Another school shooting in MI... (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

You claimed, and I quote, that mandatory mins were put in place to guarantee private jails that they could maintain their operating quotas, that mandatory sentences were.

That may be true - although you'd need to offer some evidence of that - but the other function of mandatory sentences is to assure there is some level of punishment for whatever crime was committed. If we do away with mandatory sentences - and by your comment you are clearly against them - and leave sentencing to the discretion of the judge, then it could happen that someone like Derek Chauvin could not see jail time for what he did, if he gets a sympathetic judge.

As it is, we already have cases in which people who are found guilty of felonies are set free on probation (i.e., until they are caught again).

And I am almost 100% sure that you are not going to suggest to let a jury determine the sentence.

Since you’re asking, I would have judges open to review by civilian boards like I want police to be
Or some mix of local civilians and out of state bar evaluators

But again my central contention about waiting until sentencing to try to fix crime is *** backwards

 

[SystemShock]

Since you’re asking, I would have judges open to review by civilian boards

Like I said, I was almost 100% sure

You really want civilians who know nothing about the law reviewing legal cases?

But again my central contention about waiting until sentencing to try to fix crime is *** backwards

What do you mean by "fix crime"?

 

[DaveXA]

Since you’re asking, I would have judges open to review by civilian boards like I want police to be
Or some mix of local civilians and out of state bar evaluators

But again my central contention about waiting until sentencing to try to fix crime is *** backwards

Well, I agree sentencing has nothing to do with fixing crime.

 

[Dago]

Getting back to the subject, let me preface this by saying
1) we don't know the facts yet so my opinion is fluid and is obviously at this point dependent upon the accuracy of this article and
2) as I stated in the Rittenhouse thread, if we are going to be able to have a decent discussion it needs to be realized that there is a difference between what our opinion is and what the law is. Some in here can't separate the two
3) I am not knowledgeable about Michigan state laws with this so if someone is feel free to correct me or set me straight

Dramatic Day Reveals Details About the Parents of a School Shooting Suspect

In a tense arraignment Saturday morning, James and Jennifer Crumbley listened by videoconference from separate jail cells as they were charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shootings of four Oxford High School students, who, police say, were gunned down by the couple’s 15-year-old...

www.yahoo.com

The article states that the school counselors determined that the kid was not a danger to himself or anybody else and both the school administration and parents were made aware of that determination.

During the arraignment, apparently the prosecutor stated that one of the major reasons for the charges is that the parents should have informed the school administration that the kid had access to a firearm. While I agree and FEEL that is right, what law did they violate by failing to do so especially after the school made the determination the kid wasn't a threat to himself or anybody else?

Where do we draw the line on this? Do we charge the parents of the minors involved in the coordinated shop lifting? Do we charge parents for their kids being in gangs?

Before somebody says "yeah but those aren't shooting up a school", that isn't how the law works. It's about the principle of holding parents accountable for the illegal actions of their kids. Period. You don't pick and choose by situation and offense (although an argument could be made for felony vs misdemeanor I suppose)

Again, I don't know the details of Michigan's laws, but based on what was in that article (and of course not knowing other details) I wonder if there is anything there to truly legally support the charges. Is this prosecutor just playing to the crowd?

 

[SWJJ]

Mandatory minimums were put into place for the for-profit prison system.

Judges with poor discretion (like letting rapists go free) is why voters supported the policies.


Too often the populace supports an "idea" but the execution of the idea (or writing of the legislation) is done in a nefarious manner.


Another example is environmental regulations on industry. It sounds like a great idea, lets pass regulations that will reduce the amount of environmental damage industry can do. Then the actual legislation gets written by corporate lobbyist. The regulations are written with the end goal of being expensive or cumbersome to small business to create a barrier to entry for competition, leaving only the largest corporations able to compete in that industry, but it's done under the "guise" of environmentalism.

So mandatory minimums sound great because we quote outliers like 3rd DUI or Rapists not being properly sentenced, and then write 30 year mandatory minimums on things like "If you have possession of a weapon while in possession of narcotics (including pot)"

 

[sfidc3]

Where do we draw the line on this? Do we charge the parents of the minors involved in the coordinated shop lifting? Do we charge parents for their kids being in gangs?

Before somebody says "yeah but those aren't shooting up a school", that isn't how the law works. It's about the principle of holding parents accountable for the illegal actions of their kids. Period. You don't pick and choose by situation and offense (although an argument could be made for felony vs misdemeanor I suppose)

Again, I don't know the details of Michigan's laws, but based on what was in that article (and of course not knowing other details) I wonder if there is anything there to truly legally support the charges. Is this prosecutor just playing to the crowd?

I hear what you are saying, slippery slope and all....BUT, this seems to be a pretty clear case of negligence leading to willful endangerment...if it's not, then I would like someone who knows more about the law than I do explain how it is not....

 

[porculator]

What do you mean by " 'normal' gun violence" ? Gang violence? Accidents?

The big difference is that a school is full of kids from 6 years old and up who are dropped there by their parents so their kids can learn math, science, history... not so they can get into fights on the streets on weekend nights.

Well, there are thousands of minors shot to death every year. Reasons obviously vary, but mass school shootings are very low on the list.

And yes, I'm sure many of the older ones put themselves in harm's way - fights on the streets as you put it. But even given those variables, when it comes to innocent kids getting shot, school shootings are barely a blip on the radar.

 

[Dago]

I hear what you are saying, slippery slope and all....BUT, this seems to be a pretty clear case of negligence leading to willful endangerment...if it's not, then I would like someone who knows more about the law than I do explain how it is not....

I admit that I don't know Michigan's laws on the subject but if the parents were negligent then what about the professional counselors who declared him no danger to himself or anybody else?

Again...I think these parents are morons and wouldn't feel bad if somebody punched them dead in the face but how I feel and the legality of the situation are potentially two different things

 

[Tapxe]

I admit that I don't know Michigan's laws on the subject but if the parents were negligent then what about the professional counselors who declared him no danger to himself or anybody else?

Again...I think these parents are morons and wouldn't feel bad if somebody punched them dead in the face but how I feel and the legality of the situation are potentially two different things

Could this hinge on them providing him access to the weapon and ammunition? Did the councilors know about that?

 

[Dago]

Could this hinge on them providing him access to the weapon and ammunition? Did the councilors know about that?

And I think that's where we are missing info on the details of their laws. Did they violate any laws by allowing him access? My opinion at this point is no because they aren't being charged with anything regarding that. Again, the school and the professional counselors apparently accepted the kids explanation for the drawing (designing a video game) and probably handed the parents a great defense....why would they think anything of it when the professionals said he wasn't a danger to anybody?

Hell why wouldn't a state prohibit firearm use by a minor except in the presence and supervision of a parent or guardian? Seems to me if there was a law like that it would make it easier to charge parents if they provided the child access to the firearm

 

[bigdaddysaints]

Well, if the reports are true that they did buy the gun for him as a present, then i don't have a problem with the charges againt the parents. I think there could be a difference in Allowing him access vs giving him the gun as a gift. could that constitute ownership?

 

[sfidc3]

I admit that I don't know Michigan's laws on the subject but if the parents were negligent then what about the professional counselors who declared him no danger to himself or anybody else?

Again...I think these parents are morons and wouldn't feel bad if somebody punched them dead in the face but how I feel and the legality of the situation are potentially two different things

I don't disagree that the school is culpable as well but the parents should go to jail for a long, long time....

 

[Dago]

I don't disagree that the school is culpable as well but the parents should go to jail for a long, long time....

I keep seeing people say this but nobody has told me what law they have violated.

I can't stress enough that I think they are horrible people but that isn't enough to put people in jail. That's my point...I even stated a law I believe should exist so that they could be put in jail

 

[Crzycjunx76]

Like cake in a crisis.

 

[Semper]

Getting back to the subject, let me preface this by saying
1) we don't know the facts yet so my opinion is fluid and is obviously at this point dependent upon the accuracy of this article and
2) as I stated in the Rittenhouse thread, if we are going to be able to have a decent discussion it needs to be realized that there is a difference between what our opinion is and what the law is. Some in here can't separate the two
3) I am not knowledgeable about Michigan state laws with this so if someone is feel free to correct me or set me straight

Dramatic Day Reveals Details About the Parents of a School Shooting Suspect

In a tense arraignment Saturday morning, James and Jennifer Crumbley listened by videoconference from separate jail cells as they were charged with involuntary manslaughter in the fatal shootings of four Oxford High School students, who, police say, were gunned down by the couple’s 15-year-old...

www.yahoo.com

The article states that the school counselors determined that the kid was not a danger to himself or anybody else and both the school administration and parents were made aware of that determination.

During the arraignment, apparently the prosecutor stated that one of the major reasons for the charges is that the parents should have informed the school administration that the kid had access to a firearm. While I agree and FEEL that is right, what law did they violate by failing to do so especially after the school made the determination the kid wasn't a threat to himself or anybody else?

Where do we draw the line on this? Do we charge the parents of the minors involved in the coordinated shop lifting? Do we charge parents for their kids being in gangs?

Before somebody says "yeah but those aren't shooting up a school", that isn't how the law works. It's about the principle of holding parents accountable for the illegal actions of their kids. Period. You don't pick and choose by situation and offense (although an argument could be made for felony vs misdemeanor I suppose)

Again, I don't know the details of Michigan's laws, but based on what was in that article (and of course not knowing other details) I wonder if there is anything there to truly legally support the charges. Is this prosecutor just playing to the crowd?

Prosecutor playing to the crowd. The parents did not violate any laws. Were they negligent, yes. But we can't pit people in prison because we don't like their actions. The school should be responsible if that article is true, meaning they said the kid was no danger.