1y ago

Jury foreperson in Jennifer Crumbley case says the mother failed to 'secure' the gun used in the mass shooting from her son

www.nbcnews.com

Jennifer Crumbley, 45, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the deadly school shooting carried out by her then-15-year-old son in 2021.
[…]
In the trial, Jennifer Crumbley testified that while “I don’t think I’m a failure as a parent” and “wouldn’t have” done anything differently in how she parented her son, she felt regret for what he did.

It's about time a parent is held responsible. Maybe this will finally start moving a needle.

67 comments

There wasn't a single thing they would have done differently? Because my daughter is only 13 and hasn't killed anyone and I can still think of plenty of things I would have done differently if I had to do them over again.
Her son was doomed from the start because he had a narcissistic parent.
Considering they gifted it to him when they knew he was mentally unwell, I would agree that would qualify as failing to secure it.
- I wouldn't give a mentally fit 15-year-old a gun. At the age they don't really understand how destructive the gun is, not at a visceral level.
  
  100%. Even my gun nut family will give access to guns, but the kids never truly own a gun or have unlimited access without a guardian. They're kids!
Good. This is some common sense gun laws I think people could get behind. You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable. Maybe more people will not keep a loaded gun unsecured and accessible to anyone let alone children.
- but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable.
  Exactly.
  People like to scream about their rights, but they forget that rights come with responsibilities.
- I personally think maybe we should consider subsidizing gun-safe purchases so people are incentivized to buy a gun safe by making them more affordable to first time gun-buyers.
  Guns are pretty expensive on their own, and much like people buying a fancy motorcycle but cheaping out on helmet and chaps, people will skip the gun safe if it costs more than they can afford including the gun.
  
  Or maybe they have to buy a safe and or prove they already have one before they are allowed to buy a gun. We can't take away the right to own a gun but we sure as hell can make sure it's safely stored.
  
  I’m pretty sure there have been such programs for trigger locks
  
  I thought gun locks were required to be included with sales?
  I know several gun owners who carry and eventually the gun is just like a wallet or keys, they forget about it, loose it, and drop it on the ground. Thousands of gun owners try to bring their weapons through airport security every year, and most of them just forgot they had it on them.
  You're thinking of owners who hunt or shoot for recreation forgetting all the wannabe gunslingers for whom storing the thing in a safe would defeat the purpose of owning the thing.
- In some areas of the US, it is way too easy for criminals to get hold of a gun: Steal a car, get a gun for free.
- You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable.
  I think support for this depends a lot on where that line is drawn. Failing to keep your admittedly troubled children away from guns is obvious (and covered by existing laws, hence the guilty verdict here). At the other extreme, I don't think having a gun stolen during a legitimate robbery should be criminalized, since that's moving into victim-blaming territory.
  I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but a parent in this sort situation has some responsibility both from the failure in parenting and the failure in securing the firearm. Makes for an easy agreement with the verdict in this specific situation, imo.
  
  Having an unsecured gun stolen during a robbery vs having a secured gun stolen during a robbery are different though.
I can't be the only person who cringes anytime a juror from a big trial does a press tour, right?
Creepy as fuck, and makes me wonder what will come out about their conduct during trial.
- We pay jurors a pittance to give up weeks if not more of their lives for these massive cases. I can’t blame them for wanting to get something more from it.
  
  Yup. When I got roped into jury duty, it almost caused me to go homeless; I lost a five figure contract because I couldn’t guarantee availability anymore. And the $4 per day from jury duty didn’t even cover the cost of my parking.
- 15 minutes of fame
- Yeah, seems fraught. That said, I feel a little different where it might be attached to a societal issue like gun control vs something where it's a tabloid driven murder case or something.
  
  In this case, the added publicity for holding parents responsible for not securing firearms, or giving underaged people free access, is more valuable than anything else.
People ask "how did this happen?" after a shooting. The inevitable answer "they were raised bad" is now being scrutinized and this is what it looks like when we agree raising a child is now a legal liability. Making good parenting a legal requirement is a good step towards better adults. It's going to be interesting seeing those who believe "property rights over human rights" spin this decision to make them the victim.
- Ok, sure, but some pro-life states make you have kids even if you don't want to continue with the pregnancy. So this may cause unfit parents to exist due to government policies.
  
  Which is why we need to make the Republican party extinct.
- There's definitely an opportunity for a slippery slope here. At the same time, these parents put strawman examples of negligent parents to shame. They did almost everything bad except actively aid their son in the act.
- The issue is though who defined what is and isn't "good parenting"?
Good thing they withheld her last name, because she's about to become an instant celebrity for lonely dudes into pale gothy women.
- I respect a chick that goes full Elvira for a morning show interview. Staff makeup team must've been over the moon about touching her up.
  
  Thank you! I know it's vapid, but I can't believe I had to scroll so far to find people talking about this absolute lewk!
That's almost impossible to prove to a jury in a civil case. Pretty landmark they proved it in a criminal one. I still wouldn't expect it to be a trend though.
Yes, and as long as you have those irresponsive gun owners, your school shooter problem will not go away.
Is it not weird that jurors can just get out there and start selling their stories after being involved in a trial...? It feels weird.
They didn't go far enough. Anyone who treats guns like this around children should be nailed to a building and pecked to death by birds.
There are colloquial sayings related to cautioning against giving matches to children. “Like giving matches to a child,” used metaphorically to describe any reckless or dangerous act of enabling someone ill-equipped to handle a situation. This underscores the inherent risks and potential for harm in such actions, reflecting a common understanding that certain tools or privileges should only be entrusted to those who can handle them responsibly.
We have this baked into us, that things like matches shouldn’t be left to children. But for some fucked up reason, some adults think firearms and children mix.
This mother has no regrets about her parenting and wouldn’t change anything?! She’s kidding herself to sleep at night.
I think it's a good thing for parents to be held accountable for school shooters' actions, because that punishment can act as a deterrent for the shooters. A would-be shooter might change their mind if they know their parents will go to prison if they carry out their plans.
- Given that he tried to say he alone was responsible, I think this is accurate.
How do you try a kid as an adult then blame the mom for not being a responsible adult for her child's actions?
- More than one person can be responsible for a crime. A burgler might have been the one to break and enter but the accomplice could still have been culpable of staking the house and driving the getaway car.
  
  Well yes. But you have a child that did a heinous thing. We say this kid actually has enough moral culpability and responsibility to be tried as an adult and receive life in prison. Then in the other trial you argue that this mother is culpable because the child actually is a child, and an adult needs to responsible? The rationale of manslaughter was based on the mother being the last adult with the gun, right? That seems contradictory and if we want to blame the mother, the kid should be tried as kid.
- Easily. You say "Here's the process we need to throw demonstrably garbage people in the trash" and then you do that process.

67 comments