The Sins Of The Mother…And Father…And School District
A historic conviction may have just put future parents at risk if their children commit crimes.
On November 30th, 2021, in the somewhat sleepy town of Oxford Michigan, things were going fairly usual. Unfortunately, this would not be the case for long. The reason for this is because according to Oxford High School surveillance footage, around 12:51 p.m. Ethan Crumbley, a 15-year-old student at the school, was seen going into a bathroom with a backpack. Then, a few moments later he emerged with a gun.
Shortly thereafter Ethan began “methodically and deliberately” working his way through the school hallways, firing that aforementioned gun dozens of times at students and teachers alike. The brutal onslaught, which according to prosecutor Marc Keast was too horrific to put into words, lasted roughly four or five minutes until Ethan, who had by then gone into a different bathroom, surrendered to law enforcement.
Even though the shooting was only a couple of minutes, the result of Ethan’s actions resulted in 4 dead students, 6 injured students, and one injured teacher. Of course, that is only the quantifiable cost. When you take into account the negative impact his unprovoked attack had on the community as a whole, as well as on the mental well-being of those who were there and survived, the damage is much broader and long-lasting.
In response to this shooting, many people were left wondering how this could have happened and what could have been done to stop it; and that is where things start to get interesting, at least from a legal perspective.
It is not surprising that in the aftermath of the Oxford High School shooting Ethan Crumbley was charged and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In fact, after pleading guilty
to one count of terrorism causing death, four counts of first-degree murder, and nearly twenty other related charges, anything else would likely have caused a public outrage. But what is interesting is who else has been charged.
On February 6th, 2024, a Michigan jury found Jennifer Crumbley (45), the mother of Ethan, guilty of manslaughter. This verdict means that when she is sentenced on April 9th of this year, she could face up to 15 years for a crime that, technically, she did not commit.
But Jennifer is not the only one being charged in this case. This is to say that in addition to Ethan and his mother, James Crumbley (47), the father, has also been charged with manslaughter. And even though he has not been found guilty of this charge, yet, according to his defense attorney it is very likely that he will as early as next month.
Now this may seem strange, charging someone for a crime they, themselves, did not commit. Nonetheless, the reasoning for doing so has struck many as compelling.
To begin with, in the days leading up to the Oxford High School shooting, Jennifer Crumbley, who was having an affair at the time, and her husband purchased the gun used in the massacre. Jennifer even bragged on social media about gifting it to her son. Ergo, as far as the parents of the victims were concerned, and presumably the jury, James and Jennifer had enabled the shooting. But more than this, though, throughout the trial it became clear that the parents of this obviously troubled young man had shown a pattern of ignoring Ethan’s psychological issues, despite being aware of them.
Examples of this include them failing to take seriously disturbing images Ethan had drawn in class depicting the handgun he would later use to kill his fellow students, and a bullet, alongside quotes like “the thoughts won’t stop help me,” and “blood everywhere,” all of which were brought to their attention by teachers a few hours before the deadly affair.
Furthermore, earlier that month right after the Thanksgiving holiday, Ethan’s mother had also failed to take action after a teacher reported him to her for looking up ammunition online, and simply handled the situation by ignoring the teacher and instead texting her son “LOL I’m not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught.”
Last but not least, the parents failed to get Ethan treatment even after noticing erratic behavior, such as him obsessively cleaning because he believed his house to be haunted, and allowing him to live in their guest room because his room was in such a state of squalor; occurrences that contributed to a psychologist who testified in the case saying that Ethan was like a “feral child” who had experienced neglect during pivotal years in his development.
As guilty as these pieces of evidence make the parents of Ethan Crumbley look, there are also some questions regarding the culpability of the school in this attack. Most notable is a 572-page report released by a firm named Guidepost Solutions, a company that was hired by the Oxford Community School board after the incident, that states, “Our independent investigation established that the Shooter was not identified as a threat because individuals at Oxford High School failed to recognize on November 30, 2021, that the Shooter’s conduct, statements, and drawings suggested that he might cause physical harm at the school.”
More specifically, the report highlighted the fact that the school should have sent Ethan home on the day of the shooting and that if they had, this situation very likely could have been avoided. Well, at least temporarily.
Of course, as with everything, there is another side to this debate. Put another way, in a separate nearly 200-page report, that same firm stated that the school’s policies and standard operating procedures are “satisfactory and appropriate,” and sometimes even exceed these standards.
Nonetheless, though, the report does still concede that there remain notable gaps in the school’s safety policies, such as a lack of a clear backpack policy, and/or an unenforced policy of asking troubled students about firearm access. So, even when the firm was defending the school district, it was still critical.
As of now the school district itself, and its employees, have not been found guilty of anything. Also, neither has Ethan’s father, James. Be this as it may, the fact that Jennifer Crumbley was found guilty indicates that a new, and in many ways, dangerous precedent has been set in the legal system. As of February 6th, 2024, the American justice system can, in fact, find you guilty of the “sins of your father.” And this concern comes from legal experts themselves.
Jeffrey Swartz, who previously served as a county judge in Florida, and who is also a professor at the Cooley Law School, said prosecutors “in areas with a strong anti-gun sentiment will have a blueprint in bringing charges against parents of a shooter, and not only in mass shootings, but in cases where even a single person is killed.” He also said, "And you can't limit this to just guns. What if we now broaden the type of weapon that was used in a manslaughter case? What if it was a baseball bat? Now you're pushing the envelope."
Granted, the Crumbley case is unique in that it is a very clear example of parental neglect/abdication of responsibility, however, lawfare inherently relies on a significant amount of interpretation. Lawyers engaged in legal battles are not simply stating facts in their arguments, rather they are trying to weave a compelling narrative designed to accomplish their clients’ goals, and this means that a jury can see the same evidence differently depending on who is presenting it. So, even parents who are not involved in such seemingly open-and-shut cases could face charges in the future, even if their involvement was minimal.
Though this could potentially be a very dangerous new standard, as with all new legal precedents, when it comes to how this one is applied, well, the jury is still out.
Abetting someone in the commission of a crime is already a crime. Why do they need new kinds of "manslaughter"? So that they can use them in the future to prosecute and imprison people who have really done nothing wrong?
This is tough! His parents DO have some responsibility for his actions, but a manslaughter charge is too far. Maybe contributing to the delinquency of a minor for providing him with the gun would be more appropriate? Dereliction of duty for failing to acknowledge his mental state? This is a slippery slope.