Jennifer Crumbley, mother of school shooter, found guilty of manslaughter in test of who’s responsib

so it is your learned position that you cannot understand a religion even if you aren't a devotee? OKIE DOKIE.

 

Jennifer took son to the range.
Son had to show Jennifer how to use the 9mm semi-automatic handgun.

What was used against her is that her post showed she gave her mentally unstable son an illegally straw purchased gun for Christmas and the video footage from the range was the evidence that showed she was the last person in possession of the gun that her son used to slaughter and injure innocent students and teacher.

Jennifer and her defense attorney Smith wanted her "sex life" all out there for the jury, including that she and her fireman boyfriend used an adult singles site to meet up with strange people for sex.

Try and be focused on the evidence that was presented in court which is what enabled her jury to return 4 guilty verdicts,
Some of her jurors had kids and were gun owners
.

I agree with you that her guilty verdicts are "not a good outcome"
They're a absolutely freaking, fantastic outcome

 

are you upset that they own firearms?

 

I'm also on the fence. I've often wondered about holding the parents responsible for ALL crimes underage kids commit. Honestly if my brother had had to spend a month in jail the first time his son stole a car, I GUARANTEE it would've been the last one he ever stole.

However...if that was the solution, the government would have to stop telling parents how to discipline their kids. Also the parental punishment would have to be inflicted equally (as in not just for white parents in Oklahoma, but also for black single mothers in Brooklyn).

 

https://www.rd.com/article/things-school-shooters-have-in-common/

 

Probably not. It just means if you have a kid and a gun you need to keep the gun secured. It means if you have a kid with issues and the school notifies you and you refuse to do anything about it, you bear some responsibility for what they do next. The school wanted her to take him out of it because of his issues and she refused to do that too. This really comes down to the parents, or at least the mother, seemingly not caring before or after about it since she testified she wouldn't have done anything differently in the face of what her son did that she may could have prevented.

 

That is asking much too much from many gun owners.

 

I could understand the conviction if the child had been 9 years old, but the teen was 15, almost 16 years old, and totally knew what he was doing.

This verdict is attempting to "blame the gun", rather than the person who chose to murder four people.


I think there may be political and ideological bias in the case, with those on the political progressive side attempting to use this case as a precedent to expand gun control policies and shift social perceptions.

 

It is but it has been reported that several members of the jury were shocked and pissed when she said she wouldn't do a thing different in hindsight. This is a case where they should have never put her on the stand. She was her own worst enemy.

 

Hmm... So now you're relying on readers digest??? How ironic...

 

So this does mean that the state can arrest the welfare mom of every inner city gang banger that involves themselves in a mass shooting? If so, they are going to have create a hell of a lot more prisons. Horrible decision.

 

Please cite your source for what the penalty will be.

 

What are your thoughts on this ruling?[/QUOTE]
This is an extended liability case that exists because the killer used a gun purchased by his mother.
So logically, extended liability has to include cars bought by parents, knives from the kitchen, baseball bats, dangerous breeds of dogs.
If the defendant was not white, would there be a trial?
I doubt it because of the sympathy the justice system has with POC criminals.
This could clean out the ghettos, that's for sure.
Every gang banger and vato with a knife or a gun can take his parent to jail with him.
That's one way to cut welfare.

 

You cannot hold people accountable for others crimes unless they enable them. Jennifer DIRECTLY enabled her son by getting him the gun. That is no different than if I drive you to do the crime. If you enable, you are held accountable

 

Seems quite odd how it went from the "handjob" Queen to your thoughts.

 

Gang or no gang and this should apply to ALL parents/adults and should be criminally charged.

***. Any shooting not just mass shootings.


1.If she purchased and/or just gave the gun to her minor/adult kid because he/she couldn't legally buy one for themselves.

2. If she purchased and/or just gave them a gun when they were a minor/adult and she knew they were a gang member.

3. Left her gun unsecured and her kid got it, minor/ adult.

 

Yes, does that hurt your feelings?
When you do not practice nor read the teachings and render yourself to the ideology.
You do nor cannot totally understand.
But be delusional.

 

This is an extended liability case that exists because the killer used a gun purchased by his mother.
So logically, extended liability has to include cars bought by parents, knives from the kitchen, baseball bats, dangerous breeds of dogs.
If the defendant was not white, would there be a trial?
I doubt it because of the sympathy the justice system has with POC criminals.
This could clean out the ghettos, that's for sure.
Every gang banger and vato with a knife or a gun can take his parent to jail with him.
That's one way to cut welfare.[/QUOTE]

Total BS.
You don't need a license or have to be a certain age to use or be gifted your parent's kitchen knives or own a baseball bat.

There are local ordinances for dogs and may also be for dangerous dogs like Pit Bulls and Rottweilers,
I

 

Interesting. A convicted felon in Chicago violated his parole by threatening the life of his ex-girlfriend. The parole board gave him a pass and let him out. Less than 24 hours later, he made good on his threat by stabbing his ex-girlfriend and slicing her 11 years old son's throat so she got to watch him bleed out. Two members of the parole board resigned for their gross negligence in letting this animal out of his cage. Is it enough though? We have opened up the door to prosecuting parents, perhaps it is time to begin prosecuting negligent progressive bureaucrats. What do you think?

 

It wasn't buying the gun.
The kid had obvious issues and a fixation on gun violence.
In giving him the gun they, in essence, gave him permission to carry out his fantasies.

Personally, I believe they did it because they were afraid he'd turn on them.
Not an excuse but, imagine having a violent kid at home...

While I don't excuse what they did I think this should be a factor in sentencing.

 

Presuming, of course, you mean black people...


Did their parents willingly provide them the weapons?

 

So you see that description and immediately think of black people?....yikes the racism is strong in you.

 

And I'm assuming you think some of them are very good people.

Guess What?

 

Yet you focus on the one kid who actually was defending himself... Yet turn a blind eye to the 10's of billions in damages, 1000's of businesses lost and innocent lives lost trying to defend their life and property during the "summer of love". The left surely were hoping for the same fate of David Dorn for Rittenhouse which is absolute sickening..

 

Too many chocolate eggs this AM?
Jelly bean OD?

What kinds of damage and destruction were the children at Oxford high School doing that they deserved to die?

AND
Kill Shitterhouse?
You mean George Zimmerman?
Yeah, how's life going for Shitterhouse Senior nowdays?

Maybe Shitterhouse should reconsider his career choices?