romad1 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 This Oakland County jury is interesting https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2024/02/05/final-jury-jennifer-crumbley-trial-oxford-high-schooting/72479043007/ Lots of law enforcement and lots of gun ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, romad1 said: This Oakland County jury is interesting https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2024/02/05/final-jury-jennifer-crumbley-trial-oxford-high-schooting/72479043007/ Lots of law enforcement and lots of gun ownership. this one... Quote His best friend is a police officer in a jail and his girlfriend is a personal trainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 19 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said: Jennifer Crumbley found guilty. I don't think James will even go on trial. They'll work out a deal to reduce his time in exchange for a guilty plea. I really hope this stands and doesn't get overturned (I fear they'll find something to overturn it at some point). but what I REALLY hope for is that this sets a precedent all over this country. I know there are plenty of cases where the parents tried and I mean really tried to help potential shooters, but I think it's pretty evident, so far, that this couple did nearly nothing. I mean this kid's red flags came with bells and whistles and fireworks. You buy a troubled teenager a gun? For the parents who seemingly love their guns more than their kids should be paying attention to what's happening here. Thank you to the Karen McDonald and the Oakland Country Prosecutor's Office for refusing to take this **** anymore. To me they are heroic for this. Well done. I hope other Prosecutor's around this country stop bowing to NRA pressure and start doing their damn job in situations like this. Even Eric Harris' father (Columbine) tried to do the minimal to help his son. It wasn't much, but at least there was some attempt. Now let's strengthen the law regarding unsecured guns around minors. Might not stop every one of these shooters, but it might stop a few. So little to ask, but **** the NRA and their rhetoric. Kids don't need to die at school. I don't know the sentencing guidelines for this, but I am guessing she probably stays in prison for another 3-4 years. It's a better fate than the mothers of Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) and Faith Kinkel (Oregon, 1998). She is lucky that he didn't start with her. She's getting off a lot easier than the parents of those kids at Oxford (and not just the ones who were killed and wounded). Might help to actually feel a little remorse too. Plenty of time to work on that now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 minutes ago, GoBlue23 said: Manslaughter carries a max sentence of 15 years, I've been guessing that she'll receive a sentence of 5-7 years. Michigan doesn't give any good time credit for prison sentences, but she'll be given credit for the 2 years or so that she's been locked up. So your prediction tracks well with mine, she'll be out in a few years. I think 4-6 years total is fair. I don't know, maybe she could advocate for others to avoid this path when she , but I haven't seen any public evidence of remorse and even if she did show it, would it be for what her son did or what she's going through? This is a VERY historic moment, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Isn't 4 counts of manslaughter? Couldn't they theoretically stack those sentences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: Isn't 4 counts of manslaughter? Couldn't they theoretically stack those sentences? Involuntary Manslaughter. They could but they won't, and I agree with that. These will be concurrent. I think half a decade makes the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Reading about that jury...I didn't see any anti-2nd amendment types. This is a good day for safety and the rule of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, GoBlue23 said: I have no idea what rules a judge operates under, but I believe that because these convictions are all the result of the same incident, running them concurrently is pretty much an unwritten rule, if not the law. That's part of it, but she is not the one who pulled the trigger and it's very doubtful that she poses a threat to society herself, so what's the point of burying her under the prison. Plenty of others deserve that fate. I think she's gonna get 4-5 years total (including what she's already served) and that seems about right to me. Much as I hate Kwame Kiltpatrick, I don't think he deserved 28 years. He did a decade. I think that's fair. Lost a decade with his kids growing up and that's a steep price. Just wondering how far he's gonna take this new religious grift he's on 'cause I ain't buying that nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 16 minutes ago, romad1 said: Reading about that jury...I didn't see any anti-2nd amendment types. This is a good day for safety and the rule of law. It's factual that most gun owners are in favor of reasonable gun laws because when you have unreasonable people doing unreasonable things with guns it makes all gun owners look bad. Despite our many flaws as a country , most people tend to go the common sense route. Even now with this Republican Party. But we'd better be careful right now because things could go wildly astray very quickly starting in November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said: That's part of it, but she is not the one who pulled the trigger and it's very doubtful that she poses a threat to society herself, so what's the point of burying her under the prison. Plenty of others deserve that fate. I think she's gonna get 4-5 years total (including what she's already served) and that seems about right to me. Much as I hate Kwame Kiltpatrick, I don't think he deserved 28 years. He did a decade. I think that's fair. Lost a decade with his kids growing up and that's a steep price. Just wondering how far he's gonna take this new religious grift he's on 'cause I ain't buying that nonsense. I take it back. Jen says she wouldn't do anything differently. Fine, then give her consecutive sentences. She's truly remorseless. Let her ponder this for 25 years. I'm sure we'll see her speaking at a Repugnantcan convention in the future, playing Martyr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) Does anyone know what "well-regulated militia" the Crumbleys were part of? (That part of the 2nd always gets left out by gun nuts). Some think it will be overturned, but we know that they bought that gun for him. He didn't steal it, it was HIS gun and people under 18 can't posses firearms in Michigan. 15 year olds are stupid (as we all were) and should not have such things. All she had to do was ANYTHING to try to help him. One appointment with a shrink and she's not guilty. Just the bare minimum. A now former friends of mine thinks this could set a precedent in "the hood" where parents are held responsible for the crimes their kids commit with guns. (of course the right wingers have to bring their ****ing racism into everything). Well if a parent buys their minor a pistol and the minor uses that pistol to kill people. Then GOOD ! I don't care where they're from or what their skin tone is. Time to start applying reason to gun laws in this country. They do exist. Start acting like it. Yes former friend, I am not associating myself with gun nuts anymore. I'm done with them. Not gun owners, gun nuts. Edited February 7 by Motor City Sonics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 hours ago, Motor City Sonics said: A now former friends of mine thinks this could set a precedent in "the hood" where parents are held responsible for the crimes their kids commit with guns. (of course the right wingers have to bring their ****ing racism into everything). I agree with you the most on everything I've seen in this thread for the past few hours. This portion somewhat surprised me though. I would actually think it would be a liberal person that would be concerned about this setting a precedent and being used for gun crimes relating to black youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motor City Sonics Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, ewsieg said: I agree with you the most on everything I've seen in this thread for the past few hours. This portion somewhat surprised me though. I would actually think it would be a liberal person that would be concerned about this setting a precedent and being used for gun crimes relating to black youth. No, I want any parent who illegally supplies their kid with at weapon to face consequences when they use that weapon to hurt or kill people. I'll put it to you this way. Ethan Crumbley could not have walked into a store and purchased a pistol, even if his parents signed off on it because 15 year olds can't buy a pistol....period He doesn't seem like the kind of kid that would have been able to get one on the street, but lets say he did............then the person who sold him the weapon should be charged just like Jennifer Crumbley was. This applies to adults who are ex cons or otherwise prohibited from legally buying a firearm. If they have to go to someone else to get one, that person that got if for them needs to carry some of the the weight of the crime committed with it, because he/she enabled it. Let's start really cracking down on this. How did the MSU shooter get his gun(s)? Did he steal them from his father? That's a little different because that shooter was an adult and he might have actually stolen the gun. That shooters father doesn't have to meet the standard of keeping guns away from a minor. That's not taking rights away from legal and reasonable people, most gun owners, just people who have shown that they can't be trusted with firearms. That's not some overreach, that's being reasonable. I think most gun owners agree on this. They don't want people who can't be trusted with guns to have them. 15 year olds can't be trusted because they're 15 and none of us were very mature at 15. Everything that goes wrong at 15 seems so much bigger than it is. Get dumped at 15 and you're world is ruined. Get dumped at 30 and it's "this sucks, what's on TV?". Parents need to be parents, not buddies. If your kid doesn't get pissed off at you ever than you're probably not doing what you're supposed to. Someone's gotta be the adult. There didn't seem to be one in that house. We try it with cars. Those who are forbidden to drive because they aren't legally qualified or they have proven to not be able to be responsible behind the wheel are often fined and sent to jail. Because they could kill someone with a car. Well guns are MADE to kill people but we can't apply the car standard to that? I know that illegal drivers ignore it and usually don't go to jail unless they actually do kill someone. Again with this 2nd Amendment, I don't know why so many people seem to forget the "Well-Regulated Militia" part. And even this standard with Ethan Crumbley is very low. All she had to prove is that she tried ANYTHING to get him some help. She did nothing. Kid texts that he seems demons and is freaking out. So she buys him a gun? Yeah, people like that don't need to be walking around free. Even if she did get him help and he did it anyway, she's probably off the hook because she at least tried. No more. **** the NRA. They are extremists. Just like liberal PETA. **** them too. They are unreasonable and ridiculous extremists . Smack a mosquito off your arm and they freak out. Both had great ideas at the start, but lost their place went way WAY too far. Time to bring things back to the reasonable center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, Motor City Sonics said: No, I want any parent who illegally supplies their kid with at weapon to face consequences when they use that weapon to hurt or kill people. In no way am I looking to defend either parent and I'm not upset with this ruling. But even as one of the lone conservative voices on this forum, I recognize many good intentioned laws/rulings don't always work out the best for the most impoverished. To note, I don't think they illegally supplied a gun for him. They purchased it for him and did not intend on him having access to it without their involvement. I don't think that is illegal. Granted they were reckless in more ways than just being reckless with gun access and suspect all of that came into play with the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 4 hours ago, ewsieg said: I would actually think it would be a liberal person that would be concerned about this setting a precedent and being used for gun crimes relating to black youth. I don't have a problem with it. You are basically talking about what Michael Gerson coined as 'the soft bigotry of low expectation" style of liberal side racism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 On 2/5/2024 at 9:37 PM, Motor City Sonics said: To me, What the Crumbley parents didn't understand is that the second you have a child, you become secondary in your life. It's all about them. Seems they didn't want to cramp their style. I didn't feel sorry for the shooter, but I kind of do now. I mean, he deserves jail time, but I feel like he was more of a nuisance for the parents than actually the most important person in their world. Selfish people aren't typically good parents. I was thinking about this same thing when I saw pictures of parents holding up their children at the congressional hearing Zuckerberg was testifying at, to shame him into driver their children to suicide. I wondered, how much of the blame is due to lack of parenting inclination that led them to mollify their children with phones so those parents could do off and do what they wanted to do for themselves rather than doing the hard work of actually parenting, versus Zuckerberg willing these children to commit suicide through Instagram? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 I'm a very techy person and I'd say I'm pretty worried about how to wrangle/control all of the apps/content that my daughter can access. I think it's very reasonable argument that it shouldn't be parents' responsibility to parry a tsunami created by tech companies with immunity pursuing massive profit. If we still argue it should be parents' responsibility, I think it's very reasonable to determine how realistic that really is for an average parent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 27 minutes ago, pfife said: I'm a very techy person and I'd say I'm pretty worried about how to wrangle/control all of the apps/content that my daughter can access. I think it's very reasonable argument that it shouldn't be parents' responsibility to parry a tsunami created by tech companies with immunity pursuing massive profit. If we still argue it should be parents' responsibility, I think it's very reasonable to determine how realistic that really is for an average parent. agree completely. People, and especially parents themselves, who think they have anything like a complete idea of what their kids are doing are deluding themselves and have apparently forgotten their own childhoods! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) I think people also don't take into account the perniciousness and the pervasiveness of the internet and particularly social media. I have a friend who is a principal at a high school and the stories he tells me are horrifying. These kids just spin up new websites with new urls where they keep terrorizing other kids in the school, and part of his teams job is just following that around on the internet playing whack-a-mole. You can take your kid off social media (maybe?) and that's really hard in and of itself, but that doesn't make all of the social media go away and not impact their lives. Edited February 10 by pfife 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 I don't care if I sound like an old curmudgeon but social media is horrible and is a plague on society. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 On 2/10/2024 at 10:13 AM, pfife said: I don't care if I sound like an old curmudgeon but social media is horrible and is a plague on society. As he posts on social media. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 2 hours ago, Tiger337 said: As he posts on social media. Obvious by definition they are, but an Interesting question is whether moderated sites are even in the same conceptual space as 'social media' as it's commonly understood since they function so much differently. We had moderated message boards all the back to Compuserve in the 1980's and no-one felt they needed to have congressional hearings about it. 😉 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Mayhem Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 On 2/10/2024 at 10:13 AM, pfife said: I don't care if I sound like an old curmudgeon but social media is horrible and is a plague on society. My kids only have one social media account (on Discord) where they have a group chat of their nerd friends. We don't do facebook, twitter, snapchat, tiktok or insta. In fact, when I told them they couldn't use tiktok anymore when it was taken over by the commies, there was a brief "you hate me" response but they eventually came to understand the "why". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 18 hours ago, Tiger337 said: As he posts on social media. I dont need to protect my daughter from this forum but whatever works for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 It was hard in 2014 when my son was getting to be that age and from friends I have with kids around that age now it's still bad. I think for girls it's especially harder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.