Oxford Tragedy: Parents and School Failed

[RLENT]

They are disputing that they didn’t secure it.

Of course they are.



But some might say that Daddy rushing home when he heard there was a shooting to check on whether the gun was still in the drawer is a bit of a tell ...

If it was secured, then why was he so concerned ?

The facts will determine the manner in which they did or didn’t.

Indeed they will.

Wonder if the authorities already have Ethan on record as to whether it was secured ?

If so, it will be really unfortunate for the parents that there is no equivalent thing to spousal privilege to prevent the testimony of a child being used against the parents.

Apparently in Michigan there isn’t a law that requires to do so.

That's true ... however it is against the law in Michigan for a minor to possess a firearm without being under the direct supervision of an adult (18 or older)

That is why they are charged with something else that may not fit the current statute in Michigan.

"Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of another without malice and unintentionally, but in doing some unlawful act not amounting to a felony nor naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm, or in negligently doing some act lawful in itself, or by the negligent omission to perform a legal duty."

- People v Ryczek, 224 Mich 106, 110; 194 NW 609 (1923)

It will come down to whether the parents were aware of the likelihood that he would do what he did and were negligent in helping him.

Perhaps not.

Involuntary manslaughter does not require malice or intent.

The parents guilt or innocence on the charges will be up to a jury to decide.

Unless of course the parents accept a plea offer ... similar to the guy up in Flint who was charged with involuntary manslaughter back in 2000 and pled out after he failed to secure his handgun and a six year-old got a hold of it and killed a classmate at school.

No history of violence.

But a big history of irresponsible conduct on the part of the parents.

Here is a highlighted part from an article that explains this from a former Federal prosecutor:

An anonymous Federal prosecutor ?

 

[RLENT]

The Prosecutor could have made it easier in a tense environment.

Oh yes ... it's all about the fee-fee's of Ethan's poor, poor parents.

Not answering the phone didn’t help bring in two people that were charged.

Apparently didn't hinder it all that much either.

Also, she didn’t deny that they tried to communicate with her.

So what ?

It's not her job to play wet nurse to a couple of idiots.

Kind of goes against the narrative that they weren’t intending to turn themselves in.

Not really.

They could have not hid in a basement in an industrial building. But they did.

They could have left their phones on. They didn't.

They could have stayed reachable by their attorneys. They weren't, at least for a time.

They could have informed the authorities of their location. They didn't.

They could have made their arraignment.

Instead, they chose to head away from where their presence was legally required.

 

[Pilgrim]

They are disputing that they didn’t secure it. The facts will determine the manner in which they did or didn’t. Apparently in Michigan there isn’t a law that requires to do so.
That is why they are charged with something else that may not fit the current statute in Michigan.
It will come down to whether the parents were aware of the likelihood that he would do what he did and were negligent in helping him. No history of violence.

Per federal law, every gun sold must include a small cable lock similar to a mini bicycle lock. They are junk and next to useless. The parents may have used this to claim the gun was secured, but that would be a technicality at best. If they bought this pistol as a present for him, their behavior and attitudes doesn't suggest they would actually deny him access to it.

This kid may have been showing signs of coming unglued, especially the days before the shooting and the parents may not have even noticed, considering their past history. He even posted some weird stuff on Instagram the night before but it wasn't significant unless taken in context with his drawings found at school. There's probably a lot we still don't know about this kid and his parents, other than the fact that they're clueless about gun safety and security. Even in the unlikely event they get off the hook on criminal charges, they'll be looking at civil suits for the rest of their lives.

Ethan Crumbley’s neighbor warned authorities about parents’ neglect: report

Kayla LeMieux said she alerted child-abuse authorities that the pair would leave their son — then 8 or 9 years old — home alone while they went out bar-hopping.

nypost.com

 

[muttly]

I’ll respond later to some of these comments, but just throwing this out here. What is you’all definition of free access to a weapon?
Or not having free access to a weapon?

 

[Pilgrim]

I’ll respond later to some of these comments, but just throwing this out here. What is you’all definition of free access to a weapon?
Or not having free access to a weapon?

Free access to the firearm would be the ability to literally lay hands on it unencumbered. A better term would be "unrestricted access". This would disregard trigger or cable locks since they're easily overcome. A good example would be a closet shelf, nightstand drawer, or anywhere in an unlocked room.

The best example of a secured firearm is one kept in a gun safe or a room with one key-locked entry.

 

[muttly]

Oh yes ... it's all about the fee-fee's of Ethan's poor, poor parents.



Apparently didn't hinder it all that much either.



So what ?

It's not her job to play wet nurse to a couple of idiots.



Not really.

They could have not hid in a basement in an industrial building. But they did.

They could have left their phones on. They didn't.

They could have stayed reachable by their attorneys. They weren't, at least for a time.

They could have informed the authorities of their location. They didn't.

They could have made their arraignment.

Instead, they chose to head away from where their presence was legally required.

That’s a interesting take on it. How about a little professionalism and competency from a public servant? The Sheriff said in his 21 years as one that he never seen a prosecutor announce charges without notifying him so that they could have the person(s) in custody. Her statement was that the whole country knew there were going to be charges( very rarely done)against them. Well, apparently the Sheriff wasn’t privy to it.
Just a simple phone call to him saying that we have a case against the parents so bring the parents in custody.

 

[muttly]

Free access to the firearm would be the ability to literally lay hands on it unencumbered. A better term would be "unrestricted access". This would disregard trigger or cable locks since they're easily overcome. A good example would be a closet shelf, nightstand drawer, or anywhere in an unlocked room.

The best example of a secured firearm is one kept in a gun safe or a room with one key-locked entry.

In Michigan apparently there is no law requiring keeping a gun secured in that manner. Probably a small percentage of gun owners own a safe. Most assume a gun lock is sufficient. The other examples you gave, while providing an extra obstacle or two won’t prevent someone who is really intent on getting to the weapon. A bolt cutter or saw for the gun lock, a couple of wrenches for a padlock, a drill for a key hole, a spatula for a locked door.

 

[Pilgrim]

In Michigan apparently there is no law requiring keeping a gun secured in that manner. Probably a small percentage of gun owners own a safe. Most assume a gun lock is sufficient. The other examples you gave, while providing an extra obstacle or two won’t prevent someone who is really intent on getting to the weapon. A bolt cutter or saw for the gun lock, a couple of wrenches for a padlock, a drill for a key hole, a spatula for a locked door.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much spot-on. In spite of the recent crime surges people think their kids are perfectly normal and that they are immune to break-ins or theft. The following article offers some good insight to this national attitude, but one paragraph relevant to this case really surprised me:

"Earlier this week, a study published in the journal Pediatrics reported that gun-owning families whose children have psychiatric illnesses are no more likely to keep their guns locked and unloaded than other gun owners."

Study: More than half of all U.S. gun owners fail to store their firearms safely - MinnPost

In households with children, the percentage who store their firearms safely is only slightly higher.

www.minnpost.com

But this is no excuse for the negligence of the Crumblys, which was not only stupid, but also criminal. They probably realized something was wrong with him and pampered him to the point of allowing him access to firearms as if they were toys. They belong in prison.

 

[RLENT]

Wet nurse? That’s a interesting take on it.

Glad you think so.

How about a little professionalism and competency from a public servant?

Excellent idea.

For Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard that might involve ensuring your immediate underling (Oakland County Undersheriff Michael McCabe) doesn't go "loose cannon", shooting his mouth off to media, running down the County's Chief Law Enforcement Officer, Prosecutor MacDonald.

One wonders whether Undersheriff McCabe's statement might have been just a little self-serving ... given that he oversees day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Department ... and it was under his supervision and watch that the Sheriff's Department lost track of the location of the parents ... all while knowing a charging decision was pending.

Looks like there may have also been some questionable practices at the Sheriff's office in past - during both Bouchard's and McCabe's time at the agency - that the new prosecutor is not going tolerate ... which may have been a factor as well.

Given McCabe's loose cannon remarks, no great surprise Sheriff Bouchard was not available for comment for the article linked below ... and instead sent McCabe out - as his errand boy - to clean things up after he (McCabe) publicly ran off at the mouth:

Coffee clears the air between Oakland County prosecutor and sheriff

Also hard not to note that Prosecutor MacDonald is a Democrat and Sheriff Bouchard is a Republican ... the only elected Republican in Oakland County government apparently.

Probably a safe bet that McCabe is a Republican as well, in light of his unprofessional conduct towards another fellow law enforcement official (the prosecutor)

Having said all that, from what all I've seen of Sheriff Bouchard, he appears to be very professional and well-equipped in interacting with the media.

The Sheriff said in his 21 years as one that he never seen a prosecutor announce charges without notifying him so that they could have the person(s) in custody. Her statement was that the whole country knew there were going to be charges( very rarely done)against them. Well, apparently the Sheriff wasn’t privy to it. Just a simple phone call to him saying that we have a case against the parents.

Since the Sheriff's Office (not the Prosecutor's) is the one doing the investigation, they were well-aware of the facts uncovered during the investigation - or should have been - and knew a decision on filing charges was pending.

So it was a failure to anticipate on the part of the Sheriff's Department.

And there may be very good reasons why the prosecutor avoided notifying the Sheriff's Department prior to announcing charges.

Instead it was assumed that the Sheriff knew their location.

Based on interactions someone in the Prosecutor's office had with the personnel of the Sheriff's Department that were actually involved in the investigation and their representations.

 

[muttly]

Glad you think so.



Excellent idea.

For Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard that might involve ensuring your immediate underling (Oakland County Undersheriff Michael McCabe) doesn't go "loose cannon", shooting his mouth off to media, running down the County's Chief Law Enforcement Officer, Prosecutor MacDonald.

One wonders whether Undersheriff McCabe's statement might have been just a little self-serving ... given that he oversees day-to-day operations of the Sheriff's Department ... and it was under his supervision and watch that the Sheriff's Department lost track of the location of the parents ... all while knowing a charging decision was pending.

Looks like there may have also been some questionable practices at the Sheriff's office in past - during both Bouchard's and McCabe's time at the agency - that the new prosecutor is not going tolerate ... which may have been a factor as well.

Given McCabe's loose cannon remarks, no great surprise Sheriff Bouchard was not available for comment for the article linked below ... and instead sent McCabe out - as his errand boy - to clean things up after he (McCabe) publicly ran off at the mouth:

Coffee clears the air between Oakland County prosecutor and sheriff

Also hard not to note that Prosecutor MacDonald is a Democrat and Sheriff Bouchard is a Republican ... the only elected Republican in Oakland County government apparently.

Probably a safe bet that McCabe is a Republican as well, in light of his unprofessional conduct towards another fellow law enforcement official (the prosecutor)

Having said all that, from what all I've seen of Sheriff Bouchard, he appears to be very professional and well-equipped in interacting with the media.



Since the Sheriff's Office (not the Prosecutor's) is the one doing the investigation, they were well-aware of the facts uncovered during the investigation - or should have been - and knew a decision on filing charges was pending.

So it was a failure to anticipate on the part of the Sheriff's Department.

And there may be very good reasons why the prosecutor avoided notifying the Sheriff's Department prior to announcing charges.



Based on interactions someone in the Prosecutor's office had with the personnel of the Sheriff's Department that were actually involved in the investigation and their representations.

She ran on a platform of transparency and communication. Alrighty then.

 

[RLENT]

She ran on a platform of transparency and communication.

Seems to me she has been pretty transparent to, and communicated with, the voters who elected her and to whom she is accountable.

Alrighty then.

Rethought the commentary on how progressive she is did you ?

 

[muttly]

Seems to me she has been pretty transparent to, and communicated with, the voters who elected her and to whom she is accountable.



Rethought the commentary on how progressive she is did you ?

Lol, ok whatever. She talked on the phone 5 times with the sheriffs office so maybe the communication is heading in the right direction. No she appears to be more “progressive”(if that’s a proper description anymore) than the previous Democrat prosecutor. Not really pertinent to the discussion though so I deleted that.

 

[Pilgrim]

As expected, the civil lawsuits have started against the Oxford School District, the principal, and others at the school. Hopefully, more parents will join in this effort to hold these feckless school administrators accountable for turning a blind eye toward the warnings given before the attack by this mentally deranged kid. Keep in mind that in addition to the drawings and online "countdowns", Crumbley had also posted online photos of the pistol his parents had given him a few days before the attack. It really shouldn't have taken much effort for them to connect the dots.

"The lawsuit states that school administrators failed to act when alleged shooter “Ethan Crumbley posted countdowns and threats of bodily harm” on social media. Though parents raised the matter to school officials, the Franz family alleges that superintendent, Tim Throne, and principal, Steven Wolf, determined that the threats were not credible."

MSN

www.msn.com