User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:49:30 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My issue is that it won't be universal. Joe Blow middle class guy had guns his kid had access to? Throw the book at him. Mary Jane Rottencrotch bought a BMW X3 obviously should be charged for her kid driving 100mph and killing someone. But Shaniqua who's kid has been found to be slinging dope and being a gang banger who lights up the Bodega with a switched Glock definitely isn't responsible because she "is doing the best she can" and "we don't want to stigmatize". Did Shaniqua buy him the switched Glock knowing he was a criminal? If not, apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:50:38 AM EST
[#2]
follow the money in the end it will result in asset forfeiture
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:51:39 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. You need to read more about that case. That was a GOOD conviction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:53:02 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If a person gifts their tarded kid who looks like a school shooter, acts like a school shooter an AR15 for Christmas and then allow him to have access to said rifles and the tarded kid shoots up a school … you get everything you fucking deserve. Hope the whole family dies in jail. and then there's the leos,teachers,and relatives who knew about those threats and did nothing about it...PTAC right there... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:53:32 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe, maybe not. But they allow them to go outside damn well knowing they will be doing something illegal and likely has a propensity for violence. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Charging single mothers of inner city youth as well? Did they buy the gun for the kid who they knew wasn’t mentally well and had a history of making threats? Maybe, maybe not. But they allow them to go outside damn well knowing they will be doing something illegal and likely has a propensity for violence. Allow them to go outside??? Now some of you are REALLY reaching. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:53:37 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, this is a horrible idea. It logically has to extend to vehicular homicide, theft, rape, etc Any crime a minor commits. Exactly. Why aren’t parents charged for drunk driving when their teenage kids drink and drive? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:56:44 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and then there's the leos,teachers,and relatives who knew about those threats and did nothing about it...PTAC right there... https://i.imgflip.com/9391vg.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If a person gifts their tarded kid who looks like a school shooter, acts like a school shooter an AR15 for Christmas and then allow him to have access to said rifles and the tarded kid shoots up a school … you get everything you fucking deserve. Hope the whole family dies in jail. and then there's the leos,teachers,and relatives who knew about those threats and did nothing about it...PTAC right there... https://i.imgflip.com/9391vg.jpg If any of those bought the kids guns, charge them too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 7:57:16 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it is a slippery slope, it started 200+ years ago. If you provide means negligently to someone that commits a crime it has long been a legal possibility you'll go to jail. I'm on the road with limited internet, but can cite some pre-revolution common law on the issue this weekend if needed. I'm a pretty hardline gun rights guy, and plenty of members here have seen me with plates and a rifle next to them on fun adventure hikes, plus I've fought the ATF more than once in court. This is not a hill gun owners should want to die on, the two cases thus far in MI and GA are not out of line with centuries of law. The exact charges and punishments...maybe a little harsh. I expect the GA one to to turn into manslaughter plea bargains. Pre Revolution there were centuries of law that said the accused were guilty until proven innocent, or that the gov could force you to feed and house soldiers, or that you had no right to privacy in your person or papers. On and on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:24:22 AM EST
[#9]
I’m ok with it in cases where the parents gave their kids weapons after the parents knew their kid was mentally ill and making threats to shoot up a school. Don’t want to get charged? Don’t buy your mental ill kid a gun, so he can carry out the prior threats.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:30:17 AM EST
[#10]
If you provide a gun to a minor rot in prison with them especially if they have already made serious threats to harm people. Its simple
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:32:03 AM EST
[#11]
I agree it’s a slippery slope but in this case this kid had been reported for school shooting threats before and dad’s response to bullying was give him a gun?
What I’d like to know is if we are going to include parents in the blame and charge them then all of the law enforcement who looked and did nothing who knew about issues should be just as guilty, Can’t say parents fucked up knowing full well he was on your radar and you did nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:40:04 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could this be extended to the school, social workers, or LEOs that knew he was a danger? Sure if any of them bought him the rifle and ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:42:35 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. Why aren’t parents charged for drunk driving when their teenage kids drink and drive? They do if they give them the alcohol. No different. You are either a parent and responsible for your child or you are not. Pick one. Good charge, they are both an accomplice to murder and deserve harsh punishment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:46:34 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That’s completely different from what happened but, whatever. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: According to some in this thread yes. That’s completely different from what happened but, whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:47:51 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My issue is that it won't be universal. Joe Blow middle class guy had guns his kid had access to? Throw the book at him. Mary Jane Rottencrotch bought a BMW X3 obviously should be charged for her kid driving 100mph and killing someone. But Shaniqua who's kid has been found to be slinging dope and being a gang banger who lights up the Bodega with a switched Glock definitely isn't responsible because she "is doing the best she can" and "we don't want to stigmatize". There is a clear difference, being that the gang banger's mom didn't provide him the gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:49:00 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:51:08 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:51:15 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree it’s a slippery slope but in this case this kid had been reported for school shooting threats before and dad’s response to bullying was give him a gun? What I’d like to know is if we are going to include parents in the blame and charge them then all of the law enforcement who looked and did nothing who knew about issues should be just as guilty, Can’t say parents fucked up knowing full well he was on your radar and you did nothing. There is a big difference between handing the kid a gun and not charging the kid with a precrime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:51:49 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dad buys gun for a minor child under age 18 that can not legally purchase the gun themselves ------> Child uses that gun to shoot up a school and kill 4 people and injure many others Seems pretty clear to me. That father is responsible for that gun and what the child does with it until age 18. It seems pretty clear cut. How this is somehow being construed as something else beats me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:53:41 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Truth. If the parents were providing weapons, cars, and other equipment to them absolutely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 8:54:23 AM EST
[#21]
If the parents are negligent. Like buying your kid the gun, when there’s been issues already. Yeah you need to be charged with something.
If your kid randomly grabs your gun, out of the blue and goes crazy, I don’t think so. And on the flip side, if an alphabet agency had an eye on someone, and they did nothing, (at least notify the parents and tell them so they could lock up the guns)they should have a possibility of being charged too. Freedom also carries responsibility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:01:21 AM EST
[#22]
if the parents were complicit and facilitated the childs actions through negligence or abuse.... i 100% believe they should be held accountable at some level.
i have yet to see a parent implicated or charged that was either unaware or trying to get the kid help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:06:33 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The transfer and buying for your child is legal. You knew that right? Do you not have kids? There are a lot of things a kid can't do, so you LEGALLY do it for them. Are you then 100% responsible as a principal in any offense they commit? I can send my son off to hunt under 18 and with a gun. Scary stuff, right? If he kills some cows, I am financially responsible since he is my child. Charging me for everything he does is ridiculous. I am not 100% against the chance of any charges, but immediately arresting seems very questionable and sounds more like a knee jerk "look what we did" type of arrest and case. Crumbley was a mess but the school chose not to send him home and allowed him to stay at school. No search either, which seems odd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Dad buys gun for a minor child under age 18 that can not legally purchase the gun themselves ------> Child uses that gun to shoot up a school and kill 4 people and injure many others Seems pretty clear to me. That father is responsible for that gun and what the child does with it until age 18. The transfer and buying for your child is legal. You knew that right? Do you not have kids? There are a lot of things a kid can't do, so you LEGALLY do it for them. Are you then 100% responsible as a principal in any offense they commit? I can send my son off to hunt under 18 and with a gun. Scary stuff, right? If he kills some cows, I am financially responsible since he is my child. Charging me for everything he does is ridiculous. I am not 100% against the chance of any charges, but immediately arresting seems very questionable and sounds more like a knee jerk "look what we did" type of arrest and case. Crumbley was a mess but the school chose not to send him home and allowed him to stay at school. No search either, which seems odd. Actually, I think the school wanted to send Crumbly home. The mom said no because she had a hook-up with her boyfriend scheduled that afternoon. But everyone was negligent in not searching that backpack and his locker under the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:11:55 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think parents should be charged with the crime their kids commit but they should face some criminal or legal consequences of their kids are committing felonies. Your kids are your responsibility. The world would be a lot better place if parents were accountable for their children's actions. If you aren't ready to raise child that doesn't victimize others then don't fucking have kids. The problem with this is selective justice. They will never prosecute hood parents for their kids crimes which is where most of the violent crime comes from "Your kids are your responsibility. The world would be a lot better place if parents were accountable for their children's actions." I am comfortable with this as a general principle; but we live in a society that has systematically degraded parental influence over their children. We minimize their authority and then want to hold them responsible when things go side-ways. I am bothered by this part of it. I have complained for a long time now that one of the great problems in this society is that we have wrecked parental authority and influence through the education and entertainment industries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:13:28 AM EST
[#25]
I don’t buy the slippery slope bar argument. After the prosecution of the Crumbleys in Michigan, The state passed a safe storage law. Future prosecutions will actually be more difficult because if the parent complies with the safe storage law, and the child somehow gets possession of a firearm, you will not be able to show that the parents acted unlawfully or with criminal recklessness or negligence because now there’s a statutory standard for what they must do. bad Make bad law, but no parent whose son was questioned by the FBI over threats to shoot up a school should have given him unfettered access to a firearm. I’m OK with dad being prosecuted. I was OK with the Crumbleys being prosecuted too. They knew what they were doing, they were just hoping for a different outcome. 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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:16:44 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: not going to read a 4 page gd post. parent buys the gun? parent gives gun to disturbed minor? parent fails to secure firearms? disturbed minor uses firearm to kill people. I'm in. charge the parent. minors are NOT RESPONSIBLE legally. 18 years old? ok, MAYBE, the parent has no liability, if the disturbed NON MINOR is no longer living at home. minor, living at home? with unsecured firearms? goes on a killing spree with the parent purchased firearm? charge the parent. what charges? meh. don't gaf. local ag/prosecutor will get what he can get. but every parent who buys a gun for a minor had damn well better understand that the parent is on the hook for some liability when their kid goes nuts. so make sure your kid doesn't go nuts with a firearm. if that means you don't trust them with firearms and you need to lock everything up, so be it. but giving a 16 year old free access to weapons? when they are obviously displaying signs of mental disturbance? sorry, you get some liability. dipshit. In the cases of these fuckups of parents, i have to agree. I fully realize that i had very limited access to firearms as a teenager and my parents and grandparents had much more access but we also no longer live in that world. It sucks that we have to do extra work when we didn’t do anything wrong but it is what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:22:11 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You’re missing the whole point and concocting fantasy scenarios in your head. Did Shaniqua buy the Glock for her son after he made threat about killing people? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My issue is that it won't be universal. Joe Blow middle class guy had guns his kid had access to? Throw the book at him. Mary Jane Rottencrotch bought a BMW X3 obviously should be charged for her kid driving 100mph and killing someone. But Shaniqua who's kid has been found to be slinging dope and being a gang banger who lights up the Bodega with a switched Glock definitely isn't responsible because she "is doing the best she can" and "we don't want to stigmatize". You’re missing the whole point and concocting fantasy scenarios in your head. Did Shaniqua buy the Glock for her son after he made threat about killing people? A version of this did actually go down in my city. The CVPA high school shooter was a prohibited person, but not a minor. He got his hands on an AR. Mother called police to take gun away because she was afraid he would misuse it. Police said they could not take it under the law; but another relative said they would keep the gun away from him. He got the gun back and promptly shot up the school. No one wanted to discuss the actions of the relative and it was suppressed in the media. That story still has not been told. Family was black. Had they been white, the "other relative" like would be charged under these new standards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:23:50 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did they go out and buy him a rifle? It’s like suing the gun manufacturer, liquor store, car manufacturer, and on down the line when something bad happens. Yes, it’s a very slippery slope. It may apply in this instance, but people should pay for their own actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:25:49 AM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? Yes. 21 months. https://abcnews.go.com/US/mom-newport-news-teacher-shooting-sentenced/story?id=104925730 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 9:41:14 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s like suing the gun manufacturer, liquor store, car manufacturer, and on down the line when something bad happens. Yes, it’s a very slippery slope. It may apply in this instance, but people should pay for their own actions. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Did they go out and buy him a rifle? It’s like suing the gun manufacturer, liquor store, car manufacturer, and on down the line when something bad happens. Yes, it’s a very slippery slope. It may apply in this instance, but people should pay for their own actions. The relationship and responsibility that parents have for their children is NOTHING like gun manufacturers, liquor stores, etc. The Dad bought and allowed access to an AR for his 15 year old Son- who had previously made threats against the school. The Son then used the rifle to kill people. Dad SHOULD be charged. You and I are going to face major challenges to our 2nd amendment in the near future because of school shootings like this, where the parents were negligent. Fuck them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:01:59 AM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The relationship and responsibility that parents have for their children is NOTHING like gun manufacturers, liquor stores, etc. The Dad bought and allowed access to an AR for his 15 year old Son- who had previously made threats against the school. The Son then used the rifle to kill people. Dad SHOULD be charged. You and I are going to face major challenges to our 2nd amendment in the near future because of school shootings like this, where the parents were negligent. Fuck them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did they go out and buy him a rifle? It’s like suing the gun manufacturer, liquor store, car manufacturer, and on down the line when something bad happens. Yes, it’s a very slippery slope. It may apply in this instance, but people should pay for their own actions. The relationship and responsibility that parents have for their children is NOTHING like gun manufacturers, liquor stores, etc. The Dad bought and allowed access to an AR for his 15 year old Son- who had previously made threats against the school. The Son then used the rifle to kill people. Dad SHOULD be charged. You and I are going to face major challenges to our 2nd amendment in the near future because of school shootings like this, where the parents were negligent. Fuck them. Your argument sounds like where I am ending up. If we choose this fight, where we are publicly advocating against charging these obviously reckless parents, we risk loosing much more in the future. Some of the nightmare scenarios here may need to be fought in the political space; but these cases are parents so irresponsible i don't want to defend them on principle and risk my reputation. This dad, handing an AR to a disturbed child with his history, is the kind of thing that can get us heavy red flag laws and possibly fuel gun bans. Responsible gun owners need to be vocal that this was wildly irresponsible and probably criminally reckless. The murder charges are designed to get him to plead to the manslaughter charges which I think he deserves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:08:22 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. Both recent cases where the parents were charged they were 100% liable. If I was on first jury would have been 100% guilty. From what I know about the most recent one the dad belongs in prison And that right there is how freedoms are lost forever. You summed it up well. Do you honestly think this will be restricted to just guns? Once the precedent is set, nothing will be safe. Your special snowflake turns 16 and you buy them a car. They are 16 and stupid, and they make a bad turn and take out a motorcycle, killing the driver and his passenger who is also 4 months pregnant. Three cases of manslaughter. Your special snowflake isn’t charged for her mistake, you will be. You gave her the car. You have a shit ton more assets to transfer than your special snowflake. You can be sued for a shit ton of money, your house and belongings. Your 16 year old doesn’t have those resources. That is how government works. And you will gladly let them do it. That is kinda sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:09:48 AM EST
[#33]
Why is it a "horrible idea" to hold parents accountable for their own actions?
If what the GBI found is all true, then Colin Gray did knowingly allow his child, a MINOR, to possess a weapon while knowing he posed a security risk to others based upon his 2023 incident where there was an investigation that surely made Colin Gray privy to the fact that his child was mentally unstable. People here seem to be of the opinion that you have a moral right to bring children into the world, a civic mandate and duty to introduce them to the world of firearms as soon as they can walk, but must have legal insulation themselves as soon as that child commits an act of wrongdoing with it, EVEN IF they know the child was not fit to be handling such things, be it driving or shooting. It is the complete abdication of parental responsibility. Everybody's pride is too sky high to be told how to better parent their children. But as long as your child is a legal minor, guess what, you owe it to yourself to bear 100% of the responsibility for their actions dealing in things that require one to be of the age of majority to claim full entitlement to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:12:20 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Charging single mothers of inner city youth as well? This. Yes it's a slippery slope because it is not now, nor will it ever be consistently applied. NEVER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:14:17 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did they buy the gun for the kid who they knew wasn’t mentally well and had a history of making threats? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Charging single mothers of inner city youth as well? Did they buy the gun for the kid who they knew wasn’t mentally well and had a history of making threats? Is that the precedent? Were they functioning as a parent and supervising their children? It does not appear that this is the issue at play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:14:27 AM EST
[#36]
If they charged the parents of all these inner city thugs between 12 and 21 years old who are out shooting people, we’ll need more prison dorms. Heck, just build family wards. A father/son, mother/daughter can room up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:31:37 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And that right there is how freedoms are lost forever. You summed it up well. Do you honestly think this will be restricted to just guns? Once the precedent is set, nothing will be safe. Your special snowflake turns 16 and you buy them a car. They are 16 and stupid, and they make a bad turn and take out a motorcycle, killing the driver and his passenger who is also 4 months pregnant. Three cases of manslaughter. Your special snowflake isn’t charged for her mistake, you will be. You gave her the car. You have a shit ton more assets to transfer than your special snowflake. You can be sued for a shit ton of money, your house and belongings. Your 16 year old doesn’t have those resources. That is how government works. And you will gladly let them do it. That is kinda sad. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This. Both recent cases where the parents were charged they were 100% liable. If I was on first jury would have been 100% guilty. From what I know about the most recent one the dad belongs in prison And that right there is how freedoms are lost forever. You summed it up well. Do you honestly think this will be restricted to just guns? Once the precedent is set, nothing will be safe. Your special snowflake turns 16 and you buy them a car. They are 16 and stupid, and they make a bad turn and take out a motorcycle, killing the driver and his passenger who is also 4 months pregnant. Three cases of manslaughter. Your special snowflake isn’t charged for her mistake, you will be. You gave her the car. You have a shit ton more assets to transfer than your special snowflake. You can be sued for a shit ton of money, your house and belongings. Your 16 year old doesn’t have those resources. That is how government works. And you will gladly let them do it. That is kinda sad. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:44:28 AM EST
[#38]
I'm generally not okay with it, BUT...
If you know your kid is disturbed, has made threats, etc. etc... they should have no access to any firearm without you being right there with them at all times. Anyone that makes threats against others and you give them a firearm knowingly what they will do, you deserve what you get. I grew up in a time when we rode to school with shotguns hanging in the back of the truck and nothing ever happened. We didn't need to lock guns up to be safe. Sadly, and I swear it all started with participation trophies, we live in a world where people don't discipline their kids and let them do whatever they want whenever they want with no consequences. You can't have winners when everyone wins and there is no incentive to be better. What incentive is there to do better in life when you can sit back and do nothing and still be a winner while the true winners are busting their ass? It created this shitty mentality of everyone owes me, I can do whatever I want, and no one else matters. It's only getting worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 10:53:46 AM EST
[#39]
A child cannot legally buy ammunition, or a firearm. Access to this stuff has to be initiated by an adult.
The case for criminal charges is strong, but the case for civil charges is air tight and they 100% should be sued into oblivion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:03:17 AM EST
[#40]
Shouldn't be that difficult to keep it from being a slippery slope if you apply the standards of criminal recklessness. A parent that allows their disturbed kid to have access to weapons is consciously disregarding the risk that they will misuse them.
This is a long-established matter of law that doesn't infringe on our rights and would help to curb these kinds of shootings since so often the shooters have a long history of warning signs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:03:45 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it was about public safety, they would apply it to the parents of gang members who murder, rob, rape... Seems pretty clear there's an ulterior motive. A single mother working 7 days a week at three jobs is not the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:09:02 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, this is a horrible idea. It logically has to extend to vehicular homicide, theft, rape, etc Any crime a minor commits. I hear that punishing the relatives and neighbors of the convicted is working great in North Korea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:09:11 AM EST
[#43]
This will expand into parents being charged in every single shooting that occurs in the jurisdiction of an activist prosecutor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:12:17 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And that right there is how freedoms are lost forever. You summed it up well. Do you honestly think this will be restricted to just guns? Once the precedent is set, nothing will be safe. Your special snowflake turns 16 and you buy them a car. They are 16 and stupid, and they make a bad turn and take out a motorcycle, killing the driver and his passenger who is also 4 months pregnant. Three cases of manslaughter. Your special snowflake isn't charged for her mistake, you will be. You gave her the car. You have a shit ton more assets to transfer than your special snowflake. You can be sued for a shit ton of money, your house and belongings. Your 16 year old doesn't have those resources. That is how government works. And you will gladly let them do it. That is kinda sad. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This. Both recent cases where the parents were charged they were 100% liable. If I was on first jury would have been 100% guilty. From what I know about the most recent one the dad belongs in prison And that right there is how freedoms are lost forever. You summed it up well. Do you honestly think this will be restricted to just guns? Once the precedent is set, nothing will be safe. Your special snowflake turns 16 and you buy them a car. They are 16 and stupid, and they make a bad turn and take out a motorcycle, killing the driver and his passenger who is also 4 months pregnant. Three cases of manslaughter. Your special snowflake isn't charged for her mistake, you will be. You gave her the car. You have a shit ton more assets to transfer than your special snowflake. You can be sued for a shit ton of money, your house and belongings. Your 16 year old doesn't have those resources. That is how government works. And you will gladly let them do it. That is kinda sad. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:17:00 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This will expand into parents being charged in every single shooting that occurs in the jurisdiction of an activist prosecutor. I think GD is going to be ok with that, since a lot of those activists are in Dem stronghold cities where most of the shooting is done by minorities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:21:27 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This will expand into parents being charged in every single shooting that occurs in the jurisdiction of an activist prosecutor. If you've tried to get your kids straightened out and they still fuck up, that's one thing. Enabling their criminal behavior is another thing entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:22:18 AM EST
[#47]
Having been called an old boomer on here a bunch recently...Yes I am from the last year of it....
When I grew up - guns were always in the house...I knew better and and was trusted with them.... Believe the dad acted negligently - the police showed up at his door talking about his son threating a school shooting and you did not lock up your guns..... Yes you own part of it!!!!!!!!!!! Red |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:27:15 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You’re missing the whole point and concocting fantasy scenarios in your head. Did Shaniqua buy the Glock for her son after he made threat about killing people? Maybe they had the gun and the kid used it. Maybe the kid got it on the street and the parents were ok with the behavior. Maybe the kid was arrested numerous times with drugs/guns. Within all those situations the parents knew about the situation. In all the situations above the parents had the ability to prevent crime. You are trying to isolate out single individual events and make an exception. I'm trying to work on a legal precedent and explain the unequal application of the law. To say that parent #3 shouldn't be culpable after junior has had arrests and known to run with gangs is running away from the issue at hand: the parental responsibility of their child being known to be a danger to others and failing to act. I also read the Florida mass shooters accidently redacted report. That school administration should be up on charges too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 11:58:57 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe they had the gun and the kid used it. Maybe the kid got it on the street and the parents were ok with the behavior. Maybe the kid was arrested numerous times with drugs/guns. Within all those situations the parents knew about the situation. In all the situations above the parents had the ability to prevent crime. You are trying to isolate out single individual events and make an exception. I'm trying to work on a legal precedent and explain the unequal application of the law. To say that parent #3 shouldn't be culpable after junior has had arrests and known to run with gangs is running away from the issue at hand: the parental responsibility of their child being known to be a danger to others and failing to act. I also read the Florida mass shooters accidently redacted report. That school administration should be up on charges too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You’re missing the whole point and concocting fantasy scenarios in your head. Did Shaniqua buy the Glock for her son after he made threat about killing people? Maybe they had the gun and the kid used it. Maybe the kid got it on the street and the parents were ok with the behavior. Maybe the kid was arrested numerous times with drugs/guns. Within all those situations the parents knew about the situation. In all the situations above the parents had the ability to prevent crime. You are trying to isolate out single individual events and make an exception. I'm trying to work on a legal precedent and explain the unequal application of the law. To say that parent #3 shouldn't be culpable after junior has had arrests and known to run with gangs is running away from the issue at hand: the parental responsibility of their child being known to be a danger to others and failing to act. I also read the Florida mass shooters accidently redacted report. That school administration should be up on charges too. At least in the Crumbley’s case, they went beyond simply having a gun in the house or failing to prevent their child’s criminal actions. They knew their kid had a history of mental illness and decided to buy him a pistol, take him shooting, and conceal his deteriorating condition and further threats. Even then, it wasn’t an easy case to make and the Crumbley’s lack of remorse and threats to the court probably factored into the final outcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/12/2024 12:00:10 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could this be extended to the school, social workers, or LEOs that knew he was a danger? Did they purchase and provide the shooter with easy access to a gun? The reality disconnect in GD with so many of you is crazy. 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? |
|
|
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.
