This is a piece where I diverge slightly from my conservative cohorts, but since they're all fighting over H1-B visas at the moment, it seemed like a good time to have this discussion.
On November 30, 2021, Ethan Crumbley -- then 15-years-old -- took a gun his father had purchased for him days prior and shot several people at Oxford High School in Michigan. Four died. In December 2023, Ethan Crumbley was sentenced to life in prison. He recently tried to withdraw his guilty plea; a judge denied the request.
At the same time, his parents -- James and Jennifer Crumbley -- were also brought up on charges in connection with the shooting. James Crumbley bought his son the gun used in the shooting days before the crime.
Jennifer was charged with involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to serve between 10 and 15 years in prison. This was the first time parents were charged in association with a school shooting.
Crumbley's attorneys appealed the decision, and now are asking a judge to release her while the lengthy appeals process plays out:
Recommended
School shooter's mom Jennifer Crumbley asks judge to release her from prison, says imprisonment is 'unfair' https://t.co/YP8x4ZLV5V
— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 27, 2024
Jennifer Crumbley, the convicted mother of the Oxford school shooter, requested that a judge release her from prison, maintaining it would be "grossly unfair and unjust" to keep her locked up during her ongoing appeals process.
The request to be released came after Crumbley was convicted on four counts of involuntary manslaughter for the shooting son, Ethan, carried out on Nov. 30, 2021. The shooting at Oxford High School killed Tate Myre, 16; Justin Shilling, 16; Hana St. Juliana, 14; and Madisyn Baldwin, 17, and injured seven others. Her husband, James Crumbley, was later convicted on the same charges.
Crumbley's attorney, Michael Dezsi, filed a motion in the Oakland County Circuit Court on Thursday, arguing that Crumbley is not a "flight risk" and "poses no danger to the public."
Given the fact the courts tried Ethan Crumbley as an adult -- and therefore outside of his parents' responsibility -- it seems a stretch to charge Jennifer Crumbley with involuntary manslaughter (James Crumbley is a different argument). According to Michigan's penal code, involuntary manslaughter requires:
That the defendant caused the death of the deceased victim, that the deceased individual died as a result of the defendant's action.
That the defendant either:
- intended to kill the victim
- intended to do great bodily harm to the victim,
- created a situation where the risk of great bodily harm or death was very high, knowing that as a result of the defendant's actions he or she knew that serious harm or death would likely result.
That the defendant caused the death of the victim without justification or lawful excuse.
The prosecution hinged its case on the fact Jennifer Crumbley, after meeting with school officials on the day of the shooting, failed to remove her son from school, or seek professional help, or check Ethan Crumbley's backpack for the gun.
By that logic, the parent of any troubled child who harms a student (with or without a gun), or takes contraband to school, is subject to prosecution for failing to do those things. I notice parents in Detroit aren't brought up on charges if their kids commit crimes with guns.
Seems an unfair double standard.
But under Michigan (and federal) gun laws, there's a case to be made: it was against state law for Ethan Crumbly to possess a firearm except under direct supervision of an adult. Under federal law, it's illegal to purchase a handgun until age 21 and illegal to possess them until age 18.
If the state wanted to make a case against the Crumbley parents, it was under gun laws and not involuntary manslaughter.
But they didn't do that.
And we all know why.
The Left wants to use shootings to enact blanket gun bans. It's why their response to every shooting is 'universal background checks' and 'red flag laws' and 'assault rifle bans' (without ever truly defining assault rifles).
None of those things would've stopped Crumbley. Nor would they have stopped Natalie (Samantha) Rupnow, who shot and killed two at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin earlier this month. Rupnow used a handgun and it was bought for her by her father, with whom she would shoot competitively.
It won't stop the Left from trying, and they won't stop until they get what they want.
But what the Right should do is get ahead of the game and change the narrative. They should propose a law -- broadly -- requiring the safe storage of guns in homes where those who cannot legally purchase or possess firearms (e.g. children under 18) live. Yes, it's a right, but it's also a responsibility.
It does not have to require a specific safe, or any safe at all. Safe storage could be a closet, a gun trigger lock, a bedroom. But parents should be required to have control over firearms in their homes at all times and if a firearm goes missing, report it to proper authorities. There should be no state inspections or registries (sorry, Kamala!), and it shouldn't be federal but state-level.
Just simply a law that requires parents to safely store guns and face consequences if one of those guns is used in a crime. It also shouldn't apply if the state tries the suspect as an adult: either he's the responsibility of the parents, or he isn't.
This includes for parents in places like Chicago, where gun violence is endemic. It's unfair to charge the Crumbleys with involuntary manslaughter and not parents in the Windy City.
The majority of gun owners I know already do this as a default. It doesn't place an onerous burden on any gun owner who doesn't already practice basic gun safety.
On top of this, it will stop prosecutors from overcharging under or misapplying existing laws. Michigan's involuntary manslaughter laws were -- by the prosecution's own admission -- stretched to apply to James and Jennifer Crumbley. That is a miscarriage of justice.
It also gives the Right the ammo (no pun intended) of saying they've put forth a proposal that -- unlike the Left's gun grabs -- encourages responsibility and consequences for failing to secure guns. Let the Left go on record as opposing this and explain why. It will undermine their entire gun-control narrative, which is a bonus.
