User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:07:32 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: no, not sue. the ceo or corp. heads will be arrested aiding & abetting. i see no difference. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It is already bad to begin with. That other parents that brought the handgun for their teen age son that kicked off the slipery road. Soon, drunk drivers can sue liquor manufacturers. no, not sue. the ceo or corp. heads will be arrested aiding & abetting. i see no difference. Are they minors that the CEO provided alcohol to? It's not an accurate comparison and nothing to do with either of the criminal trials involving the parents. The bottom line is if you furnish weapons to minors and they misuse them especially knowing the child has issues you can expect to go to jail. Even in Columbine they went after the guys who provided the kids with guns. This is nothing new and most the examples provided for the people who do not agree with the parents being charged in no way compare. Some of seriously lack critical thinking and or are being obtuse on purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:08:25 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If your kid is messed up it's your duty to supervise and control their actions. GD constantly bitches about people and their kids not being held accountable for their actions, but when we start doing it it's now a problem? because it involves firearms...thats the ultimate source of the issues for people and the disconnect so many seem to have |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:20:30 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Parents have traditionally been responsible civilly to pay for financial damages for their childrens actions yes, in most cases that doesn't mean they are criminally responsible for whatever crimes their children commit. There is a difference. That can change if the parents did something that is criminally negligent, which may be the case here. But a lot of people are suggesting it goes further than that and parents are automatically guilty if their children are that's utterly ridiculous. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yep, this is a horrible idea. It logically has to extend to vehicular homicide, theft, rape, etc Any crime a minor commits. Lol as a parent you are directly responsible for the actions of your minor child. If you don't like it don't have children. This should of been done a long time ago, especially the gross negligence all these parents displayed when their kid showed obvious signs. Parents have traditionally been responsible civilly to pay for financial damages for their childrens actions yes, in most cases that doesn't mean they are criminally responsible for whatever crimes their children commit. There is a difference. That can change if the parents did something that is criminally negligent, which may be the case here. But a lot of people are suggesting it goes further than that and parents are automatically guilty if their children are that's utterly ridiculous. Again the parents in question provided the gun to their minor child that they knew was messed up. You should expect to go to jail for this. This absolutely needs to happen more often. As a parent when you actively participate in your child's criminal activity you should expect to go to jail. Same with providing them with alcohol and so on. Everyone on GD bitches about responsibility but when we actually start enforcing it it suddenly becomes a problem and or they provide examples that have nothing to do with what the topic is about or what happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:21:49 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Apples and oranges. A better analogy is the kid has a history of alcoholism and has already been caught trying to drive while drunk. The parents then give him a fifth of booze and leave the keys to the family truck by the bottle. But it’s not. This is how the government and courts gain control. Did any of the shooters have any past instances of assault with weapons, or anything of the sort, or were they just a bit on the mentally defective side? As another poster said, it won’t be applied evenly. Once you let the camel’s nose under the tent, it is already too late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:23:21 PM EST
[#5]
Pretty close to the Israeli model if we're being honest
I wish we could charge the parents of all sorts of criminals. At the very least sterilize them and their crotch fruit as part of taking a plea deal |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:24:28 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess we shouldn't have laws against murder because prosecutors might go after someone like Kyle Rittenhouse.  If you knew your 16 year old was addicted to alcohol and you bought them a car and let them have access to the keys, and they plow into someone while drunk and kill them, I don't really have a problem with the law coming for you too. Being a legal guardian ought to mean something beyond just a duty to keep them clothed and fed. Making them partially responsible when they knowingly aid their kids committing crimes is a way we can deter future issues without succumbing to the gun-grabbers calls for bans. And if you lock up your errant alcoholic child so they can’t leave the house, it opens all kinds of other charges against you. I agree that if you were getting blackout drunk with your 16 year old and then asking them to run to the store for a pack of smokes at 3am caused a crash, you could be liable. But that is not how the American justice system works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:31:32 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But it’s not. This is how the government and courts gain control. Did any of the shooters have any past instances of assault with weapons, or anything of the sort, or were they just a bit on the mentally defective side? As another poster said, it won’t be applied evenly. Once you let the camel’s nose under the tent, it is already too late. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Apples and oranges. A better analogy is the kid has a history of alcoholism and has already been caught trying to drive while drunk. The parents then give him a fifth of booze and leave the keys to the family truck by the bottle. But it’s not. This is how the government and courts gain control. Did any of the shooters have any past instances of assault with weapons, or anything of the sort, or were they just a bit on the mentally defective side? As another poster said, it won’t be applied evenly. Once you let the camel’s nose under the tent, it is already too late. So talking specifically about this shooting: The parents/kid were visited in early 2023 by the police because the kid made threats against the school. Then, Christmas of 2023 Dad buys the kid an AR-15 and lets the kid have control of the rifle/ammo permanently in his room. Then the kid shoots up a school. Your argument is that the parents shouldn't have any legal liability because that would give the gov't too much control? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:34:03 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And if you lock up your errant alcoholic child so they can't leave the house, it opens all kinds of other charges against you. I agree that if you were getting blackout drunk with your 16 year old and then asking them to run to the store for a pack of smokes at 3am caused a crash, you could be liable. But that is not how the American justice system works. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I guess we shouldn't have laws against murder because prosecutors might go after someone like Kyle Rittenhouse. If you knew your 16 year old was addicted to alcohol and you bought them a car and let them have access to the keys, and they plow into someone while drunk and kill them, I don't really have a problem with the law coming for you too. Being a legal guardian ought to mean something beyond just a duty to keep them clothed and fed. Making them partially responsible when they knowingly aid their kids committing crimes is a way we can deter future issues without succumbing to the gun-grabbers calls for bans. And if you lock up your errant alcoholic child so they can't leave the house, it opens all kinds of other charges against you. I agree that if you were getting blackout drunk with your 16 year old and then asking them to run to the store for a pack of smokes at 3am caused a crash, you could be liable. But that is not how the American justice system works. Tell me what charges are going to be pressed if you don't give an alcoholic child access to a car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:42:10 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can't always control how someone else behaves. No matter how hard you try. Obviously good parenting makes a difference and is often going to make the difference but not always Not to mention the government gets involved and charges you with child abuse if you discipline them too harshly. Now they want to prosecute you if they don't turn out right.  Like I said. Doesn't have to be anything specific but there needs to be consequences. If not criminal than a loss of all federal subsidies or tax credits. Maybe even incentivize the tax code. You only get full tax credits if your kid is a c average in school and stays out of trouble. There is no consequences for bad parents which is more than 90 percent of the problem is wager |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:45:09 PM EST
[#10]
Unless there's some kind of overt involvement, I say this is no crime.
Let this be a wrongful death suit. I wholeheartedly agree that this is a slippery slope and there's no end to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:52:10 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just know that per crime stats, White shooters are actually really rare and yet it seems like every one of them has attempts to charge the parents over it, while the much more common Black school shooter is almost unheard of to hear of a parent charged. I did look up the one you mentioned and you are right that a Black mom was charged so at least there is one case of it. I don't want to see more double standard laws like hate crimes which those are almost always exclusively geared towards Whites and nobody else. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's already BS as they only charge White parents. A majority of school shootings are from Black students and the parent/parents are never charged, it's not ever even considered, let alone get any media coverage. A black woman in VA I think did get charged when her crazy kid shot a teacher with her gun. How many of these other not changed parents bought their mentality ill kid the gun and ammo they used in the school shooting? I just know that per crime stats, White shooters are actually really rare and yet it seems like every one of them has attempts to charge the parents over it, while the much more common Black school shooter is almost unheard of to hear of a parent charged. I did look up the one you mentioned and you are right that a Black mom was charged so at least there is one case of it. I don't want to see more double standard laws like hate crimes which those are almost always exclusively geared towards Whites and nobody else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:00:34 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They gave their mentally ill son that pistol because they wanted him to kill himself. That’s what I believe, and no one will ever persuade me otherwise. Instead, he shot up the school. I don’t have any basis to believe that’s what happened in Georgia, but I have abundant good cause to believe that the father knew better than to give that child a gun. I firmly believe that too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:03:44 PM EST
[#13]
At least Grandpa agrees
 Attached File“He’s evil,” Charles added, saying of the family, “They couldn’t, they didn’t survive in it.” “Colt has to pay for what he did, but I’m telling you, he was driven, no question in my mind,” Charles said. “He was driven by his father to do what he did. That’s as plain as I can put it, and I know I’m right.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:26:48 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So talking specifically about this shooting: The parents/kid were visited in early 2023 by the police because the kid made threats against the school. Then, Christmas of 2023 Dad buys the kid an AR-15 and lets the kid have control of the rifle/ammo permanently in his room. Then the kid shoots up a school. Your argument is that the parents shouldn't have any legal liability because that would give the gov't too much control? School threats were unable to be proven that he did it. Russian stuff and Discord. So, without actual evidence linking him to it, what is your opinion now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:28:16 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryOh. Mother's dad, when she was doping and screwing people on the side. I mean, sounds like a perfect example of great parenting 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:31:38 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: School threats were unable to be proven that he did it. Russian stuff and Discord. So, without actual evidence linking him to it, what is your opinion now? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So talking specifically about this shooting: The parents/kid were visited in early 2023 by the police because the kid made threats against the school. Then, Christmas of 2023 Dad buys the kid an AR-15 and lets the kid have control of the rifle/ammo permanently in his room. Then the kid shoots up a school. Your argument is that the parents shouldn't have any legal liability because that would give the gov't too much control? School threats were unable to be proven that he did it. Russian stuff and Discord. So, without actual evidence linking him to it, what is your opinion now? Unchanged. I don't believe a 15 year old should have unrestricted access to his own AR-15...and the parents that gave it to him should be legally liable if he takes it and murders someone at school. Edit: I have a 15 year old son. Him and I shoot together a lot...he even has his "own" guns. "His" guns sit in my gun safe where he doesn't have access to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:31:53 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But it’s not. This is how the government and courts gain control. Did any of the shooters have any past instances of assault with weapons, or anything of the sort, or were they just a bit on the mentally defective side? As another poster said, it won’t be applied evenly. Once you let the camel’s nose under the tent, it is already too late. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Apples and oranges. A better analogy is the kid has a history of alcoholism and has already been caught trying to drive while drunk. The parents then give him a fifth of booze and leave the keys to the family truck by the bottle. But it’s not. This is how the government and courts gain control. Did any of the shooters have any past instances of assault with weapons, or anything of the sort, or were they just a bit on the mentally defective side? As another poster said, it won’t be applied evenly. Once you let the camel’s nose under the tent, it is already too late. I’m not aware of the kids assaulting anyone with weapons prior to the school shootings. In the Crumbley’s case, the kid had been asking his parents for help because of depression and hallucinations and also making jokes to his friend about shooting up the school. Who knows if the parents were aware of the jokes, but the parents knew enough to become very alarmed when they saw pictures of the kid’s drawings of shooting people. There was enough history there that a jury felt buying the kid a weapon and ammo was grossly negligent. In the Georgia case, law enforcement had been out to the home to talk about the kid being suspected of threatening to shoot up the school. We’ll have to see what the state’s case is going to be and how much history is there. As far as uneven application of the laws, that’s an issue for the local community to deal with. They should work to get rid of those DAs and judges vs. working to get rid of the laws against murder and manslaughter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:36:27 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh. Mother's dad, when she was doping and screwing people on the side. I mean, sounds like a perfect example of great parenting After watching the police contact with the kid, I have to agree with Grandpa. If for no other reason than the pops trying to dress like he's a 15 year old Sweet chain dad! lol  Watch: Police Meet With Georgia School Shooting Suspect in 2023 | WSJ News |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 1:43:09 PM EST
[#19]
Charge the gang members parent first
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:19:46 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Charge the gang members parent first Come on, cops can't find them...only if they can find them, yes...the gang members' parents are either buried in Chicago, living out in an impoverished barrio in Mexico, or somewhere in Colombia, out of extradition's reach... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:40:30 PM EST
[#21]
not a slipper slope, it's down right fucking evil and illegal to do
fuck the cunts! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:46:39 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As with everything else, this will be used as a tool to punish those the state disfavors and not their pets. this is how i see it playing out. there will be a distinct lack of charges brought against the parents of Urban Youths who are out doing urban youth things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:50:22 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, this is a horrible idea. It logically has to extend to vehicular homicide, theft, rape, etc Any crime a minor commits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:51:41 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have to deflect from the fact that a lot of these individuals are already on someone’s radar and they dropped the ball. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:53:25 PM EST
[#25]
A good chunk of arfcom was more than happy with the charging. Shitty idea
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:59:12 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As with everything else, this will be used as a tool to punish those the state disfavors and not their pets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 5:59:31 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But it’s not. This is how the government and courts gain control. Did any of the shooters have any past instances of assault with weapons, or anything of the sort, or were they just a bit on the mentally defective side? As another poster said, it won’t be applied evenly. Once you let the camel’s nose under the tent, it is already too late. If you give your mentally defective child a gun and he kills someone, you can share a cell with him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 6:17:40 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Charge the gang members parent first We know their dads are out of the picture. Is there evidence gang members moms are buying Glocks and 9mm ammo for them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:22:35 PM EST
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:45:19 PM EST
[#30]
No slippery slope. All the parents involved in the two cases were absolute shit bags that not only failed to prevent their kids from shooting others, the actually aided in it by giving them access.
Fuck em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:49:00 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, this is a horrible idea. It logically has to extend to vehicular homicide, theft, rape, etc Any crime a minor commits. Not saying I agree fully, but if the parent knew the child was risky, are they not responsible? Maybe this is intended to remind parents that they have a duty not to knowingly enable crime. Also, do we not also use the idea of massive punishment to deter crime? That doesn’t work. Capital punishment didn’t stop murder, this won’t either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 3:49:21 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would be ok with that as long as parents are allowed to discipline their children any way they like to ensure they don’t have kids that commit crimes. But, as always in America today, this is a one way street. And it don’t lead to helping out the citizens… This is my position as well. Even as an LEO I can tell you there are few mechanisms in place to deal with problem juveniles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 3:51:41 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A slippery slope that I am good with. Parents are responsible for everything their minor children do or fail to do. Spoken like someone who’s never dealt with an actual problem child. The state will not let you be responsible. If a child is truly out of control, and you do what is actually necessary to control them you will be charged with a crime, and possibly incarcerated. As with most things our government is fucking shut up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 4:01:49 PM EST
[#34]
This kid already made threats of shooting up the school and the father gave him a rifle anyway.
I think that makes the father an accessory to the crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2024 11:35:17 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Being on our radar" doesn't exactly say much. Was he: Previously investigated but couldn't find probable cause for an arrest? Investigated and didn't do anything when probable cause existed, thereby failing? Referred charges to the local prosecutor who dropped them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2024 12:14:05 AM EST
[#36]
May as well charge the parents of the victims for letting their children go to such a dangerous place
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2024 12:17:35 AM EST
[#37]
Quoted: Prosecutors last week charged the father of an accused school shooter in Georgia with crimes including second-degree murder, a move that comes six months after the parents of a Michigan school shooter were convicted of manslaughter. Will this become the new normal? Going forward, should we expect the parents of teenaged mass killers to face criminal charges stemming from the actions of their children? If the parents should have known, and should have done something to prevent it, I sure hope so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2024 12:20:22 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A good chunk of arfcom was more than happy with the charging. Shitty idea Criminal negligence is a thing. I have absolutely no problem with these shit parents being removed from society. Maybe others will take notice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2024 12:56:16 AM EST
[#39]
The only way this seems logical is this...
Kid shoots up school, resulting in fatalities, kid is charged with murder. Parents, who were culpable (by means of furnishing the firearm, the kid having unrestricted access, quantifiable signs of intent to do harm reasonably known by the parents, etc.) would not be charged with murder, but rather some other thing like accessory or similar. Now if the kid breaks into the safe while the parents are asleep and little Timmy has no history of criminal activity, mental health issues, disciplinary action or isn't known by the FBI, and goes postal, then the parents are scott free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2024 2:26:34 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now if the kid breaks into the safe while the parents are asleep and little Timmy has no history of criminal activity, mental health issues, disciplinary action or isn't known by the FBI, and goes postal, then the parents are scott free. Like how it is now |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
