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

Forum Index » Off-Topic

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

They were found guilty because they were so negligent and enabled his behavior by taking him to a shooting range, buying him a gun, [b]not locking it up.[/b] If you haven’t already, I encourage you to watch Jennifer Crumley‘s trial because it really showed you why the jurors voted guilty.
[/quote]

The bolded is a lot more significant than this small aside makes it out to be.

The family owned a gun safe.  Combination was still set to factory default 0-0-0.  Father put two other guns in that gun safe, but not the one that was "gifted" to the son.  That one he hid under some clothes in his dresser.  The ammunition was also not stored in the gun safe, but stored under other clothes in the same dresser.  They were also give a trigger lock cable for the gun when they purchased it.  The DA showed that it takes about 10 seconds to thread the trigger lock through the trigger and lock it.  The cable lock was still in the bag that it came in and was not kept where the guns were kept.  So, it was trivially easy for the gun to be secured in multiple ways.  At any point after the gun was at the gun range, they could have secured the gun.  In fact, it was almost easier to secure it properly than to find an unsecured hiding place under clothes in the dresser, but the father still did not secure the gun.

Also, knowing that his son had a gun like the one in the drawing, at no time did it occur to the father that the gun was unsecured, easily accessible and that if he wasn't going to take his son out of school that day like he should, that he should go and check to see if the unsecured gun was still in the hiding spot.  He didn't think about this until after he heard that there was a shooting at the school.  And the fact that immediately after he heard about the shooting, he texted that he thought his son might be the shooter, shows that he did think of these things, but he didn't care to do anything about them after the disturbing meeting at school, only after he heard some people had been shot.  This is the epitome of negligence.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics