Jennifer Crumley was found guilty of four counts of manslaughter.

[Jimaz]

This story is being carried on the BBC so they're hearing about it overseas. It would be interesting to hear what their audience in the UK thinks about it.

[DetroiterOnTheWestCoast]

This story is being carried on the BBC so they're hearing about it overseas. It would be interesting to hear what their audience in the UK thinks about it.

It’s probably safe to assume that they’re scratching their heads and saying that they don’t understand the American gun fetish and our being so comfortable with mass shootings.

[Jimaz]

It’s probably safe to assume that they’re scratching their heads and saying that they don’t understand the American gun fetish and our being so comfortable with mass shootings.

Yes. That seems to fit the accurate stereotype they have of us.

But I was wondering whether they might think {incorrectly} that this particular case is representative of the norm here.

True, we yanks are weird about guns but this case was an outlier even for us. Brits might not see that nuance. But I might be wrong.

[Jimaz]

...But I was wondering whether they might think {incorrectly} that this particular case is representative of the norm here....

Oops. Maybe not quite so incorrectly. I had forgotten about this incident:

Nine-year-old girl accidentally kills gun instructor

I don't think it's too oppressive to simply keep firearms separate from children. Maybe except on a farm for vermin control? Eh, even that seems unnecessary.

[401don]

It’s probably safe to assume that they’re scratching their heads and saying that they don’t understand the American gun fetish and our being so comfortable with mass shootings.

You don't have to look across the big pond for that point of view just look across the river.

[Zacha341]

Right, but they have their own governance [and problems] increasingly mandating what their citizens can do, affirm and think.

Canada aside, and back to this conviction subject, I DO wonder how it works that Crumbly the son is tried/ sentenced as an adult, yet parents held accountable? Yes, I do think THEY SHOULD BE in this specific case.

Yet what precedent does this set if the child is tried as an adult as well?

You don't have to look across the big pond for that point of view just look across the river.

[jcole]

Think of it like a conspiracy. His parents were "in" on it so to speak, by their neglect, laxity, etc, but the son was the trigger man who planned it. They're all guilty to different degrees.

Right, but they have their own governance [and problems] increasingly mandating what their citizens can do, affirm and think.

Canada aside, and back to this conviction subject, I DO wonder how it works that Crumbly the son is tried/ sentenced as an adult, yet parents held accountable? Yes, I do think THEY SHOULD BE in this specific case.

Yet what precedent does this set if the child is tried as an adult as well?

[Richard]

Right, but they have their own governance [and problems] increasingly mandating what their citizens can do, affirm and think.

Canada aside, and back to this conviction subject, I DO wonder how it works that Crumbly the son is tried/ sentenced as an adult, yet parents held accountable? Yes, I do think THEY SHOULD BE in this specific case.

Yet what precedent does this set if the child is tried as an adult as well?

The reason that juvenile courts were originally created in the nineteenth century was because society recognized that juveniles did not have the cognitive development that adults had, would benefit more from rehabilitative services to prevent recidivism, and needed more protections. Sociological and political shifting of attitudes caused legislators to believe they needed to be “tough on crime,” and transfers of juveniles to adult court became more frequent. Results of those policies demonstrate that they have failed as recidivism rates for juveniles increased when prosecuted in adult court versus juvenile court.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/l...inal%20system.

Michigan sets it at age 16, but going back to the start of it all the Justification for charging him as an adult was because they wanted to go after the death penalty.

Remember they also changed jurisdiction to allow the state to take over the case so they could go after the death penalty.

But while I agree there should be accountability,there has been no accountability levels when it comes to parent over children set in law,so it becomes a make it up as it goes along.

You know exactly what comes next,it’s a seesaw of relaxing on crime then tough on crime,but with no happy medium.

They have a new name now as they have replaced stop n frisk,STRESS etc with

Pretextual traffic stops are stops initiated by law enforcement for a minor traffic violation, with the actual purpose of investigating or searching for evidence of another, unrelated crime.

But they are also now doing it with people just walking down the street.

My whole thing in all of this is this was all done without defined boundaries set by law,which gives the courts the ability to set the boundaries as they go along,so on pretext you have broken a law that does not exist.

You already know exactly where this leads to and who gets targeted,another couple of years or less,we are back to cities burning again.

Its going to be interesting when they try the father,notice how in vengeance they went after the mother ,so did they do that because the mother is supposed to be the nurturing one and therefore holds more responsibility in raising a child and by default more accountability?

They did not really try the parents as a family unit while on trial for not being a family unit,they pretty much laid it out as it was the mothers fault.

Lots of families have that ONE family member that has all sorts of problems and issues,it must suck having an only child,as a parent you only have a 50/50 chance that they could go either way.

Maybe thats really why they used to have like 6 kids,it put the odds in the parents favor,if one screws up,you have another 5 that you say you were an okay parent.

So now with this “unprecedented “ case you have to ask the question

In a marriage who holds the greater accountability level ? The mother or the father,this case will tell you that or set the bar for future cases.

Then you also have to determine who is the dominant parent,if the father rules the house or the mother.

If parents were considered equal partners when it comes to raising children,this case would have never been tried with each parent separately.

[canuck]

Thank you for another "all over the place", all dressed pizza, nonsensical post, Dick.

As you stated in your First post: you knew where this thread was headed. Laffta.

[Richard]

Thank you for another "all over the place", all dressed pizza, nonsensical post, Dick.

As you stated in your First post: you knew where this thread was headed. Laffta.

And you contributing without actually contributing puts you on the higher ground?

That would be you not liking what you do not want to hear so you seem to cancel it out in your mind,cannot comment on content so go after the poster. If you are looking to join a group of fluffers,maybe join a group of fluffers,discussion forums are there to look at all sides of input,not just what you want to hear.

But then again the weak minded always follows the easiest path,even if it leads straight off of a cliff.

I understand it’s tough to understand from a Canadian perspective, but in this country it is not illegal to have opposing views and being a little whiner makes you look bad,not me.

Maybe stick to Canada or Cuba or Russia or Venezuela for your little dictatorship views,you have plenty of options to share with other like minded.

Until you actually do share them,but then you get what you wish on others,jail or beaten,they are very adept at suppressing opposing views,Kinda makes you look like an amateur.

You are a parent and now matter how well you think you raised your children,they still are individuals and have an individual mind capable of making decisions outside of your control.

Do you believe that if one of your children does something criminal that you as a parent shares the responsibility in the act and should also be charge with a crime based on you could have prevented it by better parenting?

Its not a difficult question,but my guess is you will do everything possible not to directly answer it and come up with some snark comment about me personally.

This is a thread about a trial being held over a school shooting,but it is not a trail being held over a school shooting,that is why it is being called “Unprecedented “ across the world.

In every shooting in this country,it is already thoroughly investigated including the weapon involved and people are held accountable always has been,even down to the manufacturer of the weapon used.

So answer the question of why is this case is being called “Unprecedented “ .

I know some people,they raised their kids in the most loving surroundings,did everything right,when you met their kid he was respectful and appear to be well mannered,he went off to collage and got his degree.

Came back to Florida and during the night he would go out at night and just randomly shoot and kill somebody,he killed 5 before he was caught.

How is it even possible for a parent to be in total control of their children’s mind and know exactly what is going on in that mind,24/7 365 ?