Thread by @AaronWorthing

The more I listen to this the more disturbed I am. The argument of the parents should have seen this coming is reed thin.

Thread

cc @PolitiBunny @wjjhoge

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1466821595071193095

2/ Let’s go over the evidence. First there is pretty strong evidence that the parents bought the gun in essence for #EthanCrumbley, the shooter. But before you think they are guilty of some kind of gun charge let me remind you of what the Rittenhouse case should’ve taught you:

3/ it’s more complicated than that. Michigan law does not completely prohibit minors from having guns. They prohibit them from having guns *in public*— and there are numerous exceptions to that ban in public. So even if they were explicitly letting him posses the gun…

4/ … it might be legal. I’m not saying it would be legal in school—I assume that a school would be considered “in public,“ for purposes of the ban—but around the house? Definitely legal.

next they say he was searching for information about ammo.

5/ but if he can posses a gun, I don’t see how that is a valid red flag to look at ammo. Yes, it is concerning in 20/20 hindsight but that isn’t how you judge whether a person was reckless. You judge it by the facts known at the time.

and we don’t know they knew of that search.

6/ then there was a note a teacher caught him with that she considered pretty alarming, that pretty much talked about depressed thoughts, suicidal thoughts and murder. Go and listen if you need details.

7/ the prosecutor said that the teacher was so concerned that she took a photograph of it and had him called down to the guidance counselor’s office, as well as his parents.

somehow the shooter was allowed to keep the note and even alter it before his parents could see it

8/ The prosecutor does not allege in this press conference that the parents were told about the alterations. Now to be fair, a lot of it sounds like he might’ve scribbled things out in a way that still left a lot of it legible.

9/ There is also no mention at all about what the shooter had to say about it, to his parents or to anyone else. Did he say it was a joke? Did he say it was just based on some book he read and not some thing based on his actual thoughts?

10/ Again with 20/20 hindsight, this is obviously evidence of a highly disturbed mind. And, once again, we don’t judge recklessness (or negligence) based on 20/20 hindsight. So my question is, should these parents have figured out that their son was dangerous?

11/ based on this evidence I am far from convinced. And not for nothing but it is fair to point out that sometimes it is hard for a parent to really see what their children are like. And I don’t think having a little bit of delusion on this point should land you in prison.

12/ then the parents are told that they have to get their son into counseling within 48 hours. Then the prosecutor blames them for not searching his bag. But she doesn’t say that school officials asked to do so, or took any steps to do so.

13/ likewise, the prosecutor blames the parents for not taking their son out of the school immediately. But weirdly I don’t hear the prosecutor blaming school officials for allowing him to stay. And simply put, I’m not seeing the evidence that convinces me that the danger was…

14/ …that clear. So unless the prosecutor is privy to a lot of information that I am not, including potentially information presented to the judge that she didn’t mention in this conference, I don’t even see probable cause.

15/ what I see is emotionalism, possible hostility to 2nd Amendment rights, and an appeal to 20/20 hindsight, all combining to criminalize what doesn’t seem criminal. she was trying to convince the public that they were right to seek the arrest of the parents, & she’s failed /end

ADDENDUM. @GOGOPclub shared a thread which included longer video of the press conference. You can view it here

you will have to do a lot of fast forwarding before you get to it but oh well. So does it change my analysis? 16/

17/ on some tangential issues, yes. For instance, the prosecutor is clearly keeping the door open to saying that some school personnel might also be charged. I could be wrong, but nonverbal cues suggested to me that this idea was dawning on her as the press conference went on.

18/ specifically for this addendum I am focusing on the question and answer session since the rest of it is pretty much the same thing. Also she seemed place a huge emphasis on just the fact there was an unsecured gun in the house.

19/ but the problem is, again Michigan law does not make it inherently illegal for a minor to possess a gun. The possession has to be in public and there are exceptions for range time and hunting. Maybe you think that’s nuts but that’s the law

20/ so you can’t say “it’s inherently reckless or negligent to leave the gun unsecured/unlocked” since parents don’t have a generalized duty to keep guns away from their kids. Instead there has to be something about the specific kid that makes them incapable of safely handling…

21/ …a gun. now, I do think it’s reasonable to say for instance that it would be reckless or negligent for anyone to give a gun to a baby. But the shooter was 15 and we have had 15 year olds serve in the military since the revolution—sometimes legally and sometimes illegally.

22/ I mean here’s a news story of a 15-year-old boy who used his dad’s A.R. 15 to defend his home and his sister from burglars. military.com/video/guns/rif… clearly his father either didn’t lock it up, or didn’t do so successfully.

23/ and here’s the story of a 12-year-old who protected his home with a gun. Plainly he could be trusted with one. abc7.com/goldboro-polic… these stories aren’t common but they happen now and then

24/ so I reject, and I think any court would reject, any notion that failing to lock up the weapon alone is sufficient. But if the parents have sufficient reason to believe their son is dangerous, that can change the calculus. Which brings me right back to the analysis above

25/ The only piece of evidence that we know of that might have alerted the parents to the danger of their son posed… a note… was shown to them in an altered state. We don’t know if they knew what it looked like in the unaltered state. we don’t know what the shooter said to…

26/ …to defend himself. Hell, he might have convinced them he didn’t write it at all. The prosecutor also makes a great deal of the father saying he suspected during the shooting that his son was the shooter. But at that point the father is dealing with 20/20 hindsight

27/ father is now looking back and wondering. Also I didn’t mention it in my original thread, but the mothers text to him after hearing of the shooting where she says “don’t do it” is woefully ambiguous. I mean if she thought he was the shooter that seems like a lame approach

28/ but here’s another possibility: maybe she thought he might’ve had the gun at school (maybe she learned it was missing) and some other kid was shooting up the place, and she was trying to tell him not to try to shoot the shooter.

29/ or maybe she didn’t think he had the gun but thought he might still try to attack the shooter, not realizing her son was the shooter. Bluntly, the claim that she knew (or suspected) her son was the shooter makes the least sense.

30/ in the end, I remain unconvinced that there is sufficient evidence to support these charges. This is especially because in my experience, parents often understand their children the least.

31/ I mean right now the Supreme Court is talking about whether or not to overturn Roe. And in previous cases, the Supreme Court said that there has to be a route to allow daughters to get abortions without their parents finding out.

32/ that’s how much of a secret life your children might have. Your daughter might get pregnant and abort a child without you having any idea any of it happened. Whatever you feel about that reality, right now that’s the reality.

33/ and there’s no reason to think that that level of secrecy is confined to girls. Now maybe the truth is that they saw warning signs and they really knew their kid was dangerous. Or maybe like many parents they just didn’t understand their kids.

34/ I think in the very human desire to blame someone, and to pretend that it is possible to stop every single school shooting, they have latched onto the idea of blaming these parents.

I will also note that they might have serious evidentiary problems.

35/ for instance, if the shooter never admitted to writing the note that this case hinges on, The state might have trouble even getting it into evidence. The same might be said for any text messages. But we shall see how that shakes out. /end