to think this isn't right? mother convicted if manslaughter

[greenacrylicpaint]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68223118

A jury has found a Michigan mother guilty of involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop her son from carrying out a deadly school shooting.

by all means, she didn't come across as mother of the year, but come on.
what sentence will the father get?
an absent father in a similar case?

oh america

She hasn't been sent to prison for her son's faults, but her own. She took him to a fucking shooting range to practice just before the school shooting. She enabled him in every single stage.

Has none of you read any newspaper?

Would you buy your ‘whirlwind’ teen a gun or knife? If not, you should be ok.

They are not going to introduce gun control laws.

This is a very good way of making better parents than these sit up and take notice. It is exactly the type of thing that will - absent sensible gun control - help reduce school shootings. That and making the parents of underage perpetrators pay compensation to the victims.

What qualifications or professional experience are you basing your claim that mental health issues prevented her from being s decent and responsible prior to the murders.

The father is standing trial separately. You do not seem to have actually read the facts of what these two 'parents' did. And perhaps wait and see if the father gets away with it before crying sexism.

And they were running away. They bought burner phones, took cash out, thousands and thousands of dollars. They were caught less than 10 miles from Canadian border.
And all those saying , but the father? Again, nobody reads newspapers, his trial start next month.

It certainly looks like the OP didn't even read the news link she posted!
🙄

Yep. She didnt read it, and just panicked at the thought of mums being held responsible.

OP, just don't buy your DS/DD a knife or a gun, take him/her to a shooting range for Mother's Day, and pay attention to what he/she and what school says.

OP not sure if this has been mentioned but the New York Times published a damning piece on the trial recently. It's called What is this mother really guilty of?

Being a Luddite I can't attach it, but its main message is that yes the accusation (at the time, now conviction) stretches the definition of manslaughter to snapping point, and that this is the US grasping at straws, punishing the people they can get hold of while failing to solve the policy, social and cultural issue of fetishization of and too easy access to guns.

You are right it will be very interesting to see what sentence the father gets. If it's any more lenient, we'll have a new outcome of sexism on our hands.

Have you read the whole case? She definitely could have done more.

"Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an individual who has committed an unlawful killing without an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the victim, causing the death by recklessness or gross negligence instead."

The parents of this 15 year old child reportedly:

• neglected him from the age of 9, leaving him alone for hours while they went out drinking, tended to horses and engaged in extramarital affairs
• were aware he was complaining of hallucinations
• were recieving texts from him complaining of demons and ghosts
• were aware that he was engaging in animal abuse and kept the head of a baby bird in a jar
• refused to get their son mental health support that he was directly requesting
• bought him a semi-automatic handgun
• did not secure the gun or prevent him from taking him into school (minors cannot legally possess guns in Michigan outwith specific circumstances not relevent here)
• cut short a meeting called by the school to discuss a picture their sun had drawn which has been described as follows: "A drawing of a semiautomatic handgun, pointing at the words, "The thoughts won't stop. Help me." In another section of the note was a drawing of a bullet, with the following words above that bullet: "Blood everywhere." Between the drawing of the gun and the bullet is a drawing of a person who appears to have been shot twice and bleeding. Below that figure is a drawing of a laughing emoji. Further down the drawing are the words, "My life is useless." And to the right of it are the words, "The world is dead.""
• declined to take thier child home as suggested by the school

I don't believe parents should be held responsible for their children's actions in general but by ignoring obvious warning signs, refusing to provide their son with mental health support and providing him with free access to a deadly weapon it does seem that they have met the legal threshold required for an involuntary manslaughter conviction.

This isn't a clear case of blame the mother and let the father off the hook, either - the parents are being tried seperately by their own request.

The actions of both parents have been deeply irresponsible and selfish, with tragic consequences - 4 teenagers are dead and a 5th is now a murderer, serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

All these posts listing reasons she should be convicted, they're all reasons she's a bad parent. So charge her with negligence or something then. But don;'t you see the fundamental difference between that and convicting her of manslaughter for someone else's crime? Seems like a very worrying precedent to me.

I think she deserved the conviction. She bought him the gun. She knew of his plans, even going so far as to beg him not to do it. In what way is she not responsible @OP?

She's a bad parent and she broke the law by providing a child with a gun.

Two separate issues, but he couldn't get the gun without her assistance.

She facilitated the murders.

Actions all have consequences.

Just a thought. But in any eventuality, who in their right mind buys their fifteen year old son a gun ?

People that want to be charged with manslaughter!

She provided him with the gun.

Anyone who actively provides a person with mental health issues - adult or child - with a firearm is absolutely complicit in crimes they commit with that firearm.

If he’d managed to take a gun of hers then she’d have been neglectful. Actively arming him goes way beyond that.

I am very much pro guns but in this case it was clear the shooter was underage and troubled and the parents must take responsibility for buying him a gun that he could use unsupervised.

I hope the father gets convicted too but this should be a wake up call to parents of kids like these who facilitate this behaviour and I have to say it but it is more prevalent with sons than daughters and I can’t help but think that is because of a prevalent “boys will be boys” attitude. I’m not saying this is a right but I’m willing to consider it as a step in the right direction if it makes parents think twice.

Involuntary manslaughter was entirely appropriate. It’s not someone elses’ crime - she contributed to it by buying her son the gun used to kill people when she had known of, and refused to engage in getting him treatment for, mental health problems. She was also aware that there were red flags all over the place regarding his behaviour. Her son was also fifteen - a minor - and as a parent she is responsible for him. If it sets a precedent, then good - hopefully it will make people sit up and think.

This is the NYT piece referred to by a PP.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/opinion/mother-homicide-court-crumbley.html Very detailed.

The parents of victims are planning to sue the school, as well.

No. She bought him a gun. That goes beyond negligence.

with the gun laws, gun acceptance in some us states giving your child a gun (for shooting on a range) is not really unusual.

Accountability.

She made poor choices in supporting her child. It seems she didn't follow up on any support offered. Denial perhaps.

More difficult here, when parents are desperate for help for their children and support is not available.

She gave her mentally unstable 15 year old son a gun for Christmas! Of course she should be charged.

They could probably make a case for Joint Enterprise as well. Which would be much more serious.