Michigan DA politicizing school shooting tragedy by charging parents

[Tgo01]

Before pieces of shit such as Seran accuse me of defending the shooter, no, the shooter should 100% be charged for multiple counts of murder, should be tried as an adult, and should spend the rest of his life in prison. Shit go ahead and execute the fucker for all I care. This is about the DA politicizing this case.

There was a school shooting in Michigan last week and the local DA wasted no time to politicizing the tragedy.

First they charged the shooter with terrorism, even though a charge of terrorism is when the person wants to instill fear into the community or they want to try and force the government to make changes. They didn't even have a motive for the shooting at the time (it's sounding like he was bullied and had mental health problems) and yet they still charged him with terrorism.

Now the DA is charging the parents with manslaughter and the pathetic reasoning from the DA was because the son was with the dad when the dad bought the gun, the son claimed the gun was his on social media, and because the morning of the shooting a teacher was concerned about a drawing they saw that the shooter had made, the parents were called in to discuss the issue, and the parents didn't ask him where "his" gun is (even though the gun was the father's because he purchased it for himself and even called police later on to say one of his guns was missing), and the parents didn't take their son out of school at that time, even though the school could have just as easily expelled him and forced him to leave.

So yeah. In other words another Democrat DA is abusing their position to push their political agenda. Gotta make gun owners so scared that they might be charged with murder or manslaughter that they "willingly" give up their guns.

The amount of reaching from this DA is unbelievable. Hopefully the judge sees through this shit and throws these charges out of court.

[Gelston]

I'm not sure how the charges will stick. There are no laws in Michigan requiring weapons be stored a certain way or even that they be out of reach. I could see a judge batting it down.

[beldannon5]

I don't mind the idea of the father being charged with something. I believe 15 year olds should not have guns anyone under 18 or 21 for that matter.

[Gelston]

I don't mind the idea of the father being charged with something. I believe 15 year olds should not have guns anyone under 18 or 21 for that matter.

The father at the most, but the mother was in no way involved with the weapon.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think the charges could be around how they come to school to discuss their kids drawings of him murdering other kids... and where like, go back to class.

Then later, when the shootings started and good old mom texted her son to "don't do this", and then 15ish minutes later when papa called popo and said I think it's my son.

Now, given the situation that the kid got the gun, that the parents are probably aware he had it, and they didn't bring him home or at least to a doctor... welll, I think they get sued civily and probably charged in man slaughter. I'm so drunk I'm typing with on eye, so hopefully makes sense. Short form: Shitty parents get sued for letting loose cannon into school after several red flags he was gonna smoke some kids. Now whole family may get to be in the same penitentiary.

[Sighisoara]

If the parents are getting charged with negligent homicide over this, how is this fuckwit of a principal not on the hook?

[Tgo01]

I don't mind the idea of the father being charged with something. I believe 15 year olds should not have guns anyone under 18 or 21 for that matter.

I don't think the gun was really "his" his. I think it was no different than a father buying a car "for his son" even though the title, loan, and everything else is in the father's name.

Now yeah, maybe if the father really did give his son the gun and the son stored it in his room and all of that then I could see the father being charged with something, but manslaughter seems a bit much.

[LaVerdad]

If the parents are getting charged with negligent homicide over this, how is this fuckwit of a principal not on the hook?

If the news I read is correct, parents did some horrific parenting and might possibly be responsible. after PTA meeing with parents and the folks are like, NAAA YOU KEEP HIM, and left. then 20 min into the shooting, Mom texting him to not do it... writing on the wall.

[Tgo01]

I think the charges could be around how they come to school to discuss their kids drawings of him murdering other kids... and where like, go back to class.

That whole bit about the drawing seems weird to me. According to the DA all of that stuff was somehow "erased" or "scratched out" by the time the parents arrived, so apparently we just have the teacher's word for it. Why not confiscate that drawing and wait for the parents? What was to stop the kid from just tearing up the drawing and throwing it away? It all sounds very


Now, given the situation that the kid got the gun, that the parents are probably aware he had it, and they didn't bring him home or at least to a doctor

I mean...parents get called in to school for what things their children are doing all the time, 99.99% of the time nothing even remotely close to this happens. We're all looking at this with hindsight wondering why the parents didn't immediately tie him in a straight jacket.

[Tgo01]

If the parents are getting charged with negligent homicide over this, how is this fuckwit of a principal not on the hook?

Exactly what I was thinking. The teacher saw the drawing, the principal called the parents in, the principal could have easily said the son is suspended and if the parents refused to take him home then call in the cops and have the kid removed.

That's why I'm saying this sure seems like a political charge, especially the terrorism charge. There is more evidence the killer in the Wisconsin Christmas parade tragedy was engaging in terrorism and yet that was immediately shot down by police before any real details had emerged.


If the news I read is correct, parents did some horrific parenting and might possibly be responsible. after PTA meeing with parents and the folks are like, NAAA YOU KEEP HIM, and left. then 20 min into the shooting, Mom texting him to not do it... writing on the wall.

Yeah but I mean like, did the parents actually know he was mentally unstable or was really going to kill someone? It's kind of reaching to suggest that just because they didn't take him home that they are suddenly responsible for all of his actions. Why isn't the school responsible for his actions if that's the case?

Do we have any context as to what "don't do this" was referring to? Even if it was in response to the shooting doesn't that kind of indicate the mother was trying to get him to stop after he had started shooting? That doesn't indicate she had any forethought this would have happened.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Well the don't do this text came in during the shooting... so

[Tgo01]

Well the don't do this text came in during the shooting... so

If that's the case then she's getting in trouble for encouraging him to stop the shooting?

I think it would have been a huge red flag against her if the text came BEFORE the shooting. Sending the text during the shooting doesn't seem to indicate she knew what her son was planning to do.

[beldannon5]

the wisconsin guy is saying he is being treated terribly. I hope so. Keep it up

[Tgo01]

the wisconsin guy is saying he is being treated terribly. I hope so. Keep it up

Yeah fuck that murderous piece of shit and fuck this school shooter. Fuck'em all.

[Parkbandit]

I think the charges could be around how they come to school to discuss their kids drawings of him murdering other kids... and where like, go back to class.

Then later, when the shootings started and good old mom texted her son to "don't do this", and then 15ish minutes later when papa called popo and said I think it's my son.

Now, given the situation that the kid got the gun, that the parents are probably aware he had it, and they didn't bring him home or at least to a doctor... welll, I think they get sued civily and probably charged in man slaughter. I'm so drunk I'm typing with on eye, so hopefully makes sense. Short form: Shitty parents get sued for letting loose cannon into school after several red flags he was gonna smoke some kids. Now whole family may get to be in the same penitentiary.

If you hear that there is a school shooting and your first thought is your kid is the one pulling the trigger.. you are probably the problem.

[Tgo01]

If you hear that there is a school shooting and your first thought is your kid is the one pulling the trigger.. you are probably the problem.

The dad apparently figured it out because he noticed one of his guns was missing and alerted the police.

[Parkbandit]

If that's the case then she's getting in trouble for encouraging him to stop the shooting?

I think it would have been a huge red flag against her if the text came BEFORE the shooting. Sending the text during the shooting doesn't seem to indicate she knew what her son was planning to do.

Sending the text during the shooting tells me the mother knew her kid was capable of doing such a thing.. makes her culpable imo.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

If you hear that there is a school shooting and your first thought is your kid is the one pulling the trigger.. you are probably the problem.

Truff

[Parkbandit]

The dad apparently figured it out because he noticed one of his guns was missing and alerted the police.

If there was a shooting at the school where my kids were attending, I wouldn't be checking my gun safe to make sure my gun was there because I've taught my children better and they wouldn't do something like that. My first thought would be to get to the school and get them out.. not to text them to say "Don't do this"

[Tgo01]

If there was a shooting at the school where my kids were attending, I wouldn't be checking my gun safe to make sure my gun was there because I've taught my children better and they wouldn't do something like that. My first thought would be to get to the school and get them out.. not to text them to say "Don't do this"

They did just go through a meeting with the principal a few minutes prior where the principal said their kid was drawing himself shooting other students.

I'm assuming the parents didn't think their son was actually going to shoot up his school but after the shooting started they probably came to that realization. If the DA manages to find some evidence to suggest otherwise then I think charging the parents makes perfect sense. As it is the DA is basically blaming the parents for not being clairvoyant while giving the school officials a pass even though as far as we know the school officials had the exact same information the parents did.

[Sighisoara]

If the news I read is correct, parents did some horrific parenting and might possibly be responsible. after PTA meeing with parents and the folks are like, NAAA YOU KEEP HIM, and left. then 20 min into the shooting, Mom texting him to not do it... writing on the wall.

I agree that the parents made some exceptionally poor choices. Based on the article I read, the principal did, too. Let’s say you’re the principal of this school who is charged with the welfare of all individuals on the campus. You have multiple employees raise concerns that a kid is making general, non-specific death threats and the kid is throwing red flags of a mental health problem at best or crisis at worst. It’s so concerning that you put the student with the school counselor (who may or may not be trained to handle this) and summon the parents to the school and tell them to get the kid into professional counseling within 48 hours. You’re going to let that kid remain on campus and return prior to getting with a professional?

Maybe I’m crazy, but that seems to be just as negligent.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

More will come out for sure, but shitty parents seem to be shitty parents and I'm actually for them getting some consequence.

[Parkbandit]

They did just go through a meeting with the principal a few minutes prior where the principal said their kid was drawing himself shooting other students.

I'm assuming the parents didn't think their son was actually going to shoot up his school but after the shooting started they probably came to that realization. If the DA manages to find some evidence to suggest otherwise then I think charging the parents makes perfect sense. As it is the DA is basically blaming the parents for not being clairvoyant while giving the school officials a pass even though as far as we know the school officials had the exact same information the parents did.

They had a problem kid that they obviously knew about his issues... and did nothing.

And you certainly don't go out and buy a gun when you have someone like that in the house.

I don't know if they will be convicted or not.. and I don't know about the laws in Michigan regarding the safeguarding of firearms, but let's not pretend these parents were caught by surprise by this shooting and that their kid was the triggerman.

[LOL BRIELUS]

There is definitely more here, sounds like it could be very compelling case. DA is not going to show all the cards right now. I'm guessing there's info that either establish the shooter was so homicidal that not securing a gun is just criminally negligent (invol manslaughter) or that the actually knew about the plans and they are potential actual accessories. Flight is indicia of guilt. Expect a defense of a bully who threatened the shooter, and constitutionalizing defense (2nd amendment, right to own, no law or duty to store in any particular manner)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Side note.... I bought a sig sauer 365 and every second round jams while firing. I'm clearly pissed off at this, as I want to unload on any potential intruder. Turns out, I had a shitty clip with a weak spring that was causing all the issues. But if I didn't believe in practice and training, I'd have been fucked.

Solution? Sue Sig Sauer. O R buy a new mag and it worked just fine.

Hurray America.

[Shaps]

Side note.... I bought a sig sauer 365 and every second round jams while firing. I'm clearly pissed off at this, as I want to unload on any potential intruder. Turns out, I had a shitty clip with a weak spring that was causing all the issues. But if I didn't believe in practice and training, I'd have been fucked.

Solution? Sue Sig Sauer. O R buy a new mag and it worked just fine.

Hurray America.

Alternate plan.. it jams and you beat them senseless with a blunt object?

[Tgo01]

And you certainly don't go out and buy a gun when you have someone like that in the house.

That's what I'm saying. If they knew he had some mental problems then they shouldn't have had guns in the house that he could easily access.

The DA didn't mention any of that at all from the press briefing I saw her give though, she was blaming the parents solely because the kid claimed the gun was his and because they didn't bring him home that day and because the father had the audacity to realize one of his guns was missing and immediately alerted the police.

Maybe the DA has more evidence but it seems strange she mentioned all of this stuff that doesn't really mean anything other than to all of us who now have the benefit of hindsight and didn't bother to mention more incriminating evidence they possess.

[Tgo01]

or that the actually knew about the plans and they are potential actual accessories.

I mean I guess that's possible...but why? Right now from everything I have read it sure sounds like the shooter was being bullied at school and had some mental health problems. Seems kind of odd the parents would know about his plans to shoot up and school and were actually involved in it. But I suppose anything is possible.

[Sighisoara]

That's what I'm saying. If they knew he had some mental problems then they shouldn't have had guns in the house that he could easily access.

The DA didn't mention any of that at all from the press briefing I saw her give though, she was blaming the parents solely because the kid claimed the gun was his and because they didn't bring him home that day and because the father had the audacity to realize one of his guns was missing and immediately alerted the police.

Maybe the DA has more evidence but it seems strange she mentioned all of this stuff that doesn't really mean anything other than to all of us who now have the benefit of hindsight and didn't bother to mention more incriminating evidence they possess.

From what I read, there are some admissions of some dumbass choices the parents made on their Facebook pages. I find it hard to believe that the parents didn’t know there was a problem with the kid prior to being notified by the school the day before the shooting. Maybe they were totally oblivious to their kid. At minimum they should have put the guns under lock and key when they were notified by the school.

ETA: and kept their fucking kid at home.

[Tgo01]

From what I read, there are some admissions of some dumbass choices the parents made on their Facebook pages. I find it hard to believe that the parents didn’t know there was a problem with the kid prior to being notified by the school the day before the shooting. Maybe they were totally oblivious to their kid. At minimum they should have put the guns under lock and key when they were notified by the school.

From what I understand the meeting and shooting all happened the same day, I think even within an hour.

[Tgo01]

I'm willing to have an open mind about all of this and if more evidence comes out that the parents knew their son was having suicidal/homicidal thoughts then they should be on the hook.

If all the DA has is the parents first learned about their son having mental issues was when they were notified by the school an hour before the shooting then I think these charges are political bullshit.

[Sighisoara]

From what I understand the meeting and shooting all happened the same day, I think even within an hour.

Perhaps I misread that, then. It was my understanding that it was the day prior.

[Sighisoara]

From what I understand the meeting and shooting all happened the same day, I think even within an hour.

Yep, I misread the article the first time. I thought the meeting was the day before, it was just the first red flag and mom minimizing it.

[Tgo01]

Perhaps I misread that, then. It was my understanding that it was the day prior.

So I just looked it up to be sure:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/12/03/oxford-high-school-shooting-updates/8850669002/

The internet search for bullets wasn't on the same day as the shooting, but the drawing and meeting with the parents was on the same day as the shooting. That's part of the DA's loose reasoning for charging the parents is because they didn't immediately pull their son out of school, even though the school counselor said their son should get some professional counseling within 48 hours. The school could have just as easily expelled him right there on the spot if they felt the shooter was a danger to other students.

[LukeDuke]

the wisconsin guy is saying he is being treated terribly. I hope so. Keep it up

It's because the jail staff keeps calling him an SUV.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So I just looked it up to be sure:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/12/03/oxford-high-school-shooting-updates/8850669002/

The internet search for bullets wasn't on the same day as the shooting, but the drawing and meeting with the parents was on the same day as the shooting. That's part of the DA's loose reasoning for charging the parents is because they didn't immediately pull their son out of school, even though the school counselor said their son should get some professional counseling within 48 hours. The school could have just as easily expelled him right there on the spot if they felt the shooter was a danger to other students.

Or the parents, understanding that their son was drawing dead people and a gun could have taken him out of school and maybe talked to him. I'm in the camp that the parents know their son/daughter more than anyone else and should be responsible.

[Sighisoara]

They would likely have a problem expelling him on the spot as that can only be done for disciplinary reasons and I’m guessing none of those things rose to the level of an expulsion/suspension. Public school student handbooks usually always specify the rules and punishments for violations. What I would expect is they assign the kid to online only lessons and send his ass home with a laptop if he doesn’t already have access to one.

[Tgo01]

Or the parents, understanding that their son was drawing dead people and a gun could have taken him out of school and maybe talked to him.

If they knew their son had some mental problems then absolutely. But if this was the first they were hearing about anything disturbing he was doing then it's kind of unfair to say they should have known. The school teacher, principal, and counselor should be held legally liable if we're going by these standards.


They would likely have a problem expelling him on the spot as that can only be done for disciplinary reasons and I’m guessing none of those things rose to the level of an expulsion/suspension. Public school student handbooks usually always specify the rules and punishments for violations. What I would expect is they assign the kid to online only lessons and send his ass home with a laptop if he doesn’t already have access to one.

I find it extremely unlikely that the school doesn't have the power to immediately suspend or expel a student if they have reason to believe he will harm other students. At the very least they have the power to send him home that day.

If schools don't have this power then they need to immediately be given this power.

[Seran]

I agree that the parents made some exceptionally poor choices. Based on the article I read, the principal did, too. Let’s say you’re the principal of this school who is charged with the welfare of all individuals on the campus. You have multiple employees raise concerns that a kid is making general, non-specific death threats and the kid is throwing red flags of a mental health problem at best or crisis at worst. It’s so concerning that you put the student with the school counselor (who may or may not be trained to handle this) and summon the parents to the school and tell them to get the kid into professional counseling within 48 hours. You’re going to let that kid remain on campus and return prior to getting with a professional?

Maybe I’m crazy, but that seems to be just as negligent.

Just what law do you think exists in Michigan do you think exists that allows a school official to expel a child "on gut instinct". We've got the right and the left persecuting law enforcement for enforcing mask and vaccine mandates, we've got the left marching whenever a teenager is forcibly detained when they're committing felony assault, then we've got 17 year olds showing up to active riots with assault rifles thinking they're going to be patriots. And getting away with it.

School officials are required to save the world with miniscule funding, highly restrictive laws, no tolerance for discipline from parents who could use the same or worse and a populace on both sides ready to overreact to everything.

No, this little fucker was allowed easy access to a gun of not outright given it altogether. His parents completely delegated all responsibility to his school and mommy dearest shows all the signs through her text of knowing he intended on doing it on the first place.

No, absolutely no, those parents being hauled into jail while additional charges are pending is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do. We've had yet another mass shooting in a country with a country with way too many firearms and way too little self discipline.

The principle should be hailed as a hero for doing everything they could within the law. That this happened minutes after the parents were summoned and abandoned their armed son in school shows just how right their instincts were.

[Tgo01]

The principle should be hailed as a hero for doing everything they could within the law.

Fuck off you little fucker.

So the principal is a hero for doing nothing but the parents are murderers for doing nothing? The school is responsible for the safety of ALL students at school. If they truly felt the shooter was a danger to other students then they absolutely have an obligation to do something to keep the other students safe.

Saying the school gets a pass from their duties because the parents didn't take him home is complete bullshit.

Either every adult involved in this situation is guilty of a crime or no one is guilty, otherwise it's just partisan politics bullshit. I smelled the partisan bullshit the minute I read the DA was charging him with terrorism even before the police had a motive. Having a motive is like the biggest part of charging someone with terrorism.

[Sighisoara]

I find it extremely unlikely that the school doesn't have the power to immediately suspend or expel a student if they have reason to believe he will harm other students. At the very least they have the power to send him home that day.

If schools don't have this power then they need to immediately be given this power.

Public Schools don’t have the authority to just suspend or expel a student at their discretion, remember they are government entities and must comply with constitutional safeguards like due process (notice and an opportunity to be heard). That’s why they have a discipline matrix in student handbooks. These typically have graduated punishments prior to suspension. I don’t know about Michigan, but the state where I live has a statutory public policy not to expel except in egregious circumstances. In this case, it appears that the student had general, non-specific threats and signs of a mental health problem/crisis. You’re not going to sustain a suspension for that as the threats will be considered minor and mental health isn’t a disciplinary issue.

Hence the reason they should have assigned the kid to online classes and sent him packing.

[Sighisoara]

Forest, meet trees. Check my last post, dumbass.

ETA: thought I quoted, that’s a response to Seran.

[Sighisoara]

The principle should be hailed as a hero for doing everything they could within the law. That this happened minutes after the parents were summoned and abandoned their armed son in school shows just how right their instincts were.

This is an absolutely asinine statement. He most certainly is not a hero and he did not do everything he could within the law. I think he’s almost as negligent as the parents.

[Seran]

Fuck off you little fucker.

So the principal is a hero for doing nothing but the parents are murderers for doing nothing? The school is responsible for the safety of ALL students at school. If they truly felt the shooter was a danger to other students then they absolutely have an obligation to do something to keep the other students safe.

Saying the school gets a pass from their duties because the parents didn't take him home is complete bullshit.

Either every adult involved in this situation is guilty of a crime or no one is guilty, otherwise it's just partisan politics bullshit. I smelled the partisan bullshit the minute I read the DA was charging him with terrorism even before the police had a motive. Having a motive is like the biggest part of charging someone with terrorism.

Immediately blaming the school when a student just got done shooting up the school. That's a classic bit of right wing denial. Don't blame the gun, don't blame the one using the gun, don't even blame the ones who bought the gun. Blame the ones without any responsibility or power to stop the person from using the gun!

[Tgo01]

Immediately blaming the school when a student just got done shooting up the school. That's a classic bit of right wing denial.

You're confused as usual, little fucktard. -I- am the one saying no one is responsible for this except for the shooter himself, unless there is more evidence that the parents or school knew more about his mental instability.

What I AM saying is that if the parents had the same information that the school had then it's complete bullshit to blame the parents and give the school a pass.

I am more than willing to change my stance if the state comes out with evidence showing the parents knew their son was mentally unstable and had suicidal or homicidal thoughts and still thought it was a good idea to keep guns in an unlocked drawer in their home.

I highly doubt we are going to see such evidence though because this DA sure does seem to have a political axe to grind. It should scare all of you Democrats who want "no bail" reform and for prisons to be emptied out and for police departments to be dismantled that a DA wants to charge someone with terrorism anytime someone is scared while a crime is being committed. That's about as absurd as it gets. What's next, someone robs a gas station and doesn't harm anyone and gets away with 5 bucks and is charged with terrorism and faces decades behind bars (in Michigan the punishment is up to life!) because the gas station attendant was scared?

[Seran]

You're confused as usual, little fucktard. -I- am the one saying no one is responsible for this except for the shooter himself, unless there is more evidence that the parents or school knew more about his mental instability.

What I AM saying is that if the parents had the same information that the school had then it's complete bullshit to blame the parents and give the school a pass.

I am more than willing to change my stance if the state comes out with evidence showing the parents knew their son was mentally unstable and had suicidal or homicidal thoughts and still thought it was a good idea to keep guns in an unlocked drawer in their home.

I highly doubt we are going to see such evidence though because this DA sure does seem to have a political axe to grind. It should scare all of you Democrats who want "no bail" reform and for prisons to be emptied out and for police departments to be dismantled that a DA wants to charge someone with terrorism anytime someone is scared while a crime is being committed. That's about as absurd as it gets. What's next, someone robs a gas station and doesn't harm anyone and gets away with 5 bucks and is charged with terrorism and faces decades behind bars (in Michigan the punishment is up to life!) because the gas station attendant was scared?

You start off that post sounding reasonable, then immediately launching into attacking the DA for daring to charge the kid who just shot up the school. Or charging the parents. Police release one of the Mom's texts to her son after he was reported for looking up ammunition a school.


"Jennifer Crumbley exchanged text messages about the incident with her son on that day, stating, quote, 'LOL, I'm not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught.'

Mom gives a hard pass to their kid for doing something inappropriate. Then, when brought to school and shown pictures of messages such as "The thoughts won't stop. Help me,", "My life is useless", "The world is dead." They didn't do any parenting. Mom wasn't doing any parenting when she was bragging about buying her kid a semiautomatic. Contributory negligence.

You wanna advocate second amendment rights? Follow it up with making sure people use firearms responsibly and you'll have some credibility.

[Seran]

Public Schools don’t have the authority to just suspend or expel a student at their discretion, remember they are government entities and must comply with constitutional safeguards like due process (notice and an opportunity to be heard).


He most certainly is not a hero and he did not do everything he could within the law. I think he’s almost as negligent as the parents.

Hopefully you're unaware the school district pointed out that couldn't have sent this kid home as he did nothing wrong up to that point, and couldn't be disciplined. Because you're giving a hard pass like Dreaven for the parents not taking their little murderer, and he is a murderer, home.

[Tgo01]

then immediately launching into attacking the DA for daring to charge the kid who just shot up the school.

Again fucking read or just piss right off out of this discussion. Why do you have to Seran up every discussion?

I am NOT "attacking" the DA for "charging the kid", I even gave a preamble in the very first sentence in the very first post specifically for this dumb shit that I just knew you would post.

And here it is:


Before pieces of shit such as Seran accuse me of defending the shooter, no, the shooter should 100% be charged for multiple counts of murder, should be tried as an adult, and should spend the rest of his life in prison. Shit go ahead and execute the fucker for all I care. This is about the DA politicizing this case.

What I am "attacking" the DA for is for her obvious political shenanigans of charging the shooter with terrorism before police even had a motive, I don't think police even have a motive now. Shit I'm pretty sure she announced the terrorism charges within an hour of the shooting.

[Sighisoara]

Hopefully you're unaware the school district pointed out that couldn't have sent this kid home as he did nothing wrong. Because you're giving a hard pass like Dreaven for the parents not taking their little murdered, and he is a murderer, home.

He most certainly is a murderer, no argument there. For whatever reason you’re giving the school a free pass as there were several things that should, and legally could, have occurred. First and foremost, keep the kid in the office where any potential harm is largely mitigated to adults. Second, search the kid, his belongings and his locker, if he has one. Turns out they could have expelled him had they done that. Third, assign the kid to online classes. If the parents refuse to take him at that point, call CPS as he’s been abandoned by his custodians and is a dependent child. Fourth, summon the SRO and have him transport the kid to the local hospital for a 1036 psychiatric hold.

To say that the school had no options is just wrong. If you want to open the can of negligence beyond the heinous shit this kid did, you have to open it all the way. That’s my point.

ETA: and under no circumstances should the kid have been sent back to class.

[Seran]

Again fucking read or just piss right off out of this discussion. Why do you have to Seran up every discussion?

I am NOT "attacking" the DA for "charging the kid", I even gave a preamble in the very first sentence in the very first post specifically for this dumb shit that I just knew you would post.

And here it is:



What I am "attacking" the DA for is for her obvious political shenanigans of charging the shooter with terrorism before police even had a motive, I don't think police even have a motive now. Shit I'm pretty sure she announced the terrorism charges within an hour of the shooting.

You don't think throwing shade at a district attorney for politicizing a tragedy by charging a kid with terrorism isn't playing the right winger card a little hard? I'll give you props for making me laugh about Seran'ing up every discussion. But I'll be damned if you're not every bit as politically skewed.

[Tgo01]

Seran seems to be forgetting that this is at least the second red flag that the school was aware of, the first being him Googling bullets while at school, the second being the drawing.

If the school really felt he was a threat to himself or others to the point where they bring the parents in immediately after seeing his drawing and recommending he see a professional within 72 hours then every adult at the school who had a hand in this is just as guilty as the parents.

Again unless the DA pulls evidence out of her ass that the parents knew more than the school did and kept it a secret, but that seems unlikely unless the parents turn on one another for a plea deal.


You don't think throwing shade at a district attorney for politicizing a tragedy by charging a kid with terrorism isn't playing the right winger card a little hard?

Honestly do you even know what a charge of terrorism entails? I'm assuming not. You once again seem way over your head and don't understand the things you are arguing.

[Seran]

He most certainly is a murderer, no argument there. For whatever reason you’re giving the school a free pass as there were several things that should, and legally could, have occurred. First and foremost, keep the kid in the office where any potential harm is largely mitigated to adults.

So you're saying the kid, who couldn't be disciplined, could be held in the principles office for the rest of the day after the parents fucked off? Naaah, not in Michigan.


Second, search the kid, his belongings and his locker, if he has one. Turns out they could have expelled him had they done that.

Wrong again. In Michigan, you must have reasonable suspicion as a student official to search a student's backpack. Point out to me where the child who wasn't being fiscppined, presented reasonable suspicion he had a weapon on him? Then think, school probably didn't even know the kid owned or hard access to a firearm. Parents knew, mommy even bragged about buying him one. Shouldn't /she/ have checked?


Third, assign the kid to online classes. If the parents refuse to take him at that point, call CPS as been abandoned by his custodians and is a dependent child. Fourth, summon the SRO and have him transport the kid to the local hospital for a 1036 psychiatric hold.

Already pointed out by the school board that at the point the kid didn't do anything that warranted discipline. School wasn't aware of a weapon being owned, but was doing its diligence by ordered immediate counseling.

Show me where they had the authority to suspend him and order him off campus to do home schooling. Cuz apparently the superintendent was wrong and you have knowledge why.

[Tgo01]

Wrong again. In Michigan, you must have reasonable suspicion as a student official to search a student's backpack.

A teacher saw him Googling bullets on his cellphone and they called in his parents because he drew something with a gun that the school thought was threatening towards other students. How much fucking more "reasonable suspicion" do you think a school official needs in order to search a student's backpack before allowing him to go back to class?

You think the school needs to wait until the child literally says "I HAVE A GUN IN MY BACKPACK!" before they can search him?

Again stop Seraning up this discussion already.

[~Rocktar~]

Didn't a school suspend a kid for making a gun out of a poptart and that stuck? Couldn't they call the cops as an imminent danger to himself or others and they have to come do like a wellness check or some shit? FFS they can expel people over facebook posts and they couldn't or wouldn't do anything about this?

But hey, we don't want common sense child protection like metal detectors, cops in schools, armed teachers and so on cause that would hurt people's fee fees.

[Sighisoara]

So you're saying the kid, who couldn't be disciplined, could be held in the principles office for the rest of the day after the parents fucked off? Naaah, not in Michigan.



Wrong again. In Michigan, you must have reasonable suspicion as a student official to search a student's backpack. Point out to me where the child who wasn't being fiscppined, presented reasonable suspicion he had a weapon on him? Then think, school probably didn't even know the kid owned or hard access to a firearm. Parents knew, mommy even bragged about buying him one. Shouldn't /she/ have checked?



Already pointed out by the school board that at the point the kid didn't do anything that warranted discipline. School wasn't aware of a weapon being owned, but was doing its diligence by ordered immediate counseling.

Show me where they had the authority to suspend him and order him off campus to do home schooling. Cuz apparently the superintendent was wrong and you have knowledge why.

Why does it have to be suspicion of a gun? The objective evidence is that the kid made general, non-specific threats and was undergoing a mental health crisis. That’s reasonable suspicion to search (whether it be for weapons, drugs or what have you). If you don’t think that’s reasonable, take me to court if I’m the principal, either way I’m conducting the search.

Obviously I don’t have this particular school district’s policies in hand. As a general, nationwide rule, principals in their capacity as stewards of the campus have the authority to assign students and staff as they see fit. The same is true for superintendents as it applies to the assignment of particular schools and programs. So, why don’t you show me where they don’t have this authority.

[Tgo01]

But hey, we don't want common sense child protection like metal detectors, cops in schools, armed teachers and so on cause that would hurt people's fee fees.

That's what pisses me off the most about this DA immediately politicizing this tragedy.

Let's just for a minute pretend Seran is right (I know I'm having trouble keeping a straight face as I type this) and that the school didn't have the necessary reasonable suspicion to search the shooter's backpack, then we should be demanding congress and each and every single state government give school officials the right to search a student's backpack if the student is drawing threatening images during school. Push the government to force this to go all the way up to the supreme court if necessary. Do something!

But no. Shitbird Democrats like Seran don't really care about children dying in school, they just want to use these tragedies to push their gun grabbing agenda.

[Sighisoara]

So you're saying the kid, who couldn't be disciplined, could be held in the principles office for the rest of the day after the parents fucked off? Naaah, not in Michigan.



Wrong again. In Michigan, you must have reasonable suspicion as a student official to search a student's backpack. Point out to me where the child who wasn't being fiscppined, presented reasonable suspicion he had a weapon on him? Then think, school probably didn't even know the kid owned or hard access to a firearm. Parents knew, mommy even bragged about buying him one. Shouldn't /she/ have checked?



Already pointed out by the school board that at the point the kid didn't do anything that warranted discipline. School wasn't aware of a weapon being owned, but was doing its diligence by ordered immediate counseling.

Show me where they had the authority to suspend him and order him off campus to do home schooling. Cuz apparently the superintendent was wrong and you have knowledge why.

Also, you keep using the term suspension and discipline. The assignment to online classes is neither. It’s no different than saying a kid is assigned to online classes because he has to quarantine for COVID exposure.

[Tgo01]

Also, you keep using the term suspension and discipline. The assignment to online classes is neither. It’s no different than saying a kid is assigned to online classes because he has to quarantine for COVID exposure.

Shit at my high school they would literally assign troublemakers to the "other" school and it was well known the "other" school was for the deviants and troublemakers and they were sent there to be pushed through the school system so the school district didn't have to deal with them anymore.

Some students were also assigned to an after school class which was basically just showing up to school for an hour a week to talk with a teacher, get your new assignments, and go over the previous week's assignments. These classes were usually for students who weren't showing up to class or weren't doing well in school so the district sent them to these classes to once again have the students pushed through the system so the school could be done with them.

[Sighisoara]

Shit at my high school they would literally assign troublemakers to the "other" school and it was well known the "other" school was for the deviants and troublemakers and they were sent there to be pushed through the school system so the school district didn't have to deal with them anymore.

Some students were also assigned to an after school class which was basically just showing up to school for an hour a week to talk with a teacher, get your new assignments, and go over the previous week's assignments. These classes were usually for students who weren't showing up to class or weren't doing well in school so the district sent them to these classes to once again have the students pushed through the system so the school could be done with them.

Apparently you weren’t in Michigan. According to Seran, that’s illegal.

[Seran]

Why does it have to be suspicion of a gun? The objective evidence is that the kid made general, non-specific threats and was undergoing a mental health crisis. That’s reasonable suspicion to search (whether it be for weapons, drugs or what have you). If you don’t think that’s reasonable, take me to court if I’m the principal, either way I’m conducting the search.

Obviously I don’t have this particular school district’s policies in hand. As a general, nationwide rule, principals in their capacity as stewards of the campus have the authority to assign students and staff as they see fit. The same is true for superintendents as it applies to the assignment of particular schools and programs. So, why don’t you show me where they don’t have this authority.

This summarizes it pretty well.

https://massp.com/considerations-for-conducting-student-searches

Pursuant to Michigan Code 380.1306, only locker searches are permitted as they are the property of the school district.

Tldr version, a search of a student's belongings is a violation of the fourth amendment right to privacy. Lockers belonging to the school are exempt as they own the facility. Only law enforcement has the right to conduct a warrantless search and only of reasonable suspicion exists.

[Gelston]

Parents caught hiding in a basement.

They sure are looking guilty of something. There may be more to this. If they helped plan or knew about what was going on in anyway, I think negligent homicide is too weak of a charge.

[rolfard]

Your own link,
"In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to students in the public schools but concluded that the right is lessened in a school environment. Schools do not need a warrant or even “probable cause” before searching a student. Instead, the standard for student searches is “reasonable suspicion."

No warrant required

reasonable suspicion.” Reasonable suspicion exists if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the student has violated the law or school rules"

Reasonable suspicion doesn't even require breaking a law, only a school rule.

If the parents were called in, there was certainly an amount of suspicious behavior to warrant that call and then at that point enough to send the kid home for a psych eval.

[Gelston]

Your own link,
"In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to students in the public schools but concluded that the right is lessened in a school environment. Schools do not need a warrant or even “probable cause” before searching a student. Instead, the standard for student searches is “reasonable suspicion."

No warrant required

reasonable suspicion.” Reasonable suspicion exists if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the student has violated the law or school rules"

Reasonable suspicion doesn't even require breaking a law, only a school rule.

If the parents were called in, there was certainly an amount of suspicious behavior to warrant that call and then at that point enough to send the kid home for a psych eval.

They used to search our bags all the time for drugs.

They'd line us up with our shoes off and our bags infront and run a dog by and search all the bags.

[Sighisoara]

This summarizes it pretty well.

https://massp.com/considerations-for-conducting-student-searches

Pursuant to Michigan Code 380.1306, only locker searches are permitted as they are the property of the school district.

Tldr version, a search of a student's belongings is a violation of the fourth amendment right to privacy. Lockers belonging to the school are exempt as they own the facility. Only law enforcement has the right to conduct a warrantless search and only of reasonable suspicion exists.

TLDR? Damn, dude, you didn’t even make it to the second paragraph of your link. The remainder of it totally refutes everything else you’ve said.

[Seran]

Except, whoops here we go again with that pesky reasonable suspicion element again.

Student on Day 1 is looking up ammunition on his phone, school contacts parents and unbeknownst to them, was given a firearm by his parents and parent (mom) gives him hard lesson IN NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

Student on Day 2 is caught drawing some really questionable shit and again, school contacts parents, orders counseling and parents decline to take their child home. School, lacking grounds for discipline must let the student return to class. Except wait, again unbeknownst to the school the parents left the son's firearm in an unsecured place and parents didn't check to make sure the gun was still there.

So you might be asking yourself, "Seran has a totally good point here, just what grounds did the school have to search for a firearm they had no way of knowing the student had access to?" And you're be right to ask yourself this because the school had no way of knowing the student had access to a gun. Your thought process that the school being the ultimate arbiter of safety has the sole responsibility of knowing what goes on inside the homes of their students, what they may or may not own, and what is going on in their social media at all times is asinine.


Reasonable suspicion exists if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the student has violated the law or school rules.

Just where in the serious of events which are public knowledge does the school have reasonable grounds for suspecting the student violated the law or it's rules? We know they acted in good faith with district policy by immediately summoning the parents. But where, just where did this graduate from we have this troubled student whose drawing indicatea potential for self harm would in fact be shooting up the school? For the school it didn't, but you know those pesky parents who equipped their son with a deadly weapon ought to have had an inkling a shooting was possible.

Well done on the critical thinking, or lack thereof PC Citizens, I applaud your ability to abrogate all responsibility of the parents of parenting or keeping firearms from their disturbed child. By all means continue looking into your flawlessly clouded retroscopes, presume the school with it's gift of omniscience and perfect telepathy should have known everything in advance of occurrence and conveniently forget that none of this would have occurred if the the parents didn't give their kid a gun.

[Gelston]

Except, whoops here we go again with that pesky reasonable suspicion element again.

Student on Day 1 is looking up ammunition on his phone, school contacts parents and unbeknownst to them, was given a firearm by his parents and parent (mom) gives him hard lesson IN NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

Student on Day 2 is caught drawing some really questionable shit and again, school contacts parents, orders counseling and parents decline to take their child home. School, lacking grounds for discipline must let the student return to class. Except wait, again unbeknownst to the school the parents left the son's firearm in an unsecured place and parents didn't check to make sure the gun was still there.

So you might be asking yourself, "Seran has a totally good point here, just what grounds did the school have to search for a firearm they had no way of knowing the student had access to?" And you're be right to ask yourself this because the school had no way of knowing the student had access to a gun. Your thought process that the school being the ultimate arbiter of safety has the sole responsibility of knowing what goes on inside the homes of their students, what they may or may not own, and what is going on in their social media at all times is asinine.



Just where in the serious of events which are public knowledge does the school have reasonable grounds for suspecting the student violated the law or it's rules? We know they acted in good faith with district policy by immediately summoning the parents. But where, just where did this graduate from we have this troubled student whose drawing indicatea potential for self harm would in fact be shooting up the school? For the school it didn't, but you know those pesky parents who equipped their son with a deadly weapon ought to have had an inkling a shooting was possible.

Well done on the critical thinking, or lack thereof PC Citizens, I applaud your ability to abrogate all responsibility of the parents of parenting or keeping firearms from their disturbed child. By all means continue looking into your flawlessly clouded retroscopes, presume the school with it's gift of omniscience and perfect telepathy should have known everything in advance of occurrence and conveniently forget that none of this would have occurred if the the parents didn't give their kid a gun.

You're an idiot.

[Tgo01]

In Seran land a student Googling ammunition and drawing a gun and a threatening image isn’t enough reasonable suspicion.

Why can’t you just admit that maybe the school fucked up too?

[Arqueto]

Except, whoops here we go again with that pesky reasonable suspicion element again.

Student on Day 1 is looking up ammunition on his phone, school contacts parents and unbeknownst to them, was given a firearm by his parents and parent (mom) gives him hard lesson IN NOT GETTING CAUGHT.

Student on Day 2 is caught drawing some really questionable shit and again, school contacts parents, orders counseling and parents decline to take their child home. School, lacking grounds for discipline must let the student return to class. Except wait, again unbeknownst to the school the parents left the son's firearm in an unsecured place and parents didn't check to make sure the gun was still there.

So you might be asking yourself, "Seran has a totally good point here, just what grounds did the school have to search for a firearm they had no way of knowing the student had access to?" And you're be right to ask yourself this because the school had no way of knowing the student had access to a gun. Your thought process that the school being the ultimate arbiter of safety has the sole responsibility of knowing what goes on inside the homes of their students, what they may or may not own, and what is going on in their social media at all times is asinine.



Just where in the serious of events which are public knowledge does the school have reasonable grounds for suspecting the student violated the law or it's rules? We know they acted in good faith with district policy by immediately summoning the parents. But where, just where did this graduate from we have this troubled student whose drawing indicatea potential for self harm would in fact be shooting up the school? For the school it didn't, but you know those pesky parents who equipped their son with a deadly weapon ought to have had an inkling a shooting was possible.

Well done on the critical thinking, or lack thereof PC Citizens, I applaud your ability to abrogate all responsibility of the parents of parenting or keeping firearms from their disturbed child. By all means continue looking into your flawlessly clouded retroscopes, presume the school with it's gift of omniscience and perfect telepathy should have known everything in advance of occurrence and conveniently forget that none of this would have occurred if the the parents didn't give their kid a gun.

Would you just shut the fuck up for once if you can't be honest with yourself (or anyone else)?

[Seran]

In Seran land a student Googling ammunition and drawing a gun and a threatening image isn’t enough reasonable suspicion.

Why can’t you just admit that maybe the school fucked up too?

Because they didn't and I don't subscribe to the theory that responsible gun ownership is everyone else's problem but the owner or the user hurting innocents.

[Sighisoara]

Just where in the serious of events which are public knowledge does the school have reasonable grounds for suspecting the student violated the law or it's rules? We know they acted in good faith with district policy by immediately summoning the parents. But where, just where did this graduate from we have this troubled student whose drawing indicatea potential for self harm would in fact be shooting up the school? For the school it didn't, but you know those pesky parents who equipped their son with a deadly weapon ought to have had an inkling a shooting was possible.
he.[/B][/U]

Here, let me google that for you:

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Revised_Code_of_Student_Conduct_SBE_Approved_46540 6_7.pdf

Start on page 17 under the heading Violation Definitions. Next try looking at numbers 5, 13, and 29. Those are all student code violations he could have been reasonably assessed. Then, check page 23 under the heading School Community Responses to Violations. The third from the top of the page is “School service assignment.” This is exactly what should have been done, Mr. You Can’t Do That in Michigan.

Do you really need people to do everything for you?

[Tgo01]

Because they didn't and I don't subscribe to the theory that responsible gun ownership is everyone else's problem but the owner or the user hurting innocents.

Okay so what you're saying is literally no one else can do something to prevent school shooting tragedies other than the owner and users of firearms? So you want tragedies like this to continue so you can use the bodies of dead children to further your gun grabbing agenda?

At least you finally came out and admitted it.

[Seran]

Okay so what you're saying is literally no one else can do something to prevent school shooting tragedies other than the owner and users of firearms? So you want tragedies like this to continue so you can use the bodies of dead children to further your gun grabbing agenda?

At least you finally came out and admitted it.

Probably why we have so many gun deaths in this country. They're all just like you, wishing someone else had stopped them from shooting folks up. Real winner argument there, you should consider doing professional debate.

[Tgo01]

wishing someone else had stopped them from shooting folks up

Okay wow, so you really are saying you want literally no one else to do anything to possibly stop a future school shooting other than the owners and users of the guns.

You are quite possibly the worst person in the history of the PC, which is saying something because we have the likes of AndroidPK, Keller, and time4fun who have graced us with their absolute batshit insane posts and political positions.

[~Rocktar~]

Probably why we have so many gun deaths in this country. They're all just like you, wishing someone else had stopped them from shooting folks up. Real winner argument there, you should consider doing professional debate.

You are a proud 87 aren't you?

[LOL BRIELUS]

Question- where was the SRO? I haven't found much on this.

In this case, the SRO engaged the shooter in less than a minute.

https://patch.com/maryland/across-md/7-things-know-great-mills-high-school-sro-gaskill

[Tgo01]

Well this certainly is strange. Gosh, I can't possibly imagine why this bit of evidence wasn't included in the DA's announcement of her political charges against the parents.

Suspect 'appeared calm' | Oxford High School releases their account of deadly shooting (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/suspect-appeared-calm-oxford-high-school-releases-their-account-of-deadly-shooting/ar-AARthAc)


Throne said school officials believed Crumbley did not pose any threat to others and that his demeanor "appeared calm."

When both of his parents arrived, counselors asked Crumbley questions surrounding the potential to harm himself or others. Counselors concluded he did not pose a threat.

Well that's strange. So the "trained professionals" (the superintendent's words) concluded the shooter appeared calm and did not pose a threat to himself and others and that's why they let him go back to class and yet the parents, who I am assuming are not trained mental health professionals, were somehow supposed to know he was a danger to himself or others?

The DA better pull some amazing evidence out of her ass that the parents knew more than the school or else these charges are complete bullshit and just reek of a political agenda.

Also apparently the principal and assistant principal weren't made aware of the actions that day and this was all handled by the guidance counselor, according to the superintendent.

That article also has the timeline of events regarding when the shooting took place, the text from the mother, and the 911 call from the father:


Crumbley opened fire in a passing period, surrounded by his classmates at 12:51 p.m. that day.

Police said at 1:22 p.m., Jennifer texted Crumbley, stating: "Ethan, don't do it." At 1:37 p.m., James called 911 to report the gun missing and said he believes his son is the shooter.

From what I have read police responded and arrested the shooter about 5 minutes after the shooting started, so the mother's message came over 20 minutes after the shooting had already stopped. That certainly doesn't sound like she knew beforehand the shooting was going to happen and sounds more like she was trying to get him to stop once she put the pieces together.

Also the father is the one who called police to say his gun was missing and that his son is most likely the shooter.

Again the DA better have some evidence other than the bullshit she pulled out of her ass during her news conference.

[Tgo01]

Defense lawyer is claiming the gun was in fact locked up. If this is true then it’s even more proof the DA is pushing a political agenda with these charges.

I still have yet to see this evidence that the parents knew more than the school officials. Maybe the DA is waiting for the trial to drop the big evidence.

[Parkbandit]

Defense lawyer is claiming the gun was in fact locked up. If this is true then it’s even more proof the DA is pushing a political agenda with these charges.

I still have yet to see this evidence that the parents knew more than the school officials. Maybe the DA is waiting for the trial to drop the big evidence.

If the gun was in a locked safe, but the kid has the combination.. that's not locking up the gun.

[Tgo01]

If the gun was in a locked safe, but the kid has the combination.. that's not locking up the gun.

True enough. I suppose we will have to wait and see what evidence comes out in the trial, assuming the parents don’t take a plea deal if they are offered one.

[ClydeR]

First they charged the shooter with terrorism, even though a charge of terrorism is when the person wants to instill fear into the community or they want to try and force the government to make changes. They didn't even have a motive for the shooting at the time (it's sounding like he was bullied and had mental health problems) and yet they still charged him with terrorism.

Now the DA is charging the parents with manslaughter and the pathetic reasoning from the DA was because the son was with the dad when the dad bought the gun, the son claimed the gun was his on social media, and because the morning of the shooting a teacher was concerned about a drawing they saw that the shooter had made, the parents were called in to discuss the issue, and the parents didn't ask him where "his" gun is (even though the gun was the father's because he purchased it for himself and even called police later on to say one of his guns was missing), and the parents didn't take their son out of school at that time, even though the school could have just as easily expelled him and forced him to leave.

So yeah. In other words another Democrat DA is abusing their position to push their political agenda. Gotta make gun owners so scared that they might be charged with murder or manslaughter that they "willingly" give up their guns.



Charging the parents has been bothering me too. A person should not be criminally liable for the actions of another person, unless the first person conspired in or encouraged the criminal act. I like your post. It sums up what has been bothering me.

The DA's actions might be a political decision. It might be for the purpose of encouraging more responsible parenting. But I think it is more likely that the DA is bowing to public pressure, which a prosecutor should not do.

If a child steals a pack of gum at the grocery store, should the parents go to jail for shoplifting?

[Realk]

If a child steals a pack of gum at the grocery store, should the parents go to jail for shoplifting?


What world do you live in that it makes sense to compare these two things AT ALL.

[Parkbandit]

What world do you live in that it makes sense to compare these two things AT ALL.

Bro...

It's ClydeR.

He's not here to make sense.

He's here to pretend he speaks for conservatives, but in actuality he's a leftist nutjob who has been pretending to be something he's not since 2007 because before that, he was made fun of for having extremist views and it hurt his feelings so badly, he created this login.

Just treat him as the cowardly troll he's always been.

[Clunk]

Well this certainly is strange. Gosh, I can't possibly imagine why this bit of evidence wasn't included in the DA's announcement of her political charges against the parents.

Suspect 'appeared calm' | Oxford High School releases their account of deadly shooting (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/suspect-appeared-calm-oxford-high-school-releases-their-account-of-deadly-shooting/ar-AARthAc)



Well that's strange. So the "trained professionals" (the superintendent's words) concluded the shooter appeared calm and did not pose a threat to himself and others and that's why they let him go back to class and yet the parents, who I am assuming are not trained mental health professionals, were somehow supposed to know he was a danger to himself or others?

The DA better pull some amazing evidence out of her ass that the parents knew more than the school or else these charges are complete bullshit and just reek of a political agenda.

Also apparently the principal and assistant principal weren't made aware of the actions that day and this was all handled by the guidance counselor, according to the superintendent.

That article also has the timeline of events regarding when the shooting took place, the text from the mother, and the 911 call from the father:



From what I have read police responded and arrested the shooter about 5 minutes after the shooting started, so the mother's message came over 20 minutes after the shooting had already stopped. That certainly doesn't sound like she knew beforehand the shooting was going to happen and sounds more like she was trying to get him to stop once she put the pieces together.

Also the father is the one who called police to say his gun was missing and that his son is most likely the shooter.

Again the DA better have some evidence other than the bullshit she pulled out of her ass during her news conference.

Did anyone else see an article about the Mother posting (or tweeting) something the Friday before about spending time with her son "Playing" with his new Christmas toy?
Or - a teacher's snapshot of a note found on his desktop (the day before or the day of?) showing some sort of gruesome scene with the written words "Help Me?"

If true, could either be indicative of intent?

[~Rocktar~]

I haven't followed this case cause I don't follow the news in general. I hope that in time the truth comes out and we find out what the parents knew and when. It just seems to me, like the Sandy Hook and Parkland, things were missed, glossed over or worse yet, hidden and so the tools we have to head off or help these kinda of kids aren't working.

I would hate it if the parents covered up for this kid. I hope the kid never sees the light of day again. I also hope that if the DA is pulling a political stunt and shenanigan's like the prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial did that THEY also never see the light of day.

I really hate how the news media covers these things. I wish they would stop making these shitbags famous.

[ClydeR]

What world do you live in that it makes sense to compare these two things AT ALL.


They are both criminal acts committed by a child. Both take place because the parents allowed the child to be in a situation where it was possible the child would commit the crime. If parents allow a child to be unsupervised in a store wearing pocketed clothing purchased for the child by the parents, then they should not be surprised when the child steals something.

If parents are to be held criminally liable for the sins of the child, then the prosecution's burden to establish the parents' guilt should, I'm sure you would agree, be higher for a serious crime, like murder, than for a routine crime, like shoplifting.

[Methais]

They would likely have a problem expelling him on the spot as that can only be done for disciplinary reasons and I’m guessing none of those things rose to the level of an expulsion/suspension. Public school student handbooks usually always specify the rules and punishments for violations. What I would expect is they assign the kid to online only lessons and send his ass home with a laptop if he doesn’t already have access to one.

Kids have gotten suspended or expelled for much less. Like making a finger gun with your hand, eating a Pop Tart to where what’s left is kind of shaped like a gun a little bit, etc.

[Methais]

Just what law do you think exists in Michigan do you think exists that allows a school official to expel a child "on gut instinct". We've got the right and the left persecuting law enforcement for enforcing mask and vaccine mandates, we've got the left marching whenever a teenager is forcibly detained when they're committing felony assault, then we've got 17 year olds showing up to active riots with assault rifles thinking they're going to be patriots. And getting away with it.

School officials are required to save the world with miniscule funding, highly restrictive laws, no tolerance for discipline from parents who could use the same or worse and a populace on both sides ready to overreact to everything.

No, this little fucker was allowed easy access to a gun of not outright given it altogether. His parents completely delegated all responsibility to his school and mommy dearest shows all the signs through her text of knowing he intended on doing it on the first place.

No, absolutely no, those parents being hauled into jail while additional charges are pending is ABSOLUTELY the right thing to do. We've had yet another mass shooting in a country with a country with way too many firearms and way too little self discipline.

The principle should be hailed as a hero for doing everything they could within the law. That this happened minutes after the parents were summoned and abandoned their armed son in school shows just how right their instincts were.

An AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle, since it has no automatic fire function. But thanks for showcasing your ignorance again, retard.

[Methais]

If the gun was in a locked safe, but the kid has the combination.. that's not locking up the gun.

What if the kid used the same combination from his dad’s luggage and it worked?

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video_thumb/DXTytxYW4AI8w4O.jpg


I like how Seran quietly fucked off from the “terrorism” charge after it had to be spelled out for him. :lol:


But just in case I’m wrong about that…hey Seran, can you tell us what the shooter’s religious and/or political motivation was?

[Parkbandit]

An AR-15 isn’t an assault rifle, since it has no automatic fire function. But thanks for showcasing your ignorance again, retard.

Is it a dark color.. like black?

THEN IT IS!

Reported.

[Methais]

Is it a dark color.. like black?

THEN IT IS!

Reported.

That sounds pretty racist.

Reported to cwolff.

[Astray]

If a child steals a pack of gum at the grocery store, should the parents go to jail for shoplifting?

Child lives =/= Gum

You ignorant fuck.

[Sighisoara]

Kids have gotten suspended or expelled for much less. Like making a finger gun with your hand, eating a Pop Tart to where what’s left is kind of shaped like a gun a little bit, etc.

I suspect most of those examples are rather dated and are from the time of “zero tolerance” policies. Schools started getting away from those about 15 or so years ago because they allow for no discretion and absurd results.

[Methais]

I suspect most of those examples are rather dated and are from the time of “zero tolerance” policies. Schools started getting away from those about 15 or so years ago because they allow for no discretion and absurd results.

It was in 2013 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/examiner-recommends-school-board-uphold-pop-tart-suspension/)

[Sighisoara]

It was in 2013 (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/examiner-recommends-school-board-uphold-pop-tart-suspension/)

Apparently they are a little slower to catch on in the DC area … shocking.

[~Rocktar~]

Apparently they are a little slower to catch on in the DC area … shocking.

Someone is a little slow, that's true.

[Tgo01]

Did anyone else see an article about the Mother posting (or tweeting) something the Friday before about spending time with her son "Playing" with his new Christmas toy?
Or - a teacher's snapshot of a note found on his desktop (the day before or the day of?) showing some sort of gruesome scene with the written words "Help Me?"

If true, could either be indicative of intent?

Unless there was another image I am unaware of the image you are referring to was found by the teacher the day of the shooting and the school counselor said they didn’t think the shooter was a danger to himself or others which is why he was allowed to go back to class.

[rolfard]

This school shooting story, while unrelated, is getting zero media attention. The parents are not facing any charges as far as I know.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/08/1044340122/mansfield-arlington-texas-timberview-high-school-shooting-released

[Tgo01]

This school shooting story, while unrelated, is getting zero media attention. The parents are not facing any charges as far as I know.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/08/1044340122/mansfield-arlington-texas-timberview-high-school-shooting-released

The student himself is hardly being charged. I mean shit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon? Why not attempted murder? Or maybe those charges are considered the same in that same.

He brought a gun to school and shot two people, how can he just get away with aggravated assault?

[ClydeR]

Child lives =/= Gum

That's why the punishment for shoplifting is much less than the punishment for murder. But it doesn't explain why parents should be criminally liable for one crime but not the other.

[Seran]

This school shooting story, while unrelated, is getting zero media attention. The parents are not facing any charges as far as I know.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/08/1044340122/mansfield-arlington-texas-timberview-high-school-shooting-released

Uh, it was all over the news two months ago when it happened. Everyone from Fox News, to CNN and the NY Times ran articles for a couple days. Can't really expect a story about a shooting with injuries that's two months old to still be covered with all that's going on.

[Tgo01]

Uh, it was all over the news two months ago when it happened. Everyone from Fox News, to CNN and the NY Times ran articles for a couple days.

Wow a whole couple of days? They have been reporting on the parents in this case for longer than that already.


Can't really expect a story about a shooting with injuries that's two months old to still be covered with all that's going on.

I'll bet you real cash money that in two months the news will still be talking about this school shooting, unless this is the fastest trial ever and everyone is tried and convicted within that time.

[Seran]

Wow a whole couple of days? They have been reporting on the parents in this case for longer than that already.



I'll bet you real cash money that in two months the news will still be talking about this school shooting, unless this is the fastest trial ever and everyone is tried and convicted within that time.

Let's see some primary differences between the shoots. In Texas, no one was killed, the parents hadn't been involved seemingly minutes before the shooting after refusing school officials requests to take the student home in Texas, the student's parents hadn't abetted the shooter in Texas. Also, Texas occurred months ago. Keep your try hard hat on Dreaven, you might have a winner one day.

[rolfard]

Similarities; a student brought a gun into school. He fired upon people attempting to kill them. He successfully shot multiple targets including a teacher.

[Seran]

Similarities; a student brought a gun into school. He fired upon people attempting to kill them. He successfully shot multiple targets including a teacher.

And so what's your point? You were already told there was plenty of coverage when this occurred TWO MONTHS AGO. If you think news agencies should be writing about a connection between the stories, let them know. If you'd like to heap on some sort of conspiracy theory, feel free to show us your tinfoil cap.

[Tgo01]

Let's see some primary differences between the shoots. In Texas, no one was killed, the parents hadn't been involved

Oh okay. So you don’t really care about school shootings at all unless they help push your political agenda. Got it!

Seran: Who cares if two people were shot and sent to the hospital with one in critical condition? The shooter profile doesn’t fit my narrative.

Also how do you know the parents “weren’t involved”? Why did they allow their child easy access to a firearm? Why didn’t they keep their son home that day?

[Seran]

Oh okay. So you don’t really care about school shootings at all unless they help push your political agenda. Got it!

Seran: Who cares if two people were shot and sent to the hospital with one in critical condition? The shooter profile doesn’t fit my narrative.

Also how do you know the parents “weren’t involved”? Why did they allow their child easy access to a firearm? Why didn’t they keep their son home that day?

You're trying to make political hay out of a shooting, but please tell me what about the Texas or Michigan shootings is political? I pointed out the number of casualties as being the biggest delimitor. Was the kid in Texas a registered Democrat or something, the one in Michigan a Republican? Last I checked, both are minors

[Tgo01]

You're trying to make political hay out of a shooting, but please tell me what about the Texas or Michigan shootings is political? I pointed out the number of casualties as being the biggest delimitor. Was the kid in Texas a registered Democrat or something, the one in Michigan a Republican? Last I checked, both are minors

Surely you at least agree the shooter in Texas deserves to be charged with terrorism and possibly spend the rest of his life in jail right? After all people were scared and traumatized by the shooting at school.

[Seran]

Surely you at least agree the shooter in Texas deserves to be charged with terrorism and possibly spend the rest of his life in jail right? After all people were scared and traumatized by the shooting at school.

I'm not a district attorney, nor are you. But if you want to suggest to their respective counties than the laws of Texas or Michigan should be considered in states with unequal statutes, why I'm sure they'll promptly ignore your suggestions.

[Tgo01]

I'm not a district attorney, nor are you. But if you want to suggest to their respective counties than the laws of Texas or Michigan should be considered in states with unequal statutes, why I'm sure they'll promptly ignore your suggestions.

The laws on the books in regards to terrorism in Texas and Michigan are very similar, nowhere in either law does it state someone is guilty of terrorism if they fire a gun in a school.

Why can't you just admit the shooter in Texas deserves to be charged with terrorism like you immediately said the shooter in Michigan deserves to be treated as a terrorist?

It can't be because of their respective skin colors can it be? You're not a racist are you? That's a trick question by the way, you are an even bigger racist than time4fun.

[rolfard]

Oh, another big difference. The shooter in texas was released the next day and celebrated a party which was posted on social media. His victims were surely terrorized by the fact he was now out and free and able to finish what he started.

[Seran]

The laws on the books in regards to terrorism in Texas and Michigan are very similar, nowhere in either law does it state someone is guilty of terrorism if they fire a gun in a school.

Why can't you just admit the shooter in Texas deserves to be charged with terrorism like you immediately said the shooter in Michigan deserves to be treated as a terrorist?

It can't be because of their respective skin colors can it be? You're not a racist are you? That's a trick question by the way, you are an even bigger racist than time4fun.

Because your premise is false and I think your reasonings are about as insane as you are.

Also, you're categorically wrong about one shooter being charged with terrorism, while another did not. Texas doesn't have a terror specific law other than making non violent terroristic threats. Look at the Texas mass shooters Patrick Crusius who set out to kill as many Mexicans as possible and killed 23 alone, no terrorism charge: specifically as one doesn't exist in Texas.

Skin color is not a motive in either the Texas or Michigan shootings, nor in their subsequent charging decisions.

[Tgo01]

Because your premise is false and I think your reasonings are about as insane as you are.

Okay explain your reasoning for why the shooter in Michigan deserves to be treated as a terrorist yet the shooter in Texas doesn't.

You know other than the obvious which is the color of their skin and the political affiliation of their parents.

The floor is yours.

[Seran]

Oh, another big difference. The shooter in texas was released the next day and celebrated a party which was posted on social media. His victims were surely terrorized by the fact he was now out and free and able to finish what he started.

He was released on bail. Also, a party? Lol, the dude was shown in a video holding a child in a kitchen. Nobody in that video was partying. Which means you're an idiot.

[Seran]

Okay explain your reasoning for why the shooter in Michigan deserves to be treated as a terrorist yet the shooter in Texas doesn't.

You know other than the obvious which is the color of their skin and the political affiliation of their parents.

The floor is yours.

I reject your premise. Now go cry bitter white nationalist tears in the corner and lament why a kid who shot an injured four people, and another who shot and killed four people weren't charged exactly the same way. Maybe your sub 75 IQ can figure out the difference in severity and circumstances of the crimes.

[Tgo01]

I reject your premise.

So you're a complete racist who is perfectly okay with the justice system charging people with bogus crimes because of politics and no other reason?

I mean this was already completely obvious but it's good to see you admit it.

[Gelston]

I reject your premise. Now go cry bitter white nationalist tears in the corner and lament why a kid who shot an injured four people, and another who shot and killed four people weren't charged exactly the same way. Maybe your sub 75 IQ can figure out the difference in severity and circumstances of the crimes.

The intent was the same. Of course the one that didn't kill wouldn't get murder charges, but the terrorism charge is strange.

[Methais]

I'm not a district attorney, nor are you. But if you want to suggest to their respective counties than the laws of Texas or Michigan should be considered in states with unequal statutes, why I'm sure they'll promptly ignore your suggestions.

You don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion. You had plenty of (shit) opinions in the other shooting thread, despite the fact that you're not a lawyer over there either.

You're weak.

[Seran]

The intent was the same. Of course the one that didn't kill wouldn't get murder charges, but the terrorism charge is strange.

And yet the DA has decided that it meets all three criteria for the charge in Michigan. The third is perhaps the most ambiguous and likely prone to being dismissed by the judge.


"An act that would be a violent felony under the laws of this state, whether or not committed in this state.

"An act that the person knows or has reason to know is dangerous to human life.

"An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion."

[Gelston]

And yet the DA has decided that it meets all three criteria for the charge in Michigan. The third is perhaps the most ambiguous and likely prone to being dismissed by the judge.

Who was he trying to coerce? Did he create a manifesto? What was his message? Nah, he was just trying to kill people.

It'll get dismissed because it isn't terrorism unless he was trying to make a statement.

[Seran]

Who was he trying to coerce? Did he create a manifesto? What was his message? Nah, he was just trying to kill people.

It'll get dismissed because it isn't terrorism unless he was trying to make a statement.

And yet he not only posted on Instagram, but recorded a manifesto on his site joke and within a journal according to the county sheriff. Seems like they have intent to commit terrorism down. I think the defense will try to argue ambiguity in the law.

To note, if his statement about shooting in the school was known to the school before the shooting, then contributory negligence may be in order. Civil lawsuits would also be a slam dunk if true.


"Now I become death, destroyer of worlds, see you tomorrow Oxford"


Lt. Tim Willis of the Oakland County Sheriff's Office said at the arraignment that videos were recovered from Crumbley’s cellphone, including “a video made by him the night before the incident wherein he talked about shooting and killing students the next day at Oxford High School. Further, a journal was recovered from Ethan’s backpack also detailing his desire to shoot up a school to include murdering students.”

[Methais]

And yet he not only posted on Instagram, but recorded a manifesto on his site joke and within a journal according to the county sheriff. Seems like they have intent to commit terrorism down. I think the defense will try to argue ambiguity in the law.

To note, if his statement about shooting in the school was known to the school before the shooting, then contributory negligence may be in order. Civil lawsuits would also be a slam dunk if true.

What political or religious motivation was behind it? You know, the things that are required in order for something to be considered terrorism.

You didn't reply last time it was asked, and you won't reply this time either.

[Seran]

What political or religious motivation was behind it? You know, the things that are required in order for something to be considered terrorism.

You didn't reply last time it was asked, and you won't reply this time either.

Because political or religious motivation isn't required under the Michigan statute. Such qualifications only exist in your dementia addled mind. Yours and Dreaven's insistence that everyone answer to your dumb ass hypotheticals is inane and a waste of time.

[Gelston]

And yet he not only posted on Instagram, but recorded a manifesto on his site joke and within a journal according to the county sheriff. Seems like they have intent to commit terrorism down. I think the defense will try to argue ambiguity in the law.

To note, if his statement about shooting in the school was known to the school before the shooting, then contributory negligence may be in order. Civil lawsuits would also be a slam dunk if true.

That isn't a manifesto or coercion. Do you know what a manifesto is?

[Gelston]

Also...

(a) "Act of terrorism" means a willful and deliberate act that is all of the following:
(i) An act that would be a violent felony under the laws of this state, whether or not committed in this state.
(ii) An act that the person knows or has reason to know is dangerous to human life.
(iii) An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct
of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion.

It has to be ALL three, their definition is the same as everywhere else. I didn't see anything saying he was trying to do anything in the 3rd one. He is overcharged.

And what Methais meant by religious or political is that terrorism requires the person be pushing a specific goal using violence. It is usually based on political or religious ideologies, but it doesn't have to be.

What position was he trying to push? Or was he just a bullied kid getting pay back?

[rolfard]

https://video.dailymail.co.uk/preview/mol/2021/10/08/726778061645525524/636x382_JPG-SINGLE_726778061645525524.jpg

[Methais]

Because political or religious motivation isn't required under the Michigan statute.

You're wrong and stupid, but that's nothing new.


Such qualifications only exist in your dementia addled mind.

Today I learned that everyone who disagrees with Soyran has dementia. Or maybe Soyran is so stupid that he can


Yours and Dreaven's insistence that everyone answer to your dumb ass hypotheticals is inane and a waste of time.

It's really just pre-emptively calling you out because of the way you like to selectively respond only to certain things (but still being wrong 99% of the time though) while going out of your way to avoid responding to things that you either already know you're wrong about and/or that answering honestly will make you look even more stupid than everyone already thinks you are, either because you're so full of shit all the time, or because you had a rare moment of self awareness and actually realized how stupid you are.

Remember how the other day you had no clue what a pyramid scheme was while calling something a pyramid scheme, and then you shut the fuck up extra quick after, for example? :rofl:

It's like that, but with almost every thread/topic/post you're a part of.

Do better and be less stupid.

[Seran]

Also...

(a) "Act of terrorism" means a willful and deliberate act that is all of the following:
(i) An act that would be a violent felony under the laws of this state, whether or not committed in this state.
(ii) An act that the person knows or has reason to know is dangerous to human life.
(iii) An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct
of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion.

It has to be ALL three, their definition is the same as everywhere else. I didn't see anything saying he was trying to do anything in the 3rd one. He is overcharged.

And what Methais meant by religious or political is that terrorism requires the person be pushing a specific goal using violence. It is usually based on political or religious ideologies, but it doesn't have to be.

What position was he trying to push? Or was he just a bullied kid getting pay back?

The Michigan statute doesn't require someone to be acting upon a political or religious ideal, so the federal definition has no relevance as to whether or not the State of Michigan charges the teen.

Also in case you weren't following the final page, the little dude premeditated what was going to happen and recorded himself talking about committing the act. Between that and the Instagram post, the third clause was met. That the first two were blatantly covered by the act itself should be apparent.

If that weren't enough, the DA has sooo much more information that would have had to been approved by a grand jury or a judicial officer in a preliminary hearing to even bring those charges in the first place.

[Gelston]

The Michigan statute doesn't require someone to be acting upon a political or religious ideal, so the federal definition has no relevance as to whether or not the State of Michigan charges the teen.

Also in case you weren't following the final page, the little dude premeditated what was going to happen and recorded himself talking about committing the act. Between that and the Instagram post, the third clause was met. That the first two were blatantly covered by the act itself should be apparent.

If that weren't enough, the DA has sooo much more information that would have had to been approved by a grand jury or a judicial officer in a preliminary hearing to even bring those charges in the first place.

I didn't say it did, I said that is the usual motivation. Premeditation isn't terrorism, it is why we have 1st degree murder charges. So again, what ideal was he trying to coerce people onto accept by using violence? Stop bring opposite just to be opposite.

[Methais]

I didn't say it did, I said that is the usual motivation. Premeditation isn't terrorism, it is why we have 1st degree murder charges. So again, what ideal was he trying to coerce people onto accept by using violence? Stop bring opposite just to be opposite.

Soyran can't help it. It's his natural defense mechanism kicking in when he realizes that he's wrong and stupid but doesn't want to admit it.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I really enjoy how some folks have become experts in state and local laws and that they communicate that expertise so eloquently through this forum.

I had no idea the constitutional scholars and law experts we had here!

[Seran]

I didn't say it did, I said that is the usual motivation. Premeditation isn't terrorism, it is why we have 1st degree murder charges. So again, what ideal was he trying to coerce people onto accept by using violence? Stop bring opposite just to be opposite.

And "usual motivation" is irrelevant to the State of Michigan. Really awesome you came to Methais rescue after their patent fail on convincing anyone but themself. Not gonna waste my time trying to imply motive beyond what the prosecutor has already shown to get the charges approved. It's irrelevant.

[Seran]

I really enjoy how some folks have become experts in state and local laws and that they communicate that expertise so eloquently through this forum.

I had no idea the constitutional scholars and law experts we had here!

Here's another time waster. Are you one of those elitists that presume no one but an expert in a very specific area are allowed to point out consistency with written law? Because these jackholes are trying to rewrite Michigan's quoted statute to push a false narrative.

[Gelston]

And "usual motivation" is irrelevant to the State of Michigan. Really awesome you came to Methais rescue after their patent fail on convincing anyone but themself. Not gonna waste my time trying to imply motive beyond what the prosecutor has already shown to get the charges approved. It's irrelevant.

Hey idiot, I didn't say that it was required or in any state of law. I said the USUAL motivation of people committing terrorism is Political or Religious, as in MOST acts of terrorism are conducted by people trying to push a specific religious or political point of view.. You 100% fail at reading comprehension.

[Gelston]

I really enjoy how some folks have become experts in state and local laws and that they communicate that expertise so eloquently through this forum.

I had no idea the constitutional scholars and law experts we had here!

I've taken a few college courses on terrorism and several courses while I was in the military. Just about every Criminal Justice course I've taken involves a chapter on it too. I'm not an expert, but I guarantee I know more about it than Seran.

[Tgo01]

It really is amusing how hard Seran is defending this bogus terrorism charge without explaining why it makes sense while simultaneously saying a similar charge for the Texas shooter doesn’t make sense. His entire argument seems to hinge on the fact that the Texas shooter didn’t kill anyone, as if the Texas shooter was only trying to wound people.

[Methais]

Hey idiot, I didn't say that it was required or in any state of law. I said the USUAL motivation of people committing terrorism is Political or Religious, as in MOST acts of terrorism are conducted by people trying to push a specific religious or political point of view.. You 100% fail at reading comprehension.

Here's the FBI's definition of terrorism, which is about actual terrorism:

https://i.imgur.com/J9Lr1U8.png (https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism)



And here's Michigan's soy definition, which is any situation where someone gets scared:

https://i.imgur.com/um0jM3J.png
(https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-01/explainer-michigan-shooting-suspect-charged-with-terrorism)https://i.imgur.com/ZlB6DdM.png (https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-01/explainer-michigan-shooting-suspect-charged-with-terrorism)


I wonder if Michigan considers people with PTSD, regardless of how they got it, as terrorism survivors.

Either way, using Michigan's logic, if I walked into a room and Seran's mom was there naked, that would be considered terrorism due to the lifelong emotional scarring and nightmares I would suffer.

[Tgo01]

Here's the FBI's definition of terrorism, which is about actual terrorism:

https://i.imgur.com/J9Lr1U8.png (https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism)



And here's Michigan's soy definition, which is any situation where someone gets scared:

https://i.imgur.com/um0jM3J.png
(https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-01/explainer-michigan-shooting-suspect-charged-with-terrorism)https://i.imgur.com/ZlB6DdM.png (https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-12-01/explainer-michigan-shooting-suspect-charged-with-terrorism)


I wonder if Michigan considers people with PTSD, regardless of how they got it, as terrorism survivors.

Either way, using Michigan's logic, if I walked into a room and Seran's mom was there naked, that would be considered terrorism due to the lifelong emotional scarring and nightmares I would suffer.

This bullshit charge pushed by the Democrat DA and Democrat Sheriff opens the door for just about anyone to be charged with terrorism.

Someone robbed a liquor store and people were terrorized by the event? The robber gets to spend the rest of his life in prison on terrorism charges!

A bar fight broke out which resulted in several people getting PTSD? Terrorism! Life in prison for everyone involved!

This coming from the same political party who thinks there are too many people in jail.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not an expert, but I guarantee I know more about it than Seran.

https://i.gifer.com/J4Mg.gif

[Tgo01]

To note, if his statement about shooting in the school was known to the school before the shooting, then contributory negligence may be in order. Civil lawsuits would also be a slam dunk if true.

Wait wait. So the parents get charged with manslaughter even though they were nowhere near the school when the shooting happened, but the school officials who failed to properly protect students get off and the school just faces a civil lawsuit?

You are perhaps the most useless human being that has ever existed.

[Seran]

So man mental gymnastics on the Right, trying to politicize everything, drawing comparisons to completely unrelated events with no valid reference. Going full on retard mode to blame the school for student deaths. All of this to distract from the fact that no one would have died that day if the kid didn't have a firearm.

[rolfard]

So man mental gymnastics on the Right, trying to politicize everything, drawing comparisons to completely unrelated events with no valid reference. Going full on retard mode to blame the school for student deaths. All of this to distract from the fact that no one would have died that day if the kid didn't have a firearm.

This just in....kids can only murder when they have access to a firearm. I guess I fell safer about all these kids that bring knives or improvise weapons in schools.

[Tgo01]

drawing comparisons to completely unrelated events with no valid reference.

Two school shootings, very different charges. Your reasoning for why they are different is because the DAs have said they are different and that's it.

[Keller]

Imagine in is 2021 and giving your kid a pistol as an early Jesus’ birthday gift, him murdering a bunch of his classmates, and being defended by the scum of the earth on a web forum for a text based RPG that peaked in 1998.

[Tgo01]

Imagine in is 2021 and giving your kid a pistol as an early Jesus’ birthday gift, him murdering a bunch of his classmates, and being defended by the scum of the earth on a web forum for a text based RPG that peaked in 1998.

Oh goodie! The child predator is here to lecture us again!

So do you believe the parents in the Texas school shooting deserve to be charged with crimes too? Or naww because they are black?

This is why impotent Democrat shitheads such as you and Seran make me laugh so much when you come in here with your holier-than-thou attitudes. You claim to give a single shit about kids being murdered in school but your outrage suddenly disappears and reignites depending on the skin color of the shooter.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So do you believe the parents in the Texas school shooting deserve to be charged with crimes too? Or naww because they are black?

I don't keep up with all the news, but if the parents in any shooting can be shown to have contributed to the crime, I'm down for them paying the price.

[Tgo01]

I don't keep up with all the news, but if the parents in any shooting can be shown to have contributed to the crime, I'm down for them paying the price.

Absolutely. The flimsy "evidence" I've seen so far for the Michigan shooter's parents is they allowed him "access" to a gun and they didn't bring him home on the particular day of the shooting.

That could be just about any school shooting that has ever happened.

So people should either be in favor of all of those parents going to jail or none of them going to jail. It's the shitheads like Seran and I'm sure Keller who only want this standard applied to people they don't like.

[rolfard]

I don't keep up with all the news, but if the parents in any shooting can be shown to have contributed to the crime, I'm down for them paying the price.

This is a guess, but I'd wager the majority of school shootings take place with minors using guns they didn't buy themselves.

[Flap]

I haven't been paying super close attention in here, but to me it feels like terrorism is when someone threatens to, attempts to, or does kill a bunch of people.

The FBI defines it one way, Michigan defines it in a way that they can charge this guy. I think it fits the bill. We don't know his motivation, so it's pointless to argue over definitions that are based in that.

In my opinion every mass killer has the intent to influence society or the gov.

Even if it's just to "go out with a bang" and get attention for themselves before they pop their cap off or spend life in jail, there are ways to do that that don't involve killing lots of people. They want people to be scared, no two ways about it. Scared. Fear. Terror......ism. Even if their motivation is something stupid like incel stuff, the intent is to teach a lesson.

"I'll show them!" is the mantra of the mass killer. They usually have something to show, and that's the motivation that fills in the blank to make it terrorism IMHO.

[Sighisoara]

Because these jackholes are trying to rewrite Michigan's quoted statute to push a false narrative.

::lol:: that’s pretty rich, right there. Seriously, given some of the dumbass stuff you’ve posted in this thread, you’re one of the most ignorant fucks olive seen on this board, and that’s saying something.

[Jeril]

::lol:: that’s pretty rich, right there. Seriously, given some of the dumbass stuff you’ve posted in this thread, you’re one of the most ignorant fucks olive seen on this board, and that’s saying something.

Does he at least come with some good seasonings or something?

[Seran]

I swear, these haters are trying convince everyone that Texas was the mass murder and the kid in Michigan was just an innocent who was protected from his need to shoot others at his high school. Pretty soon were gonna have them screaming MAGA and talking about the lizard people working on Congress and the secret brainwave stealing devices implanted by covid-19 vaccines.

[Tgo01]

I swear, these haters are trying convince everyone that Texas was the mass murder and the kid in Michigan was just an innocent who was protected from his need to shoot others at his high school.

Once again because you're a gigantic piece of shit, the very first line in the very first post:


Before pieces of shit such as Seran accuse me of defending the shooter, no, the shooter should 100% be charged for multiple counts of murder, should be tried as an adult, and should spend the rest of his life in prison. Shit go ahead and execute the fucker for all I care. This is about the DA politicizing this case.

Your comment here is all kinds of ironic because YOU are the one who wants to give the Texas shooter a pass because he didn't kill anyone, he "just" wounded multiple people, as if his intention was just to wound people. But let's get real, you're giving him a pass because he's black and doesn't fit your narrative because once again you are a gigantic piece of shit.

[Gelston]

I swear, these haters are trying convince everyone that Texas was the mass murder and the kid in Michigan was just an innocent who was protected from his need to shoot others at his high school. Pretty soon were gonna have them screaming MAGA and talking about the lizard people working on Congress and the secret brainwave stealing devices implanted by covid-19 vaccines.

0 people are saying the texas shooter was a mass murderer. Reading comprehension fail again.

[rolfard]

I swear, these haters are trying convince everyone that Texas was the mass murder and the kid in Michigan was just an innocent who was protected from his need to shoot others at his high school. Pretty soon were gonna have them screaming MAGA and talking about the lizard people working on Congress and the secret brainwave stealing devices implanted by covid-19 vaccines.

I don't think anyone is suggesting either is innocent. I've only posted the disparity between the response between these two incidents. As far as I'm concerned, both incidents deal with a student who must have suffered or are suffering serious behavioral problems which may be symptoms of other serious problems.

How do you feel about the 14 year old who murders a young woman in the park when robbing her and only gets 9 years? Are people terrorized from going to the park in the future? Are the parents responsible?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/nyregion/tessa-majors-luchiano-lewis.amp.html

[Seran]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/nyregion/tessa-majors-luchiano-lewis.amp.html[/url]

I think it's terrible that it happened and knowing nothing beyond the circumstances described in that story, 9 years for a non-premeditated murder by a 14 year old seems fair. If instead multiple people were murdered, the defendant produced his own video announcing his plan to kill others, then stiffer charges and penalties would probably be called for. And no to your other two questions.

I don't think that stabbing, nor the shooting in Texas which wounded four people is at all comparable to the severity and premeditation of the kid on Michigan.

[Seran]

But let's get real, you're giving him a pass because he's black and doesn't fit your narrative

Nah dude, you're the only one in this thread who seems obsessed with making the race of the perpetrators a factor in this discussion and nearly every other.

[Tgo01]

Nah dude, you're the only one in this thread who seems obsessed with making the race of the perpetrators a factor in this discussion and nearly every other.

Whatever you say, racist.

[Tgo01]

The school has denied a request by the DA to conduct an investigation into the events that led up to the shooting, instead the school will hire their own third party to investigate themselves.

In other words the school is doing their best to cover this all up to hide their culpability while the parents were charged and arrested almost immediately. And idiots such as Seran will continue giving himself ample brain damage by shoving his fingers far into his ears and saying “everything is fine!”

[Gelston]

The school has denied a request by the DA to conduct an investigation into the events that led up to the shooting, instead the school will hire their own third party to investigate themselves.

In other words the school is doing their best to cover this all up to hide their culpability while the parents were charged and arrested almost immediately. And idiots such as Seran will continue giving himself ample brain damage by shoving his fingers far into his ears and saying “everything is fine!”

How does the school have the authority to deny the DA?

But that seriously looks like when the police investigate themselves and determine they did nothing wrong.

[Tgo01]

How does the school have the authority to deny the DA?

I have no idea. I was shocked when I read that too.

Only thing I can think of is the DA hasn’t formally started a criminal investigation into anyone at the school so maybe any sort of investigation would need the approval of the school.

Which is all sorts of bullshit if that’s the case. If the DA truly cared about holding all parties responsible then start a criminal investigation into everything.

[Gelston]

I have no idea. I was shocked when I read that too.

Only thing I can think of is the DA hasn’t formally started a criminal investigation into anyone at the school so maybe any sort of investigation would need the approval of the school.

Which is all sorts of bullshit if that’s the case. If the DA truly cared about holding all parties responsible then start a criminal investigation into everything.

Regardless of what that investigation turns out, anything bad will be kept quiet. The investigators are employees of the school at that point.

[Tgo01]

Regardless of what that investigation turns out, anything bad will be kept quiet. The investigators are employees of the school at that point.

Yup. The superintendent has basically already said no one at the school did anything wrong and now the school is investigating themselves to ensure that's the only narrative that will come out.

I'm betting something really fucky happened, like the counselor never told the parents to bring the shooter home that day, or that the counselor did indeed think the child could be a danger to himself or others and still decided to let him to return to class. And if the DA doesn't get off her ass and stop politicizing this case then the school is gonna get away with it all.

[Alfster]

Two school shootings, very different charges. Your reasoning for why they are different is because the DAs have said they are different and that's it.

Lol. Leave it to America to argue that we're over charging school shootings... we're right up there with Honduras.

[Tgo01]

Lol. Leave it to America to argue that we're over charging school shootings... we're right up there with Honduras.

Except we're under charging in the Texas shooting and you don't seem to give a single shit about that.

Aggravated assault for shooting two people at a school?

It's pretty frightening that people actually seem to have no problem with the state over charging and even going so far as to say more over charging should be done.

You think you're being righteous because this is a school shooting but what happens when the next person is charged with terrorism and faces life in prison because they fired a gun in the air and it scared people? I guess you wouldn't give a shit because as long as it's not happening to you why care right? Such a caring Democrat.

[Gelston]

Lol. Leave it to America to argue that we're over charging school shootings... we're right up there with Honduras.

I'm not going to go charge a school shooter with Grand Theft Auto unless he stole a car, just like terrorism is a dumb charge here.

[Seran]

I'm not going to go charge a school shooter with Grand Theft Auto unless he stole a car, just like terrorism is a dumb charge here.

But you would charge a school shooter with terrorism of he intentionally planned and executed terror on his community. Which is what happened in Michigan

[Tgo01]

But you would charge a school shooter with terrorism of he intentionally planned and executed terror on his community. Which is what happened in Michigan

So what proof are you referring to that he "intentionally planned and executed terror on his community"?

Look, I get it, it's a white school shooter with parents who supported Trump so of course you want the shooter charged with terrorism and you want his entire family locked up because it all fits your agenda and you are a disgusting un-American racist who would love nothing more than to turn the US into North Korea. But at least try not to be too obvious in your bullshit.

[Wrathbringer]

So what proof are you referring to that he "intentionally planned and executed terror on his community"?

Look, I get it, it's a white school shooter with parents who supported Trump so of course you want the shooter charged with terrorism and you want his entire family locked up because it all fits your agenda and you are a disgusting un-American racist who would love nothing more than to turn the US into North Korea. But at least try not to be too obvious in your bullshit.

This is all correct.

[Alfster]

Except we're under charging in the Texas shooting and you don't seem to give a single shit about that.

Aggravated assault for shooting two people at a school?

It's pretty frightening that people actually seem to have no problem with the state over charging and even going so far as to say more over charging should be done.

You think you're being righteous because this is a school shooting but what happens when the next person is charged with terrorism and faces life in prison because they fired a gun in the air and it scared people? I guess you wouldn't give a shit because as long as it's not happening to you why care right? Such a caring Democrat.

Instead of arguing about charges, there should be real discussion around what's causing so many kids to go postal. It's a uniquely American problem, with the only country on par with us being Honduras.

[Seran]

So what proof are you referring to that he "intentionally planned and executed terror on his community"?

Look, I get it, it's a white school shooter with parents who supported Trump so of course you want the shooter charged with terrorism and you want his entire family locked up because it all fits your agenda and you are a disgusting un-American racist who would love nothing more than to turn the US into North Korea. But at least try not to be too obvious in your bullshit.

Ah, so they're Trumpers are they? That would explain the mother's LOL, don't get caught shipping for your massacre ammo. Funny enough though, none of the articles I've seen on CNN, Al Jazeera, Fox News (early on) or Reuters mentioned the family's political affiliation. Certainly none of the law enforcement or DA has either. Which leads me to believe you're entirely making up the political prosecution theory. No surprises there. Just what news outlet revealed their political affiliations?

[~Rocktar~]

Ah, so they're Trumpers are they? That would explain the mother's LOL, don't get caught shipping for your massacre ammo. Funny enough though, none of the articles I've seen on CNN, Al Jazeera, Fox News (early on) or Reuters mentioned the family's political affiliation. Certainly none of the law enforcement or DA has either. Which leads me to believe you're entirely making up the political prosecution theory. No surprises there. Just what news outlet revealed their political affiliations?

Yep, a proud 87

[Gelston]

But you would charge a school shooter with terrorism of he intentionally planned and executed terror on his community. Which is what happened in Michigan

He didn't use violence to push an agenda. That is what terrorism is. Terrorism isn't just "making someone scared" which you see to think it is. Otherwise, ever violent criminal ever would be convicted of it.

[Parkbandit]

He didn't use violence to push an agenda. That is what terrorism is. Terrorism isn't just "making someone scared" which you see to think it is. Otherwise, ever violent criminal ever would be convicted of it.

Hopefully, this time he will understand it.

I doubt it though.

He's retarded.

[Seran]

He didn't use violence to push an agenda. That is what terrorism is. Terrorism isn't just "making someone scared" which you see to think it is. Otherwise, ever violent criminal ever would be convicted of it.

Yes, you keep repeating that over and over. Except that's not the definition of Michigan's terrorism statute and your opinion doesn't change that fact.

[rolfard]

Yes, you keep repeating that over and over. Except that's not the definition of Michigan's terrorism statute and your opinion doesn't change that fact.

Not a lawyer but this seems like an awfully high bar to jump;
(EMPHASIS ON "ALL OF THE FOLLOWING")


750.543b Definitions.
Sec. 543b. As used in this chapter:
(a) "Act of terrorism" means a willful and deliberate act that is ALL of the following:
(i) An act that would be a violent felony under the laws of this state, whether or not committed in this state.
(ii) An act that the person knows or has reason to know is dangerous to human life.
(iii) An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct
of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion.


The second part could be argued if the defense proves he is not mentally sound.
The third part is the hurdle (below is more from the same article)


(b) "Dangerous to human life" means that which causes a substantial likelihood of death or serious injury
or that is a violation of section 349 or 350.
(c) "Harmful biological substance", "harmful biological device", "harmful chemical substance", "harmful
chemical device", "harmful radioactive material", and "harmful radioactive device" mean those terms as
defined in section 200h.
(d) "Material support or resources" means currency or other financial securities, financial services, lodging,
training, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons,
lethal substances, explosives, personnel, transportation, including any related physical assets or intangible
property, or expert services or expert assistance.
(e) "Person" means an individual, agent, association, charitable organization, corporation, joint
apprenticeship committee, joint stock company, labor organization, legal representative, mutual company,
partnership, receiver, trust, trustee, trustee in bankruptcy, unincorporated organization, or any other legal or
commercial entity.
(f) "Renders criminal assistance" means that the person with the intent to avoid, prevent, hinder, or delay
the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, trial, or sentencing of a person who he or she knows or has reason
to know has violated this chapter or is wanted as a material witness in connection with an act of terrorism
pursuant to section 39 of chapter VII of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 767.39, does any
of the following:
(i) Harbors or conceals that other person.
(ii) Warns that other person of impending discovery or apprehension.
(iii) Provides that other person with money, transportation, a weapon, a disguise, or false identification, or
any other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension.
(iv) Prevents or obstructs, by means of force, intimidation, or deception, anyone from performing an act
that might aid in the discovery, apprehension, or prosecution of that other person.
(v) Suppresses, by any act of concealment, alteration, or destruction, any physical evidence that might aid
in the discovery, apprehension, or prosecution of that other person.
(vi) Engages in conduct proscribed under section 120, 120a, or 122 or chapter XXXII.
(g) "Terrorist" means any person who engages or is about to engage in an act of terrorism.
(h) "Violent felony" means a felony in which an element is the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force against an individual, or the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a harmful biological
substance, a harmful biological device, a harmful chemical substance, a harmful chemical device, a harmful
radioactive substance, a harmful radioactive device, an explosive device, or an incendiary device.
History: Add. 2002, Act 113, Eff. Apr. 22, 2002.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://legislature.mi.gov/(S(ouqwlju0kzqfzarmlsftqi45))/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-328-1931-LXXXIII-A.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjV8cixptf0AhXtmuAKHbRKBV8QFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw227mT1Dk5I4cg1RbKUbJ2D

[Parkbandit]

Hopefully, this time he will understand it.

I doubt it though.

He's retarded.


Yes, you keep repeating that over and over. Except that's not the definition of Michigan's terrorism statute and your opinion doesn't change that fact.

https://c.tenor.com/DwJCtOvCl6UAAAAC/its-like-i-have-espn-or-something-espn.gif

[Gelston]

Yes, you keep repeating that over and over. Except that's not the definition of Michigan's terrorism statute and your opinion doesn't change that fact.

It is literally the third item in the law. It is 100% Michigan's definition. You even posted it yourself. Stop being contrary just to be contrary.

Again, the third clause "(iii) An act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion." That REQUIRES him to be pushing an agenda by use of violence or threat of violence. He hasn't as far as anything that has been released.

[Parkbandit]

Stop being contrary just to be contrary.

He's not being contrary.

He said something stupid... and even posted a link that proved he was wrong.

Instead of just moving on, he's digging in his heels and defending his stupidity.

That's Seran 101.

[Methais]

Imagine in is 2021 and giving your kid a pistol as an early Jesus’ birthday gift, him murdering a bunch of his classmates, and being defended by the scum of the earth on a web forum for a text based RPG that peaked in 1998.

If you knew how to read, you would have realized by now that literally 0 people are defending him. Instead people are arguing the semantics of what constitutes "terrorism," since he's also being charged with terrorism despite there being no political or religious motivation behind it, which is typically a requirement for terrorism, except apparently in Michigan where any violent situation where people get scared is considered terrorism.

That, and we're making fun of Seran because he's stupid.

Dork.

[Methais]

Does he at least come with some good seasonings or something?

He thinks mayo is spicy, so probably not.

[Methais]

I swear, these haters are trying convince everyone that Texas was the mass murder and the kid in Michigan was just an innocent who was protected from his need to shoot others at his high school. Pretty soon were gonna have them screaming MAGA and talking about the lizard people working on Congress and the secret brainwave stealing devices implanted by covid-19 vaccines.

Who is saying any of that about the Michigan kid?

Quote one post from here. Post one screenshot from anywhere.

You can't because you're just butthurt and full of shit and everyone here thinks you're stupid. Know why? It's because you're stupid.

[Tgo01]

Ah, so they're Trumpers are they? That would explain the mother's LOL, don't get caught shipping for your massacre ammo. Funny enough though, none of the articles I've seen on CNN, Al Jazeera, Fox News (early on) or Reuters mentioned the family's political affiliation. Certainly none of the law enforcement or DA has either. Which leads me to believe you're entirely making up the political prosecution theory. No surprises there. Just what news outlet revealed their political affiliations?

Oh spare me the shit you didn’t know the parents (at least the mother) were Trump supporters. You were just waiting for someone else to mention it first, you probably already had this post saved in a notepad ready to go.

[Keller]

Tgo still defending a mass murderer and his accomplice parents.

Is anyone surprised at all?

[Tgo01]

Tgo still defending a mass murderer and his accomplice parents.

Is anyone surprised at all?

Very first line of the very first post:


Before pieces of shit such as Seran accuse me of defending the shooter, no, the shooter should 100% be charged for multiple counts of murder, should be tried as an adult, and should spend the rest of his life in prison. Shit go ahead and execute the fucker for all I care. This is about the DA politicizing this case.

Do I know the disgusting mind of your typical far left Democrat or what?

[drauz]

I hope they can charge the kid with whatever they need to so that he never breaths another breath outside prison. Terrorism is a reach but it might stick, I'm doubtful though. The parents just seem like really bad parents, they didn't secure the firearm they bought for their kid it seemed, like at all. I wouldn't be surprised if his drawings weren't the first time he tried to "get help". I would bet the parents knew he was fucked in the head but just didn't want to either believe it or deal with it.

[Methais]

I hope they can charge the kid with whatever they need to so that he never breaths another breath outside prison. Terrorism is a reach but it might stick, I'm doubtful though. The parents just seem like really bad parents, they didn't secure the firearm they bought for their kid it seemed, like at all. I wouldn't be surprised if his drawings weren't the first time he tried to "get help". I would bet the parents knew he was fucked in the head but just didn't want to either believe it or deal with it.

According to Keller logic, you're defending that dude and his parents now.

[Methais]

Tgo still defending a mass murderer and his accomplice parents.

Is anyone surprised at all?

Can you quote something Tgo said that backs this up? Or are you just Keller'ing again?

[Tgo01]

I hope they can charge the kid with whatever they need to so that he never breaths another breath outside prison.

A single count of murder in Michigan carries mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. No other political charges need to be brought forth for this.


The parents just seem like really bad parents, they didn't secure the firearm they bought for their kid it seemed, like at all.

That's according to the DA. The father said he had his firearms locked up. The shooter is 15, he can figure out a combination or find a key or heck even look up YouTube videos on how to pick a lock, it's not like he was 7. We shall see what evidence the DA provides at court of course, which I'm guessing in the case of the guns not being secured is a whole no evidence other than a police officer said it was true.

It also begs the question though: how many parents lock up their car keys when they have children in the house? I'm guessing the number is close to zero, yet if a kid takes their parents' car keys and goes on a killing spree with a car like the black supremacist did in Wisconsin, would anyone really be demanding the parents be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Probably not because most adults realize that could be them sitting in prison right now. But a gun was used? Well that's just those gun nuts who would be locked up, that's not me!

[Gelston]

A single count of murder in Michigan carries mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. No other political charges need to be brought forth for this.



That's according to the DA. The father said he had his firearms locked up. The shooter is 15, he can figure out a combination or find a key or heck even look up YouTube videos on how to pick a lock, it's not like he was 7. We shall see what evidence the DA provides at court of course, which I'm guessing in the case of the guns not being secured is a whole no evidence other than a police officer said it was true.

It also begs the question though: how many parents lock up their car keys when they have children in the house? I'm guessing the number is close to zero, yet if a kid takes their parents' car keys and goes on a killing spree with a car like the black supremacist did in Wisconsin, would anyone really be demanding the parents be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Probably not because most adults realize that could be them sitting in prison right now. But a gun was used? Well that's just those gun nuts who would be locked up, that's not me!

It isn't even a law in Michigan to lock up firearms.

[Tgo01]

It isn't even a law in Michigan to lock up firearms.

It sure sounds like the DA is upset such laws don’t exist in Michigan so she is abusing the laws which do exist to push her agenda.

[drauz]

A single count of murder in Michigan carries mandatory life in prison without the possibility of parole. No other political charges need to be brought forth for this.



That's according to the DA. The father said he had his firearms locked up. The shooter is 15, he can figure out a combination or find a key or heck even look up YouTube videos on how to pick a lock, it's not like he was 7. We shall see what evidence the DA provides at court of course, which I'm guessing in the case of the guns not being secured is a whole no evidence other than a police officer said it was true.

It also begs the question though: how many parents lock up their car keys when they have children in the house? I'm guessing the number is close to zero, yet if a kid takes their parents' car keys and goes on a killing spree with a car like the black supremacist did in Wisconsin, would anyone really be demanding the parents be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Probably not because most adults realize that could be them sitting in prison right now. But a gun was used? Well that's just those gun nuts who would be locked up, that's not me!

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying they seem like good parents?

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, are you saying they seem like good parents?

Being a bad parent doesn't deserve jail time. If that were the case the jails would be filled with bad parents.

[drauz]

Being a bad parent doesn't deserve jail time. If that were the case the jails would be filled with bad parents.

Being a bad enough parent that potentially leads to 4 people being murdered might though.

[rolfard]

Being a bad enough parent that potentially leads to 4 people being murdered might though.

But all murderers have parents (pre year 2029)

[Jeril]

I hope they can charge the kid with whatever they need to so that he never breaths another breath outside prison. Terrorism is a reach but it might stick, I'm doubtful though. The parents just seem like really bad parents, they didn't secure the firearm they bought for their kid it seemed, like at all. I wouldn't be surprised if his drawings weren't the first time he tried to "get help". I would bet the parents knew he was fucked in the head but just didn't want to either believe it or deal with it.

Why do you have such strong feelings against a kid who had such a screwed up life that he went and killed some people? And where is the outrage that we as a society let things get so bad? While he does deserve to get punished and strongly, life in prison just seems wasteful to me. He'll never get anywhere close to being able to make up for what he did, but keeping him behind bars his whole life will keep him even further from that. Of course as messed up as our prison system is hard telling if this young man will be able to come to the right conclusions about his life and make any changes for the better.

[drauz]

Why do you have such strong feelings against a kid who had such a screwed up life that he went and killed some people? And where is the outrage that we as a society let things get so bad? While he does deserve to get punished and strongly, life in prison just seems wasteful to me. He'll never get anywhere close to being able to make up for what he did, but keeping him behind bars his whole life will keep him even further from that. Of course as messed up as our prison system is hard telling if this young man will be able to come to the right conclusions about his life and make any changes for the better.

I don't like murderers? From my original message I would bet that the problem lies with the parenting. I feel like the kid probably had tried to reach out for help but the parents waved it off, I don't have proof it's just a hunch. Time will tell when the prosecution goes through discovery.

I really only think it's a waste in the sense of money the state will have to spend to incarcerate him. He murdered 4 people, 4 people who will never grow up and live their lives. He forfeited his own when he ended theirs unjustly.

[Seran]

Why do you have such strong feelings against a kid who had such a screwed up life that he went and killed some people? And where is the outrage that we as a society let things get so bad? While he does deserve to get punished and strongly, life in prison just seems wasteful to me. He'll never get anywhere close to being able to make up for what he did, but keeping him behind bars his whole life will keep him even further from that. Of course as messed up as our prison system is hard telling if this young man will be able to come to the right conclusions about his life and make any changes for the better.

You're assuming an awful lot about this kid's home life. I mean, his parents just bought him a gun and Mom was joking with him in a text about not getting caught by his murder munitions. Evidence being his parents were at least woefully chill. And hopefully he will realize the error of his ways and become a model prisoner for multiple non parolable consecutive life sentences.

[Tgo01]

I mean, his parents just bought him a gun

Millions of parents have bought guns "for" their children and fewer than .01% have killed people. You're being retarded as per usual.


Mom was joking with him in a text about not getting caught by his murder munitions.

"Murder munitions." Seriously just shut the fuck up.

You're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. Literally nothing the DA has provided in terms of "evidence" suggests the parents knew anything like this was going to happen. Oh no! She told her son not to get caught Googling shit at school! She KNEW he was going to shoot up the school!

You are literally the worst person ever.

[rolfard]

Charging the parents of murder suspects for bad parenting could set a precedent that would lead to future arrests of 'bad parents' that would disproportionately target those in the lowest socioeconomic groups to a higher degree.

In this case the school was concerned with the behavior of the child and the safety of other student's enough that they called the parents in. At that point the school is then the "expert" advising the parents that they should take action. When the parents didn't take action, the school chose to send the 'dangerous' student that literally wrote a letter a teacher saw that said "help..." back to class. The school and those in charge should be held as responsible if not more since they are specifically trained to recognize and act on red flags.

Hard to read. https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-gun-violence-on-children-and-teens/

[Tgo01]

When the parents didn't take action, the school chose to send the 'dangerous' student that literally wrote a letter a teacher saw that said "help..." back to class. The school and those in charge should be held as responsible if not more since they are specifically trained to recognize and act on red flags.

It really irks me how people are ignoring the school's role in this simply because the DA chose to charge the parents.

The district superintendent even said the school counselor was trained for this and was an expert and yet this trained expert said the student wasn't a danger to himself or to others and that it was safe for him to go back to class. Oh but oh no! The non-expert parents didn't consult their spirit guide that morning because they should have known more than the expert.

[Seran]

The school counselor was a subject matter expert in counseling students, not divining the parents armed the little terrorist, not invoking x-ray vision to figure out kid brought the negligently unsecured weapon to school. You want to know who the experts were for that kid? The ones who raised him, who spent every day with the kid. They should have known what was going on, they should have warned the school he had access to a gun.

You keep saying the school should have culpability. For what? Not forcing the parents to take a kid they refused to bring home? For not taking the kid to another classroom, where he would have just started shooting anyways? No, the parents refused to take responsibility for their child and the school had /no/ means of forcing the minor off campus if there was no legal guardian to take custody.

School officials aren't omniscient. Nor are they free to violate the civil rights of kids whom they have no just reason to illegally search or detain. The parents did, could have, but didn't.

[Tgo01]

The school counselor was a subject matter expert in counseling students, not divining the parents armed the little terrorist, not invoking x-ray vision to figure out kid brought the negligently unsecured weapon to school.

See what I mean? The trained expert said the child wasn't a danger to himself or anyone else but somehow this trained expert gets a pass but the parents were supposed to use THEIR x-ray vision to know their son brought the gun to school.

Also you're beyond fucking retarded if you think trained experts only ascertain if someone is a danger to themselves or others if they have access to a firearm. There are many ways for someone to hurt themselves or others. A trained expert isn't gonna say "Yup! This teenager is perfectly safe! Well as long as they don't have access to a firearm! LOL! I'm a big fucking moron just like Seran!!!"

And also you're beyond beyond fucking retarded if you think this counselor wasn't trained in determining whether or not a student is a danger to themselves or others, that's why they said he wasn't a danger to anyone and why they told the parents the student needed counseling. Remember that's what you're basing your dumb ass shit on? If you're now suggesting the counselor ISN'T qualified to be making these determinations then it should piss you off even more that a school has a non-qualified person dealing with these sorts of issues.

Really you just painted yourself into a corner because you don't even think for 2 seconds before you spew dumb shit all over the internet.

[Jeril]

I don't like murderers? From my original message I would bet that the problem lies with the parenting. I feel like the kid probably had tried to reach out for help but the parents waved it off, I don't have proof it's just a hunch. Time will tell when the prosecution goes through discovery.

I really only think it's a waste in the sense of money the state will have to spend to incarcerate him. He murdered 4 people, 4 people who will never grow up and live their lives. He forfeited his own when he ended theirs unjustly.

Not many people do. But your comments seem to indicate a lot more than just disliking them. You seem to be treating this as if the kid is a cold blooded murderer and not what he was, a kid who didn't get the help he needed in time to prevent a tragedy from occurring. And if you really don't like this sort of thing happening, you should direct your time and energy towards things that will actually address the problem.

[drauz]

Not many people do. But your comments seem to indicate a lot more than just disliking them. You seem to be treating this as if the kid is a cold blooded murderer and not what he was, a kid who didn't get the help he needed in time to prevent a tragedy from occurring. And if you really don't like this sort of thing happening, you should direct your time and energy towards things that will actually address the problem.

Me spending less than 5 minutes saying a quick thought on an ancient forum isn't going to be better spent directed elsewhere in regards to the problem. I do think mental health is a huge problem in the world today and we need to focus more time and energy on it. For this case I think everyone failed him but at the end of the day he did murder 4 people. He shouldn't be released from prison or a mental health facility. Even if they put him on meds if released we can't be guaranteed he takes them and we have seen what can happen if he is off his meds. I think the school failed those kids the hardest though, I've said my hunch about the parents. That kid should not have been allowed to return to class until he got at least the mandated counseling, period.

[Seran]

Not many people do. But your comments seem to indicate a lot more than just disliking them. You seem to be treating this as if the kid is a cold blooded murderer and not what he was, a kid who didn't get the help he needed in time to prevent a tragedy from occurring. And if you really don't like this sort of thing happening, you should direct your time and energy towards things that will actually address the problem.

What an assanine remark. The kid was a cold blooded murder, as proven by his premeditation. The biggest failure was the parents arming him. I highly doubt we'd have had many serious injuries, much less deaths if the kid only had access to kitchen knives. Equipping your emo kids with firearms they have unfettered access to should be the next NRA educational campaign.

Guns are great, both for hunting and for self protection. We don't need firearm control as much as we need better parents.

[Methais]

A trained expert isn't gonna say "Yup! This teenager is perfectly safe! Well as long as they don't have access to a firearm! LOL! I'm a big fucking moron just like Seran!!!"

:lol:

[Astray]

You had to be blind to not see the red flags.

Also, the parents asking for their bail to be lowered is hilarious.

[LOL BRIELUS]

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2021/12/23/oxford-school-shooting-prosecutor-disclose-details-about-parents/9007584002/

Some people shouldn't be parents

[Tgo01]

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2021/12/23/oxford-school-shooting-prosecutor-disclose-details-about-parents/9007584002/

Some people shouldn't be parents


Meanwhile, the parents were focusing on their own issues, things like extramarital affairs, financial issues and substance abuse.

When did Democrats become the Puritan party?

I mean bring on all of the evidence you have but what does the mother supposedly having an extramarital affair have to do with anything at all other than to make some sort of moral statement? And the parents were focused on their financial issues? You mean like almost every single American in the poor and middle class? What monsters!

[Bhaalizmo]

When did Democrats become the Puritan party?

I mean bring on all of the evidence you have but what does the mother supposedly having an extramarital affair have to do with anything at all other than to make some sort of moral statement? And the parents were focused on their financial issues? You mean like almost every single American in the poor and middle class? What monsters!

oh no.

anyway

[Tgo01]

oh no.

anyway

Yes we all know what a horrible person and huge hypocrite you are. Why don't you judge this woman for supposedly having an extramarital affair in your thread where you objectify women on a daily basis.

[Bhaalizmo]

Yes we all know what a horrible person and huge hypocrite you are.

Really? Do tell, mofacka.


Why don't you judge this woman bla bla fucking bla.

Nope.

[Tgo01]

Nope.

Got'em!

[Bhaalizmo]

Got'em!

https://media.giphy.com/media/MB0xT7Izw5GtZVPPMm/giphy.gif

[Methais]

Most people shouldn't be parents

Fixed.

[Seran]

Some closure for their community to have this monster hopefully locked up for life. Everyone will have to wait a bit longer for the parent's charges to be brought to trial.


DETROIT (AP) — A teenager accused of killing four fellow students and injuring more at a Michigan high school is expected to plead guilty to murder next week, authorities said Friday.

Ethan Crumbley had created images of violence during a classroom assignment last November but was not sent home from Oxford High School in southeastern Michigan. He pulled out a gun a few hours later and committed a mass shooting.

Authorities have pinned some responsibility on Crumbley’s parents, portraying them as a dysfunctional pair who ignored their son’s mental health needs and happily provided a gun as a gift just days before the attack. They also face charges.

Crumbley, 16, is due in court Monday.

“We can confirm that the shooter is expected to plead guilty to all 24 charges, including terrorism, and the prosecutor has notified the victims,” said David Williams, chief assistant prosecutor in Oakland County.

https://apnews.com/article/david-williams-michigan-detroit-shootings-oxford-high-school-shooting-f6342ba9abfb78eaaa92749532b27316

[Gelston]

Some closure for their community to have this monster hopefully locked up for life. Everyone will have to wait a bit longer for the parent's charges to be brought to trial.



https://apnews.com/article/david-williams-michigan-detroit-shootings-oxford-high-school-shooting-f6342ba9abfb78eaaa92749532b27316

You enjoy eating poop.

[Seran]

Nice to see some culpability for bad parents who buy guns for their children they've failed to supervise properly.


Mother of Oxford, Michigan, school shooter found guilty of manslaughter

JUST IN: A jury found Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the teenager who killed four students at an Oxford, Michigan, high school in 2021, guilty of four counts of involuntary manslaughter.


Crumbley is set to be sentenced on April 9. Each count of involuntary manslaughter carries a maximum punishment of up to 15 years in prison, which would run concurrently.


This trial stands as a test of the limits of who’s responsible for a school shooting. Her husband, James Crumbley, is scheduled to go to trial on the same charges in early March.



In particular, prosecutors accuse the gunman’s parents of disregarding the risks when they bought a gun for their son four days before the shooting, even though he was struggling with his mental health and contemplating violence. They also say the parents did not mention the gun to school officials in a meeting to discuss Ethan’s disturbing drawings just hours before the fatal shooting.


Their son Ethan pleaded guilty to one count of terrorism causing death, four counts of murder and 19 other charges related to the deadly rampage. He was sentenced last year to life in prison without parole.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/oxford-shooting-jennifer-crumbley-trial-verdict/index.html

[Methais]

Nice to see some culpability for bad parents who buy guns for their children they've failed to supervise properly.







https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/oxford-shooting-jennifer-crumbley-trial-verdict/index.html

Up next: Culpability for Seran's parents for producing the dumbest person to ever live.

[Parkbandit]

Up next: Culpability for Seran's parents for producing the dumbest person to ever live.

I'm not one for forced sterilization, but they both should have the procedure.

We don't have to worry about sErAn. He's on a forced abstinence sentence... even though Republicans are blocking it.