Crime Michigan School Shooter's Mom on Trial for Manslaughter (Update: Guilty on all 4 counts) (Update 3: Father guilty on all counts)

gross negligence​

Gross negligence is a lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people's rights to safety. Gross negligence is a heightened degree of negligence representing an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care. Falling between intent to do wrongful harm and ordinary negligence, gross negligence is defined as willful, wanton, and reckless conduct affecting the life or property or another.
Gross negligence is considered more harmful than ordinary negligence because it implies a thoughtless disregard of the consequences and the failure to use even slight care to avoid harming the life or property of another. As such, someone who is found liable for gross negligence can be responsible for higher damages than ordinary negligence.
 
I admittedly have not been following this case, but I did read an article discussing this case yesterday, so I am not completely ignorant on the case or issue.

They may be guilty of being shitty parents, or at least, aloof parents. I would certainly be concerned if it were my kids-but we are very involved parents. But to my understanding, he made a drawing and tried to look up buying ammo online-which doesn’t mean he’s planning a school shooting, maybe he was wanting his parents to buy a certain type of ammo to go to the range.

But they were charged with four counts of voluntary manslaughter or something like that. They were under no obligation to lock up the guns(MI doesn’t have that law), no obligation to tell the school that they own guns, which is not the schools business-plus, the school would have suspended him, denying him education, which is a terrible precedent because there are states that would take that so far that kids whose parents own guns, wouldn’t be allowed to send them to school there(Cali, Colorado, northwest). They bought a gun for him to use at the range. Where I’m from, that is very common and many families are into hunting with their kids and buy them guns. Parents aren’t required to get their kids therapy-it’s a choice that most families choose for their kids if showing signs of struggling mentally, but no law says they have to seek therapy.

Basically, I don’t see how the parents could have known for certain that he would carry out a school shooting and holding them responsible seems ridiculous to me.

The state and this county vote democrat. This county is considered liberal, (56% democrat) which I think is important as to why charges were brought in this case. Punishing people for exercising their second amendment rights is purely a liberal issue and is prevalent in liberal areas.

San Jose, CA, charges taxes to families that own guns and they have to pay a fee to own a gun. They do this to take these taxes and use them to try and offset the gun violence there. But guess what-the people doing the shooting in San Jose are mostly black and brown and not legal gun owners-most are felons and prohibited from owning a gun. I fucking hate the idea of punishing those that legally exercise their second amendment rights because of those who obtain and use guns illegally. It’s not fair and I don’t think it’s constitutional to do so, and this takes place in liberal areas. Look at the areas where owning a gun is difficult or carrying a gun is prohibited. My brother lives on Long Island. He was denied a concealed carry and was told “you’re going to need a letter from the pope to get this approved, ha ha.” In nyc area, you have to prove that you are facing an active threat to be issued a gun permit. When going to the range, he has to lock up his gun and ammo in separate areas of his vehicle traveling to and from. It’s fucking absurd.

In Philly, you can’t have a gun and the progressive da larry krasner, who is a cunt, blames the nra for all the gun violence in that city. However, the nra is all about legal gun ownership and legal gun rights. Guess who’s committing all the gun crime in Philly-I will give you a hint, it’s not the legal gun owners.

And cunt krasner has said multiple times that he will not prosecute felons caught with firearms. Why? Because that particular crime is mostly a black or brown issue. He is quoted as saying that he doesn’t prosecute that crime because he doesn’t want to lock up more “black and brown bodies.” Black and brown bodies is a fuxking retarded progressive ass thing to say. Just say people.

Also of note, most of the actual bodies littering the streets of Philly are black and brown. Coincidence? Felons with firearms are responsible for 87% of gun crimes. Only 13% purchased their gun legally. Approx 48% got their gun from a friend or family member and the rest bought them on the street illegally and those guns were stolen.

It’s unknown how many got theirs through straw purchasers, but I would guess a lot of the 48% had the friend or family member buy them the gun they used. We need to hammer straw purchasers with heavy sentences, perhaps even voluntary manslaughter because they knew they were selling a gun illegally or buying one for a felon.

Biden signed a law (I actually agree with) that the ATF can sentence a straw purchaser up to 25 years in prison. Since the singing of that law, they have only picked up 31 cases. A couple are detailed in the link, but quick summation. One guy named Hernandez has purchased 231 guns since 2020. He had not one of those 231 guns in his possession because he sold them all. He was caught on his way to Mexico with 17 guns and some of his previously purchased guns ended up being used in murder cases-I had to do additional research to find the latter part. So he got 25 years, right? Nope. Just 7. He illegally sold 231 of the guns he purchased with the intent to sell them to felons and cartels. He got 7 years. Wtf?

Another case in Nola involves a gf that bought her bf guns even though he is a felon. He used one of those guns to shoot someone in an attempted murder. When police went to arrest him, he barricaded himself in his apartment with his gf and two kids. Because this bitch bought him guns, someone was almost killed, not to mention kids were at risk. She got just six years. Boy, they’re really hammering these straw purchasers. It’s a fucking joke.

Why aren’t they charging these people with voluntary manslaughter? They knowingly bought guns for felons and cartels. But two parents that bought their 15 yr old a gun and took him to the range, but didn’t let him have possession of the gun in his room or anything, get charged for his crimes in a liberal area. That’s why I believe this is politically motivated.

Like I said, I believe race plays a factor here. It’s just my opinion. But my reasoning for it is because you very rarely see parents charged for their kids crimes. I quickly looked up “teen murders in Detroit” because the area itt is a suburb of Detroit. I had to specifically say “Detroit” or it would only yield this case. I read a few of them, including two juveniles charged in triple murder. Guess what I didn’t see on any of those cases? Parents charged with crimes for their kids actions. And all the cases I clicked on were black. Can you imagine how many parents of black juvenile murders would be locked up if they used similar logic as they did in this case? Besides school shootings(almost exclusively white) the overwhelming majority of juvenile murderers are minorities. My opinions on this matter is that if we started charging the parents of black juvenile murderers, there would be a huge fucking uproar and it would be called racist.

But in liberal areas, you absolutely can do this to whites because a. Liberal areas hate LEGAL gun owners and b. white people don’t protest when other whites are charged with crimes, when whites are arrested, or when whites are shot by police, which happens way more than minorities shot by police-but the latter is all you hear about. According to stats blared over the loud speakers by activists and media, blacks are 2.5x more likely to be shot by police than whites. But, as is always the case, they state these stats but don’t ever look into each case because that would destroy their narrative.

Sure, you definitely have a case here or there, where the cops shot an unarmed black person, but it
Is just .2% of all black homicide victims. Check out the below article from an extremely surprising source, USA Today. It talks about how rare it is for police to shoot unarmed black people and how the majority were armed. Police seem to like to keep their killings to around 1,000 per year. That is the average (2023 had the most since they started keeping tabs). It also discusses what I have said for many, many years-that when police don’t proactively patrol and decide on their own(without being called) to do traffic stops and check out suspicious people, that crime and violence shoots up.

When do police stop proactive policing? After a George Floyd incident, and in every case, the cops back way off and violence goes up just about every single time here are some quotes if you don’t want to read the article: “
Much of modern policing is driven by crime data and community demands for help. The African American community tends to be policed more heavily, because that is where people are disproportionately hurt by violent street crime. In New York City in 2018, 73% of shooting victims were Black, though Black residents comprise only 24% of the city’s population.

Nationally, African Americans between the ages of 10 and 34 die from homicide at 13 times the rate of white Americans, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Justice Department. But the evidence does not support the charge that biased police are systematically killing Black Americans in fatal shootings.
Such self defense may be understandable if the police were engaging in an epidemic of shooting unarmed Black men and women, as we now hear daily — but there is no such epidemic. For the last five years, the police have fatally shot about 1,000 civilians annually, the vast majority of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. Black people account for about 23% of those shot and killed by police; they are about 13% of the U.S. population.

As of the June 22 update, the Washington Post’s database of fatal police shootings showed 14 unarmed Black victims and 25 unarmed white victims in 2019.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...icide-rates-race-injustice-column/3235072001/



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2023/04/27/results-of-new-gun-control-laws/11734545002/#:~:text=In public announcements, the ATF warns that straw,from trafficking or straw purchasing to lesser offenses.
When police assume a place needs to be more heavily policed it leads to criminalization of innocent people and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's why it's a bad thing. I have no comment on any of the rest of the spiel.
 
Last edited:
So she knows he has illegal guns in his possession, in her house, doesn’t report him to the police and he murders someone. That’s A-OK, no culpability for the mom?

It’s only in the specific scenario the mom purchased the gun for the son?

Seems both stupid and ripe for abuse by the courts.

Is that what the law says? Or is that just your opinion?
“Knows” is very hard to prove. I don’t think they’d be able to get a conviction without the purchase. Maybe if she said something on social media

This is just my opinion on how a seldom reached verdict could be used in the future
 
I'm surprised you wrote such a long response without looking up the charges or the novel legal theory.

"charged with four counts of voluntary manslaughter or something like that."

She was charged eith four counts of involuntary manslaughter. Not voluntary. Normally the men's rea requirement would be reckless disregard or a depraved heart. However, the prosecution based its case on gross negligence, which ask of if a reasonable person would have done something else.

In other words, the defendant knew of the danger, the defendant could have avoid injury by exercising ordinary care and the defendant failed to use ordinary care to prevent injuring another when, to a reasonable person, it must have been apparent that the result was likely to be serious injury.

Under this standard, Michigan does not need to have a law that requires locking the firearms. Michigan does not need a law that requires parents to disclose information. So long as a reasonable person would have done so under these circumstances, that's enough for gross negligence.

I don't understand why you brought up race, politics, and poverty when that is not relevant to the standard of gross negligence.

Buddy, I made a mistake remembering whether it was vol vs invol manslaughter. There is a reasonable standard with policing, but I have never heard it applied to a civilian. Maybe MI is different than my state, but I always provide long responses. I’m not lazy in my response, but i am not looking up each state’s little quirks in the law. In my state, involuntary manslaughter would be something like accidentally shooting someone while drunk. In other states, a dui causing death can be invol manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter. We have a specific charge for dui causing death, but I am just using that as an example. I mentioned it could be neglect in not locking the firearm up or taking reasonable precautions, but I know MI does not require guns to be locked up. I actually looked that up. Now if the boy had said he was going to shoot up the school and they didn’t remove the guns, I could maybe see the charges.

And I explained why I brought the other issues into it. This is the first case in which a parent was charged in a school shooting. I honestly don’t think they would have dared had the parents been black. Poverty comes in because it’s often the excuse that is given with inner city crime. “Oh, it’s because of poverty and trauma growing up in a violent area.” It’s my opinion and I am allowed to have it and express it. And politics of the area absolutely applies. This wouldn’t happen in a more conservative city/state-not that big cities or suburbs of big cities are conservative. In more liberal areas, it is frowned upon to exercise second amendment rights and any opportunity to punish that exercising happens.
 
I still don't understand what you are saying. If it's a reasonableness standard, it would not be different in a conservative or liberal area. It would be the same standard of whether someone else would have acted differently in the same circumstance. Maybe it would be harder to get a unanimous verdict in some parts of the country, but it would be the same standard.

Well this is why I post on these forums. Thank you for bringing a different perspective. For me, this case has nothing to do with the second amendment or your other points about the legality of felon murder. It's entirely about whether the prosecution presented
sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that defendants caused the deaths of the four murder victims. A district court allowed this case to proceed and an appeals court refused to overturn it. Let's see whether the jury verdict will be upheld and if this novel legal argument will last or not.
 
Buddy, I made a mistake remembering whether it was vol vs invol manslaughter. There is a reasonable standard with policing, but I have never heard it applied to a civilian. Maybe MI is different than my state, but I always provide long responses. I’m not lazy in my response, but i am not looking up each state’s little quirks in the law. In my state, involuntary manslaughter would be something like accidentally shooting someone while drunk. In other states, a dui causing death can be invol manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter. We have a specific charge for dui causing death, but I am just using that as an example. I mentioned it could be neglect in not locking the firearm up or taking reasonable precautions, but I know MI does not require guns to be locked up. I actually looked that up. Now if the boy had said he was going to shoot up the school and they didn’t remove the guns, I could maybe see the charges.

And I explained why I brought the other issues into it. This is the first case in which a parent was charged in a school shooting. I honestly don’t think they would have dared had the parents been black. Poverty comes in because it’s often the excuse that is given with inner city crime. “Oh, it’s because of poverty and trauma growing up in a violent area.” It’s my opinion and I am allowed to have it and express it. And politics of the area absolutely applies. This wouldn’t happen in a more conservative city/state-not that big cities or suburbs of big cities are conservative. In more liberal areas, it is frowned upon to exercise second amendment rights and any opportunity to punish that exercising happens.

Here are two examples from last year of parents charged for shootings. Granted these end in plea deals and thus no trials, but who knows what would have happened.


https://www.fox5dc.com/news/mom-of-6-year-old-who-shot-virginia-elementary-school-teacher-pleads-guilty-to-child-neglect


 
Buddy, I made a mistake remembering whether it was vol vs invol manslaughter. There is a reasonable standard with policing, but I have never heard it applied to a civilian. Maybe MI is different than my state, but I always provide long responses. I’m not lazy in my response, but i am not looking up each state’s little quirks in the law. In my state, involuntary manslaughter would be something like accidentally shooting someone while drunk. In other states, a dui causing death can be invol manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter. We have a specific charge for dui causing death, but I am just using that as an example. I mentioned it could be neglect in not locking the firearm up or taking reasonable precautions, but I know MI does not require guns to be locked up. I actually looked that up. Now if the boy had said he was going to shoot up the school and they didn’t remove the guns, I could maybe see the charges.

And I explained why I brought the other issues into it. This is the first case in which a parent was charged in a school shooting. I honestly don’t think they would have dared had the parents been black. Poverty comes in because it’s often the excuse that is given with inner city crime. “Oh, it’s because of poverty and trauma growing up in a violent area.” It’s my opinion and I am allowed to have it and express it. And politics of the area absolutely applies. This wouldn’t happen in a more conservative city/state-not that big cities or suburbs of big cities are conservative. In more liberal areas, it is frowned upon to exercise second amendment rights and any opportunity to punish that exercising happens.
I think you making any part of this about race is one of the cringiest things I've seen from you recently. Parents get sued for their kids dui all of the time if they provided the alcohol. People have been looking to sue gun manufacturers and dealers for the actions of gun customers. People have been looking for any legitimate legal reason to crack down how mass shooters acquire firearms. A criminal justice system that regularly over-charges and prosecutes black kids and black parents thus demonstrating no fear of sending black people to jail. A child protective services system that more aggressively removes black kids from their parents (2x more likely).

All of this for years but, to you, "if they were black, the legal system wouldn't have acted...". I respect what you used to do for a living but you've been a caricature of your former self as a poster. I'm always disappointed when I see stuff like this from you.
 
I think you making any part of this about race is one of the cringiest things I've seen from you recently. Parents get sued for their kids dui all of the time if they provided the alcohol. People have been looking to sue gun manufacturers and dealers for the actions of gun customers. People have been looking for any legitimate legal reason to crack down how mass shooters acquire firearms. A criminal justice system that regularly over-charges and prosecutes black kids and black parents thus demonstrating no fear of sending black people to jail. A child protective services system that more aggressively removes black kids from their parents (2x more likely).

All of this for years but, to you, "if they were black, the legal system wouldn't have acted...". I respect what you used to do for a living but you've been a caricature of your former self as a poster. I'm always disappointed when I see stuff like this from you.

Just another mind poisoned against a generic class of people who are 'to blame'.
 
"aloof mom who liked to point the blame at everyone but herself"

literally every single female alive

I was about to reply with...

"So she's a woman?"

...but you beat me to it.
 
Guilty on all 4 counts of Involuntary Manslaughter. The Jury has found that she was grossly negligent and lack of proper care for her son that directly led to the death of 4 high school students!

Dad is going to have to seriously consider whether or not to try to accept a plea, or is his defense going to paint the picture that it was all the mom and he couldn't have done anything.

This sounds like a great result, and it needs to be well publicized to everyone under 18 years old... your parents can be found criminally liable for the shit you do.

Should have started this 25 years ago after the Columbine Shootings. The shooter's parents were never charged and that entire fiasco started the trend of asshole kids shooting up their high schools.

They may hate their classmates, but to they hate them so much their own parents will spend many years in prison for shit you did?

Maybe.
Maybe not.
 
I am purple. I am not red and I am not blue. But I absolutely believe that this would never happen in a red area.

<{Joewithit}>

I'm going to have to sig that one My Friend.
 
Last edited:
When police assume a place needs to be more heavily policed it leads to criminalization of innocent people and a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's why it's a bad tol hing. I have no comment on any of the rest of the spiel.


The term “overpoliced” is thrown around too often. The good people in bad neighborhoods beg for more police. They beg for it because they are getting attacked, threatened, harassed daily by the thugs. And when you combine that with a high crime rate, you are going to see more cops in that neighborhood. Police fo where the crime is heaviest and to get a handle on that crime takes a nuanced approach. If the officers just start targeting every single infraction akin to the broken windows theory, they’re going to burn the good people as well as the bad, which leads to over policing and it erodes trust and the good people get it from both ends-the cops and the thugs and it can sometimes be difficult to tell them apart.

I worked the bad neighborhoods by choice my whole career by choice. When I became a lieutenant, I chose to take on the worst district and I had the best results because any police saturating I ordered was very targeted at specific houses, subjects, or particular types of crimes. I ordered traffic stops of vehicles leaving drug houses, but otherwise, told them to lay off minor traffic stops.

We had an Indian gentleman (sub continent India) living next to a house of nuns and on both sides and across from them were crackhouses. Now, George (the Indian gentleman) had a bad habit of not fully stopping at stop signs or speeding in certain areas. I spoke to him about it and he admitted it was because he wanted to get past certain houses and didn’t want to stop at stop signs because of the corner boys. They hated him, threw shit at his car, made threats to rape his daughter, etc. so along with the briefing I did of the houses and people I wanted targeted, I also did profiles of some of the good people as well. I wanted the officers to know why and who they were serving.

I got my results in three weeks of a four week targeted operation. I hand picked my officers and gave them packets with all the crimes that had occurred in this neighborhood and who was known or suspected to be responsible for the crime. I updated these packets every week. The net result was 70 good arrests and two crackhouses shut down as well as all the prostitutes and corner boys moving to another district.

I come into work one day and there is Indian George, his wife, and daughter (whom nobody had ever seen before-she was quite pretty), and a few other residents. They brought us tiki masala, rice, naaan, and butter chicken-and it was some of the best shit I had eaten in a long time.

Yes, if you just floor a neighborhood with cops and don’t tell them specifically what they need to focus on, they will end up going after the good people as well as the bad. But if you lay out specific goals, the extra police can do a lot of good vs harm.
 
Here are two examples from last year of parents charged for shootings. Granted these end in plea deals and thus no trials, but who knows what would have happened.


https://www.fox5dc.com/news/mom-of-6-year-old-who-shot-virginia-elementary-school-teacher-pleads-guilty-to-child-neglect



That little worm, crimo, looks like someone that would do a mass shooting.
 
I'm good with this ruling

I think if your child commits a violent crime, you and the kid should have your finger or arm chopped off, depending on the severity.

That'd end our crime problem pretty damn quick
 
I think you making any part of this about race is one of the cringiest things I've seen from you recently. Parents get sued for their kids dui all of the time if they provided the alcohol. People have been looking to sue gun manufacturers and dealers for the actions of gun customers. People have been looking for any legitimate legal reason to crack down how mass shooters acquire firearms. A criminal justice system that regularly over-charges and prosecutes black kids and black parents thus demonstrating no fear of sending black people to jail. A child protective services system that more aggressively removes black kids from their parents (2x more likely).

All of this for years but, to you, "if they were black, the legal system wouldn't have acted...". I respect what you used to do for a living but you've been a caricature of your former self as a poster. I'm always disappointed when I see stuff like this from you.

Happy to disappoint you. In the previous posts, I detailed similar sentiments to suing gun manufacturers for creating a product that works as intended is absurd. It’s not the gun manufacturer’s fault if someone goes on a rampage. They don’t sue ford because someone used a bronco to run through a crowd of people-but with guns, it’s acceptable to blame others for the actions of one person.

But I also detailed how reluctant people are to blame the communities where violence occurs the most and in greatest numbers. They do this by blaming poverty and systemic racism. They deflect instead of pointing out that lack of education and single parent homes (most often without a father) are often the reason these kids grow up in poverty
They will point the finger anywhere but at the people responsible and are constantly making excuses for them and the culture of violence.

And this was a first of its kind case. I don’t think they would have had the balls to charge a black mother with manslaughter for something her son did because it’s outrageous to go after the people that didn’t actually pull the trigger.

I listed several examples of when I think this is also wrong (charging both robbers with murder when only one pulls the trigger, or charging a drug dealer with Manslaughter when one of his customers overdoses and dies).

Do I feel that this family dynamic deserves a lawsuit? Yes, 100%, but they’re not going to get much so they will probably try to sue the maker of the gun.
 
<{Joewithit}>

I'm going to have to sig that one My Friend.

Jesus Christ you’re obsessed. I quit engaging with you and you keep tagging me for the dumbest shit. Fuck off ya twat and we’re not friends
 
Last edited:
The parents were negligent and need to be held accountable.

They didn't pull the trigger but their negligence led to the loss of innocent life and they should be punished in some form.
 
PRI222240836.jpg

864475e430cd7ea77ed9be01109ed84c


Dang. Thin negligent Mom in jumpsuit had been getting railed behind her hubby's back. Now it looks like she's been sneaking cookies into her cell behind guard's back.

What say you Sherbros? You into the thin prison jumpsuit look or thicc and busty cat lady look?
 
Back
Top