James Jennifer Crumbley
Previous Post
Next Post

Charging the Crumbleys is unlikely to deter anyone or to prevent other shootings. The only reason to punish the Crumbleys is to punish them. Two more individuals can be held up to public scrutiny so everyone else can ignore the system.

Criminal justice in America generally focuses on punishment rather than on prevention or harm reduction. The right, in particular, is eager to fund prisons and police, and reluctant to fund or promote investments in the social safety net, mental health resources, lead abatement, or expanded healthcare coverage. Their stubborn refusal to countenance restrictions on gun manufacturers or background checks, or even to acknowledge that high rates of gun ownership create a dangerous potential for violence, is of a piece.

In this case, the right’s gun obsession trumps its rage for incarceration. But that oddity shouldn’t eclipse the glum truth that whether or not the Crumbleys are convicted, anyone who cares about reducing gun violence has already lost. Hopefully at some point progressives can gather the political strength needed to put in place gun reforms that will lead to less injury and less death. But charging the Crumbleys isn’t going to do it.

— Noah Berlatsky in Prosecuting Ethan Crumbley’s parents over the Oxford school shooting is an admission of failure

Previous Post
Next Post


    • “they look innocent, jimmy and jenny.”

      I bet they actually believe that, sadly.

      Check this out :

      “Accused Michigan school shooter gets court-appointed lawyer, his parents hire legal team”

      Mom and Dad hire some very expensive lawyers for their defense, while ‘junior’ has to make do with a court-appointed public defender :


      Can you feel the love in that family for each other? 🙁

      • They abandoned their son and ran for the border. That tells you everything you need to know about them.

        • “I’d Run, Too ”

          Exactly what you are doing with your internet stalking. You claim to have 2 children, yet deny them the attention they need for emotional development with your psychotic need to stalk others on the internet… 🙂

    • Once again pompous Progressives attempt to reduce The Second Amendment to the level of, “the right’s gun obsession” and “anyone who cares about reducing gun violence has already lost.”

      Sneaky progressive plantation slave masters are always digging up words to hide the racism and genocide inherent with their beloved Gun Control. At the end of each and every day the big question is, Where will pompous busy body Progressives be should you and yours be cornered by a revolving door criminal? The answer is where criminal coddling pompous Progressives always are in such a dire need situation, “Nowhere.”

      Like it or not Charging the Crumbleys did prompt some parents to do a weapons count and have a chat with their growing offspring. Owning a firearm especially in the vicinity of unqualified personnel is a huge responsibility that can land your carefree, happy go lucky behind in deep dodo. One firearm screw-up and chances are you’ll get to meet people like those from fire brigade, EMT, police, lawyers, judges and worse, jailers and a sexually active guy named Bubba.

      1) The Second Amendment is one thing.

      2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.

      3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

  1. “… anyone who cares about reducing gun violence has already lost.

    As Bill and Ted would say …. EXCELLENT!

    • That seems an odd response.

      From where I sit, reducing the number of deaths seems a good thing. My problem with the progressive left agenda is, they’ve got it all wrong. Taking guns from law-abiding citizens leaves them defenseless against lawbreakers.

      If we can’t reduce the number of deaths, then I want to see fewer innocents killed, and more criminals killed.

      I can accept that people are going to die, but I don’t see it as “EXCELLENT”.

      Sorry if I sound preachy, but, as I said – your response seems kind of odd.

      • “If we can’t reduce the number of deaths, then I want to see fewer innocents killed, and more criminals killed.”

        Actually, I have no problem with more violent offenders being killed by lawful gun owners. If it changes their decision to not attack someone out of fear of being killed, that is kinda excellent…

        • The root of this problem lies in our wholesale evictioin of God and His standards from life in these here New Ninety States…….

          In HIS economy, anyone who has shed the blood of an innocent MUST have his own blood shed (be executed) in return. Take someone’s life deliberatly your own is forfeit. In THAT economy, this dirtbag kid (an adult by any measure in Gpd’s economy) WILL forfeit his own life. This does two things: assures he will NEVER murder again, and sends a STRONG messge that if anyone else murders, the same fate DOES await him.

          Since the punk is an adult in God’s fremework the parents are not criminally responsible for his actions. HOWEVER they may well be guilty of stupidly providing their offspring the easy means to murder innocents. hey are also culpable for their abject failure to TEACH their son the value of life, and train him to work out conflicts, disappointments, etc, in better ways tan the one he chose. THIS is on them. But then, where does this carousel stop? A son does have the liberty to reject what he’s taught and go off the deep end.
          I;d bet that the prosecution of his parents will centre round the provision of that handgun for a son they knew or should have known could be so irresponsible with it. They MUST have known their son, or by negligence did not. Apparently both worked outside the home, leaving the son to do as he pleased for long periods of time. Not that long ago, fourteen year olds did marry and start families, raising and providing well for them. And NOT raising little hellions like this one.

        • “I;d bet that the prosecution of his parents will centre round… “

          T-bird, you may not realize here in the United States we are ruled by our constitution, which makes no mention of God or Allah or Jehovah or Shiva or Zeus, but is rather based upon the precepts laid out in the articles of the United States Constitution.

          We also spell the word “centre” C E N T E R…

      • I recently came across this passage in The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (Volume 2, Chapter 16):


        2. In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139—“on the limits of necessary self-defense”—according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense led to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got . . . ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!”

        So tell me, who creates hoodlums?!


        The entire chapter covers how the Soviet System actually gave criminals the upper hand against anyone who would dare to oppose the system, or even the criminals.

        • And criminals were the party’s enforcers in the gulags. They were the top-tier in the zek’s hierarchy. At the bottom were “politicals”.

      • Expressed in a maladroit manner, but it’s not odd at all, once you realize that this article’s “people that care” don’t have the foggiest clue what the problem truly is and always, everywhere, make it worse.

        The only thing they care about is being seen as caring. When they lose, everyone wins.

  2. All Rights have consequences and can lead to death. This is the price we pay for living in a free society. Speech and “New” ideas have likely lead to more dead people than any other cause. In spite of that, I support all free speech, even the ugly, hateful kind. In fact I would argue that letting ugly/hateful ideas out in the public sphere exposes the ideas to public scrutiny and debate, with most reasonable people rejecting such speech.

    The perceived goal of some is a “Safe” world in which none are harmed, offended and made to feel uncomfortable. I strongly object to this Mind Prison and so should every thinking person.

    In addition, whenever I hear or read someone concerned about, “Gun Violence” and not all violence, I realize the true goal is the disarmament of the common man to make way for their Social Tyranny, which they view as Paradise upon the Earth. Violence and crime are just excuses and they don’t care about the murder of the “Little People”, who’s suffering are just tools to be exploited for their selfish ends.

    • Wow!
      That was one of the best comments I’ve read in a long time. Thanks for putting that together.
      It gave me a lot to think about.

    • “As long as human beings are imperfect, there will always be arguments for extending the power of government to deal with these imperfections. The only logical stopping place is totalitarianism – unless we realize that tolerating imperfections is the price of freedom.” Dr. Thomas Sowell

  3. If they had left the garden shed unlocked and their son a taken the lawn mower gas and committed arson resulting in death; would they have been charged? Probably not. And that begs the question; why not? What’s the difference?

    • The father purchased the gun and specifically gave it to the boy. He didn’t buy it with the intention of keeping it secure with the boy able to use it with supervision. He gave it directly to the boy. So we’ve read anyway.

      • We need to be careful what we “assume” to be ‘the facts” at this point. The MSN is surely spreading lies, propaganda, and mistruths about this case all over the news and internet. Let’s wait until the actually, true facts are presented. In a court of law. And then decide.
        FWIW… why aren’t the parents of all the Antifa and BLM arsonists, rapists and murderers charged similarly for the crimes of their children? Most of the perps themselves weren’t even arrested while LE watched the Antifa/BLM commies commit their crimes….

        • ^^^^ THIS! ^^^^

          My MSM-deluded daughter is already spewing “facts” about the parents that I’ve learned are false.

        • They charged the parents to deflect the narrative and the blame away from the school and their reasoning to send the boy back to class without reporting his intentions to the police and they never searched his backpack which contained the weapon.

    • “If they had left the garden shed unlocked and their son a taken the lawn mower gas and committed arson resulting in death; would they have been charged? Probably not. And that begs the question; why not? What’s the difference?”

      well, yes, yes they would be charged in some states especially if, basically, the parent(s) knew of the child’s propensity to so act and failed to do anything about it. But, each state imposes legal responsibility on parents and legal guardians for the delinquent and criminal acts of minors in their charge. Parental responsibility statutes have been in effect in the U.S. for at least 100 years.

      According to the county prosecutor the parents of young Crumbley “resisted the idea” of removing their son from school hours before the shooting occurred. Apparently, young Crumbley drew horrifying images of a bullet and person shot with a laughing emoji that alarmed teachers days before the shooting, and he posted this on his twitter account a few days before the shooting


      and posted this the day before the shooting


      Mom Crumbly had even texted her son to learn not to get caught because he had been caught purchasing ammunition on line.

      (note: “texts show Ethan’s mom Jennifer messaged her son “don’t do it” after telling him to “learn not to get caught.” – the texts were sent after he was found to be searching on line for ammunition (at school). The “learn not to get caught.” text was sent after he had already started shooing up the school)

      The parents bought a handgun for an underage kid (for possession) and allowed him unrestricted access to the handgun.

      The parents knew their kid probably had a problem and needed help yet resisted removing him from the school, knowing he had access to a handgun the use of which was reflected in his drawings and knew he was trying to get ammo for the gun. A responsible rational person would have said “hey, wait a second, lets take a closer look at this.” But when the school tried to do that by wanting him removed to be evaluated the parents resisted but the school also did not do what they were suppose to do then.

      This kid was enabled all the way around by parents, teachers, principal by not doing the right thing and getting him help.

      The prosecutor’s case against the shooter’s parents relies on the legal concept of “gross negligence.” Under Michigan law, to prove that a person committed involuntary manslaughter (what the parents are charged with), the prosecution must show that the person’s gross negligence caused the death of another. In the 2018 case of People v. Head, the Michigan Court of Appeals wrote, “To prove gross negligence, a prosecutor must show: (1) Knowledge of a situation requiring the exercise of ordinary care and diligence to avert injury to another. (2) Ability to avoid the resulting harm by ordinary care and diligence … . (3) The omission to use such care and diligence to avert the threatened danger.”

      If it were me, I would have charged the parents and the school officials. The county prosecutor is thinking about charging the school officials too.

      Although Michigan does not have red flag laws (or didn’t), in Michigan anyone who has reasonable grounds to believe – a person intends to or will harm themselves or others or expresses serious ideation of such – can contact the police who will hold them in “protective custody” (not arrest – there is no record of arrest for this) and take them to be evaluated by mental health professionals.

      Under MENTAL HEALTH CODE, Section 330.1427; section 427: “If a peace officer observes an individual conducting himself or herself in a manner that causes the peace officer to reasonably believe that the individual is a person requiring treatment, the peace officer may take the individual into protective custody and transport the individual to a preadmission screening unit designated by a community mental health services program for examination under section 429 or for mental health intervention services.”

      Its my view that the pictures drawn would have caused at least some concern for a “peace officer” to “reasonably believe that the individual is a person requiring treatment.”

      If a pupil exhibits a pattern of behavior that poses a substantial risk of creating an emergency situation, the school is suppose to enact an intervention plan that includes positive behavioral intervention and support, and for the care, safety, welfare, and security of the school community they may remove the student from the school. Its a little vague from there as to how the school interacts to get the person evaluated/helped, but various references make note of then getting the pupil evaluated by medical and mental health professionals by contacting police.

      This kid could have started getting help, or at least had a chance of getting help, with a phone call by the teacher or principal. This could have been prevented with a phone call to the police, like the school should have done no matter the parents resistance

      • $10 says the twit county prosecutor is has been planning her next political move. These parents are just her tool for the next election. Is the state in the market for a new progtard attorney general?

        • yeah, well I don’t think so.

          The charges against the parents of the suspect in the Oxford school shooting are rare, but legal experts say they’re likely to stick > https://news.yahoo.com/charges-against-parents-suspect-oxford-014934274.html

          correction on my previous statements, sequencing was a little off – sorry ’bout that:

          A timeline of the Oxford High School shooting: Black Friday gun shopping, violent drawings, and a manhunt > https://www.yahoo.com/news/timeline-oxford-high-school-shooting-055157134.html

          “November 30, about 12:50 p.m.: The shooting began”

          “November 30, 1:22 p.m.: Jennifer Crumbley texted her son

          When reports of the shooting emerged, Jennifer Crumbley sent a text to her son, according to prosecutors, telling him, “don’t do it.”

          as a side note: Already the civil rights groups are complaining that this should not have been done. Because, their reasoning is, that if the parents can be successfully prosecuted then Black parents will be “disproportionately” charged and prosecuted.

    • “If they had left the garden shed unlocked and their son a taken the lawn mower gas and committed arson resulting in death; would they have been charged? Probably not. And that begs the question; why not?”

      I think Mom telling ‘junior’ “learn not to get caught” is going to play well in the jury deliberation room for the prosecution.

      The more details that trickle out are showing that family to be shocking callous, and I think that’s what will motivate the jury to return a guilty verdict for the parents…

    • The standard is whether they took reasonable care to prevent access. A 15-year-old might have a chore of mowing the lawn, and he would have shown his safe access to gas. He could even take a gas can to a gas station and buy as much as he wanted without age verification or background check. Society doesn’t normally see gas as a danger to adolescents. If he had a history of setting fires, it would be a different story, and there would be the expectation to have extra measures to prevent the child’s access.

      A gun has age restrictions from the dealer, and the manual says to prevent access to children. It even comes with a lock. Everyone knows a gun can cause death or serious injury. Letting a child have unsupervised access is irresponsible unless the child has shown demonstrated a history of responsible use.

    • If they left the shed door unlocked and the teen used the gasoline in the storage can to start a fire, that is bad enough(especially if he had priors for arson).

      Buying a minor a handgun(one that I can’t even own – damn it!), in what appears to be a straw purchase and then allowing him unfettered access to the handgun, is not proper parenting. The law says he can NOT have it, yet he took it out of the house and used it on school mates.
      In a more perfect world, there wouldn’t be laws that are targeting handguns and minors, but the way it is now, the law doesn’t recognize the rights of an 18-21 YO to carry a handgun for self protection.
      The parents did make the handgun available to a minor and it appears that they did not even try to store it safely. The parents should know their children. At the least, if it were a long gun, he would have had a harder time carrying it into the school.

  4. ‘…reluctant to fund or promote investments in the social safety net, mental health resources, lead abatement, or expanded healthcare coverage.’

    OK, you lost me there Burlapsky, are you saying that this kid shot up his school because he was homeless, couldn’t afford a shrink, ate lead paint chips, or didn’t qualify for Medicaid? Or all of the above?

  5. This is what it looks like when something gets overly political. They think people are too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others.

  6. “The right, in particular, is eager to fund [negative consequences for negative choices, i.e. justice], and reluctant to fund or promote [positive consequences for negative choices (financed by stealing from people who made positive choices), i.e. injustice]”


  7. Wait a minute. The anti’s want more gun laws but they admit in the article that enforcing them is useless?

    • “The anti’s want more gun laws but they admit in the article that enforcing them is useless?”

      You seeing a problem, here? Simply BAU regarding all things. It’s the look that counts.

    • “The anti’s want more gun laws but they admit in the article that enforcing them is useless?”

      Rand, it’s more like this – They can selectively enforce them when it’s politically-convenient for THEM…

    • It may be tempting to reinstating the asylums, but that’s the wrong thing to do. It would be so easy to ‘disappear’ someone that way, by the party in power…

      • Not supporting the party in power could be seen as a mental illness that needs to he treated.

        One smiling idiot would most agree with that statement.

      • It is almost impossible to hold anyone past his/her withdrawl from drugs.
        Put a 72 hr hold and they are coming down, so, then you need a group of doctors fighting with a legal advocate to extend the time to a week. After, that, it takes a court order and evaluations every couple of days to hold that person. At that point, the mental illness may raise it’s head. It is very hard to diagnose anyone for mental illness in these cases.
        1. They really don’t want to diagnose, because then they need cars.
        2. They want to blame the drugs they were using, masking the problem.
        3. Even with the diagnoses, the only way to force the meds is to admit
        them long term.
        4. Any politico knows it is cheaper to inflict the mentally ill on the public
        and raise money for pet projects to “study” the problem.

  8. Guys, I threw the gas thing out there as an example of why firearms restrictions are useless for preventing this kind of thing. Not to start a debate on the availability of gasoline to juveniles. However, the largest mass murder in the United States was committed with a can of gas and a match.

    • “Noah Berlatsky is noted for promoting pedophilia.”

      Whoa, that’s him?

      What a literal piece of human sh!t… 🙁

      • in the past we had someone like him locally here…called himself a ‘virtuous pedophile‘ because he claimed he had never touched a child improperly – operative phrase here is “in the past”.

        To make a long story short: The last that was seen of ‘virtuous pedophile‘ alive was when he encountered a ‘virtuous gun owner’ with a Colt 1911 who had never shot anyone but had just found his boy child about to be fondled by said ‘virtuous pedophile‘. Child is rescued before it could go further, ‘virtuous gun owner’ asks a person he knows that was there to take the child home and ‘virtuous gun owner’ shows up at home several hours later … Witnesses told police during the ensuing investigation the next day the ‘virtuous pedophile‘ fled the scene on foot and the ‘virtuous gun owner’ never touched him or fired a shot, they had children too. The ‘virtuous pedophile‘ was never located, some articles of children clothing were found in his home and car which led police to a few children who then told what happened to them which led them to several other children in the area who then told what happened to them. All of them molested and threatened that if they told anyone their parents and/or siblings would be killed so they kept the secret.

        Forward now years later; The ‘virtuous gun owner’ died six months ago, the dreaded cardiac ‘widow maker’. He left his firearms to his boy child who is now 28 years old with a family of his own. One firearm in particular, a Colt 1911, holds a special place of honor in the home of this young man. Its the same Colt 1911 his dad had that day when he rescued him from the ‘virtuous pedophile‘. Its framed in a nice case made just for it and mounted on the wall next to a picture of his Dad and his Dad’s decorations from military service – among the many decorations are three purple hearts, three Bronze Stars, and a Distinguished Service Cross. At the bottom of the gun case frame there is a small solid gold plaque and on that plaque is inscribed “Dad knew what to do.”, next to the gun in the case is one empty magazine. If you ask this young man what happened to the ‘virtuous pedophile‘ he will tell you he fled the scene on foot and his dad never touched him or fired a shot, this young man has a child too.

        • “…a ‘virtuous gun owner’ with a Colt 1911 who had never shot anyone…”

          never shot anyone after retiring from the military.

        • Nice to mount it, but it can easily be stolen by a burglar that way. I hope he can be convinced to store it in the gun safe…

    • Makes you wonder what all those people driving around NJ with the Rutgers “R” bumper stickers really support. 🤔 I saw those “Rs” everywhere when I was up there in 2017.

      Left that cesspool behind over two decades ago.

  9. Once again if you are a victim of violence via a bat or knife or cars or fists, you don’t matter.if you are the victim of violence via a gun, you matter as a wedge between citizens and their rights, otherwise you don’t matter.

  10. Criminal justice in America generally focuses on punishment rather than on prevention or harm reduction.

    Newsflash: the intention of punishment–typically incarceration for 5+ years for serious violent crimes–is to discourage people from attacking others and therefore, wait for it, prevent crime.

  11. When the kid is telling people in writing, “he hears voices” and “is asking for help”. And he is drawing pictures of guns and killing people. The school officials failed in their responsibility to protect the child and his fellow classmates.

    Government Representatives called School teachers, and school administrators, totally failed in protecting this kid and the other students.

    The parents are a completely separate matter. They will be dealt with by the legal system. The question is what will happen to the adults in the school. Who observed dangerous behavior in their presence? And did nothing about it.

    Does the ACLU prevent them from searching the students book bag for weapons???

  12. If I were a parent of one of the murdered students in the school. I would be demanding to know why the school officials didn’t have this child immediately segregated, from the rest of the school population??? And his personal items searched for weapons. And if they believed he needed Mental Health Care within 48 hours? Why wasn’t he searched for weapons?

    If someone says they are hearing voices. And they are drawing pictures of killing people. Perhaps the school administrators should have called, the local mental health office for their Professional advice. Since school administrators and teachers are not professionals. When it comes to evaluating the mental health of a possible dangerous child or adult.

    This case is reminds me what happened at Fort Bragg NC many years ago. With the “sniper on the hill” case. That Soldier had stated for weeks he had been hearing voices. But his supervisor didn’t want to listen to him.

  13. So “they” want more “gun laws” to “prevent” such incidents.
    Let’s have a quick look at existing laws that failed to “prevent” this massacre:
    under 18 cannot purchase firearms. He got one anyway. Under 21 cannot purchase handguns. He got one anyway. Illegal for under 18 to possess handguns in public. He carried it to school. IF he rode the bus, he violated the prohibition of firearms on school busses. Gun Free School Zones act prohibits most folks from possessing firearms on school property. He did anyway. Possession of concealed hangun without the requisite Mother May I Card from da gummit.. he violated this too. Possession of firearm with intent to do harm, felony. . He did this one, violating that law too. Murder is a crime. He did not hisitate to commit this, along wiht the attempt to murder more than he killed. Prohibition agaisnt purchasing fireearm for someone who is ineliglble to possess it, Dad did this one. He may well be charged for this one.

    So what NEW laws do they propose that might prevent a punk like this getting his hands on a handgun and carrying it concealed, in clear violation of multiple laws already in existance? The only ones I can think of would have about 150 million Americans disarmed.. but NOT the 20 million or so criminals who would, in clear violation of any laws they might enact, would possess and misuse firearms in spite of whatever laws they might pass disarming the rest of us.
    Any law or set of them they might try and pass that might “fix” this situation would be clearly in violation of that pesky Second ARticle of Ammendment, thus not law at all null, void, and of none effect. But they’d still do it and thus have excuse to jail most of the owners of the 200 million firearms already in the pubic sector.

    In Aus and EnnZed they made everyone “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in”. Violence assisted by the use of guns dropped.. for a while. Crime in general, even violent crime, spiked and is, a few decades on, rising at a rapid rate in spite of all their WooFlew mandates and lockdowns. Use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes is rising quickly in both contries.. countries that alledgedly removed ALL firearms from the hands of the public.
    THIS is the model these insane powermongers have in view for us. DO NOT LET THEM SUCCEED. And if they do manage to make them illegal, well I suppose the number of “criminals” will explode accross this land. But the rates of crimes will likely begin to fall as secretly armed citizens WILL defend themselves, then quielty drift off into the night. Perhaps with a side detour to the waterfront where their much loved but now “contaminated” tool of defense will be “disappeared”. The old Montana stockman’s Four Ess plan.. sight shoot shovel shut up. They WILL NOT disarm us. Far too many of us ralise that is a turn onto the road toward North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba

  14. It’s just a constant refrain of “gun laws don’t work, we need more gun laws!” isn’t it?

    The only gun law that might have made a difference here is a ban on guns. There is an argument to be made that many of these school shooters obtain their guns from law-abiding parents. I can accept that, were guns entirely illegal, many of these people would not risk prison owning guns and therefore those same guns would not be as easily accessible to middle-income suburban kids.

    But there are very few politicians who will come right out and say they want to ban guns (Beta orourke or whatever his name is aside). Instead they propose more ‘reasonable’ laws that would do nothing because they know they can never win an election by saying what they really want.

Comments are closed.