I surmise that the woke establishment has concluded in its unparalleled wisdom that parental responsibility is just a scapegoat for society’s evil gun problem. What will stop these mass shootings, see, is “sensible” and “common sense” gun laws that never seem to have any features that would prevent the tragedies that have triggered the anti-Second Amendment crowd.
Colin Gray, the father of 14-year-old son, Colt Gray, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter following his son opening fire at his school this week, killing four people and wounding others. (Yes, the shooter was named after a gun.) The AR-15-style rifle he used was a Christmas gift from his dad. Fourteen-year-olds can’t legally own guns, of course. Still, in Georgia, giving a child a gun is not a crime, nor does Georgia have a law requiring guns to be locked away from children. But Jennifer and James Crumbley were convicted of involuntary manslaughter earlier this year in Michigan because their son started shooting up his school. Prosecutors convinced a jury that the Crumbleys knew of their son’s dangerous proclivities and mental problems, and allowed him access to a gun anyway.
Georgia is following what seems to be that precedent despite having far weaker gun laws than Michigan. The elder Gray isn’t being charged with breaking a gun law. The criminal prosecution is more akin to the theory behind the prosecution of dog owners who let their untrained and dangerous canines roam free and the pets rip someone to pieces.
The anti-gun Left’s reaction is nicely encapsulated in Times reporter and anti-gun zealot Megan Stack’s op-ed in the Times,
These prosecutions satisfy the public desire to blame somebody. If you don’t like guns, shaming and punishing the parents feels like landing a righteous blow against gun culture. If you do like guns, it’s a bit like the predictable invocation of mental health by politicians — diverting attention from the weapons themselves and suggesting, instead, that the problem is a few bad apples among the owners. Most insidiously, though, these prosecutions set a murky legal precedent for questionable parenting while camouflaging the abject failure of the federal and state governments to adequately regulate gun safety and stop mass shootings.
There it is, the whole case. It is completely wrong. Punishing parents harshly for allowing their children to get a hold of guns isn’t “to divert attention from the weapons themselves.” It is to create strong deterrence for irresponsible, careless and stupid gun-owners who need to be put on notice that if their offspring shoots someone, they might well end up in prison too.
These supposed adults who knowingly engage in conduct that is likely to get someone killed should know what they are risking: just as someone who is too drunk to drive handing over the car keys to a 15 year old who proceeds to run down a pedestrian can be charged with manslaughter, so can they. If they metaphorically load the kid’s gun through reckless parenting and incompetent gun ownership, their much-prized liberty is on the line. And it should be.
Ethics Alarms made the argument for this policy way back in 2015. I wrote in part (after a five-year-old found a gun in his home and shot a baby with it:
Anyone responsible for putting the loaded gun where a kid might find it is accountable. Charge them with manslaughter, convict them, send them away….There are four irresponsible reactions to these tragedies that we should stop tolerating and immediately rebut whenever they surface:
1. “This is why we should ban guns.” Responsible people shouldn’t have access to a useful, sometimes life-saving, even democracy-saving tool because the tool is misused by irresponsible people, including criminals? …
2. “This has nothing to do with the need for stricter gun regulations.” Of course it does. I would have no problem with a requirement that any gun being kept by a parent or someone living with children meet reasonable, legally enforced security requirements. I would have no objection to the state doing spot checks on the status of such weapons as a condition of ownership. I would have no objection to any individual who is found to have left a loaded gun within reach of a child being prohibited from future gun ownership, or losing custody of their children. Heck, give them a choice: a gun or a kid, but not both.
3. “We are big supporters of firearms around here. We live in a rural area. We have a lot of people who own weapons. They hunt. They shoot. Most people are very safe with them, and this is one of those cases where everything went together in the wrong way.” …Oh, shut up. I am beginning to believe that so-called “gun people” may be the worst and most reckless gun owners, because too many of them are insufficiently attentive to the potential dangers the guns present. They are too used to them. I think the most responsible gun owners may be people like my Dad, who had fired guns (and shot human beings with them)in WWII, could take them apart and assemble them, and who was scared to death of them, even though we had several in our home.
4. “The parents have suffered enough.” No, they haven’t. They need to suffer more, and their tragic fate, including dead kids, a trial for manslaughter and a long prison sentence, needs to make headlines and get the attention of every careless potential child-killer out there, and I’m sure there are many….so many, that we should be very concerned. Because this has to stop.
When the Crumbleys were indicted, Ethics Alarms also wrote “Good!” However, I included the persuasive legal objection to the prosecution raised by former former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy. This time, I’ll send you over to Simple Justice , where Scott Greenfield, the blogging criminal defense attorney, ably states his opposition, though he embraces the “more gun laws are what we need” approach endorsed by the Times.
I am not familiar enough with the criminal statutes in Georgia to say he’s wrong. This may be another law vs. ethics conflict. But do I have any sympathy for Colin Gray? No. Will I feel that he has been the victim of injustice if he ends up in prison?
Not for a second.
.
Ethics Alarms 
This is a question from someone whose knowledge of murder charges comes largely from watching “Law & Order” reruns, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper has reported that state officials contacted the Gray family in 2023 to alert them that Colt had been posting “I want to shoot something” fantasies on social media. It was after hearing this warning that Colin Gray apparently bought his son an AR-15 for Christmas.
On the TV show’s version of a New York courtroom I’d expect TV prosecutor Jack McCoy to argue “depraved indifference” to the lethal consequences of that Christmas present while bringing charges against the dad. Is that something which would be valid grounds for an indictment in reality and in Georgia?
Excellent question.
I disagree. Is a parent criminally responsible for every act of their offspring until the age of majority? The item is not responsible, so blame the parent, what about the medical folks that had to know just how messed up the child us? What about the FBI that had the kid on their radar? The school that had a warning, but did nothing? Where is the line ? What if the kid used a knife, a rock, a stolen car? Would the parent be criminally responsible , if they were also a victim?
Vitaeus
Holding parents responsible for the acts of their children is not new. If a child breaks a window dad pays for the window.
I can understand your perspective when the parent had no direct or indirect involvement in a crime. For example: your 14 year old vandalizes a property, or commits a burglary, or even shoots someone with a weapon stolen or provided by another. In such a case holding a parent responsible for a child’s crime seems unjust. However, when the parents are responsible for ensuring that firearms under their control are maintained in a manner that facilitates criminal behavior by their child then they become accessories to that crime.
Given that parental rights are often argued to be sacrosanct then it is rational to also say the parents also shoulder responsibility for the child’s acts when they could have intervened in advance.
As for the others, teachers LEO’s or anyone else have no power to intervene with respect to a child’s access to firearms in the home. The only way to hold law enforcement accountable is if there are laws that permit a charge based on simple allegations by another.
That in itself is fraught with problems. Children make stupid statements all the time but when it involves firearms or violence every effort must be made to eliminate the tools of violence from the child’s access. Failure to do so is as criminal as the child’s act itself.
held civilly liable not criminally in general, does not seem a good precedent to set….
An accessory to a crime not need be physically involved to be guilty if that person knowingly provides material support for a crime. In this case, the parent knew of the supposed bullying, knew of the threats in advance, provided the weapon as a gift nor did he take steps to prevent access to the gun when informed by the FBI of the threats. I consider that material support for the crime even though the father did not know when it would occur. Foreseeability is what creates the criminal liability.
As I said this is a narrow application of parental responsibility. I am not arguing that every crime committed by a child makes the parent criminally responsible.
I would like to hear your reasoning for why it would not be a good precedent.
Simple answer, prosecutorial discretion and bias. Current law says that anyone who aids an illegal alien is considered to share in illegal acts. Has a single employer been charged for the murders of various victims?
a former US president was criminally charged by a state attorney for Federal crimes.
The current system cannot be trusted to criminally charge anyone. Civil courts cannot take your life and freedom, that is a better place for such issues.
I am adamantly against red flag laws or other pre crime laws but charging parents for allowing a child to access the tools to commit a heinous act seems far more reasonable and is a common sense violence prevention law. I did not say gun violence because the tools of violence are not limited to firearms.
We punish acts or omissions of responsibility and that is what we have here with the parents who gave the child access to the firearm. Punishing someone for what may occur is like making a judgement about another race based on mere speculation regarding the other’s character.
If some reports about the situation so far are correct, I think charging the parents is justified. It’s reported that the kid made online threats a year ago, though confirmation of this is uncertain. The authorities supposedly visited the family and gave them warning, but were unable to confirm the threat claim. Perhaps they have found additional information now.
Will have to disagree with you on item #2, though.
While parents should keep firearms secured from children, train them on general safety and respect, and, in some cases, be liable for lax oversight (just as with an automobile), giving the Stasi a firearms registry and warrantless access to firearms’ owners’ homes goes too far, would never fly, and would further divide the country between the Constitutionalists and the totalitarians. Soros & Co. would be all for it. How many new ATF agents would the left hire? How many civilians would be killed in their inevitable raids? (See the Little Rock airport manager’s earlier encounter this year.)
Yeah, I wrote that in 2015, before the Democrats had fully revealed themselves as aspiring fascists. Upon reflection, I agree with you.
Please tell all those people I’ve banned lately that I agreed that you were right and I was wrong, once I read a reasonable, well-supported argument.
You’re wrong! You’re just saying that because you’re a Trump supporter!
(I couldn’t readily find any of the cast-out, so I just composed a response for them. Hope they find it to their liking 😉 )
This whole case is another disaster. The kid was crying for mental health help. The mother called the school 30 minutes before the shooting to warn them, but they got him confused for another child. He threatened to shoot up the school the year earlier, but nothing much was done about it. Reports are that he was under mental health care and taking medications, but many of them have suicidal ideation and promote violence. His reported Discord account expressed frustration with trans acceptance and said he wanted to shoot up a school in 2-3 years according to CNN. The account was suspended in 2023 for extremism and the FBI took note and reported it to local law enforcement.
So a disaster all around. The parents, mental health professionals, and the school all failed. Isn’t it interesting that we know more about this shooter in days than we do about the Trump assassination attempt or the Las Vegas shooting?
I also think the father should have been prosecuted if the son killed himself.
Yeah, you don’t provide access to a gun to a kid with that many mental issues. That is shades of Sandy Hook and UNC. My cousins and I all had access to guns at an early age. However, we were all taught when, how, and where to use them. None of us touched them when we weren’t supposed to. We also weren’t prone to be that irresponsible and we didn’t have mental issues. My friends hunted in high school. However, none of us had access to guns we couldn’t handle. So, it isn’t that NO teens should have access to any guns, but mentally ill ones shouldn’t and the level depends on the ability and responsibility of the teen. My son, for example, only has access to BB guns. He and his friends aren’t responsible enough for unsupervised access to a firearm.
Lets go beyond guns. There was a case in Michigan where a man wanted to buy his 16-year old son the Mustang Cobra for his 1st car. The dealership refused to sell it to him, stating that it was irresponsible and dangerous to provide a car that powerful to a new teenage driver. The dad took the dealership to court. The dealership was allowed to choose: a lesser fine and sell the kid the car or a heavier fine for defying the court. The dealership chose the heftier fine with the owner stating that he couldn’t live with himself if the kid killed himself with the car.
The mother was the first victim of Sandy Hook.
OJ was found innocent criminally, but civilly liable, should there have been others held criminally liable in that case?
recent cases of murder by illegal immigrants, are the employer, landlord, known associates criminally liable?
this seems more “some one has to pay” than justice, in my opinion.
oh, Thor and other such new commenters, take note, this is how you discuss an issue that is strongly divided.
Responsible gun owners know one thing: guns are incredibly dangerous and they act accordingly at all times.
Reference error! “gun owners,” not “they.”
The AR-15-style rifle he used was a Christmas gift from his dad. Fourteen-year-olds can’t legally own guns, of course.
In most states, 14-year olds can own and possess rifles (including semi-automatics like the AR-15), they just cannot buy them from a federally licensed dealer. Federal law does not prohibit 14-year olds from possessing, owning or (legally) using a rifle.
Most states forbid minors from possessing handguns except under direct adult supervision, and in a very limited set of circumstances.
So in this case, the gun gifted to the 14-year old was legal. In retrospect, it was clearly a bad idea (culpably negligent, in my view), and in general, I think giving underage people guns that are not actively supervised and access controlled by adults at all times is a very bad idea, legal or not.
I dislike charging parents for the actions of their minor children, but the facts in this case, at least the ones I think I know now, appear to support such a charge. The parent or parents cannot deliberately place dangerous weapons in the hands of underage children and allow them to access or use them unsupervised. It is dangerous, unethical, and frighteningly irresponsible.