Jennifer Crumbley is of course right. Professionals charged with assessing the
potential for harming others cannot accomplish this task with any degree of
certainty. Should untrained parents be
held to that standard, especially when they are emotionally involved with the
children they are supposed to assess? A
summary of her court testimony is available from several sites at this point.
It focuses on testimony and texts that suggest her son was having difficulty at
school and that other people noticed he was moody and depressed. The parents
were called in by school officials because they had noticed violent content in
his drawings, but after a meeting they did not insist that he be removed from
school. I do not know the school
professionals involved – but if there was that level of concern – why not
insist that the parents take their son home and give them a clear plan of care?
With any criminal proceeding there are always a lot of
discrepancies. Jennifer Crumbley denied
that her son was symptomatic (hearing voices and depressed). She denied knowing anything about his
preoccupation with violent thoughts. Ethan Crumbley apparently intentionally injured birds and enjoyed doing
that. I do not know if the parents were
aware of this or not. There was some debate about the family’s health insurance
situation. Coverage for Ethan lapsed
when his father lost his job and his mother was trying to enroll him during the
next enrollment period in her plan. There is also the question of what is generally available for emergency psychiatric care for a 15 yr old. I don't know if that was bought up during the hearings or not. I can't speak to what is available in that specific area, but I can say that it is generally non-existent throughout much of the country.
There is some opinion in the media right now that this trial
is precedent setting in that it may translate to parents being held responsible
for the crimes of their children. Although I am not a lawyer – to me the
precedent seems to already have been set – parents are not responsible for the
crimes of their children. There have
been other parents convicted in cases where their children were involved in
school shootings. In one case the mother
of a 6-year-old who shot his teacher was sentenced to 21 months, but that was
for illegally obtaining a firearm by denying a that she had a drug
problem. In the other case, a father of
a shooter who killed 7 people was eventually charged with 7 counts of reckless
conduct for assisting his son in obtaining a firearm license even when he had
expressed thoughts about killing himself and others.
The critical events in the Crumbley case seem to be the
parent purchasing the handgun for their son as a way to lift his spirits, not
securing the gun when he was not under their direct supervision, and the two
meetings at school on the day before and the day of the shooting. On the first
of those days there was concern that he was researching ammunition on his phone
during class. He explained that he went
shooting with his mother and that was a hobby.
The counselor called his mother who communicated by text and joked that
he had to learn to not get caught. On
the day of the shooting, his parents were called in after he was seen watching
a violent video in class, drawing guns and a bleeding body on a math worksheet
and writing several nihilistic statements. The counselor was concerned that he
might be suicidal. During the meeting the Dean of Students brought in Ethan’s
back pack but nobody searched it. The
handgun was in the backpack. He
returned to school from that meeting with his backpack and started the shooting (2).
In a related matter – there is a civil suit but the trail of
that paperwork is difficult to follow.
The original suit against the school and staff was dropped but a
subsequent suit against the counselor and Dean of Students was allowed to
proceed. There was also a lawsuit against the Michigan State police.
From what I know about this case so far, it appears that
Jennifer Crumbley’s trial was primarily an attack on her character. Combined
with hindsight that is a powerful approach to find someone guilty of a
crime. I looked up the definition of
involuntary manslaughter in the state of Michigan according to this
reference it requires proving one of 2 theories:
1: That the deaths
were caused by grossly negligent actions of the defendant
2: That the defendant
neglected her duty as a parent to “exercise reasonable care to control their
minor child so as to prevent the minor child from intentionally harming others
or prevent the minor child from conducting themselves in a way that creates an
unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others.”
There is a lot of room between "gross negligence" and "reasonable care." In this case the parents were responsive to school authorities and those responses at the time satisfied those authorities to the point that they allowed Ethan to return to school.
Applicable laws in the State of Michigan state that handgun
purchasers must be 18 years of age to purchase from a private seller and 21
years of age to purchase from a federal licensed firearms dealer (FFL). The handgun purchase in this case occurred
when Ethan Crumbley was 15 years of age.
Michigan will not have a safe
storage law for firearms until February 13, 2024. The law mandates that unattended firearms
must be locked and unloaded and it defines crimes and penalties for problems
that occur as a result of violations defined as behavior ranging from threats
to deaths resulting from unauthorized access to that firearm. Since the Oxford school shootings occurred in
November 2021 – that law does not apply.
The medical literature has a few studies that appear to
address the issue of age-related firearm purchases and homicide and suicide. The authors of one study (6) found no correlation between higher age requirements and homicide rates of 18-20 year olds; but discuss the
reasons why that was the case. Most of
those reasons come back to the firearm density in the United States and how
easy it is to access firearms through back channels. Any casual inspection of those firearm
density figures in the United States – shows an incredible number of firearms
even relative to war
zones across the globe. The United States ranks
9th in gun homicides. The
8 countries ranking higher all have significant amounts of gang and cartel
related violence, some to the point that it is driving the current immigrant
crisis at the southern border. Five of those 8 countries have the highest crime index. Four have the highest homicide rates. The US has the gun homicide rate of lawless low and middle income (LMIC) countries.
The cultural effects of gun extremism are never discussed as
being a cause of gun violence in the United States. Over the past 50 years, gun extremists have
pushed for increasing accessibility to firearms by shall issue laws, stand your
ground laws, fewer restrictions, and loopholes that allow back door access to
firearms. In the process, common sense gun laws that were developed in the 19th
century, like city ordinances that forbade carrying guns in town have fallen by
the wayside. Some gun extremists are pushing
to eliminate domestic violence charges as a disqualifier for gun possession. In
that landscape there is a subcultural effect that (for some) guns are a legitimate
way to express anger or dissatisfaction in school or the workplace. Nobody is
standing up against that myth. If anything,
the gun extremists are rationalizing it as mental illness or not enough guns
(arm the teachers) rather than far, far too many guns.
That is what I think about when I think about the Jennifer Crumbley verdict. In many ways she was set up to take a fall for 50 years of gun extremism. Certainly, her son should have never had a handgun. But do other parents buy firearms for their children? They certainly pose them with guns on Christmas cards. When I was a kid 50 years ago – no kid had one and it was the law. There was a good reason for it and that reason was not discovered until the 21st century. Teenagers may look like adults but they do not have the brain development or judgment of adults. Combining that with a general culture of gun extremism and a subculture of mass shootings is a recipe for disaster. Until we recognize the cultural effects and how guns became part of the culture wars – we will not be able to stop this violence and loss of life.
Parents may have become the next casualty.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Photo Credit to my colleague Eduardo A. Colon, MD
References:
1: El-Bawab N. Jennifer Crumbley says she wishes son had
'killed us instead' as she took stand in manslaughter trial. February 1, 2024. https://abcnews.go.com/US/jennifer-crumbley-takes-stand-manslaughter-trial-tied-sons/story
2: Snell R. Oxford school shooting victim's family sues
Michigan State Police in latest legal challenge. October 5, 2023 https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/10/05/oxford-school-shooting-victims-family-sues-michigan-state-police/71074873007/
3: Stack MK. What Is This Mother Really Guilty Of? New York Times. Febnruary 1, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/opinion/mother-homicide-court-crumbley.html
4: Strom S. Michigan
Involuntary Manslaughter Law.
FindLaw. February 7, 2024. https://www.findlaw.com/state/michigan-law/michigan-involuntary-manslaughter-law.html
5: Associated
Press. Timeline: Key moments surrounding
the 2021 Michigan high school shooting as mother of shooter is found guilty. https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/timeline-key-moments-surrounding-the-2021-michigan-high-school-shooting-as-mother-of-shooter-is-found-guilty/3348384/
6: Moe CA, Haviland
MJ, Bowen AG, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Rivara FP. Association of Minimum Age Laws for
Handgun Purchase and Possession With Homicides Perpetrated by Young Adults Aged
18 to 20 Years. JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Nov 1;174(11):1056-1062. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3182.
Erratum in: JAMA Pediatr. 2020 Nov 1;174(11):1119. PMID: 32870238; PMCID:
PMC7489426.
