I agree. Let us see what the appellate courts think. I defer to the appellate courts.

https://apple.news/AwZWp0SsVQCmGQt4eC4tSuw

You cannot give your child access to a firearm and ignore factual circumstances that make his using that firearm to harm others foreseeable.

This is an example of caselaw, common law responding with a recognized theory and elements of a crime to the fact pattern when the legislature (federal) refuses.

Take reasonable precautions to secure your firearms when you have juveniles at home.

No, guns have been consecrated as sacred objects by God and the NRA and nothing can be done to limit access to them by anybody who wants to shoot something or somebody.

I had always thought that your responsibility was limited to civil in situations like this because while you could be in error to the level that the average man would find it wrong, because it’s an independent agent, you couldn’t be beyond a reasonable doubt.

It will be interesting to see how the courts rule here. It has a lot of far reaching implications.

I am responsible for damage my dog does but not my kids. Who can doubt that humans are far more dangerous than dogs. The "why" is the fact that courts and legislatures are made up of parents who are scared to death to be held responsible for their occasional monsters.

They may allow this for gun related crime but that is it. There will be serious resistance to expanding it beyond "evil" inanimate objects like guns. Your kids kill people with drugs or cars and you are still relatively secure from being responsible for what you created.

The precedent has been set. Watch how this affects parental responsibility going forward( and possibly charges going backward).

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
I am responsible for damage my dog does but not my kids. Who can doubt that humans are far more dangerous than dogs. The "why" is the fact that courts and legislatures are made up of parents who are scared to death to be held responsible for their occasional monsters.

They may allow this for gun related crime but that is it. There will be serious resistance to expanding it beyond "evil" inanimate objects like guns. Your kids kill people with drugs or cars and you are still relatively secure from being responsible for what you created.

Parents have already been convicted of children gaining access to drugs given to other kids when reasonable precautions are not met. Civil liability for cars is universal depends on the facts.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I had always thought that your responsibility was limited to civil in situations like this because while you could be in error to the level that the average man would find it wrong, because it’s an independent agent, you couldn’t be beyond a reasonable doubt.

It will be interesting to see how the courts rule here. It has a lot of far reaching implications.

That has never been the case. The words you are searching for are subsequent superseding cause. You can be criminally liable for another’s action. Look at felony murder for an easy answer or facilitation.

I have no idea if the Michigan state appellate courts will hold this based on issues of foreseeability and duty. Those civil elements are still part of the criminal act.

We are so Victim nation
We are just looking for blame until we find some

We have 7 victims. 4 of those are dead in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:
I am responsible for damage my dog does but not my kids. Who can doubt that humans are far more dangerous than dogs. The "why" is the fact that courts and legislatures are made up of parents who are scared to death to be held responsible for their occasional monsters.

They may allow this for gun related crime but that is it. There will be serious resistance to expanding it beyond "evil" inanimate objects like guns. Your kids kill people with drugs or cars and you are still relatively secure from being responsible for what you created.

This ruling is based on the object being an “evil” firearm.
I doubt there would be much advancement of this case if the weapon had been a golf club or kitchen knife.

What about the father?

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
What about the father?

Nancy Lanza might have been liable for Adam's misdeeds, but she was already dead.
Adam's father had already taken off with a younger woman and abandoned the difficult kid. He skates...

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
What about the father?

Nancy Lanza might have been liable for Adam's misdeeds, but she was already dead.
Adam's father had already taken off with a younger woman and abandoned the difficult kid. He skates...

But he still produced the evil spawn. He should be held accountable too. His taking off with someone else may be a part of the problem. Imprison him as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
What about the father?

Apparently you can let your minor kid chose his own sex and all that goes with it, but if he kills someone, that's your fault.

Father is set for trial March 5.

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
We are so Victim nation
We are just looking for blame until we find some

If your son murders another/ others, the parents are guilty. I'm a dad, I don't see any other way to think about it. I take complete responsibility for my child. I don't lay blame with the mother or school or neighbor or priest, I take responsibility, no exceptions.

Well, this lady wasn't found guilty just because the shooter is her spawn. He was 15 years old and a nut with a lot of problems and she bought the rifle for him.

And refused to intervene when given da ta that he was violent.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Well, this lady wasn't found guilty just because the shooter is her spawn. He was 15 years old and a nut with a lot of problems and she bought the rifle for him.

Agreed.

You seem to be making a case for parents to be able to voluntarily give custody of their ill behaved children to the state.

I’ve talked with more than a few parents who have mentally ill/disturbed kids where they know there is a problem, and the system forces them to take them home and offers only roadblocks to dealing with disciplinary or chemical dependency issues.

Face it, some people either can’t be fixed or refuse to be fixed. I have real issues with making some attorney’s idea of right a liability to a parent.

You can find abuses on both sides of this issue.

That was my point as well Doc

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
We are so Victim nation
We are just looking for blame until we find some

If your son murders another/ others, the parents are guilty. I'm a dad, I don't see any other way to think about it. I take complete responsibility for my child. I don't lay blame with the mother or school or neighbor or priest, I take responsibility, no exceptions.

Easy to condemn
I have seen plenty of good upstanding parents with messed up kids
Like I said before, it’s very easy to put blame somewhere but nothing is ever black and white
I can also see your point and I can see in some instances it is warranted

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You seem to be making a case for parents to be able to voluntarily give custody of their ill behaved children to the state.

I’ve talked with more than a few parents who have mentally ill/disturbed kids where they know there is a problem, and the system forces them to take them home and offers only roadblocks to dealing with disciplinary or chemical dependency issues.

Face it, some people either can’t be fixed or refuse to be fixed. I have real issues with making some attorney’s idea of right a liability to a parent.

You can find abuses on both sides of this issue.

I agree with all you wrote.

But!

Did their parents buy them guns?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You seem to be making a case for parents to be able to voluntarily give custody of their ill behaved children to the state.

I’ve talked with more than a few parents who have mentally ill/disturbed kids where they know there is a problem, and the system forces them to take them home and offers only roadblocks to dealing with disciplinary or chemical dependency issues.

Face it, some people either can’t be fixed or refuse to be fixed. I have real issues with making some attorney’s idea of right a liability to a parent.

You can find abuses on both sides of this issue.

Jim hits it on the head.

When you talked to those parents with mentally ill and/or disturbed kids, did the subject of those parents buying the kid an AR-15 come up?

Actually, one had brought his kid a shotgun as when he was younger he had loved hunting with his dad. He was trying to get him to reengage in his old life before drugs.

In this sad case, the kid eventually died of a drug OD.

From this conviction, that they didn't prevent the kid from leaving the house the parents should be able to be tried for homicide (the kid) as it was a likelihood that the kid would OD at some point and they didn't stop him?

Honestly, the parents punished themselves more than the court ever could. They divorced in the aftermath and the dad (the one I know) is not anything like his old self.

How many kids kill themselves with hunting arms that their parents gave them? That's a much more common violent outcome than mass murder.

It all comes down to free agency.

Most juvenile suicides are w mom or dad’s handgun.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
You seem to be making a case for parents to be able to voluntarily give custody of their ill behaved children to the state.

I’ve talked with more than a few parents who have mentally ill/disturbed kids where they know there is a problem, and the system forces them to take them home and offers only roadblocks to dealing with disciplinary or chemical dependency issues.

Face it, some people either can’t be fixed or refuse to be fixed. I have real issues with making some attorney’s idea of right a liability to a parent.

You can find abuses on both sides of this issue.

I agree with all you wrote.

But!

Did their parents buy them guns?

It is not just buying the gun, not restricting access to the gun, it is refusing to act when the school shows you, your child has engaged in behavior demonstrating he is thinking of using the gun to kill. In this case, the kid had unrestricted access, was hearing things prior and other mental health symptoms, and the school showed told mom here is the picture your son drew depicting using gun to kill in the classroom.

Mom is hit with all that evidence and says, “ I had no concerns.” Well, a reasonable person w those facts would have had concerns the child was violent. Mom turned a blind eye, and folks died.

Dad will have his day on March 5.

Appellate review notwithstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Most juvenile suicides are w mom or dad’s handgun.

That has not been my experience.

Most suicides have been with a parent/other family members purchased firearm, yes. (Given the laws, its impossible for a child to buy a gun... so its always legally in someone else's name... barring illegally obtained guns)

Usually a long arm.

Child (under 10) usually are a handgun as little kids can't manipulate a long arm well, and those are accidents.

I spent about 30 minutes looking through various medical and legal reports and didn't find a breakdown of handgun/long gun for child/adolescent suicide.

Per the stats, which coincidentally in the case of most medical/pediatric journals lump everyone to age 20 as "child" the suicide rates are higher in whites than black/hispanic/asian kids.

The highest are american indian/alaskan native.

Its when you start adding in the homicide numbers that the minorities start pulling ahead.

The stats are so convoluted that it looks like the 18-20 age group actually predominates the numbers.

I'd post links but the site I used was a professional one behind some paywalls.

I will get you the stats which you are feee to disagree with.

79% used a family member's gun. Almost 3/4 of firearm suicides involved a handgun, ranging from 62% for youth to 92% for women.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/...522001141?via%3Dihub

There are a lot more households w handguns and children then households w long guns and children for hunting.

Thanks.

I do know that in MN we do not collect that information as part of the medical data.

It would be in the investigating officer's data but I don't think its tabulated anywhere.

Again, most of my experience is long arms.

That it was an Elservier journal is probably why it did not show up in my searches.

You are welcome. O do not doubt your local observations given what I think is a rural practice in an area that has hunting families.

The author actually presented at a CLE I had to go to as a prosecutor. That is how I knew about it.