Read Post
Sat, 07 Dec 2024 04:38:31 -0800
marlon from private IP, post #14670786
/all
school shooting case
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2024/12/02/jennifer-crumbley-oxford-high-school-shooting-conviction/76689355007/
"There’s a reason why no parent in America has ever been held responsible for the criminal acts of their child in relation to a school shooting," Dezsi
continued. "It is because Mrs. Crumbley committed no crime. This case should be concerning for parents everywhere."
How can he lie like that?
Sat, 07 Dec 2024 09:06:24 -0800
zerosugar from private IP
Reply #11664308
These situations are all around sad af, but unless the parents bought the gun for the kid knowing the kid was crazy,
they shouldn't be charged with anything. With the Highland Park shooting here, the dad knew the son was suicidal and had issues in the past, so it is
infuriating, he got such a crazy a gun.
That's bs they want to say she failed to control her minor child. Sometimes, it's not the parent, but what happens at school. Kids at a certain age spend more
time at school than at home. The parent can be perfect. I am also against charging the shooters as adults especially when bullying was involved. Charging kids
as adults is medieval either way (just my opinion though and I respect many others may disagree) unless they are very very close to being 18, but even 18 vs 25
mentality is debatable. We always feel bad for the poor victims, but never ask what drove people to insanity to a point where they decided to arm themselves and
shoot their classmates. Now, the Sandy Hook case was a huge outlier. Adam Lanza didn't go to that school and to my knowledge never did. He had NO motive in
shooting very small children. He was just a disturbed psycho whose mom made the mistake by bringing him to shooting ranges and stuff. His dad was also an absent
asshole.
If we can have sympathy for Gypsy Rose who was 24 when she killed her mom and set up a disabled man, we should have sympathy for children. Look at Carly Gregg
who was very disturbed on meds and killed her mom. She rejected a 40 year plea deal and was given life without the possibility of parole in Mississippi. She was
only 14. 10 years younger than Gypsy was. IMHO, such a disturbed child should have never been charged as an adult. I get her crime was vile and I love my mother
and can never imagine committing such a heinous crime, but Carly Gregg had terrible terrible mental illness and we don't know enough about how drugs affect the
minds of children. I donated some money to her grandparents as they are trying to do an appeal for her. I feel bad for the grandparents. They lost their
daughter and now a granddaughter. They just know their daughter would have wanted them to stand by Carly regardless, would have never wanted Carly charged as an
adult and must be rolling in her grave.
Sat, 07 Dec 2024 09:08:30 -0800
zerosugar from private IP
Reply #15284314
I have never owned a gun nor felt a desire. I respect the 2A and understand the reason behind it, but I also believe
some sick people should never have access to a firearm. Living in a city with a police station near by, you usually do not need one. I can see why in rural
areas you would. Then again, you can also argue the 2A is not about self defense.
Sat, 07 Dec 2024 15:01:36 -0800
whiteguyinchina from private IP
Reply #17825029
So medical privacy laws prohibit disclosure of what meds people are on. But this is in USA, not other countries.
Basically I think 100% of school shooting perps are taking prescription psychotropic drugs at direction of a physician or psychologist. It's well known that a
lot of these drugs cause suicidal thoughts, especially when used in combination.
Wed, 11 Jun 2025 18:53:07 -0700
marlon from private IP
Reply #12784927
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2025/06/11/judge-denies-parents-of-oxford-school-shooter-new-trials/78172947007/
A judge has denied James and Jennifer Crumbley new trials, concluding the parents of the Oxford school shooter both got fair trials even though prosecutors
intentionally withheld from the defense secret agreements it struck with two key witnesses who testified against them.
In ruling against the Crumbleys, Oakland County Circuit Judge Cheryl Matthews on June 11 expressed concern with the prosecution not disclosing the agreements,
stating: "The lack of disclosure which is mandatory ... is disturbing."
But, Matthews concluded, the prosecution's actions did not "rise to the level" to justify new trials, stressing that given the "significant" evidence facing the
Crumbleys, the parents likely still would have ended up being convicted, even if they had been given the agreements brokered with the witnesses.
Replies require login.
