A Michigan jury found Jennifer Crumbley guilty of involuntary manslaughter on Tuesday after her son, Ethan Crumbley shot four students to death at Oxford High School in 2021. It is the first case of its kind where a parent has been held criminally responsible for the actions of a school shooter.
Advertisement
Reactions among the public are mixed. Some see the decision as a win that will scare parents into doing more to keep their children from hurting others. Others think the decision is a scary precedent that will haunt America for a long time and allow politically motivated prosecutors to go after anyone they want for the actions of others.
The state had a high burden to prove that Crumbley was guilty of involuntary manslaughter, which it did not seem to meet. One of the elements was that Mrs. Crumbley had to have knowledge that her son was dangerous, which the state’s evidence did not show. There was plenty of reasonable doubt surrounding what the parents knew and when they knew it.
But the defense attorney, Shannon Smith, spent no time in her closing arguments explaining the legal burden and all her time appealing to the jury’s emotions and common sense. This may have been a mistake.
Instead of showing the jury that the state had a job to do and failed to show the required elements of the charges, Smith tried to explain the repercussions for other parents that would happen if the jury found the defendant guilty. She wasn’t wrong, but her arguments felt incomplete, and the jury ultimately sided with the prosecution who told them they could convict despite very thin evidence.
“Lawtubers” on YouTube who covered the case seem to agree that the decision was a bad one that will have far-reaching consequences. Joe Nierman at Good Lawgic called the decision “pathetic.”
Advertisement
“You just made America a crappier place!” said Nierman after the verdict. “Way to go!”
“A mob can basically rise up and say we’re going to pass judgment on whoever it is that is associated with, related to, or has anything to do with this…and punish someone simply because they are associated with [a criminal],” he started incredulously. “This was so ridiculously impossible for any parent to be able to predict. The school couldn’t predict, that nobody could predict, and yet for one reason or another this jury says, ‘Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, this woman should have been Nostradamus and known that her kid is a maniac!’”
Defense closing arguments now. #JenniferCrumbley #OxfordSchoolShooting #ArrestShawnHopkins pic.twitter.com/xtdIxJGjSk
— Bernice Sykes, PhD (Doc Bunny)🕊️❤️🤍💙🕊️ (@Docbunny2020) February 2, 2024
Crumbley is facing 15 years in prison for each count after this verdict.
“This is not about Jennifer Crumbley,” continued Neirman. “This is about holding someone to a yardstick that is now incumbent on you as a parent. You are now being held responsible. Why? Because they’re gun owners.”
Nierman also pointed out an obvious double standard when it comes to holding parents accountable for the crimes of youth.
“Let’s not skirt around the issue here,” he continued. “If Jennifer Crumbley was black there’s no way she would have been charged. And we know this because there are countless gangbangers out there running around and are not stopped or prevented by their parents and none of these parents are charged. But if you are a white gun owner…the crosshairs are on you.”
Advertisement
Niklas Starow at Trial Watch tweeted:
Police in Michigan and everywhere else will use this to get warrants for parents phone to collect evidence on kids crimes.
And if the parents have one sentence or picture in their phone that looks illegal…..
— Niklas Starow – Trial Watch. (@StarowNiklas) February 6, 2024
“It’s because it’s a school shooting,” said Andrew Branca from Law of Self Defense appearing on Making Law Simple Network. “It’s not going to be enforced generally, I mean what are they going to do? Go after all the single African American mothers in Detroit when their kids are shooting each other?”
MGLaw responded, “They wouldn’t have brought the charges if it had happened in a mall.”
“Or not just a mall, a drug house!” replied Ian Runkle of Runkle of the Bailey, a Canadian gun rights attorney.
As for Crumbley’s chance for appeal, attorney Sean Martin at Potentially Criminal said, “No judge is going to overturn this. They want to get reelected. If they overturn this they’re never getting elected again.” He continued, “No system of accountability works when the public can influence it.”
PJ Media reached out to Runkle for comment on the verdict. “The principle established by the win in the Jennifer Crumbley case starts with her, but it will continue for other parents whose behavior with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight was imperfect,” he said. “This opens the door for the state to pursue the parents of teens who drive drunk or join gangs. As the perfect parent does not exist, it raises the possibility that choosing to have a child may eventually mean time behind bars.”
Advertisement
Attorney David Helm of Making Law Simple Network told PJ Media, “We have a situation where the state through its witnesses twice and in its closing arguments twice said that nobody saw this coming. But yet we are going to hold this parent responsible. This is ‘Minority Report’ level policing of the populous.”
He continued criticizing what some see as an activist jury. “I believe the jury on Jennifer Crumbley’s case was acting on emotion and not reason,” he said. “This is a big, scary case involving a school shooting. But put the same parent on trial where her son did something less sensational, would you have the same outcome? If you say not necessarily, then this is clearly an emotional decision and one that has far-reaching consequences.”
Jennifer Crumbley will face sentencing in April while James Crumbley, the shooter’s father, is set to stand trial for the same charges in March.