21 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 

Didn't the mom text the kid afterwards saying something like...."LOL, you should learn how to not get caught"....or has that been debunked?

I have no idea.

18 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 

Didn't the mom text the kid afterwards saying something like...."LOL, you should learn how to not get caught"....or has that been debunked?

He got caught googling ammo at school and got in trouble..... The mother texted him that after the school called her. 

It sounds like it was a family of white trash weirdos..... I have zero problem charging negligent people. Same thing when a drug dealer/gang banger leaves a loaded gun under their mattress and a 12 year old finds it and shoots their younger brother.....or if a Hollywood actor shoots a cinematographer because some prop master negligently loaded a prop gun with live ammunition. 

Negligence is negligence. 

Murder is murder. 

There are plenty of existing laws on the book to punish those responsible 

27 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Not responding to phone calls and texts from the police and their own attorney must've also been for their own safety. I bet they were worried about catching covid from their phones!

If counsel did not advise them to not speak to the police under these circumstances, he would have committed malpractice.  There is this thing called the 5th Amendment

3 minutes ago, iladelphxx said:

Negligence is negligence. 

Murder is murder.

They were charged with involuntary manslaughter - not negligence (which generally is civil in nature) and were not charged with murder.

From what I can gather, the DA will have a tough time maintaining these charges, even if what we are reading is true, and even if there is culpability on their part. 

In Michigan, Involuntary manslaughter occurs when an individual kills another person without intent, or unintentionally. The criminal penalties for involuntary manslaughter are as severe as those for voluntary manslaughter.  The problem the DA faces here is that the parents - who no doubt were terrible parents - didn't kill anybody.

11 minutes ago, Procus said:

If counsel did not advise them to not speak to the police under these circumstances, he would have committed malpractice.  There is this thing called the 5th Amendment

No, read my post again, Magoo. They weren't responding to calls and texts from their lawyer either. These people are dumb as F.

1 hour ago, Procus said:

They were charged with involuntary manslaughter - not negligence (which generally is civil in nature) and were not charged with murder.

From what I can gather, the DA will have a tough time maintaining these charges, even if what we are reading is true, and even if there is culpability on their part. 

In Michigan, Involuntary manslaughter occurs when an individual kills another person without intent, or unintentionally. The criminal penalties for involuntary manslaughter are as severe as those for voluntary manslaughter.  The problem the DA faces here is that the parents - who no doubt were terrible parents - didn't kill anybody.

Their son killed several people.

What did the parents do to aid and abet the murderer?

I agree, the involuntary manslaughter charges against the parents are serious and require a high degree of corroboration. I am tired of watching the prosecution in egregious cases like this try to make an example, only to aim too high, and the accused goes free because they are unable to meet the demand of the charges.

1 hour ago, iladelphxx said:

Read the facts of the case and the parents absolutely should be charged. 

The mother sounds straight up retarded 

For what exactly?

2 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

lol

The Crumbleys panicked. They skipped arraignment. They aren't responding to police. They aren't responding to their lawyers. The lawyers are doing their job and covering for them, but as far as we know the Crumbleys haven't realized it yet. If they know what's best they will surrender and not do something even more stupid.

 

50 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yep.  And they met with the school that day (knowing he had a guy and possibly on him) about the googling.  And they made the decision to let him stay at school.  Knowing he was a threat with a gun.  

This is the issue for me. I can tell you I had free access to guns growing up, and from a very young age.

BUT... I wasn’t threatening people. I wasn’t bringing them onto school property. I wasn’t broadcasting guns as some kind of "flex” at school.

Minors all over the country have access to firearms and there is zero problem the overwhelming majority of the time, because most of them aren’t psycho killers.

This comes down to the parents’ judgement. If you give your kid access to guns because they like to go hunting after school or on the weekends or something like that, and they’re otherwise a normal person, that’s one thing. If your kid is threatening people or involved in any kind of school drama/feud, that should be a pretty clear sign that they aren’t responsible enough to have access to them. Really it’s no different than a car. If your kid is constantly speeding and drinking, don’t let them Fing drive because they might kill someone.

4 minutes ago, TEW said:

This comes down to the parents’ judgement.

Pretty safe to say the judgement of these two F-tards is ridiculously terrible. 

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Pretty safe to say the judgement of these two F-tards is ridiculously terrible. 

Certainly looks that way. If their kid was making threats to other students to the point where third parties were scared to go to school, and the school called the parents in to discuss the issue, the parents have blood on their hands IMO.

8 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Of course it’s a parent issue.  I don’t think anyone can argue that.  15 year old kid should have access to hand gun, no matter what.  I don’t care if he’s a straight A student and captain of the glee club.  You wanna take your kid into the woods and teach him how to kill animals for sport?  Ok.  But a hand gun?  Ridiculous.  

I had access to hand guns much younger than that. So do millions of kids across the country.

It’s down to the kid. Are they responsible and have a mature understanding of the tool? Do they have the proper mentality and disposition? Do they know how to handle the pistol safely? If so, then there isn’t a problem. If not, then there will be problems.

4 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You had no need to have access to a hand gun at that age.  

Sure I did. I spent a lot of time unsupervised because both of my parents worked. So I had access to the gun safe, just in case.

13 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You had no need to have access to a hand gun at that age.  

Raise your kids how you see fit.

11 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

You had no need to have access to a hand gun at that age.  

Not a question of "need”. My 12 yo understands gun safety including hand guns. The nature of the weapon is irrelevant

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Original concept.   I bet there’s four families in Michigan who would love to do that, but can’t.  

And that has what to do with TEW handling handguns at a young age?

1 minute ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I said there was no need.  You’re right, there isn’t a question of need.  But TEW and I were discussing it. But thanks for your opinion.  I’ll be sure to log it.  

Have you considering messaging as an option for your private conversational needs?

I have found that particular format perfectly handles what you appear to desire. Go for it.

😆

8 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Only a gun nut would try to justify that. Ridiculous.  

Yes, children being able to protect themselves is totally a nutcase and ridiculous position. Great take.

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I wasn’t having a private conversation you dunce.  I posted my opinion.  He countered it.  Don’t like it?  Go away or put me on ignore.  

😆😆😆

Take another hit and chill the F out for christ sake. You're gonna stroke out on a Friday night.

12 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Yep.  Let’s arm some 15 year olds.  
 

I don’t even wanna know where some people live that requires a kid to lock and load.  

It was the richest suburbs of PA, funny enough.

BUT, you had 2 issues. 1 - low income housing which put the poors near the good areas they otherwise couldn’t afford. 2 - because it was an affluent area, during the summer there were "gypsies” (even the police called them that) who would come and basically get a box truck and steal everything from the houses where families were on vacation during the summer. 

The simple matter is that a child’s "need” is the same fundamental reason a woman "needs” a firearm for self defense — they aren’t a physical match for an adult male.
 

Bad things happen to good people in good areas. Yes, it’s less likely in a good area. But, just like I still wear a seatbelt driving 35mph on backroads even though my risk of death is higher driving 60mph on I95, I’d still want access to a gun in a good area. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. It’s a good general strategy in life.

3 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

 

Cool post sport.  

😆

25 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

I said there was no need.  You’re right, there isn’t a question of need.  But TEW and I were discussing it. But thanks for your opinion.  I’ll be sure to log it.  

If its not a question of need then you have no point and arr just bishing to hear yourself talk. 
 

so get off my lawn

Just now, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Ok gun guy.  Thanks for chiming.   I’ll continue to "talk” about my opinion.  

Guess what…no one cares about your opinion

5 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Awwwww.  Triggered gun guy.  That’s cute.  You cared so much you keep responding.  

You probably shouldn't be using the word "triggered" to  describe someone else in a derogatory fashion. 😂

9 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Awwwww.  Triggered gun guy.  That’s cute.  You cared so much you keep responding.  

Says the clown who keeps responding…