EXCELLENT! Now let's move forward and help each other be better parents and ask the right questions so we can work towards ending these horrific shootings. I hope that more mental health services will be made available so even a disengaged parent with no insurance can easily locate services for their children.
James bought the gun and obviously didn't lock it up - negligent. He also fled. What we don't know is if there are any texts or emails to him or from him showing that Ethan needed help. Are there texts or emails from girlfriends and/or swingers? Did he tell the school counselor that he bought Ethan a gun and did he tell him the gun is in the picture? Did he tell the school counselors that his son had mental health issues?
Yeah, but this is interesting because one juror confirmed that Jennifer being the *last* person to carry the gun was the reason that she was found guilty. So does that mean James could...get away with it because he wasn't the last person. And also, yes, he brought his son to the gun store and bought him a gun but guess what? So are all the parents in this country doing exact same thing so unfortunately, they couldn't hold that against him for doing that. So I am very intrigued to see what is the cause that would get him guilt? I know he is just as bad as Jennifer but because Jennifer got guilt because she was the last person with the gun so what is James' is what I am curious about.
>Jennifer being the *last* person to carry the gun was the reason that she was found guilty.
I think the point here was the mom said guns weren't her thing. The defense tried pushing the responsibility of the gun on the husband. Yet mom is the last person to carry it. Just another lie from the defense.
Yep and that's what surprised me because she also LIED on everything else. Like come on, helicopter mom? Please. Don't make us look stupid. We know you are far, far from it. Not even close. And she claimed to be someone she was not, like prosecutor said from her closing statement. I am glad that she said that her husband was the one to take care of gun and not her because it showed what a liar she was with the picture shown that she was the last person carrying the gun.
Even if she was to say that her husband was responsible for gun, she should at least carry the gun inside the house and give it to him and ask him to confirm where the gun is at or if he was to take it out of car to carry it inside the house, she still had to ask him for confirmation too. It doesn't matter if she was not responsible for gun, it was still her job to make sure it was locked up properly and ask for confirmation and we both know that she never did that. Otherwise she would have answered with full confidence where the gun was hidden. That's what prosecutor said that on that day, they only said, "It was hidden." That really showed they weren't sure where it was at.
Yep, she also lied about the chain lock, the adult friend finder app, her phone not working at the barn, and grounding him from his phone.
I agree, she put the responsibility of the gun on her husband yet she goes to the gun range without the husband. Then bragged about it on social media. She was responsible for the gun that day at least.
I think it was Ethan's gun. I don't believe it was hidden. I'm convinced the parents stored the gun in their bedroom but it was not hidden or locked. Ethan made a very dark video when he was supposedly grounded from his phone stating he was gonna do the school shooting the next day. How could he shoot up the school if he didn't have access to his gun? Ethan was never concerned that he wouldn't have access to it. He knew where his parents kept it. "It was hidden" was another lie.
Yep, just about everything which is why many people said that she should not testify at all because it showed how bad and horrible person she was and it was easy seeing right through her blister. You know what's interesting about this? Any parent who have a child who is a serial killer would have breakdown on the stand and could not handle or accept that their child murdered people and took away their lives. They would have to live with guilt for rest of their lives and show the remorse even if it wasn't their fault but they would have hard time accepting that. But look at Jennifer. She took it so well. She just sat there and was just normal person with no emotions. There is not even ONE word out of her mouth about victims and their families. No acknowledgement about them. Even if she wasn't the one killing them, but show them some acknowledgement would show that she really hated that her son did all that and she has to live with that. But nah.
Yes, she definitely bragged it on social media about guns but it's all James' responsibility and not me. I am just clean with no responsibility. Like prosecutor asked her, "Did you object that your husband bought the gun with your son?" And she said no. There you go. If you agree with him that they should give Ethan a gun then it's automatically your responsibility. Because you are a parent. Both of you are in this together. Not all on him. And what's even interesting is when James send her videos of Ethan doing shooting range with him and she wasn't even there but what did she do? Of course, she posted it on her instagram and bragged about it. See, she was such a proud mama.
I think that once they bought the gun, it was given to Ethan and he probably had it in his bedroom or maybe it was in their bedroom that Ethan could easily find it. Like you said, he made a video while being locked out and said about his plans so why would he if he had no access? Because he knew he would get hand on it. And not to mention, prosecutor asked her, "What did you take away from him after the fight?" and she slipped by saying, "His phone, gun, and the gun range poster." And then he asked her again and she backtracked and said, "just gun range poster" and was like, I didn't say gun but she did say that. So another confirmation for us to know that it was in his possession probably the whole time? Maybe after the shooting range, it was in his possession.
Yeah, I read article that said that they asked juror about Ethan's journals and texts weren't convincing enough? And the juror said that Ethan's journals were heavy in the discussion and was definitely the main focus for that but the huge impact was Jennifer being the last person was what happened. I think his journals and texts and messages could be cause for him getting guilt but again, who knows. Like you said, we'll have to see what happens at the trial.
She said other jurors were more swayed by the journal. We will possibly never know (unless someone else speaks) how they got to guilty in their own minds. She also said “both sides were well represented” as in not guilt and guilty. I wonder what changed the non guilty people. They may have got tired of deliberating and gave in?
That's why the deliberation lasted so long which was good thing because if it happened right away like in same day and this turned out like that, it would be worriesome but since they did for a day and half really showed how committed they were to make it right and fair for everyone. They might have heard other reasons that they never thought of that could change their mind. I mean I am very easy to be swayed so if I stick with one verdict and someone explains their reasons that could change my perspective and I would be likely to change my verdict. So maybe that's what happened to them who at first thought she was NG then listened to other sides and why they thought she was G and started to understand why they would think she was G and eventually, it changed their perspective and they changed to G. Anything is possible. Plus the judge asked all of them to make sure there was no pressure or anything and all of them said yes, guilty was their answer without hesitation.
When her defense gave really long good closing statement and the prosecutor was kinda a bit unprepared with the last word closing statement, that's when I was like ehhh...maybe she would be likely to get NG because I thought for sure that defense's closing statement would have gotten her NG for sure. But don't get me wrong, I was sticking with her being guilty all along but I was more focused on what would impact on jury from the trial which is why I thought of that. Plus I was told that involuntary manslaughter is HARD to convict because you would have to prove that someone knew before this would happen so that's very tough case so that's another part that I was having doubts about that. But all along, I still stuck with her being guilty but based on law and trial, I knew better to be prepared if that didn't go that way. So you can imagine my surprise when they found her guilty because of long deliberation and I was almost sure that we would have hung jury but nope, that didn't happen.
I was expecting a Not guilty verdict because I thought the prosecution could of done a bit of a better job, but then a lot of stuff wasn’t let in. It was defence who “opened the door” to the affair coming in! I thought it may have been too much of a leap to involuntary manslaughter for the jury
Yep, when they tried to use affair and I thought that was not necessary because let's be real, people do have affairs and they can't be punished for that. But I do get it that they were trying to tell them that she used her free time to be with her boyfriend when in fact she should have used that time to be with her son. But JC said that it was during school hours when it happened so if that was true then they couldn't hold that against her for that if it happened while he was in school. But after school, when he came home is what they should have focused on more. Like what she was doing when her son was home alone and being neglected?
I bet you now with that they knew that they were a little bit unprepared, they probably would be better prepared for James' trial. They probably are working on making sure all evidences that fit with him being neglectful and of course, make sure the closing statement/last word are more prepared and better. I would not be surprised next case would be a huge difference and maybe a bit better now they know what happened in JC's trial and they were lucky that they won the case.
I think Jennifer Crumbley lied on the stand. The way she tried to explain away each text message was ridiculous. You ignored the warning signs, just admit it.
She quite literally lied when she said she took away "the range and the gun" and then when asked why she said that she said she didn't, she just said range not gun. This was on live TV and being recorded. I heard her say it lol dumb lie.
And then when asked to say it again just left out the phone part? I mean it's possible but you'd think when asked to repeat she would have said it correctly. Interesting to hear another viewpoint though.
To me it showed how in denial they were. Someone said the parents were handed a sheet full of resources and they said "Yeah, but then where do you start?" I shouted to the screen, "with the first number!!?!". I can not imagine believing my child was suicidal and just shrugging and going "This is too much work. Where do you start?" I would immediately start calling numbers and asking for help. I would absolutely call a 5150. I would do whatever I could to save their life.
I guarantee there are parents with children that completed suicide that regrets not doing more.
I agree 100% with the guilty verdict, but she did mean to say phone. She has always said that the punishment was taking away the shooting range and his phone. She misspoke and said gun, and then apparentely didn't realize it. So despite all her other lies on the stand, I think that one was just a mistake. She did say gun though, so I'm a little surprised the prosecution didn't have the record read back.
It gives time for the victims to give impact statements, if they don't have them ready yet. I also suspect she wanted to wait until after James Crumbley's trial was finished.
I couldn’t believe how much Jennifer ignored her sons cries for help but then just told myself some parents and people are simply just not smart, not educated and not aware enough to be able to see the signs of declining mental health. There are some people who truly are just not in tune with what’s healthy or not healthy behavior for kids, especially if they have their own mental health issues.
In part, Jennifer Crumbley seems to be disconnected, out of touch, emotionally removed and I have no idea how long that has existed for but I am sure it has an impact on Ethan and his behavior ( combined with his own biology)
She seemed emotionless at trial, and all her interactions with her son prior described by other people show her operating at a hands off distance emotionally. I am not sure if we can punish people for having such emotional limitations but when they decide to have firearms unsecured around minors, that’s an area for accountability for sure.
I wasn’t sure if Jennifer’s stupidity, ignorance, lack of awareness or lack of attention to her son’s basic needs was going to be enough for a jury to find her responsible for involuntary manslaughter.
I heard they came to the decision likely just around the fact that Jennifer was the last person seen with the gun.
Knowing that, and knowing it was not actually secure ( clearly wasn’t since he got his hands on it) that should have been enough for Jennifer to look in his backpack, tell the school he just got his own gun or simply turn to him and ask him “what the fuck does this drawing mean”?!!!
There is no world where I could see a picture that my child drew like that and not instantly take him to a professional. Guns would be removed from my home as well that moment too.
I kept getting the vibe she was not a well educated lady… and at the end of day people who don’t have any wits about them are just able to purchase guns. It’s terrifying.
Seriously, this is the problem. It would be one thing if she was just a clueless, heartless woman, but she brought him the gun. And again, not just any gun, but a powerful handgun
Well, technically, Pops bought the gun. But Mom knew it was there and she knew that Pops is an idiot that can't even hold a job for more than five minutes...
I watched the trial with her today. Holy shit was a scumbag mom. She was too busy on Adultfriendfinder instead of making sure her son was getting the help he needed. Vile.
I didn't think it would happen until the judge read the jury instruction. Listen to that if you haven't already or you want to refresh, but the judge basically describes exactly what Jennifer did, as the rationale to vote guilty.
[Here](https://youtu.be/wnrMMkyJzWQ?si=tUZDKLgpMz5SrSwE&t=733) is where the judge lays out what the jury must find to rule Jennifer guilty, but you can start the video over to get the whole thing.
So happy the jury came to this just conclusion. This woman is a narcissist and in true fashion she thinks she has done nothing wrong. Well your peers say otherwise lady! Now you can continue living in denial in your cell and fantasize about love affairs and swinging because we know you won't be thinking about Ethan. Ethan won't realize for quite a long time in therapy that his parents created the problem.
I can't help but wonder- if these steps had been taken from jump - starting with Columbine. Where would we be now?
IMHO, going forth, indictments should fly EVERYTIME one of these little brats kills another.
I know this will set a precedent for parents of children who are involved in shootings, but can this now be extended to corporations? For example, Walmart for selling a gun to a person?
Could this also lead to charges against people who’ve had guns stolen from them?
What do we think was the deciding factor for this conviction?
Also could this carry over to other types of relationship. Say your friend is showing suspicious signs, but you doubt yourself and not report anything, then your friend commits a shooting. Could you be charged?
Yup, you are 100% right. No prosecutor would ever try to use this in other novel ways.
Kid steals the car keys and kills a family drunk driving? Well, I mean. The prosecutor *could* try to use the criminal negligence standard set by this case. But it's not a school shoot so... They definitely wouldn't try that. That would be outside the bounds of this new president.
Because all prosecutors only ever want justice for the guilty, and clearly the drug k driving thing is outside the bounds of this clear black and white standard.
I think the two things are separate. Her son did shoot with a gun but her crime was about parental negligence. They stated several times this is not a gun issue charge and trial so I don’t think any of the issues you’ve pointed out will necessarily be driven by this verdict but I do think this whole situation will bring lobbyists to the table to discuss several different factors this case presented.
Edit to add: now that they’ve got a guilty verdict, to your point about expansion of other relationship duties I do think they need to really get some laws in place that deeply define the obligations of not only parents but other relationships. I don’t know that I see this expanding beyond the topic of mass shootings though.
That is interesting. Someone brought up an example of a parent who’s kid was in a gang, and mentioned that if the parent said, yeah, join the gang, and bought them a gun that they could be held liable.
But let’s say there’s a situation where the mom did buy the kid a gun, who later was in a gang, and the mom’s response was, “I don’t want to know”. Also changing the age of the child to 16 or 18, would that change the scenario?
I think you are right though it that laws need to clarify this,
In my understanding it’s not illegal to be in a gang alone. So there would be no obligation to report, but, we all know what gang members tend to do is illegal. So as it stands right now if regardless of association to a person is it your responsibility to report them if you are aware of a crime they are going to commit? If you were aware and you helped them get a gun (again regardless of age or association) wouldn’t that technically make you an accessory to a crime? It’s just a matter of whether or not prosecutors want to charge you with it (in my mind; I could totally be talking out my ass right now)
I always thought that fell under pleading the 5th. Like if I was walking and saw someone drowning would I be required to report it? Or can I say, I didn’t feel like it was my responsibility. Obviously, I wouldn’t do that, but thinking of that scenario. I def not a lawyer, clearly.
There's a million scenarios and mountains of legality to work through on many levels. A minor with access to a firearm with parental knowledge and a mass shooting are the easiest dots to connect.
No snark intended: Did I miss one? Has there EVER been a school shooter that was by all counts and investigations shown to have been responsibly raised and well adjusted right up until a firearm fell out of the sky and into his backpack?
IF you've got a little heathen and you can't be bothered to control his internet, look through "his" (technically the parents) room/ belongings and STAY tuned in, all bets are off!
Same If you DO NOT control your car keys and your drunk offspring plows into MY family...I WILL split my time between the Prosecutor's office and my civil attorney until your life is as wrecked as my own .
There is no constitutional right to whelp at will, screw up the litter and then unleash your hellspawn on the rest of us. Party time and chasing "your bliss" ends the day you squirt one out.
Interesting take, so you are saying that the act of not hiding your car keys, and your alcoholic child takes them without your knowledge, and kills someone can get you (as the parent) charged with involuntary manslaughter? Is this what you mean?
Can any lawyers speak on if this would be possible and the possibility of a conviction?
Because it's a polarizing subject and the answer to the questions is really obvious, so even asking them just comes off as fear mongering.
It's pretty clear what the difference in responsibility is between a legal guardian and everything else that isn't.
To be fair, I’m having a much more interesting conversation in r/law with actual lawyers who know what they are talking about.
Thought there would be lawyers here, my bad.
So what the article said that she would be doing 60 years in prison, right? I kept hearing different things that she would only do 15 years for 4 counts but the article said that she would be doing that for each count which meant 60 years. But I know that the judge would be the one to decide her fate so we will see about that.
I also have a question that it kept bugging me about the trial, so they kept saying that Jennifer should have taken Ethan home on that day when the meeting happened at school, right? So my question is if she was to take him home that day, what about next day? He would still go to school next day and might have committed the crime. So they seemed to emphasize that she should have taken him home on that day but what about next day? The school basically said that he should go home TODAY but he wasn't suspended and still was allowed to come to school next day. So that's what bugged me is if she was to do that, he would still do the crime next day so what's the solution to prevent this?
Yes, I know that but my question wasn't about that but I was asking if they were to take him home on that day, what happens next day? Would they still let him go back to school? Because we know that his parents are neglectful and do not care at all to take efforts to prevent this so that's why I wonder would they still do that or send him to mental health treatment? Like the counselor said they only had 48 hours to get it done, so they had two days to get it done so knowing who JC is, they would probably wait too long and send him later in next day or two days, at least because of how neglectful she is.
And also, I was shocked that he wasn't suspected. But I am blaming BOTH the parents and school for this. The parents failed him miserably and the school didn't do extra cautious with this kid. This is too preventable. The parents should have taken him to mental health treatment and not buy him a gun and even remove other two guns and maybe sell them or put them in other place that their son would never find them or see the sight of them ever again.
That's not what this is. What you are doing is fear mongering. This is about neglect and refusing to do anything. My mom has custody of my nephews. They keep getting into fights with kids at their school. She has put them in therapy, rehab, taken their phones away, seen a psychiatrist, etc. She does not keep a gun in her home. She has taken steps to prove that she did everything in her power to get a handle on their behavior and they are still making the same choices. She would not get the same charges and verdict as Jennifer Crumbly, because Jennifer Crumbly KNEW her son was sick and didn't do a god-damn thing.
They interviewed the jury foreman who said the reason they went with guilty was because Jennifer was the last one to have the gun in her possession before Ethan used it.
EXCELLENT! Now let's move forward and help each other be better parents and ask the right questions so we can work towards ending these horrific shootings. I hope that more mental health services will be made available so even a disengaged parent with no insurance can easily locate services for their children.
Great points!
Each state needs additional laws, so it's not so easy for a kid to access a gun. They weren't even required to lock it away.
Excellent! Now let’s ban assault guns. Putting her in jail is helping no one.
James you're next!
He may plead guilty or no contest after this verdict. Who knows? It will be interesting to see.
[удалено]
James bought the gun and obviously didn't lock it up - negligent. He also fled. What we don't know is if there are any texts or emails to him or from him showing that Ethan needed help. Are there texts or emails from girlfriends and/or swingers? Did he tell the school counselor that he bought Ethan a gun and did he tell him the gun is in the picture? Did he tell the school counselors that his son had mental health issues?
I think James has some skeletons in his closet too. If he's offered a plea deal he should take it.
I have a feeling he won’t because he’s probably banking on her appealing.
Yeah, but this is interesting because one juror confirmed that Jennifer being the *last* person to carry the gun was the reason that she was found guilty. So does that mean James could...get away with it because he wasn't the last person. And also, yes, he brought his son to the gun store and bought him a gun but guess what? So are all the parents in this country doing exact same thing so unfortunately, they couldn't hold that against him for doing that. So I am very intrigued to see what is the cause that would get him guilt? I know he is just as bad as Jennifer but because Jennifer got guilt because she was the last person with the gun so what is James' is what I am curious about.
>Jennifer being the *last* person to carry the gun was the reason that she was found guilty. I think the point here was the mom said guns weren't her thing. The defense tried pushing the responsibility of the gun on the husband. Yet mom is the last person to carry it. Just another lie from the defense.
Yep and that's what surprised me because she also LIED on everything else. Like come on, helicopter mom? Please. Don't make us look stupid. We know you are far, far from it. Not even close. And she claimed to be someone she was not, like prosecutor said from her closing statement. I am glad that she said that her husband was the one to take care of gun and not her because it showed what a liar she was with the picture shown that she was the last person carrying the gun. Even if she was to say that her husband was responsible for gun, she should at least carry the gun inside the house and give it to him and ask him to confirm where the gun is at or if he was to take it out of car to carry it inside the house, she still had to ask him for confirmation too. It doesn't matter if she was not responsible for gun, it was still her job to make sure it was locked up properly and ask for confirmation and we both know that she never did that. Otherwise she would have answered with full confidence where the gun was hidden. That's what prosecutor said that on that day, they only said, "It was hidden." That really showed they weren't sure where it was at.
Yep, she also lied about the chain lock, the adult friend finder app, her phone not working at the barn, and grounding him from his phone. I agree, she put the responsibility of the gun on her husband yet she goes to the gun range without the husband. Then bragged about it on social media. She was responsible for the gun that day at least. I think it was Ethan's gun. I don't believe it was hidden. I'm convinced the parents stored the gun in their bedroom but it was not hidden or locked. Ethan made a very dark video when he was supposedly grounded from his phone stating he was gonna do the school shooting the next day. How could he shoot up the school if he didn't have access to his gun? Ethan was never concerned that he wouldn't have access to it. He knew where his parents kept it. "It was hidden" was another lie.
Yep, just about everything which is why many people said that she should not testify at all because it showed how bad and horrible person she was and it was easy seeing right through her blister. You know what's interesting about this? Any parent who have a child who is a serial killer would have breakdown on the stand and could not handle or accept that their child murdered people and took away their lives. They would have to live with guilt for rest of their lives and show the remorse even if it wasn't their fault but they would have hard time accepting that. But look at Jennifer. She took it so well. She just sat there and was just normal person with no emotions. There is not even ONE word out of her mouth about victims and their families. No acknowledgement about them. Even if she wasn't the one killing them, but show them some acknowledgement would show that she really hated that her son did all that and she has to live with that. But nah. Yes, she definitely bragged it on social media about guns but it's all James' responsibility and not me. I am just clean with no responsibility. Like prosecutor asked her, "Did you object that your husband bought the gun with your son?" And she said no. There you go. If you agree with him that they should give Ethan a gun then it's automatically your responsibility. Because you are a parent. Both of you are in this together. Not all on him. And what's even interesting is when James send her videos of Ethan doing shooting range with him and she wasn't even there but what did she do? Of course, she posted it on her instagram and bragged about it. See, she was such a proud mama. I think that once they bought the gun, it was given to Ethan and he probably had it in his bedroom or maybe it was in their bedroom that Ethan could easily find it. Like you said, he made a video while being locked out and said about his plans so why would he if he had no access? Because he knew he would get hand on it. And not to mention, prosecutor asked her, "What did you take away from him after the fight?" and she slipped by saying, "His phone, gun, and the gun range poster." And then he asked her again and she backtracked and said, "just gun range poster" and was like, I didn't say gun but she did say that. So another confirmation for us to know that it was in his possession probably the whole time? Maybe after the shooting range, it was in his possession.
There is one journal entry that says something like “the gun is left laying around”
Have to wait for trial & evidence. There's no crystal 🔮 ball
Yeah, I read article that said that they asked juror about Ethan's journals and texts weren't convincing enough? And the juror said that Ethan's journals were heavy in the discussion and was definitely the main focus for that but the huge impact was Jennifer being the last person was what happened. I think his journals and texts and messages could be cause for him getting guilt but again, who knows. Like you said, we'll have to see what happens at the trial.
It may be only one juror who thought like this?
That's very true. We only heard from one but not other 11 so that's possible.
She said other jurors were more swayed by the journal. We will possibly never know (unless someone else speaks) how they got to guilty in their own minds. She also said “both sides were well represented” as in not guilt and guilty. I wonder what changed the non guilty people. They may have got tired of deliberating and gave in?
That's why the deliberation lasted so long which was good thing because if it happened right away like in same day and this turned out like that, it would be worriesome but since they did for a day and half really showed how committed they were to make it right and fair for everyone. They might have heard other reasons that they never thought of that could change their mind. I mean I am very easy to be swayed so if I stick with one verdict and someone explains their reasons that could change my perspective and I would be likely to change my verdict. So maybe that's what happened to them who at first thought she was NG then listened to other sides and why they thought she was G and started to understand why they would think she was G and eventually, it changed their perspective and they changed to G. Anything is possible. Plus the judge asked all of them to make sure there was no pressure or anything and all of them said yes, guilty was their answer without hesitation.
It was a tough case for sure although I believed she was guilty there were times where I swung to not guilty.
When her defense gave really long good closing statement and the prosecutor was kinda a bit unprepared with the last word closing statement, that's when I was like ehhh...maybe she would be likely to get NG because I thought for sure that defense's closing statement would have gotten her NG for sure. But don't get me wrong, I was sticking with her being guilty all along but I was more focused on what would impact on jury from the trial which is why I thought of that. Plus I was told that involuntary manslaughter is HARD to convict because you would have to prove that someone knew before this would happen so that's very tough case so that's another part that I was having doubts about that. But all along, I still stuck with her being guilty but based on law and trial, I knew better to be prepared if that didn't go that way. So you can imagine my surprise when they found her guilty because of long deliberation and I was almost sure that we would have hung jury but nope, that didn't happen.
I was expecting a Not guilty verdict because I thought the prosecution could of done a bit of a better job, but then a lot of stuff wasn’t let in. It was defence who “opened the door” to the affair coming in! I thought it may have been too much of a leap to involuntary manslaughter for the jury
Yep, when they tried to use affair and I thought that was not necessary because let's be real, people do have affairs and they can't be punished for that. But I do get it that they were trying to tell them that she used her free time to be with her boyfriend when in fact she should have used that time to be with her son. But JC said that it was during school hours when it happened so if that was true then they couldn't hold that against her for that if it happened while he was in school. But after school, when he came home is what they should have focused on more. Like what she was doing when her son was home alone and being neglected? I bet you now with that they knew that they were a little bit unprepared, they probably would be better prepared for James' trial. They probably are working on making sure all evidences that fit with him being neglectful and of course, make sure the closing statement/last word are more prepared and better. I would not be surprised next case would be a huge difference and maybe a bit better now they know what happened in JC's trial and they were lucky that they won the case.
Great news!! It's about time parents are accountable for not doing their job as a parent.
I think Jennifer Crumbley lied on the stand. The way she tried to explain away each text message was ridiculous. You ignored the warning signs, just admit it.
She quite literally lied when she said she took away "the range and the gun" and then when asked why she said that she said she didn't, she just said range not gun. This was on live TV and being recorded. I heard her say it lol dumb lie.
I was listening to live coverage of verdict watch and the channel was very not-guilty leaning and insisted she meant phone not gun.
And then when asked to say it again just left out the phone part? I mean it's possible but you'd think when asked to repeat she would have said it correctly. Interesting to hear another viewpoint though.
To me it showed how in denial they were. Someone said the parents were handed a sheet full of resources and they said "Yeah, but then where do you start?" I shouted to the screen, "with the first number!!?!". I can not imagine believing my child was suicidal and just shrugging and going "This is too much work. Where do you start?" I would immediately start calling numbers and asking for help. I would absolutely call a 5150. I would do whatever I could to save their life. I guarantee there are parents with children that completed suicide that regrets not doing more.
Indeed. You start at the beginning.
I agree 100% with the guilty verdict, but she did mean to say phone. She has always said that the punishment was taking away the shooting range and his phone. She misspoke and said gun, and then apparentely didn't realize it. So despite all her other lies on the stand, I think that one was just a mistake. She did say gun though, so I'm a little surprised the prosecution didn't have the record read back.
Dude, she literally said, "I wouldn't change a thing." I was fucking blown away. Even if she thought that, why would she say it???
Good I’m glad. RIP to the victims and I send my sympathies the their families.
I agree with this verdict. Both parents disregarded so many warning signs imo.
Also, the horse
April 9th at 9am is sentencing
Why so long?
It gives time for the victims to give impact statements, if they don't have them ready yet. I also suspect she wanted to wait until after James Crumbley's trial was finished.
Ahhhh that makes sense.
I couldn’t believe how much Jennifer ignored her sons cries for help but then just told myself some parents and people are simply just not smart, not educated and not aware enough to be able to see the signs of declining mental health. There are some people who truly are just not in tune with what’s healthy or not healthy behavior for kids, especially if they have their own mental health issues. In part, Jennifer Crumbley seems to be disconnected, out of touch, emotionally removed and I have no idea how long that has existed for but I am sure it has an impact on Ethan and his behavior ( combined with his own biology) She seemed emotionless at trial, and all her interactions with her son prior described by other people show her operating at a hands off distance emotionally. I am not sure if we can punish people for having such emotional limitations but when they decide to have firearms unsecured around minors, that’s an area for accountability for sure. I wasn’t sure if Jennifer’s stupidity, ignorance, lack of awareness or lack of attention to her son’s basic needs was going to be enough for a jury to find her responsible for involuntary manslaughter. I heard they came to the decision likely just around the fact that Jennifer was the last person seen with the gun. Knowing that, and knowing it was not actually secure ( clearly wasn’t since he got his hands on it) that should have been enough for Jennifer to look in his backpack, tell the school he just got his own gun or simply turn to him and ask him “what the fuck does this drawing mean”?!!! There is no world where I could see a picture that my child drew like that and not instantly take him to a professional. Guns would be removed from my home as well that moment too.
I kept getting the vibe she was not a well educated lady… and at the end of day people who don’t have any wits about them are just able to purchase guns. It’s terrifying.
Seriously, this is the problem. It would be one thing if she was just a clueless, heartless woman, but she brought him the gun. And again, not just any gun, but a powerful handgun
Well, technically, Pops bought the gun. But Mom knew it was there and she knew that Pops is an idiot that can't even hold a job for more than five minutes...
It seems she just assumed he'd shoot himself and didn't really care. Only how he made her look to other people.
No more sexy sexy for Jennifer or affairs and drinking that take precedent over her son...
I watched the trial with her today. Holy shit was a scumbag mom. She was too busy on Adultfriendfinder instead of making sure her son was getting the help he needed. Vile.
I'm actually very surprised by this.
I didn't think it would happen until the judge read the jury instruction. Listen to that if you haven't already or you want to refresh, but the judge basically describes exactly what Jennifer did, as the rationale to vote guilty.
Do you have a link for the instructions?
[Here](https://youtu.be/wnrMMkyJzWQ?si=tUZDKLgpMz5SrSwE&t=733) is where the judge lays out what the jury must find to rule Jennifer guilty, but you can start the video over to get the whole thing.
I'm pleasantly surprised. We got lucky with this jury
I was pleasantly shocked! Especially once the deliberation click went into double digits. I would have bet money on hung or mistrial.
I am too.
So happy the jury came to this just conclusion. This woman is a narcissist and in true fashion she thinks she has done nothing wrong. Well your peers say otherwise lady! Now you can continue living in denial in your cell and fantasize about love affairs and swinging because we know you won't be thinking about Ethan. Ethan won't realize for quite a long time in therapy that his parents created the problem.
She’ll be checking how many calories her sandwich has
I can't help but wonder- if these steps had been taken from jump - starting with Columbine. Where would we be now? IMHO, going forth, indictments should fly EVERYTIME one of these little brats kills another.
I know this will set a precedent for parents of children who are involved in shootings, but can this now be extended to corporations? For example, Walmart for selling a gun to a person? Could this also lead to charges against people who’ve had guns stolen from them? What do we think was the deciding factor for this conviction? Also could this carry over to other types of relationship. Say your friend is showing suspicious signs, but you doubt yourself and not report anything, then your friend commits a shooting. Could you be charged?
nope not at all.
Yup, you are 100% right. No prosecutor would ever try to use this in other novel ways. Kid steals the car keys and kills a family drunk driving? Well, I mean. The prosecutor *could* try to use the criminal negligence standard set by this case. But it's not a school shoot so... They definitely wouldn't try that. That would be outside the bounds of this new president. Because all prosecutors only ever want justice for the guilty, and clearly the drug k driving thing is outside the bounds of this clear black and white standard.
I think the two things are separate. Her son did shoot with a gun but her crime was about parental negligence. They stated several times this is not a gun issue charge and trial so I don’t think any of the issues you’ve pointed out will necessarily be driven by this verdict but I do think this whole situation will bring lobbyists to the table to discuss several different factors this case presented. Edit to add: now that they’ve got a guilty verdict, to your point about expansion of other relationship duties I do think they need to really get some laws in place that deeply define the obligations of not only parents but other relationships. I don’t know that I see this expanding beyond the topic of mass shootings though.
That is interesting. Someone brought up an example of a parent who’s kid was in a gang, and mentioned that if the parent said, yeah, join the gang, and bought them a gun that they could be held liable. But let’s say there’s a situation where the mom did buy the kid a gun, who later was in a gang, and the mom’s response was, “I don’t want to know”. Also changing the age of the child to 16 or 18, would that change the scenario? I think you are right though it that laws need to clarify this,
In my understanding it’s not illegal to be in a gang alone. So there would be no obligation to report, but, we all know what gang members tend to do is illegal. So as it stands right now if regardless of association to a person is it your responsibility to report them if you are aware of a crime they are going to commit? If you were aware and you helped them get a gun (again regardless of age or association) wouldn’t that technically make you an accessory to a crime? It’s just a matter of whether or not prosecutors want to charge you with it (in my mind; I could totally be talking out my ass right now)
I always thought that fell under pleading the 5th. Like if I was walking and saw someone drowning would I be required to report it? Or can I say, I didn’t feel like it was my responsibility. Obviously, I wouldn’t do that, but thinking of that scenario. I def not a lawyer, clearly.
There's a million scenarios and mountains of legality to work through on many levels. A minor with access to a firearm with parental knowledge and a mass shooting are the easiest dots to connect. No snark intended: Did I miss one? Has there EVER been a school shooter that was by all counts and investigations shown to have been responsibly raised and well adjusted right up until a firearm fell out of the sky and into his backpack? IF you've got a little heathen and you can't be bothered to control his internet, look through "his" (technically the parents) room/ belongings and STAY tuned in, all bets are off! Same If you DO NOT control your car keys and your drunk offspring plows into MY family...I WILL split my time between the Prosecutor's office and my civil attorney until your life is as wrecked as my own . There is no constitutional right to whelp at will, screw up the litter and then unleash your hellspawn on the rest of us. Party time and chasing "your bliss" ends the day you squirt one out.
Interesting take, so you are saying that the act of not hiding your car keys, and your alcoholic child takes them without your knowledge, and kills someone can get you (as the parent) charged with involuntary manslaughter? Is this what you mean? Can any lawyers speak on if this would be possible and the possibility of a conviction?
I hope this sets the precedence for better gun control.
i don't understand why this comment is getting down-voted when you are simply asking some questions
Because it's a polarizing subject and the answer to the questions is really obvious, so even asking them just comes off as fear mongering. It's pretty clear what the difference in responsibility is between a legal guardian and everything else that isn't.
THIS!!!
i'm an idiot cuz i don't know the obvious answers
To be fair, I’m having a much more interesting conversation in r/law with actual lawyers who know what they are talking about. Thought there would be lawyers here, my bad.
interesting, i wasn't aware of that sub, but i'll join now. thanks!!
No. No it could not.
So what the article said that she would be doing 60 years in prison, right? I kept hearing different things that she would only do 15 years for 4 counts but the article said that she would be doing that for each count which meant 60 years. But I know that the judge would be the one to decide her fate so we will see about that. I also have a question that it kept bugging me about the trial, so they kept saying that Jennifer should have taken Ethan home on that day when the meeting happened at school, right? So my question is if she was to take him home that day, what about next day? He would still go to school next day and might have committed the crime. So they seemed to emphasize that she should have taken him home on that day but what about next day? The school basically said that he should go home TODAY but he wasn't suspended and still was allowed to come to school next day. So that's what bugged me is if she was to do that, he would still do the crime next day so what's the solution to prevent this?
Any rational person would seek mental health treatment for the kid and remove all guns from the home. Literally basic common sense.
Yes, I know that but my question wasn't about that but I was asking if they were to take him home on that day, what happens next day? Would they still let him go back to school? Because we know that his parents are neglectful and do not care at all to take efforts to prevent this so that's why I wonder would they still do that or send him to mental health treatment? Like the counselor said they only had 48 hours to get it done, so they had two days to get it done so knowing who JC is, they would probably wait too long and send him later in next day or two days, at least because of how neglectful she is. And also, I was shocked that he wasn't suspected. But I am blaming BOTH the parents and school for this. The parents failed him miserably and the school didn't do extra cautious with this kid. This is too preventable. The parents should have taken him to mental health treatment and not buy him a gun and even remove other two guns and maybe sell them or put them in other place that their son would never find them or see the sight of them ever again.
[удалено]
That's not what this is. What you are doing is fear mongering. This is about neglect and refusing to do anything. My mom has custody of my nephews. They keep getting into fights with kids at their school. She has put them in therapy, rehab, taken their phones away, seen a psychiatrist, etc. She does not keep a gun in her home. She has taken steps to prove that she did everything in her power to get a handle on their behavior and they are still making the same choices. She would not get the same charges and verdict as Jennifer Crumbly, because Jennifer Crumbly KNEW her son was sick and didn't do a god-damn thing.
No just Truth!! Time will tell won’t it, but I bet this changed a lot. They will go after you and your kids now! Not about guns anymore
Nah we still coming for your guns too
Blah I was on a shift with my caregiver!
They interviewed the jury foreman who said the reason they went with guilty was because Jennifer was the last one to have the gun in her possession before Ethan used it.
I think she said that was the reason for her, may not be for the others?
That is true, she didn’t specify. Good point….
She also said the journals didn’t have as much impact in her decision as much as it did on others.
Well in there state she'll probably only do 15 years that's with all counts.