Mass Shooting in Michigan High School

Post Reply New Topic

Well, that's what you're arguing. But that's still not how that works.

Negligence in and of itself is usually a civil matter, which is WHY there's no laws regarding it. Civil matters are usually judged by reasonable expectations based on the situation. They can't make it illegal to have broken glass on the floor, cos then you'd be arresting people every time someone dropped a glass or a window broke, and that'd be silly. You can't make it illegal to have a slippery floor, cos then you'd never be able to mop. However, if you leave lots of glass all over the floor, in a house with kids, while that's not illegal, it's also not unreasonable to expect a house with kids to be kept free of broken glass, and civil action can be taken as a result.

Typically nobody cares how negligent someone is if they're completely alone, and don't drag other people into their negligence. Negligence usually matters when one person's actions effect ANOTHER person. Negligence where "nobody got hurt" is well and good, until someone does get hurt.

If civil negligence leads to a crime, such as a kid dying from the broken glass all over the floor, even though broken glass on the floor wasn't illegal, it did result in the kid dying. Arguing that it's not illegal to have broken glass would then require arguing that keeping the broken glass around the kid was more reasonable than cleaning up the glass. As a parent, you have a duty to protect the kids that depend on you to keep them safe and teach them about danger. There may not be laws that specifically tell you exactly how you have to do so, but you do still have to do so. In such cases, the reasonable expectation test applies, not whether or not a discrete law exists.

When a civil negligent act results in the commission of a crime, that negligent act can be a factor. It's done that way explicitly so that individuals can't commit crimes, or help commit crimes, and then claim it was an honest mistake or an accident. It's also the means by which we hold people accountable in situations where they're not criminals, they're just stupid, and extra laws would just make life harder for people who aren't stupid, so they leave it a civil matter, and tether it to a crime if and when they do connect.

The absence of a law doesn't absolve you of responsibility. Civil statutes pick up a lot of the slack, and once an actual crime is involved, the whole affair can be escalated to a crime.

@TheRobotLives: Why are you defending such disgraceful parents?  Are they your relatives?

I think it's because the parents are Trump voters and gun rightsers.

Are you implying the delusion that nothing done by a Trump supporter should ever be punishable by man or G^D?

Michelle Cobb holds nothing back when describing James Crumbley, her ex-boyfriend and the father of her 18-year-old son.

"He's a piece of [expletive].  He really is. ... Jennifer was a monster.  She could do no wrong and she was right about everything. I mean, this is exactly the kind of attitude she has.  Like, she, literally, thought she was better than everyone. ... They pretty much gave him whatever he wanted.  Why would you let a 15-year-old have access, especially knowing that just a few days prior that he was having problems at school? ... I hope they get the maximum, honestly, all of them.  They deserve it.  They they need to be held accountable for what their child did.  They need to have a reality check."

Source:  This WXYZ-TV News Article 

And this is why trials should be done in open court with an unbiased jury rather than the court of public opinion. The parents (and even Ethan) deserve their day in court, regardless of what the public thinks of them. The parents also deserve their day in court because technically, this is a new legal theory that needs to be heard by the jury and probably appeals judges for them to decide if it is a valid theory or if the legislature needs to enact specific laws.

Note: Not defending the parents actions at all. Just stating what their rights are as US citizens.

Of course ... their rights should be upheld ... it is in our Constitution ... even though one of them violently denied the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to at least four other people.

The prosecutor is using her position as she said to "make a statement" against the parents.

That's not how the justice system should work.

Her job is to apply the law, not manufacture the law to try and "make a statement".

Negligence can be manufactured against anyone in hindsight (Could of turned left not right // Could of done X, not Y).

The prosecutor is manufacturing unreasonable claims of gross negligence, when no such laws have been violated, and even the school counselors believed the child was not a threat.

The evidence so far suggests no reasonable person would suspect the child of going berserk so it seems unreasonable to pin that on the parents.

Whether the accused are found guilty or not, the prosecutor is doing her job -- bringing charges for the court to try.  She is not presiding over their trial, she is not convicting anyone, and she is not passing sentence.

It is now up to the defense to present cause to have charges against the defendants dismissed.

It is called "Due Process".

Actually that is how our justice system works. The legislature makes laws, the executive enforces the laws based on what they think the law means, and the justice interprets the laws, sometimes in the same way the executive thinks what the law means, sometimes not.

What the DA is saying here is that based on the totality of the facts presented, they feel that the parents committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter based on the definition of the law and previous appeal and supreme court rulings. The courts now have their turn to tell the DA whether the facts indeed show that the parents committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter based on its definition or not. If the courts say no, the legislature is free to redefine the law or pass a new law if the legislature feels that the laws should include this scenario.

This happens all of the time. The concept of self-defense in the State of Wisconsin was tested in the Rittenhouse case and the court determined that in that case, Rittenhouse indeed was defending himself as defined by the law. That can happen here too. The courts can find that the facts do not lend themselves to involuntary manslaughter based on the definition and the parents could be found not guilty.

Even if definitions in law are static, the court interpretation of those laws can be fluid based on new examples. At least until the legislature better defines things as new examples come up.

Since last Thursday, Sick Pizza Company in Oxford has been donating pizzas to raise money for the victims' families. The business has donated more than 2,300 pizzas with their fundraising campaign just shy of $100,000.  Sick Pizza Company co-owner Scott Taylor says it would not have been possible without the community’s support.

Source:  This WXYZ-TV News Article 

Now I have to wonder how much real support has been expressed for the murderer and his parents.

Not at all! I'm only explaining why I think TheRobotLives is defending the parents - - because they are Trump voters, and are for gun rights.

What I should have said was, "There seems to be prevalent among Trumpsters the delusion that nothing done by a Trump supporter should ever be punishable by man or G^D."

Sorry for the mix-up.

S'okay!

Cool!

^^^ Looking at the gap between what we think the school should have done, and what it did do; combined with the fact officials have been clear they don't think the school did anything wrong; all I can think is that there must have been policies tying the school's hands. Purely speculation in this case but, overall, I do know that a school's hands are tied in a million different ways when it comes to actions they can take with students. Schools here tend to be very bureaucratic, with a lot of government interference that prevents them from making judgement calls, and requires them to follow strict policies. If the school followed policy, that is usually a legal shield.