Michigan mom of school shooter convicted of manslaughter

This sets a very bad precedent, and it's almost sure not to survive an appeal.
​
Before the verdict came down on Tuesday, TV5 spoke to a mid-Michigan attorney about what a guilty verdict could mean for legal precedent moving forward​
​
“Could a prosecutor arguably say a husband is responsible for the criminal acts of his wife? Or is a wife responsible for the criminal acts of a husband when they knew or should’ve known that they were going to be committing these acts? It’s somewhat of a slippery slope concern that I have when you start opening up more ways to hold individuals accountable for the acts of a particular person. Because traditionally in this country, only the person who commits the wrongful act is the one that gets criminally prosecuted,” said attorney Philip Ellison. <source>​
​
​
​
Stephen J Morse, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, said he disagreed with the verdict, arguing that because Ethan Crumbley had pleaded guilty, he was the only one responsible for the shooting.​
​
"I understand that she was not necessarily the best mother in the world, but this is not a crime," he said.​
​
Mr Morse said he believed the decision could set a bad precedent, causing courts to look for "scapegoats" in similar situations. <source>​
 
ALAYMAN said:
Some opinion pieces giving weight to how this scenario sets a dangerous precedent….

Link

Link

Link
Click to expand...
The NYT article is behind and paywall. (We need to discuss your subscrition choices in the near future, btw :) )

The Yahoo article is a good read and supplies context.

The Huff Post article makes some good points too, but they apply them to their push for DEI and gun control.
 
Ekklesian said:
The NYT article is behind and paywall. (We need to discuss your subscrition choices in the near future, btw :) )

The Yahoo article is a good read and supplies context.

The Huff Post article makes some good points too, but they apply them to their push for DEI and gun control.
Click to expand...

NYT, you think I subscribe (to ANY of these)??? LOL, not a chance! I ain't real technologically adept, so I don't understand those ideosyncratic quirks where something is barred for one user and not another, but rest assured, my access to it wasn't due to any subscriptions. All three sources have typical liberal leanings, which surprised me that there was ANY value in their citations, but as you noted, reading them and factoring their own angle or bias, it provides enough context to really question the rationale behind finding a parent culpable of their child's actions.

And my main point, as I think yours was (per your recent citation/quote) is that the precedent being set here opens the door for the leftwing anti-gun agenda to use vice-like coercion to enact new threats to gun liberty.
 
ALAYMAN said:
And my main point, as I think yours was (per your recent citation/quote) is that the precedent being set here opens the door for the leftwing anti-gun agenda to use vice-like coercion to enact new threats to gun liberty.
Click to expand...
Among other more sinister things, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top