Being a parent is a significant undertaking. You’re responsible for the well being safety, protection of another human being a growing human mind you that requires guidance and care. When people decide to become parents, they are ultimately responsible for their child. And I’d also say that they’re responsible for their child’s actions when they encourage or cultivate the behavior or even the situation to create the behavior. And that’s why I wasn’t surprised last week when a Michigan jury found Jennifer crumbley, guilty of involuntary manslaughter. She didn’t kill anyone herself, but her 15 year old son Ethan did. It was in a mass shooting at his high school in 2021. crumbly and her husband had bought the boy the gun, despite his vocalized cries for help and psychological disturbances. In this landmark prosecution, the jury got it right. Parents who make guns available to their children should be held criminally liable for any harm that ensues. heart stop. Being responsible for the gun related crimes of your child should not be controversial. That’s primarily because a child should not have a gun. A gun is designed to cause great bodily harm to another to take a life. It’s not like a knife. It doesn’t serve multiple purposes. You can’t make a three course meal with a Beretta or prepare firewood with an AK guns are solely designed to be deadly weapons. Given their inherently grave nature and trusting a firearm to a minor should be presumably negligent. Regardless of whether that Miner is learning to hunt happens to be mature for their age, or is struggling with mental illness like Ethan crumbley was. A parent’s rationale should not matter when it comes to deadly weapons. There’s simply too dangerous guns are the leading cause of death among American children and teens today, yet an estimated 4.6 million American children live in a home where at least one gun is kept loaded and unlocked nearly half of all parents with a weapon in the home, arrogantly and erroneously believed their children do not know where their guns are stored. Perhaps that’s why guns are used in 68% of gun related incidents at schools that they were taken from homes. As such parents of children must be criminally responsible for any crime that comes from their children accessing their guns. That thought may not sit well with a lot of people. But why? Why should parents who give their children guns or failed to take reasonable precautions to keep guns from their child be exempt from the same consequences that the child faces? The parent is the one in charge here. They’re the one in control. They have a duty to keep the child safe and to provide adequate supervision. They shouldn’t get to give underdeveloped minds deadly weapons and walk away unscathed. Get out of here with that. This isn’t a second amendment issue. I’m not talking about taking away anyone’s gun rights. If you wish to exercise your right Have at it, but you don’t get a pass on the harms caused by you exercising your rights in a negligent way. If you have a child you have a responsibility as it concerns deadly weapons, that responsibility extends to grave harms their children cause in crumbles case, there was considerable grave harm. Ethan carried out Michigan’s deadliest school shooting on record taking four young lives away from their families, their classmates, their futures. Ethan is spending the rest of his life in prison for what he did. So unlike his victims, he will get a chance to experience life I’ll be behind bars as the ones who made the gun available to him. Ethan’s parents should share in his fate.
Related
Adrienne Lawrence
Legal analyst, law professor & award-winning author
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Why interest rates will be higher for longer
2 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
‘The worst it’s ever been’: Young Americans on democracy
Yesterday
Dr. Frank Luntz
How to handle plunging US birth rate before it’s too late
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Japan must confront reality of military threats
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
The jury got it right in Jennifer Crumbley case
Feb 14
By Straight Arrow News
Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of school shooter Ethan Crumbley, was found guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter on Feb. 6, 2024. During the Nov. 30, 2021 attack, Ethan Crumbley killed four students and injured six students and a teacher.
Jennifer Crumbley and her husband, James Crumbley, had given their 15-year-old son a firearm as a Christmas present and had taken him to the gun range multiple times. The verdict marks the first time a parent of a school shooter has been held criminally responsible for the actions carried out by their child.
Straight Arrow News contributor Adrienne Lawrence is not surprised by the verdict and agrees that Jennifer Crumbley is criminally responsible for her son’s actions.
Being a parent is a significant undertaking. You’re responsible for the well-being, safety, protection of another human being, a growing human, mind you, that requires guidance and care. When people decide to become parents, they are ultimately responsible for their child. And I’d also say that they’re responsible for their child’s actions when they encourage or cultivate the behavior or even the situation to create the behavior.
And that’s why I wasn’t surprised last week when a Michigan jury found Jennifer Crumbley guilty of involuntary manslaughter. She didn’t kill anyone herself, but her 15-year-old son Ethan did. It was in a mass shooting at his high school in 2021. Crumbley and her husband had bought the boy the gun, despite his vocalized cries for help and psychological disturbances.
In this landmark prosecution, the jury got it right. Parents who make guns available to their children should be held criminally liable for any harm that ensues — hard stop. Being responsible for the gun-related crimes of your child should not be controversial — that’s primarily because a child should not have a gun. A gun is designed to cause great bodily harm to another — to take a life. It’s not like a knife. It doesn’t serve multiple purposes. You can’t make a three-course meal with a Beretta or prepare firewood with an AK. Guns are solely designed to be deadly weapons.
Given their inherently grave nature, entrusting a firearm to a minor should be presumably negligent regardless of whether that minor is learning to hunt, happens to be mature for their age, or is struggling with mental illness like Ethan Crumbley was.
Being a parent is a significant undertaking. You’re responsible for the well being safety, protection of another human being a growing human mind you that requires guidance and care. When people decide to become parents, they are ultimately responsible for their child. And I’d also say that they’re responsible for their child’s actions when they encourage or cultivate the behavior or even the situation to create the behavior. And that’s why I wasn’t surprised last week when a Michigan jury found Jennifer crumbley, guilty of involuntary manslaughter. She didn’t kill anyone herself, but her 15 year old son Ethan did. It was in a mass shooting at his high school in 2021. crumbly and her husband had bought the boy the gun, despite his vocalized cries for help and psychological disturbances. In this landmark prosecution, the jury got it right. Parents who make guns available to their children should be held criminally liable for any harm that ensues. heart stop. Being responsible for the gun related crimes of your child should not be controversial. That’s primarily because a child should not have a gun. A gun is designed to cause great bodily harm to another to take a life. It’s not like a knife. It doesn’t serve multiple purposes. You can’t make a three course meal with a Beretta or prepare firewood with an AK guns are solely designed to be deadly weapons. Given their inherently grave nature and trusting a firearm to a minor should be presumably negligent. Regardless of whether that Miner is learning to hunt happens to be mature for their age, or is struggling with mental illness like Ethan crumbley was. A parent’s rationale should not matter when it comes to deadly weapons. There’s simply too dangerous guns are the leading cause of death among American children and teens today, yet an estimated 4.6 million American children live in a home where at least one gun is kept loaded and unlocked nearly half of all parents with a weapon in the home, arrogantly and erroneously believed their children do not know where their guns are stored. Perhaps that’s why guns are used in 68% of gun related incidents at schools that they were taken from homes. As such parents of children must be criminally responsible for any crime that comes from their children accessing their guns. That thought may not sit well with a lot of people. But why? Why should parents who give their children guns or failed to take reasonable precautions to keep guns from their child be exempt from the same consequences that the child faces? The parent is the one in charge here. They’re the one in control. They have a duty to keep the child safe and to provide adequate supervision. They shouldn’t get to give underdeveloped minds deadly weapons and walk away unscathed. Get out of here with that. This isn’t a second amendment issue. I’m not talking about taking away anyone’s gun rights. If you wish to exercise your right Have at it, but you don’t get a pass on the harms caused by you exercising your rights in a negligent way. If you have a child you have a responsibility as it concerns deadly weapons, that responsibility extends to grave harms their children cause in crumbles case, there was considerable grave harm. Ethan carried out Michigan’s deadliest school shooting on record taking four young lives away from their families, their classmates, their futures. Ethan is spending the rest of his life in prison for what he did. So unlike his victims, he will get a chance to experience life I’ll be behind bars as the ones who made the gun available to him. Ethan’s parents should share in his fate.
Related
NYPD’s lack of lawsuit disclosure shields it from accountability
An examination of public records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests revealed that nearly 13,000 legal cases brought against the New York City Police Department (NYPD) resulting in settlements or monetary awards over the past decade were not publicly disclosed, despite legal requirements to do so. Some analysts suggest that the NYPD’s failure…
Wednesday
Students learning brutal lesson on how police respond to protests
Student protests against Israel’s war in Gaza have escalated in the United States and around the world as civilian death counts in both Gaza and the West Bank continue to climb. Estimates show Israeli forces killed at least 42,500 Palestinians since Oct. 7, 2023, and another two million survivors have been displaced from their homes.…
May 1
Supreme Court must end criminalization of homelessness
On April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the nation’s homelessness crisis, considering whether an Oregon city had the right to ban homeless people from camping in public spaces. A majority of justices appeared inclined to support the city’s efforts to regulate homeless encampments on public grounds. This decision carries significant implications for the growing…
Apr 24
Why are non-consensual pelvic exams still happening?
More states are beginning to crack down on the surprisingly common practice of medical students and professional staff performing non-consensual pelvic exams on unconscious men and women in hospitals, universities and other medical facilities. Just one year ago today, those practices remained legal in a majority of U.S. states. Now, however, a new directive from…
Apr 17
Congress should repeal the Foreign Dredge Act
The collapse of Baltimore’s Key Bridge presents challenges for cleanup and construction crews who rely on dredging vessels to complete their work. That’s partly because of the Foreign Dredge Act, a 1906 law that prohibits foreign-made dredging vessels. Congress is now introducing a measure to revise parts of that law, although previous attempts to do…
Apr 10
Underreported stories from each side
Tester becomes first Democrat to co-sponsor Laken Riley Act after voting against it as amendment
9 sources | 13% from the left
AP Images
New York judge scolds Trump attorney over not objecting to Stormy Daniels testimony
11 sources | 9% from the right
AP Images
Latest Stories
Thousands flee Rafah, UN aid group warns food, fuel supplies critically low
Watch 2:55
38 mins ago
Man acquitted in Michigan Gov. Whitmer kidnapping plot runs for sheriff
Watch 2:19
2 hrs ago
'Doomsday Vault' creators win award in fight to save crop diversity
Watch 2:09
4 hrs ago
Senate passes sweeping FAA bill focused on safety, consumer protections
Watch 0:44
4 hrs ago
Federal appeals court rejects Hunter Biden’s dismissal request in gun case
Watch 0:54
5 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Biden withholding weapons from Israel emboldens Hamas
3 hrs ago
Star Parker
Donald Trump has betrayed every conservative value
3 hrs ago
Dr. Rashad Richey
Putin’s promise of a long war might be hollow threat
Yesterday
Leon Aron
Why the Trump family is missing from court appearances
Yesterday
Jordan Reid