Father of Michigan school shooter found guilty of involuntary manslaughter

ickplant@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 371 points –
Father of Michigan school shooter found guilty of involuntary manslaughter
theguardian.com
106

You are viewing a single comment

And now there's a precedent set to help stop with your school shootings America, everytime an underage person gets hold of and uses a gun on other people, you can now charge the parents, once a couple more go down you watch how quickly people start properly securing their guns away or more on the extreme side, just give most of them up.

You have something to help stop school shootings, please use it America, it's too saddening seeing how many children die at your school's when it could be dealt with just be properly securing your guns away from children.

This case will cause a chilling effect but in a backward sort of way. The reality is that nobody is likely to be convicted in the way Crumbley was, because Crumbley was so unbelievably stupid it was literally criminal. So the only people who will be convicted under this precedent are the equally stupid.

But more intelligent parents will take note, get scared, and hopefully lock up their guns so their insane kids can't use them to shoot up the school.

Yeah I was iffy on the charges until I heard the details. From what I’ve heard the crumbleys were negligent on a level that’s difficult to sufficiently express

Actually the level of ignorance is easy to express, if you’re William Faulkner. There are vast swaths of humanity that are dumb as fucking rocks. It’s not polite to talk about but as someone involved in education admin, there are these kinds of parents EVERYWHERE. I’ve literally sat in disciplinary appeals where the parents try to explain that their child HAD to have a concealed dagger for protection. In a k-12 school with 400 kids total, no school resource officers/popo, no fights, highly involved parents, etc. Um, no, your child is expelled and I’m slightly terrified that they’ll shoot us up when they turn 20 and start going schizto.

Just another reason to not waste time with guns. The risk-benefit just isn't there.

People want to feel in control and I get that. Take a natural disaster like a wildfire or something. It's pretty much entirely out of your control. In a burglary, robbery, etc., it too is out of your control you just don't realize it. The events leading up to that were set in stone in some failure in the assailant's life, society, etc.

Everyone thinks a gun will make them safer but study after study shows the added risks from a variety of vectors outweighs the alleged safety that comes from possessing one.

In essence, if people had a special device that deterred the one in a million wildfire somehow but that device subsequently elevated the risk of your family being hurt in some other way to a greater degree who would rationally possess such a device?

It concerns me that there seems to be an obvious astroturfed effort to "arm the left" that reflects the ProPublics investigation on right-wing extremists seeking to muddy the waters between the sides and sow a civil / race war. The only people jumping in glee from this are firearm manufacturers who see a new market to tap.

It concerns me that there seems to be an obvious astroturfed effort to “arm the left”

Riiiight... because the only way the left could possibly ever arm itself is because of astroturfing, right?

Somehow, I don't think you know what left means, genius.

Hahah, quoting Marx when -- tell me -- how popular is Marx anyway in the US? Going to give you a hint and note that the figure is somewhere <=1%.

That you believe Marx speaks for every leftist in America in some strangely divine authoritarian reference.... Allllriiighty, then, genius.

Most, if not all, leftists accept Marx's ideation of capitalism - even anarchists, who can be pretty disdainful of Marx otherwise. If you don't, you're not a leftist.

So... do you have any other reason to disarm the left apart from your silly little liberal conspiracy theory?

So by extension, they all accept his word on firearms? You speak for all leftists? How awfully convenient!

Alllriiightyyy, then.... Your logical fallacy is: Non-Sequitur.

I can give you a plethora of reasons worth the time honestly, but given your usage of fallacies and blindly presumptuous takes ("silly little liberal"), I'm just not sure it's worth my time.

they all accept his word on firearms?

Find out for yourself here or here.

Somehow, I doubt you're going to try.

I can give you a plethora of reasons worth the time honestly

And yet you haven't... no surprises there.

(“silly little liberal”)

Yes, I called your silly little liberal conspiracy theory a silly little liberal conspiracy theory - because it's a silly little liberal conspiracy theory.

c/leftism and c/anarchism is a representative sample of all lefitsts....? Citation needed, please!

Why would I need to try when your argument is fallacious out of the gate? I'm a self-described leftist and I disagree. I'm living-proof you're objectively incorrect. But please proceed with obvious gatekeeping.

And yet you haven’t… no surprises there.

Of course, I gave the precise reason as to why. With fallacies like these, why would I consider an in-depth discussion? Explain.

Yes, I called your silly little liberal conspiracy theory a silly little liberal conspiracy theory - because it’s a silly little liberal conspiracy theory.

Since when is ProPublica a conspiracy theory? It's well-documented this is precisely what righties and firearm manufacturers want. Or is it that difficult to comprehend that firearm manufacturers would want to make more money by selling to a wider market?

c/leftism and c/anarchism is a representative sample of all lefitsts…?

Yeah... I had an idea you wouldn't want actual leftists dropping their two cents onto your shitty little lib conspiracy theory.

Can I spot a liberal or can I spot a liberal?

Of course, I gave the precise reason as to why.

You have given absolutely nothing.

precisely what righties and firearm manufacturers want.

Riiiiight... arming the left is exactly what right-wingers want - that is why they rushed to support the Black Panthers when they started packing heat, right?

I think I might have a bridge to sell you. Interested?

Yeah… I had an idea you wouldn’t want actual leftists dropping their two cents onto your shitty little lib conspiracy theory.

No-true Scot Fallacy. You just can't stop from making fallacies and gatekeeping as you make statistical errors for a population pool that is — checks notes — <1% of the population... Thinking a fringe subreddit comprised of anonymity and astroturfers is going to represent all leftists in America, LOL. Come on kid, lay off the weed and start to use that noggin for but a moment, would you?

Can I spot a liberal or can I spot a liberal?

Can I spot a silly little revolutionary at — oh let me guess — the ripe age of around 22-years-old? Though I may be pushing it and you've yet to break out of your teens. A classic tale old as time, substituting bullets for brains.

You have given absolutely nothing.

Perhaps if your reading-comprehension isn't so good, this may be the case?

Riiiiight… arming the left is exactly what right-wingers want - that is why they rushed to support the Black Panthers when they started packing heat, right?

Times have changed, buddy. At the moment, right-wing extremists are getting destroyed in the media because the contrast between left and right-wing violence is so stark. No matter how hard they try the BoTh SiDeS bullshit is just no longer sticking. While the left remains largely unarmed, the right is causing all sorts of chaos with violent attacks and it's taking a toll on their ideology's popularity. Their leaders are being charged; the DOJ is highlighting right-wing extremism as the #1 domestic terrorist threat. So what do these right-wing dipshits obviously want? To muddy the waters and escalate things and radicalize the left. But at the moment they know they can't, and it's making them look really bad. Let's keep it that way, mmmkay? Again, let's use brains over bullets.

Stationed at North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune and assigned to the 2nd Marine Logistics Group, Pistolis has associated with an array of neo-Nazi organizations, including the National Socialist Movement, the Traditionalist Worker Party, and Atomwaffen Division, a clandestine group that aims to incite a race war, according to interviews and an analysis of video and online postings. Pistolis is under investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, or NCIS, which typically examines felony-level offenses involving Navy or Marine Corps personnel.

Also I didn't think it took much ink to connect the dots that all you're doing is making rich firearm manufacturer executives & shareholders happy with the purchase of your firearm that makes you feel mighty, but you sure dodged that. Indeed, you're really taking on the Bourgeoisie, LOL.

You just can’t stop from making fallacies

Soooo... you're still not prepared to try your silly little liberal conspiracy theory on actual leftists?

Aaaaand... I'm still not surprised.

Perhaps

Aaaand... you still have nothing except a silly little liberal conspiracy theory.

Times have changed, buddy.

Right, right... times have changed. Liberals (like you) are still trying to peace-police leftists to protect your oh-so-precious status quo.

Dangle that slender thread of hope, liberal.

radicalize the left.

ROFLMAO!

Again... this is your brain on liberalism, folks.

I guess you haven't heard, eh? The left has always been radicalized. That's what us leftists are, genius - RADICALS.

Good lord... the liberal brain-rot is coming out of your ears so thick it must be stinking the place up.

lol you're losing it, kid. You've got nothing. Thanks for all but conceding defeat. Just lay off the weed and get through school before taking on the bourgeoisie, mmkay? Keep making those firearm execs rich, you little capitalist!

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

You already have that device it's called matches or a car.

This is not as clever as you believe it to be.

I particularly use a car on the daily whose primary purpose is to take me from point-A to point-B. You know, the part where I said Risk-Benefit...?

Tell me what the primary use of a firearm in my home is on a daily-basis other than being an active risk.

Tell me what the primary use of a firearm in my home is on a daily-basis other than being an active risk.

Well, it serves multiple purposes, actually! For starters, it makes a fantastic paperweight when I have too many documents on my desk. Secondly, if I ever run out of popcorn kernels while watching a movie, I can just load some small ones into the gun and shoot them into a frying pan. It also works great as a marshmallow launcher during backyard bonfires - that'll impress all your friends at your next neighborhood get-together. Oh, and last but not least, you can use it as a walking stick or a selfie stick for those hard-to-reach angles. Clearly, there are several creative ways to utilize a firearm in everyday life.

The primary use is to protect you from someone who attempts to cause you harm. It’s only an active risk if not understood how to use and not properly out of reach of those who do not understand. I don’t like guns but I am not sure what you are trying to argue?

This mindset is like the motorcyclists or automobile drivers who espouse they don't plan on wrecking because they're good drivers, lmao.

Welcome to why we have speed-limits;; sure, some might know how to drive faster, but boy, when do my fellow males ever over-extend their confidence beyond their actual capability...?

lol anyways, the reality is that statistically the risk to those within the household from mere possession (safety accidents from children, suicide, domestic abuse/homicide, not opting to run, hide, flee, cooperate that are all better alternatives than engaging, statistically, theft of firearm and its use elsewhere) outweighs the safety. Full-stop. From a societal standpoint, that's kind of a bad ROI.

Yeah. Welcome to why we have safes we can lock?

... And thus in the words of Jim Jefferies, they're not exactly too great for protection in the heat-of-the-moment, now are they?

... And oh how I wish the vast majority of gun-owners were responsible enough to lock them away. Yet time and time again -- case in point here in this very article -- we see they cannot be trusted with the simple standard of locking away firearms.

Yeah. I agree with ya tbh. Just trying to play devils advocate to get a conversation going.

Sadly it’s impossible to argue for guns in good faith. Lol

1 more...

More Intelligent parents probably wouldn't have guns at home in the first place you sure this is going to change anything?

For many people, guns are used for sport (hunting). In rural areas, this is very common. Some people are just paranoid and feel the need to be armed. It's not stupid in its own right. If the owner of the gun knows how to secure it properly and takes the appropriate precautions, it can be safe to store firearms in a house. The problem is that too many people who own guns let their egos get too big and are neglectful of gun safety or downright stupid. That's when problems arise.

There is real nuance to this issue. Don't try to dumb it down to "gun owners are idiots".

Trust me, my rural neighbors on all fucking sides of me aren’t hunting with the ARs they start shooting the fucking moment the get home from church on Sundays. And given the number of stray bullet incidents, they ain’t Boy Scouts either.

Some people are just paranoid and feel the need to be armed.

Yep idiots. In a normal country wouldn't be allowed to own a deadly weapon. Maybe I am pushing it a bit too far because all other countries have hunters and a tiny fraction of the population with a good reason to own a firearm, but gun owners are idiots is a food enough approximation.

Also, you can store a nuclear weapon safely in a house doesn't mean any idiot should have one.

Yeah there's already the worst possible thing as the potential outcome so really can't see adding a tiny part to it will change anything. No one is thinking 'well as long as he's only shooting up the school I'll let him play with the guns' they're thinking 'I'm really smart and nothing bad will ever happen'.

I'm not saying it isn't a good idea because maybe it will stop one or two kids becoming killers which is more than worth it, though it's dangerous too if the kid decides it's how he'll get his revenge by doing a shooting and leaving a note saying his stepdad helped

1 more...

Hmm better make a reminder about this before I head into work as a district attorney

Yeah you'd better especially if you're a shitty parent giving an emotionally troubled teen access to a weapon, you'll end up with a special prosecutor rightfully charging your ass.

Remember Mr prosecutor this guy's wife thought it was more important to get finger banged by her lover instead of helping her child in crisis. They're trash people.

You've got some crazy wishful thinking if you think this is enough for people to give up their guns.

All I want is for people to properly secure their guns at best and not let their hormone filled children gain access to them.

We have shit loads of guns in Australia still, we just don't have it so any billy bob can go down and get a military spec assault rifle to "defend their home".

No we don't. And that was the solution to the problem, take rid of them

Yeah we do, you can still buy and own guns in Australia, it's just highly regulated and you have to have your weapon secured in a gun safe or at your gun club, which you have to be a member of to be able to purchase, I have a gun shop and a club just down the road from me and that clubs packed all weekend with people shooting.

No shit a shooting club is packed with people with a gun.

Doesn't mean Australia is packed with guns just because you see a handful of idiots down the road, that is not representative of the whole population. As you said heavily regulated, there's virtually no guns besides farms and the club down the road from you. Quick search puts AU at 14.5 guns per 100 population. Quite low in the list and well below civilised places like Canada, Switzerland and many eu countries.

What people on reddit and lemmy don't seem to understand is that the shock caused by ONE mass shooting, port Arthur, and the policies introduced as a consequence shifted a country that was similar to the US in terms of gun ownership to become similar to a western European country. Ie guns are virtually non existent (unless you leave next door from a shooting range, apparently that needs to be made clear).

Guns are certainly not 'virtually non existent' in Australia. Your comment is written with such gusto and pride but reeks like a 12 year old wrote it after hearing about it in history class last week.

Shush.

Guns are certainly not as abundant as you write in your first comment. Or abundant at all

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

Edit: oh wait you are not even the guy I was replying to. So you just came here to add nothing, make a wrong statement and insult me. How about you wait until next year, go through that history class yourself, and then you can tell us what you think about how Australia managed to implement gun control? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/it-took-one-massacre-how-australia-made-gun-control-happen-after-port-arthur

1 more...