Oxford, Michigan, School Shooting

[p0rtia]

Every Republican monster who continues to block any sane gun control is also responsible.

And yes, I know sane gun laws would not eliminate all gun deaths--but they would cut the number drastically over time.

Like speed limits.

Like most laws.

[RVInit]

Every Republican monster who continues to block any sane gun control is also responsible.

And yes, I know sane gun laws would not eliminate all gun deaths--but they would cut the number drastically over time.

Like speed limits.

Like most laws.

[Kendra]

Victim statements are under way today, CNN has been popping in off and on this morning. Sentencing coming soon, I believe later today.

[Maybenaut]

Victim statements are under way today, CNN has been popping in off and on this morning. Sentencing coming soon, I believe later today.

Who’s being sentenced today? The shooter, or one or both parents? Sorry, I haven’t kept up.

[Kendra]

The shooter. If I have it correctly (could be wrong), the parents haven't been tried yet. Family members of victims have been asking for life without possibility of parole, he was 15 at the time.

[MN-Skeptic]

CNN Breaking News
@cnnbrk

Michigan school shooter Ethan Crumbley sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing four students and wounding seven people in 2021

Michigan school shooter sentenced to life in prison without parole

[Dave from down under]

Next!

His parents.

May justice be served.

[Maybenaut]

I don’t know how I would feel about this if someone I loved was a victim.

But I think LWOP is too harsh in this case. It’s pretty obvious that this kid is sick, even if not legally insane. And I don’t think our justice system is well-equipped to deal with the intersection between crime and mental illness.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t be punished. But this is too much, in my opinion.

His parents, on the other hand… fuck them.

[Fiascoist]

[bob]

But I think LWOP is too harsh in this case. It’s pretty obvious that this kid is sick, even if not legally insane. And I don’t think our justice system is well-equipped to deal with the intersection between crime and mental illness.

Too also: The legal landscape for LWOP for those who committed their crimes as juveniles is very much in flux. The United States, generally, was trending away from it, but three latest SCOTUS justices seem unmoved by the concerns you listed.

[Maybenaut]

But I think LWOP is too harsh in this case. It’s pretty obvious that this kid is sick, even if not legally insane. And I don’t think our justice system is well-equipped to deal with the intersection between crime and mental illness.

Too also: The legal landscape for LWOP for those who committed their crimes as juveniles is very much in flux. The United States, generally, was trending away from it, but three latest SCOTUS justices seem unmoved by the concerns you listed.

Alas. As I understand it, Juvenile LWOP as a mandatory minimum sentence is unconstitutional, as is Juvenile LWOP where the crime did not result in the death of a victim. Otherwise, yeah, they can throw away the key.

I worked on a case once where the client got LWOP for a murder he committed at 18. Not quite the same, but still pretty young. Since the jury found it was premeditated, LWOP was mandatory. Client was crazy as a shit-house rat, but not legally insane.

We managed to get the conviction tossed on an instructional error and the guy ended up pleading guilty to a (somewhat) lesser offense. He’s still in prison as far as I know. For the victim’s family it was, understandably, a kick in the teeth.

These issues are so fraught. Reason 1,001 that I don’t do this kind of work anymore.

[AndyinPA]

https://wapo.st/3Soqo75

Gifted.

PONTIAC, Mich. — The photos on Jennifer Crumbley’s phone showed a typical-seeming family, one that went on vacation to the beach, carved pumpkins at Halloween, played board games with grandparents and gardened in the backyard.

Crumbley, 45, narrated the images Thursday as she testified in her involuntary manslaughter trial, in which she is charged in the deaths of four students her son killed in the 2021 shooting at Oxford High School, roughly 40 miles north of Detroit.

Crumbley and her husband, James, who faces identical charges in a separate trial in March, have both pleaded not guilty. The couple is still married, but Crumbley said she has not spoken to him in two years; they were unable to post their combined $1 million bond and both remain in custody.

From the witness stand, Crumbley described a close family, whose teenage son experienced anxiety and sadness over things like grades, friends and the future. Crumbley denied having prior knowledge of her son’s school shooting plans or the extent of his mental health struggles until it was far too late. Asked on the stand whether Crumbley wished the shooting had never happened, Crumbley was unequivocal.

“Absolutely,” she said. “I wish he would have killed us instead.”

Most of the evidence presented by prosecutors, who rested their case Thursday, has been seen before in sentencing hearings for the shooter: Ethan Crumbley pleaded guilty in 2022, moving from an instant trial straight to sentencing last December, where he was given life without parole.

[Rolodex]

I watched a bit of her trial the other day. It was anodyne cop questioning and I had other things to do so I did hear a lot. This case is sad all around.

[RVInit]

This trial is a shit show. The judge does not exert any control over her courtroom. The defense attorney, Shannon Smith, most famous for defending Larry Nassar, is constantly whining in front of jurors. An alarming amount of what she says in front of jurors qualifies as testimony. The prosecutor is understandably frustrated as the judge refuses to stop this nonsense.

I'm cooking dinner but have a juicy tidbit from yesterday afternoon! Will post as soon as I can.

[Maybenaut]

I would have a lot more sympathy for the parents if they hadn’t gone into hiding while their son was being held.

That, to me, was just more evidence that they cared more about themselves than they did their own child.

[RVInit]

Yesterday afternoon the defense attorney demonstrated why the lawyers here have told us that a lawyer should never ask a question to which they don't already know the answer.

For background, the defense was highly successful in getting rulings to suppress evidence that made the Crumbleys appear to be neglectful parents. Which really sucks for the prosecutor because that is the gist of their case - the Crumbleys were too busy with their own hobbies and interests to pay any attention to their son. One of the suppressed evidence was the fact that Mrs Crumbley was having an affair and still active in that affair as her child's mental health was demonstrably deteriorating. The prosecution wanted that evidence in because the Crumbleys were called to the school counselors office on the morning of the shootings and the counselor begged them to take their son that same day to mental health counseling. Mrs Crumbley said they could not do that because she had to go back to work. However, her supervisor has testified that the company is "family first" and even if she had used all her PTO she knew all she had to do was ask and she could leave work to take her son to a doctor and also still get paid. In fact, she left work several times a week in order to meet with her lover. So that is the background.

The lover testified yesterday afternoon, and the prosecutor abided by the judge's order that the affair could not be divulged to the jury. Then, Shannon Smith started her cross and immediately started into a line of questioning that "opened the door". The prosecutor stood up and objected and tried to be very discreet in front of the jury. So, defense attorney starts yelling in her whiny loud voice "I WANT the door opened!!! This jury HAS TO HEAR EVERYTHING!! It's not fair to keep information from the jury!!!!!". Of course, the jury is listening to all of this. The defense has done this MULTIPLE times, knowing the judge is a complete wet noodle and she will get away with it. The prosecutor insisted that the jury be dismissed so they could discuss it fully. The defense yelled "that's not necessary" and the judge was going to allow her to continue to insinuate that the prosecutor was trying to hide things from the jury. The prosecutor finally got his way, the jury was put on break, and they discussed the issue. Now, Smith WANTS the affair to be put in, does NOT want her client to have to raise her hand to swear she is OK with it, but the prosecution stuck to his guns. So, Mrs C had to raise her right hand and swear she was OK with the affair coming in.

So, why did she want the affair to come in? All so she could tell the man that "investigators THREATENED YOUR JOB because of the affair, didn't they!!" To which he answered NO, in no uncertain terms. Over and over again he said at no time did the police ever threaten his job, the prosecution was able to get him to explain all the talk about his pension and stuff was during the part where they establish rapport, and at no time did they ever suggest that he could lose his job, they never threatened to tell his supervisor, and they never insinuated that he could lose his pension because of having this affair. So, now the prosecution got to put in the fact that although Mrs C refused to leave work to take her son, who was clearly in crisis, to a counselor, she left work several times per week to meet with her lover.

Shannon Smith is a loose cannon, the judge is a wet noodle, and the prosecution hands are tied because half the evidence that shows how utterly negligent the parents were is not allowed into the trial. Like I said before - shit show.

[RVInit]

I would have a lot more sympathy for the parents if they hadn’t gone into hiding while their son was being held.

That, to me, was just more evidence that they cared more about themselves than they did their own child.

Yes. There were several points during testimony that it seems so clear that these parents cared nothing for their child. I found myself wondering if they bought him the gun halfway hoping he might do himself in. They clearly had no time for him.

And today on the witness stand, Mrs C was asked by her lawyer "is there anything you would do different today now that you know how it turned out?" Her answer was "No". I was stunned. The morning of the shootings, she was sent a photo of a drawing her son had made. It contained a gun, a person that was clearly shot dead, bullets, and the words "Help me" and "I can't stop these bad thoughts". The school counselor gave her a long list of mental health counselors, including one that he highlighted that was an agency that accommodates same day appointments for someone in crisis. She said she could not take him today because "I have to get back to work". She also testified today that she gave the list to her husband for him to make the appointment, even though early in her testimony she said that she was the parent who "took care of everything". She knows there is evidence from their phones that they never bothered to call a counselor.

Also, here is something I had not known prior to a couple days ago. As soon as Mr C heard there was a shooting at his son's school, the first thing he did was race home to see if the gun they bought their son was at home. He immediately believed his son was most likely the shooter.

[pipistrelle]

Also, here is something I had not known prior to a couple days ago. As soon as Mr C heard there was a shooting at his son's school, the first thing he did was race home to see if the gun they bought their son was at home. He immediately believed his son was most likely the shooter.

I remember that.

Also, didn't he torture birds, etc.? It seemed people knew that. Didn't they? That's a flippin' red flag there.

[RVInit]

Also, here is something I had not known prior to a couple days ago. As soon as Mr C heard there was a shooting at his son's school, the first thing he did was race home to see if the gun they bought their son was at home. He immediately believed his son was most likely the shooter.

I remember that.

Also, didn't he torture birds, etc.? It seemed people knew that. Didn't they? That's a flippin' red flag there.

Yes, his torture and killing of birds and other animals was not allowed in. He tortured a family of baby birds and kept the severed head of one of them in a jar in his room for over six months. His mother testified that she was the one who cleaned his room. She certainly had access to be able to see that he had a baby bird head in his room, but this wasn't allowed to be introduced in this case. What bothers me is that it's well known that many people who kill fellow humans start by torturing and killing animals. I don't understand why this is being kept from the jury because the appellate court mentioned that his torture and killing of animals was largely done inside the home. He also kept a journal that detailed many gruesome things he did and wanted to do. He made no effort to hide it from his parents, often leaving it in full view at home. He mentioned the idea of wanting to become a school shooter on every single page according to the appellate court decision. His mother showed signs of wanting to know the very minute he got home from school every day and other signs of being sort of micro managing him. But according to her she knew nothing of any of his activities, thoughts, mental breakdown, and desires.

[RVInit]

Another interesting thing I found out today. The kid's kitten was named Dexter.

I'm not suggesting the prosecutor should make anything of that, but I have a feeling I know where he got the inspiration for that name.



His journal was full of praise for Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer, and other murderers. He wanted to be as famous as them.

[Rolodex]

Sheesh. That was one troubled kid. Combine that with checked out parents who ignore even the reddest of flags and it seems inevitable. Buying him a gun was incredibly stupid.

[RVInit]

Oh, here are some more suppressed gems - when his room, which his mother cleaned, was searched, right out in the open is an empty bottle of booze and a half full bottle of booze, hard liquor. He's 15 years old. So, yeah, great parenting going on here. And again, the photos were suppressed because the judge is concerned about Mrs Crumbley being shown as a "bad parent". Bad parenting is the whole freaking negligent thing.

Just for those of you not watching the trial, don't be totally baffled if she is acquitted.

[Flatpoint High]

Oh, here are some more suppressed gems - when his room, which his mother cleaned, was searched, right out in the open is an empty bottle of booze and a half full bottle of booze, hard liquor. He's 15 years old. So, yeah, great parenting going on here. And again, the photos were suppressed because the judge is concerned about Mrs Crumbley being shown as a "bad parent". Bad parenting is the whole freaking negligent thing.

Just for those of you not watching the trial, don't be totally baffled if she is acquitted.

she also appears to be throwing hubby onto the third rail

[Maybenaut]

Oh, here are some more suppressed gems - when his room, which his mother cleaned, was searched, right out in the open is an empty bottle of booze and a half full bottle of booze, hard liquor. He's 15 years old. So, yeah, great parenting going on here. And again, the photos were suppressed because the judge is concerned about Mrs Crumbley being shown as a "bad parent". Bad parenting is the whole freaking negligent thing.

Just for those of you not watching the trial, don't be totally baffled if she is acquitted.

Well, not entirely. She’s charged with a specific negligent act. The danger is that she would be convicted of some other negligent act that she’s not charged with, or just for being a bad parent or a bad person in general.

The exception to the rule making “prior bad acts” inadmissible is large enough that the rule often only exists at its edges; the government can almost always find a reason that the evidence is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. It gladdens my little defense-attorney heart to see a judge actually apply the rule.

[sugar magnolia]

Oh, here are some more suppressed gems - when his room, which his mother cleaned, was searched, right out in the open is an empty bottle of booze and a half full bottle of booze, hard liquor. He's 15 years old. So, yeah, great parenting going on here. And again, the photos were suppressed because the judge is concerned about Mrs Crumbley being shown as a "bad parent". Bad parenting is the whole freaking negligent thing.

Just for those of you not watching the trial, don't be totally baffled if she is acquitted.

Well, not entirely. She’s charged with a specific negligent act. The danger is that she would be convicted of some other negligent act that she’s not charged with, or just for being a bad parent or a bad person in general.

The exception to the rule making “prior bad acts” inadmissible is large enough that the rule often only exists at its edges; the government can almost always find a reason that the evidence is relevant and not unduly prejudicial. It gladdens my little defense-attorney heart to see a judge actually apply the rule.

Thanks for that clarification. During trial testimony, I tend to rely on the Judge's decisions on admissibility of evidence. They know the rules and facts and law much better than the general public, and what seems ridiculous to us may be perfectly valid law. The viewing public's take on things is colored by our extraneous knowledge gleaned from media reports (whether factual or not) and is quite possibly completely irrelevant to the charges. I have to believe that, in most cases, the jury is relying only on admissible evidence heard during trial and reaches a verdict based on how the testimony and evidence apply directly to the crime charged.

"Well, s/he might not have done this thing, but s/he damn sure did something to be punished for and this is our chance to do so" is a hell of a way to get a guilty verdict.