have to experience the mental health treatment world also don't understand that it's full of messed up people treating messed up people with no standards and many people actually do worse in care than without it. It's not a panacea by any means to receive mental health care. There are plenty of adults who received mental health care as children and as adults who still go on to commit crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

She was so worn out and checked out that she had plenty of time to create a log in on an adultery dating site, to support a long-time affair with one guy, which scheduling hookups on the app with other men (so she was cheating on her husband and her AP). She tried to argue that she only arranged her hookups while the shooter was in school. She also was so worn out that she made time to go out and tend to horses (horses are not a low-maintenance pass time) and go riding. She had plenty of time to go out drinking. Since they moved to Michigan when the shooter was in elementary school, they Crumbleys would routinely leave him home alone without a phone so they could go out to eat and drink. For hours on end. Enough that the neighbor called CPS on them more than once. The neighbor started calling CPS when he was 8 years old and he was 15 at the time of the shooting. So she had been neglecting him for 7+ YEARS.

She was not so worn out that she could develop a significantly long rap sheet of crimes and misdemeanors.

As for her job, the boss said the workplace was flexible. He said that she could have taken him out of school and brought him back to the office and that others had brougtht their kids to work. She could have taken the day off. And she admitted on the stand under oath that she would have been able to call in for the afternoon and go home with her son, but she didn't want to.

How about she put some of the time and energy she spent into her swinging lifestyle into her husband, son and home?

Also, although the jury was not supposed to use this as part of their rationale for conviction, the fact is that the parents were amazingly selfish. When the warrants for their arrests went out, they abandoned their son and fled. They took out $6000 cash, bought new clothing, burner phones, found a hideout, hid their car and went into hiding. They claim they were preparing to turn themselves in the next morning, but that doesn't explain buying enough clothes and food for a couple of weeks. That doesn't explain the need for two sets of burner phones.

+ 1 million AMEN!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

People who don't have to experience the mental health treatment world also don't understand that it's full of messed up people treating messed up people with no standards and many people actually do worse in care than without it. It's not a panacea by any means to receive mental health care. There are plenty of adults who received mental health care as children and as adults who still go on to commit crimes.

Doesn't mean you should basically abandon your kids and do nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

They were neglectful AND they gave him a gun. The latter was the most damning fact of the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

They were neglectful AND they gave him a gun. The latter was the most damning fact of the case.

Exactly! They are not on trial for being bad parents. They are on trial for being an accessory to mass murder. They are guilty of both but bad parenting isn't the real crime here.