Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Mass Shooting in Michigan High School

Page 9 of 21 [ 332 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 21  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,977
Location: New Jersey, USA

04 Dec 2021, 11:31 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
You know that the jury system is one way street, that guilty and not guilty are not equal statements of truth.

Not guilty does not mean innocent; it means the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty means the judge can't pass sentencing. Nor can the case be tried again (that would be double jeopardy). The accused is cleared of the charges.

The opposite isn't true. If found guilty, a judge can decide to disavow and not sentence the convicted. It's rare, but a judge could say "I disagree with the jury that says he's guilty." Or a judge can simple sentence the guilty party to "time served."

Basically, guilty means the jury has given the judge authority to do as he deems fit in sentencing.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

04 Dec 2021, 1:44 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Prosecutor Karen McDonald told a news conference the charges were intended to "send a message: that gun owners have a responsibility". ... the prosecutor is making a political statement about gun ownership.
TheRobotLives wrote:
Negligence of not securing the firearm is not an issue, as Michigan does not have such a law...
Do you really need a law to tell you how to exercise common sense?

The parents did not secure the firearm, and the child used it to murder four people and terrorize a school.

In this case, common sense says either "Parents should secure their firearms" or "Idiots should not have children".

Obviously, common sense was lacking on both counts.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Dec 2021, 3:34 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The parents blew off the school when they were told about concerns about their son.

The parents went to the school and met with school admin the day of the shootings.


And they not only blew off the school's warnings at the meeting, but wouldn't take their son home.
When the school earlier had found the kid with ammunition on him, his mother texted him, saying: I'm not angry with you. Next time don't get caught.
Yes, they blew the school off.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Dec 2021, 3:42 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The parents blew off the school when they were told about concerns about their son. The fact that they apparently did nothing - even being flippant about it - tells me some sort of legal action of some sort should be taken against said parents.
The fact that these wonderful parents (sarcasm alert, I must say, as this is an autism site) fled after withdrawing thousands of dollars, speaks of consciouness of guilt.


No more than the school did; they could have searched the kid if they were really concerned about it, but apparently they also chose not to take this particular warning sign too seriously.

The issue here is that there is no actual law covering what the parent might have done, keeping a pistol in an unlocked drawer in your bedroom with a teen in the house might not be smart or advisable, but it also isn't illegal, let alone rising to the level of reckless negligence required for a manslaughter charge. They certainly could be civilly liable, but seeing as how their entire "getaway fund" was $4K, they might be judgment proof there as well. We'll have to wait and see what they say about the fleeing, their lawyer says they weren't, and the whole arrest warrant thing was so flubbed that the sheriff heard about it from the media before getting the warrant himself, so it's not exactly a shining beacon of competence over there.


So, you think the school is at least as guilty as the parents???
Even if four thousand isn't a lot by today's standards, the two not only fled, but also hid in a warehouse and turned off their phones to avoid being found. I can't see any other explanation for their actions other than running from the authorities.
Maybe it's not against the law to leave a gun available to a psycho kid, but after this, laws will be enacted to prevent just that.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

04 Dec 2021, 4:23 pm

ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
You know that the jury system is one way street, that guilty and not guilty are not equal statements of truth.

Not guilty does not mean innocent; it means the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty means the judge can't pass sentencing. Nor can the case be tried again (that would be double jeopardy). The accused is cleared of the charges.

The opposite isn't true. If found guilty, a judge can decide to disavow and not sentence the convicted. It's rare, but a judge could say "I disagree with the jury that says he's guilty." Or a judge can simple sentence the guilty party to "time served."

Basically, guilty means the jury has given the judge authority to do as he deems fit in sentencing.


Point.

And still not equal sides to one coin.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

04 Dec 2021, 4:28 pm

Fnord wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Prosecutor Karen McDonald told a news conference the charges were intended to "send a message: that gun owners have a responsibility". ... the prosecutor is making a political statement about gun ownership.
TheRobotLives wrote:
Negligence of not securing the firearm is not an issue, as Michigan does not have such a law...
Do you really need a law to tell you how to exercise common sense?

The parents did not secure the firearm, and the child used it to murder four people and terrorize a school.

In this case, common sense says either "Parents should secure their firearms" or "Idiots should not have children".

Obviously, common sense was lacking on both counts.


When we reach the point of discussing lack of common sense, we’ve also reached a point where negligence can be legally factored in. The “reasonable man” test. With the parents, it won’t just be whether or not they secured the guns at home, but also whether or not they acted appropriately following the meeting at the school. Neither enough on its own, most likely, but a possible combination and pattern that the prosecutors may feel they can build a case from. We’ll have to see; time will tell.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,405

04 Dec 2021, 4:29 pm

Even if negligence itself isn't illegal, if negligence leads to crime, that negligence can still be a contributing factor. There are scores of things that aren't illegal, that become a problem when a crime becomes part of the chain of events. And just cos it's legal, doesn't mean it's wise. It's often not illegal to let your own house fall apart - but you're still responsible if someone gets hurt.

I'm sure that the fact that leaving the firearm unsecured wasn't actually illegal is a huge comfort to everyone. Big sigh of relief.



TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

04 Dec 2021, 5:11 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The parents blew off the school when they were told about concerns about their son.

The parents went to the school and met with school admin the day of the shootings.


And they not only blew off the school's warnings at the meeting, but wouldn't take their son home.
When the school earlier had found the kid with ammunition on him, his mother texted him, saying: I'm not angry with you. Next time don't get caught.
Yes, they blew the school off.

There is no report that the parents "blew off the school".

Rather, it has been reported the school admin let the kid go back to class.

As far as we known, the mom told her son, "I'm not angry with you. Next time don't get caught" because he got caught surfing the internet at school. What's wrong with a mom telling her son not to get caught surfing the internet?


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

04 Dec 2021, 5:15 pm

Fnord wrote:
Do you really need a law to tell you how to exercise common sense?

For many people, common sense is to worship a GOD, because if you don't then you burn in hell forever.

Should atheists be judged as negligent and maybe have their kids taken from them, because they lack "common sense"?

Or should we require a law, so people are not subjected whoever's "common sense".


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Dec 2021, 5:36 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The parents blew off the school when they were told about concerns about their son.

The parents went to the school and met with school admin the day of the shootings.


And they not only blew off the school's warnings at the meeting, but wouldn't take their son home.
When the school earlier had found the kid with ammunition on him, his mother texted him, saying: I'm not angry with you. Next time don't get caught.
Yes, they blew the school off.

There is no report that the parents "blew off the school".

Rather, it has been reported the school admin let the kid go back to class.

As far as we known, the mom told her son, "I'm not angry with you. Next time don't get caught" because he got caught surfing the internet at school. What's wrong with a mom telling her son not to get caught surfing the internet?


As I heard it, the mother told him not to get caught with ammunition on him at school.
It was the parents who didn't want to take the kid home after meeting with the school administrators, which is why he was sent back to class.
Why so eager to defend obviously negligent and feckless parents?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

04 Dec 2021, 5:50 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
As I heard it, the mother told him not to get caught with ammunition on him at school.

You stated her message, so you know that's not what she said.

She didn't say anything about ammunition.

Kraichgauer wrote:
It was the parents who didn't want to take the kid home after meeting with the school administrators, which is why he was sent back to class.

The school admin makes the decision whether to send the kid back to class, not the parents.

Kraichgauer wrote:
Why so eager to defend obviously negligent and feckless parents?

I am merely pointing out your inaccuracies.

You started off saying the parents "blew off the school", which appears to be completely inaccurate.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Dec 2021, 6:08 pm

In response to recent shootings Republican Thomas Massie posted the picture of his family on social media early on Sunday morning. The caption read: “Merry Christmas. PS. Santa, please bring ammo”.

Image

It comes as America’s gun debate starts to swirl again after 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley allegedly shot more than half a
dozen people at a school in Michigan.

Many commentators quickly linked Mr Massie’s photo to the recent killings.

“Wow, this week that is exceptionally heartless. Mindless. Just devoid of any soul. Do the ‘Keep Christ in Christmas’ folk see Jesus here?” one person wrote.

“4 families lost children to a gun Christmas present, either insensitive or stupid?” another added.

“All you need is Jesus holding his weapon of choice to complete this lovely scene,” a third said.

Dox, correct me if I'm wrong but is that a mini-Uzi the little blonde girl is hugging like a doll?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Dec 2021, 6:38 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I heard it, the mother told him not to get caught with ammunition on him at school.

You stated her message, so you know that's not what she said.

She didn't say anything about ammunition.

Kraichgauer wrote:
It was the parents who didn't want to take the kid home after meeting with the school administrators, which is why he was sent back to class.

The school admin makes the decision whether to send the kid back to class, not the parents.

Kraichgauer wrote:
Why so eager to defend obviously negligent and feckless parents?

I am merely pointing out your inaccuracies.

You started off saying the parents "blew off the school", which appears to be completely inaccurate.


No, she hadn't mentioned ammo, but that was what she was referring to.
As I understood it, the parents didn't want to take the kid back with them. Too concerned with the mother's realtor business or something, I suppose.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Dec 2021, 6:42 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
No, she hadn't mentioned ammo, but that was what she was referring to.
As I understood it, the parents didn't want to take the kid back with them. Too concerned with the mother's realtor business or something, I suppose.


Sounds like the mother wasn't thinking straight when they took off. How the heck does a wanted suspect plan to run their realtor business while on the run from the police :lol:



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,748
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

04 Dec 2021, 6:50 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, she hadn't mentioned ammo, but that was what she was referring to.
As I understood it, the parents didn't want to take the kid back with them. Too concerned with the mother's realtor business or something, I suppose.


Sounds like the mother wasn't thinking straight when they took off. How the heck does a wanted suspect plan to run their realtor business while on the run from the police :lol:


More interested in saving her and her husband's skin, I'd think.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Dec 2021, 6:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
No, she hadn't mentioned ammo, but that was what she was referring to.
As I understood it, the parents didn't want to take the kid back with them. Too concerned with the mother's realtor business or something, I suppose.


Sounds like the mother wasn't thinking straight when they took off. How the heck does a wanted suspect plan to run their realtor business while on the run from the police :lol:


More interested in saving her and her husband's skin, I'd think.


Yes, panic....run!