LIVE: VERDICT WATCH - MI v. James Crumbley | LAWYER REACTS
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 13. 03. 2024
- In this live stream, we're watching the verdict come back in MI v. James Crumbley (father of Ethan Crumbley, aka the Oxford School Shooter).
FOR CONTEXT:
James Crumbley is the father of Ethan Crumbley, also known as the Oxford School Shooter. Ethan was sentenced to life without parole in December 2023. Then in February, Ethan's mother, and James' wife, Jennifer Crumbley, was convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for failing to prevent her son's shooting. Now, James is on trial for the same charges as Jennifer. James' jury was seated on March 6th, and trial began with opening statements on March 7th.
To Become a Member of Byte Club, you can pick between YT, Locals, or Patreon:
YT Members: / @legalbytesmedia
Locals: legalbytes.locals.com
Patreon: / legalbytes
--------------------
đš Our podcast:
Anchor: anchor.fm/legalbytes
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4i3YLop...
Apple Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcast: podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0...
--------------------
đš We have a @LegalBytes Clips channel for clips from our live streams. Subscribe here: / @legalbytesclips4042
--------------------
Follow me here!
Twitter: / legalbytesmedia
Instagram: / legalbytesmedia
Facebook: / legalbytesmedia
--------------------
đ« Dragon's Treasure Teas: Visit www.thedragonstreasure.com/?d... for 10% off some delicious teas and to support this channel!
--------------------
Merch: legal-bytes.creator-spring.com
--------------------
#JamesCrumbley #EthanCrumbley #OxfordSchoolShooting
This gives me great hope for the future. Thank you so much for covering this, itâs important.
With great firepower comes great responsibility
It was a pistol, & he stole it...
Comparing a gun to a knife or car is not analogous AT ALL. A gun has ONE purpose- to ki!!. A knife that is found in the home is likely intended for cutting up food, and a car is for transportation. Almost anything can become a weapon but if it IS a weapon it needs to be handled with utmost care. That means the parent needs to either keep it locked up at all times when theyâre not home OR theyâd better KNOW that their child can respect it and only touch it if thereâs an intruder. I think it was said but with the car itâs only analogous to this situation if the kid has shown a history of drinking and driving and you hand them the keys to go to a party. Or worse- if theyâre already drunk, which is closer to the school shooting analogy because the kid was already mentally ill and the parents knew it. I wish people would pause and reflect more on whatâs happening because there are too many ppl running on emotion now and not logic. The only precedent this is setting is holding extremely negligent parents accountable for the crimes their kids do if their negligence is the cause. How is ANYONE concerned about THAT?! đ€·đ»ââïž
Yet cars kill more frequently than the object you say is only intended to kill. It doesn't matter the implement used to kill a person, dead is dead.
Let's be very clear, a car intended for transporting people & goods kills more frequently than an object intended for sporting purposes, or self defense.
Yes, any dangerous object deserves to be handled with care. The gun was stored in the parents room, where they believed it was safe.
How many teens get into accidents because they didn't properly respect a car & the power they wield when behind the wheel? How many people die every year because of negligent drivers? We have all kinds of licensing & regulations for motor vehicles, yet people still drive recklessly, tailgate, weave in & out of traffic at excessive speeds. I see it every day on my hour commute to & from work. I had someone T-bone me in a 26ft box truck doing 55 MPH. He blew through a red light because he was looking down at his lap. If he hadn't hit the wheel pf the truck he would likely be dead. His mother was pretty angry when she showed up, he wrecked the car she bought him, & could have killed someone. 45k in damage to the truck I was driving, & his Jeep was totaled. She knowingly let him drive the truck, she provided the means, & she knew exactly what he was doing when he wrecked (advanced knowledge of texting while driving). I can easily make the crime fit, & it would be more compelling, because she knew he engaged in the behavior that caused the accident.
The parents didn't know their child was mentally ill, what they knew is that he was going through a rough time because his friend moved away. It wasn't until an hour before the shooting they had all of the pieces to put the picture together, & by the time they had, it was too late.
"Negligent parents," no, more like your emotional 20/20 hindsight. I live in Southeast Michigan, I watched the entire story unfold the day it happened. The misreporting of the media, the almost immediate politicization of what happened, & school officials quickly pointing fingers at everyone else after they decided to let him stay the very day it happened.
The parents couldn't predict that their son would do what he did, because they didn't have the information to make that determination until an hour before it happened. They obviously thought that they knew their son could be trusted not to touch the gun unless there was an intruder. If they had suspected (as you claim they did) they wouldn't have bought a gun for him to use, right?
What mental illness was their son diagnosed with by a medical professional prior to the incident? Are you going off of what District Attorneys & media labeled him as? What makes you think Government actors are capable or honest enough to determine whether a person is mentally capable of handling a firearm?
I completely agree, there are too many people operating from a place of emotion. Confession through projection, you're the person you're referring to.
You & I have the benefit of possessing knowledge/information after several months of investigation. They had to live it in the moment, they didn't have all of the information the prosecution has compiled at the time their son murdered those people. They had bits & pieces, & because they didn't have all of the information necessary you call them negligent? You're demanding perfect results from imperfect people with incomplete information, that's not a realistic expectation.
Sandy Hook, the guy murdered his mother in her sleep after failing the current background check, stole her guns, & went on to murder school children. The pretense locking guns up will prevent murder is delusional, & reduces vital response time should an intruder present themself.
Thats a good point, however, the parents never informed the school about this gun. This wouldve never happened if so
Well they didnt tell the school about the gun trying to cover their asses AND THEN didnt even make sure that the gun was secured? Thats definitely gross negligence. That right there counters any doubt.
They didn't need to, the chocolate was aware that guns were in the home, because when confronted about the son looking up ammunition, the Son's response was that sports shooting is a family hobby. If "that right there counters any doubt." Then you've failed to understand what the legal definition of criminal negligence entails in the State of Michigan.
American Beauty... such a good point @legalbytes
My problem is, with hindsight nearly everything is forseeable. If it stays in cases where there is blatant negligence sure, but what is 'blatant' tends to shift by association that's concerning but we'll see I guess.
No one thanked the jury at the press conference. Is that normal. I really don't like this prosecutor. I firmly believe that the prosecutions of the parents were to give her a peg to hang her re-election hat on.
â€
I think the prosecutions of the parents were wrong and really aimed at preventing them helping the child in his defence and adjustment to jail. It is absolutely ridiculous to think they could have expected the boy to murder. If they had they would have been afraid to have allowed a loaded gun in his hands near them, in the home and at the range. This is vengeance not justice.
It made me feel sick when prosecutor said GUN VIOLENCE IS NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH IN CHILDREN IN AMERICA. That is so sad. Donât give kids guns, lock up guns and be responsible for the guns you buy.
The prosecutor was using a dishonest statistic that includes 18 & 19 year old adults engaged in gang violence.
We're so screwed.
So youâre saying you didnât watch the trial đ. 24 people from two totally segregated groups had to ALL agree to this and yet you, some rando online who didnât watch the trial thinks theyâre ALL wrong. Got it. đ
Gross. I'm out.
Bye! đ
The verdict is ridiculous, in my opinion, but so was the conviction of his wife.
Using journal entries (that may or may not be true), writings that the parents weren't likely to have read, is a bit of a stretch. People tend to write private thoughts, & musings in journals, most teens don't respond well to such invasions of privacy, & most modern parents won't invade it.
The parents bought a firearm for their teen to use in their supervision. Ethan clearly violated the conditions of it's use. Otherwise, his parents wouldn't have been concerned when they discovered it was missing.
The problem with trying to use the search for ammunition is that searching for ammunition when you've expressed interest in shooting at the range with your parents isn't itself concerning or some kind of red flag. The red flag, was the new information that manifested the day of, was provided an hour before the shooting. The parents barely had time to process what they were confronted with before the mass shooting occurred.
Up until the meeting with school officials (the day of the shooting), the parents didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle. Without that vital piece of the puzzle given an hour before the shooting, the picture is incomplete. An hour isn't enough to process & put that puzzle together, especially not for parents with a loving blindspot for their child.
Expecting the parents to know he had stolen the gun, expecting them to know his every thought, & intention isn't reasonable.
As I stated with my comparison to car keys, & driving a 3,000 lb projectile. Parents buy their teens cars all the time, they give them hand me down cars. If the teen takes off with the car & violates the conditions of receiving the car, intentionally running into a parade, would you hold the parents accountable for the actions of their teen? They supplied the vehicle, but the teen broke the rules the parents set. Why wouldn't you apply the same standard for an object that kills more people than guns each year?
Why shouldn't there be an expectation that you lock up the keys to a potentially dangerous vehicle the same way you be required to lock up a potentially dangerous firearm?
In her party analogy, the keys to vehicles are taken, especially for underage teens drinking alcohol. What happens if one of those underage teens takes their keys back without the knowledge of others, & kills others as a result? You could charge the person for allowing underage teens to drink alcohol, but previously, you couldn't hold parents accountable for teens stealing their property & abusing it.
This novel use of the law opens that door. Currently, it's for the purposes of the anti-gun lobby. Just because the people that dreamed the legal theory up don't intend to use it as a precedent to apply the law in the way I described, doesn't mean people won't. This precedent doesn't just open parents, & guardians up to criminal prosecution, but civil suits as well. There are plenty of lawyers & opportunistic people who would abuse this precedent in hopes of a big payout.
This case and his wife's case should never have made it to trial. The DA & her cohort were smiling at the press conference. That's ghoulish to say the least, despite her words, she was smiling. People are dead, their son confessed, & was sentenced as an adult after stealing a gun they didn't know he had stolen. That should have been a somber moment. Every parent involved, their lives were changed irrevocably, but she was smiling, as though punishing the parents for the actions of their son was some victory for justice. Anyone saying this is justice, is kidding themselves.
A car isn't literally designed to be a weapon. You need a license and insurance to drive a car, and at least where I am you can't even drive alone in the car without supervision until you've had a learners for a year. You have to do a road and written test before you even get a license, and if you declare certain health conditions you might need to have doctors approval at 1-5 year intervals which you pay to obtain. Some diagnoses prevent even being able to get a license.
It sounds like there weren't a lot of steps and hoops to go through with this child getting a gun. And I would presume that most people wouldn't think that a child might be having concerning thoughts about harming others if they draw their car all over their school work and with dark messages accompanying... that might make someone think the kids wants to kill themselves while driving? A gun is a VERY obvious and known dangerous weapon that is knowingly used for harm at a significantly greater rate than using a car. Those instances with a car will likely often be due drugs, medical event, not paying attention...
It sounded like he parents got more than 1hr notice that something bad could potentially happen. If you were shown your child's homework with guns and images of dead people and really dark messages, and you know you have guns at home, would you not have any immediate concern? Of course it doesn't scream "I have a gun on me today" but it's a huge red flag that they need to address right away. It's understandable work gets in the way sometimes. The dad was doing Doordash though, which you can have a child tagging along to do. Or try to work with the school counselor to see if they have any connections that they cav reach out to for the day of to help with watching the kid or maybe having family help out etc.
The car analogy was not in any way similar to this. Other day to day objects that can be used to harm like knives obviously will be a gray zone because they aren't DESIGNED TO HARM. Guns inherently are. Helping a child with mental illness is a harrowing task and it's not easy for child or parent, but it needs to be addressed even if it's inconvenient at the time.
Yes, giving a child a car unsupervised to drive on public roads is ridiculously irresponsible.
Buying a gun for a child is ridiculously irresponsible.
If someone is not considered responsible enough to be having sex then they clearly aren't responsible enough to be using tools that frequently kill others.
It would be better if the adults of the USA would care about all the children of the the USA rather than just themselves and their own kids. Examples: homeschoolers campaigners for no laws to check on their kids, uncaring of the abused children who parents use homeschooling as an excuse to hide them.
As the USA urbanises, old traditions have to be left behind.
Caring about others is good.
Thinking that a bunch of slave owners from the 18th century are a pantheon of all knowing Gods is ridiculous.
The USA is finally growing up, welcome to the growing pains.
Yeah Iâm not reading that book you wrote but this isnât that hard- if you leave your gun out and accessible to a child and they use it to hurt others because youâre too negligent to know who your kid is- YOU are also going to prison. Iâm so sick of bad parents getting off Scott free cause yâall canât be bothered to be responsible. Donât like it? Donât have kids. Guns are the NUMBER ONE cause of childrenâs deaths in America⊠because of ppl like you. So no one cares if this bothers you. It bothers us more that you donât care about the welfare of your own children or ours.
@@ashley4290the gun wasnât the kids!! Kids canât have guns so the dad LIED and said it was for HIM! And THAT is why this terrible parent is going to prison possible for life.
@@ashley4290 technically the teen (almost an adult) didn't get the gun, his parents did. They allowed him to use it with their supervision. You can't buy a pistol until you're 21 by federal law, you may remember that federal law from the Kyle Rittenhouse case, which is why Kyle was carrying a long rifle instead of a pistol that night.
The parents had no knowledge of the drawings until they were presented with them at a meeting less an hour before their son started murdering people. The "dark messages" & drawings weren't seen by them until the day of the shooting. Without them there was no cause for immediate concern, & until they were confronted the day of the incident with those drawings & messages. It's not an exaggeration, the parents left the school meeting about the messages & drawings an hour before he started killing people. That's when it was presented to them, no sooner.
Sorry, but looking up ammunition online the day before, for a firearm you've expressed interest in using at the range isn't a red flag. What was presented to them the day of was, & they barely had time to process what was presented to them. Forget about addressing it, they hardly had time to process it, let alone connect the dots.
Thank you for keeping us updated! Love from Germany
â€