This part is worrysome

"Charges were filed, in part, to “send a message that gun owners have a responsibility,” she said. “Four kids were murdered and seven more injured. So yes, I think we should all be very angry and we should take a very hard look at what is in place in terms of criminal responsibility and what gun owners are required to do.”"

More politics being added as to who the parents support (Trump).  Interesting how many active shooters are registered democrats, but yahoo and like dont mention that part. It takes independent journalism.

"Why didn't they take the child home after the meeting?".  Was he suspended, if he wasn't, then there is no need for him to be taken home.

Also no mention if this is the parents only gun.

I'm glad they were charged. In my house the 15 year old doesn't have access to the safe. If the parents secured the firearms and ammo and only allowed their kid to use with supervision this could have been prevented. This is a parenting problem. Failure to secure their weapons and inadequate supervision.

The Sandy Hook shooter's mom kept her guns locked in a safe.  Her son killed her to get to them.  Either he knew the combo without her knowing he did, or he knew where she kept the key.  Either way, he gained access in spite of her REASONABLE efforts to prevent it from happening.

So, no!  You can't prevent a persistent and resourceful teen from accessing your guns.  All it takes is a hidden camera to steal the combo as it's entered or knowing where the combo is written down or the key is kept.

Reasonable doesn't mean totally fool-proof.  When the kid lives under the same roof as the safe and the gun owner, it's only a matter of time before they find a way.

This case has to be judged on the specific facts involved.  You can't make general statements claiming that all parents can and should prevent their child from accessing their firearms or be thrown in prison.  Of course, you already have, huh?

On a side note, throwing a parent or two in prison doesn't prevent anything.  They are only charged AFTER their child uses the gun for criminal purposes.  That's how laws work.  They only punish people after the fact.

Maybe SOME parents will see that as a deterrent and decide to change their ways -- i.e. buying a better safe and keeping the combo private.  But not every parent will think that way.  As some say, kids may need access to the family firearms in case of emergency.  The odds that they will use the gun to commit intentional murder are close to zero. 

Next, you'll say we need surprise snap inspections of homes in which anyone owns guns and has kids, just to make sure we are all safe from the kids.

Even if someone has a safe and the kids don't have access, do you really think the parents will never remove the gun and have it out for cleaning, taking to the range, etc.?  Opportunities to gain access will present themselves.

Bull hockey. 

Are Biden & Whitmer Responsible for the Oxford Killings? ~ VIDEO

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/biden-whitmer-responsible-for-oxford-killings/

Breaking news.

Once convicted of manslaughter, the parents will no longer be allowed to possess or purchase guns, EXCEPT in certain states with loopholes. Let's see if Mr. My Pillow will front legal expenses. A million dollar lawyer can convince a jury to come up with a not guilty verdict. This is the way the justice system works in the U.S.

If you listen to the long list of "evidence," it sounds like the teachers are the ones who should be charged.  They saw more of the signs than the parents in the 48 hours before the shooting.  One teacher was so concerned over a drawing that she took a picture of it?  Really?  Did she feel so concerned that she contacted authorities?  No?  Why is she not charged?

The Oakland County Prosecutor even stated making crap up like, the parents didn't inspect the son's backpack before he left for school.  Where is there a laws requiring parents to frisk and search their kids before letting them leave the house?  How many other parents do that to their kids?  Are the parents being charged with not being clairvoyant?

Plus, since the gun was just recently purchased, the parents hadn't had time to shop for the right kind of safe/lock box for their gun -- as is the case with every single other new gun owner.  Do we get a $50 lock box?  Or a $150 fire safe?  A $300 heavy duty fast access heavy steel safe?  Something that can be mounted in the car?

There are so many types of containers for securing firearms, it takes time to know which one is optimal for your use.  Plus, until you buy the actual gun, you don't want to go buy a locking storage box it might not fit properly.

If the kid was shopping for ammo on his phone, it sounds like the parents may have at least kept the ammo separate from the pistol.  Just an assumption, but why else would he need to do that?

I think it's unreasonable to believe all new gun owners will have the best storage for their firearm immediately upon picking the pistol up. 

I've long been suggesting that gun stores offer a government-subsidized discount on gun safes and lock boxes to new buyers.  Then, if the owner later needs something larger, they can take their old storage container in for a trade-in discount -- a used safe/box which would then be offered for sale priced at that discount to offset it for the seller.  If the government is serious about gun safety, then this is one way to use our public funds to make it happen.  That way no new gun owner leaves the store without a gun AND a safe place to keep it.

If you listen to the long list of "evidence," it sounds like the teachers are the ones who should be charged.  They saw more of the signs than the parents in the 48 hours before the shooting.  One teacher was so concerned over a drawing that she took a picture of it?  Really?  Did she feel so concerned that she contacted authorities?  No?  Why is she not charged?

The Oakland County Prosecutor even stated making crap up like, the parents didn't inspect the son's backpack before he left for school.  Where is there a laws requiring parents to frisk and search their kids before letting them leave the house?  How many other parents do that to their kids?  Are the parents being charged with not being clairvoyant?

Plus, since the gun was just recently purchased, the parents hadn't had time to shop for the right kind of safe/lock box for their gun -- as is the case with every single other new gun owner.  Do we get a $50 lock box?  Or a $150 fire safe?  A $300 heavy duty fast access heavy steel safe?  Something that can be mounted in the car?

There are so many types of containers for securing firearms, it takes time to know which one is optimal for your use.  Plus, until you buy the actual gun, you don't want to go buy a locking storage box it might not fit properly.

If the kid was shopping for ammo on his phone, it sounds like the parents may have at least kept the ammo separate from the pistol.  Just an assumption, but why else would he need to do that?

I think it's unreasonable to believe all new gun owners will have the best storage for their firearm immediately upon picking the pistol up. 

I've long been suggesting that gun stores offer a government-subsidized discount on gun safes and lock boxes to new buyers.  Then, if the owner later needs something larger, they can take their old storage container in for a trade-in discount -- a used safe/box which would then be offered for sale priced at that discount to offset it for the seller.  If the government is serious about gun safety, then this is one way to use our public funds to make it happen.  That way no new gun owner leaves the store without a gun AND a safe place to keep it.

I can't imagine how they could be charged with manslaughter. What steps did the parents take towards the deaths? Simply not locking up their firearms? Even if the prosecution could argue that the parents should have known their son was going to commit a crime, failure to report a crime is usually not a crime in and of itself.

I don't see the parents getting convicted though they may be sued successfully but they are going to need a bit of evidence to show gross negligence I think. Maybe the shooter can be sued and his parents held liable for the damages. I think the school will also get sued.

Why didn't the schools contact authorities? Nowadays they don't want cops in schools unless absolutely necessary. They want to keep kids from having negative cop contact, there is pressure for this kind of thing be handled in house without stigma. I don't think cops should have been called necessarily but maybe some sort of higher level psychologist for an assessment.

I wonder how often kids are like this and nothing happens? Kids make these drawings or make dark comments, etc. Maybe it is very common but we only hear about it when a shooting happens? Heck, I can think back to some things I said in high school that now they would say should have been some red flag.

The Michigan prosecutor who charged the parents of a teen suspected in fatally shooting four
students and injuring seven others called the state’s gun laws “woefully inadequate.”

Oakland County prosecutor Karen McDonald was asked during a news conference on Friday
what Michigan’s laws were regarding bringing a child to a firing range and practicing with them.

“Good question. Michigan's laws are woefully inadequate. We don't have a safe storage law.
We’re not legally required to store your weapon in a safe manner. Children are allowed to attend
with their parents so long as their parent is present. So the answer to that question is we don't
have strong enough laws,” the Michigan prosecutor answered.

McDonald emphasized during the news conference that she was not against people owning
guns, saying that she knew a lot of people who responsibly owned guns. At the same time she
noted that "it's your responsibility — it's your duty — to make sure that you don't give access to
this deadly weapon to somebody that you have reason to believe is going to harm someone."

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584255-michigan-prosecutor-calls-state-gun-laws-woefully-inadequate

Basically, Michigan gun laws don't say what she wants them to say, so she's using her office to prosecute the parents for manslaughter instead.

Perfectly rational.   

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/584255-michigan-prosecutor-calls-state-gun-laws-woefully-inadequate

Basically, Michigan gun laws don't say what she wants them to say, so she's using her office to prosecute the parents for manslaughter instead.

Perfectly rational.   

I wonder if that is grounds for malicious prosecution where they could sue the prosecutors office?

I wonder if that is grounds for malicious prosecution where they could sue the prosecutors office?

I think it could be, since she's supposed to prosecute people who break existing laws.  I don't see an involuntary manslaughter fact pattern for the parents, particularly when there's no gun storage laws.  We can decry the lack of such laws and try to get them changed if that's what they think will prevent another such incident, but the parents didn't break any laws.

I personally would have been more careful and found a more hidden place for the gun until I found the safe I wanted, but that's not a legal issue. 

I still think the school may have some liability in not informing authorities of the potential problems based on the drawings and SM posts.  And that can include the state and county who operate the school.  It's possible the state is redirecting the spotlight off of themselves and onto the parents to try and avoid any blame/civil action.

I wonder if that is grounds for malicious prosecution where they could sue the prosecutors office?

This also sets a HUGE precedent. So all those who are pro 2a, but OK with the charges are in for a big awakening later. This differs from being pro 2a and saying it's dumb to not keep a firearm locked.  But then again, we go down the "what ifs".  Because what if the child needs a firearm to defend his family for X reason. Like that 15 year old who smoked 2 robbers with an AR.  So it would be reasonable that the child have access to a gun in a safe.

IMO, the warning signs again were there, but ignored for months by the school.  Then add in anti bullying campaigns that don't mention "if you bully someone, they may go Columbine, so don't be a bully".

So far no info that he was on anti depressants, which is out of the norm for school active shooters.