This case will cause a chilling effect but in a backward sort of way. The reality is that nobody is likely to be convicted in the way Crumbley was, because Crumbley was so unbelievably stupid it was literally criminal. So the only people who will be convicted under this precedent are the equally stupid.

But more intelligent parents will take note, get scared, and hopefully lock up their guns so their insane kids can't use them to shoot up the school.

Hmm better make a reminder about this before I head into work as a district attorney

You've got some crazy wishful thinking if you think this is enough for people to give up their guns.

Because only the parents knew the worst parts, they bought him a gun, and then left it accessible.

Days later when called to the school over concern that he was showing signs of committing a mass shooting, the parents downplayed it and said their son should remain in school.

They didn't mention the gun, or ask the son about it. They didn't even go home to check.

We have this weird taboo over talking about guns. But when a kid shows these signs "do they have access to guns" should be one of the first questions asked.

The kid needed help, and knew he needed help, but he still chose to go through with it instead of turning himself in.

The drawing on the math paper was a cry for help. He could have just as easily turned himself in, he did not.

It also doesn't help that:

a) Ethan gave his dad the money for the gun, and picked out that specific gun, when he was not old enough to own a gun.

b) Dad made a straw purchase for his son.

c) Mom posted to Instagram calling the gun her sons Christmas present.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/ethan-crumbley-says-he-gave-james-crumbley-money-to-buy-gun-used-in-oxford-high-school-shooting

In USA, we have a Punitive Justice system, which is about punishing people for things they have or may have done. This has conditioned us to -want- people to be punished for perceived slights. This is opposed to a Rehabilitive Justice system that some European countries have, which is about not just helping the one who commited the crime to be a better person, but conditioning their citizens to not be the type of people that commit said crimes in the first place. That's all there is to it.

That guy is a murderer and his father is an accessory to murder. Where’s the doubt?

Even if he'd been found not competent to stand trial, he'd still be committed involuntarily. I don't know if this makes a difference.

The kid killed 4 other kids. At 15 you know that isn't acceptable even if you need help.

Because they don't know what to do or who to blame.

Going by the education I got from L&O, what happens in one trial doesn't really affect a separate trial, even for the same crime

We know who they voted for too.

You're charging two adults. The parent is charged with a separate crime. It's like if you enabled someone to commit a crime. That's a crime. That's what's happening here.

“James Crumbley is not on trial for what his son did,” prosecutor Karen McDonald told the jury. “James Crumbley is on trial for what he did and for what he didn’t do.”

They neglected their son's mental health problems and left a gun unlocked at home

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors

A person can technically be a child, and then found to be responsible enough to be treated as an adult. To use a fictional example, Dougie Howser, MD was a 14 year old licensed to dispense drugs.

Same deal with charging someone as an adult. If a 14 year old plans a crime over months they can't claim that they acted impulsively or had no idea of what the crime would mean.

?

It just makes them accomplices. Same reason you can charge a getaway driver for a murder in a robbery.