this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
232 points (96.4% liked)

News

23274 readers
3097 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Jennifer Crumbley, 45, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the deadly school shooting carried out by her then-15-year-old son in 2021.

[…]

In the trial, Jennifer Crumbley testified that while “I don’t think I’m a failure as a parent” and “wouldn’t have” done anything differently in how she parented her son, she felt regret for what he did.

It's about time a parent is held responsible. Maybe this will finally start moving a needle.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 61 points 9 months ago

There wasn't a single thing they would have done differently? Because my daughter is only 13 and hasn't killed anyone and I can still think of plenty of things I would have done differently if I had to do them over again.

Her son was doomed from the start because he had a narcissistic parent.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 56 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Considering they gifted it to him when they knew he was mentally unwell, I would agree that would qualify as failing to secure it.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't give a mentally fit 15-year-old a gun. At the age they don't really understand how destructive the gun is, not at a visceral level.

[–] LowtierComputer@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

100%. Even my gun nut family will give access to guns, but the kids never truly own a gun or have unlimited access without a guardian. They're kids!

[–] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Good. This is some common sense gun laws I think people could get behind. You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable. Maybe more people will not keep a loaded gun unsecured and accessible to anyone let alone children.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 34 points 9 months ago

but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable.

Exactly.

People like to scream about their rights, but they forget that rights come with responsibilities.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I personally think maybe we should consider subsidizing gun-safe purchases so people are incentivized to buy a gun safe by making them more affordable to first time gun-buyers.

Guns are pretty expensive on their own, and much like people buying a fancy motorcycle but cheaping out on helmet and chaps, people will skip the gun safe if it costs more than they can afford including the gun.

[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Or maybe they have to buy a safe and or prove they already have one before they are allowed to buy a gun. We can't take away the right to own a gun but we sure as hell can make sure it's safely stored.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's sort of the situation in the UK, or at least where I'm at.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The UK also doesn't allow pistols anyway. Which is the first kind of gun that most people buy.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Not strictly true.

Pistols are allowed in Northern Ireland, and are subject to the same licences and regulations as rifles and shotguns.

And there are some pistols that are designed to comply with regulations and can be bought.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

A better option sure, but I've been alive in the USA long enough to know that's a non-starter. We're absolutely the country of "You have the freedom to ignore safety precautions because there aren't laws against being a complete fucking idiot and a danger to other people."

Sorry I was trying to live in the dystopian reality we exist in for a moment.

I don't exactly have solutions for what to do about conservatives always arguing in bad faith, so my suggestion reflected a political reality, which is that our system of government treats their lack of education and arguing in bad faith valued as the same as educated good faith arguments. It's wrong, it's stupid, it's backwards, and it's so broken we're literally having to have courts decide whether a President can be a King, actually. But it's the system as it exists, not as much as we wish it wasn't a bunch of bullshit crafted by white slave owners who wanted to protect the aristocracy by only allowing land-owning white men to vote. We're not exactly starting with a system that wasn't a pile of dogshit to begin with over here.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

We’re absolutely the country of “You have the freedom to ignore safety precautions because there aren’t laws against being a complete fucking idiot and a danger to other people.”

For sure, but at least holding them responsible when someone gets hurt or killed is a start. It’s too late to prevent “being a danger to other people”, but maybe some will learn not to “ignore safety precautions”. It’s pretty minimal justice for someone’s life, but it’s a step

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] quirzle@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable.

I think support for this depends a lot on where that line is drawn. Failing to keep your admittedly troubled children away from guns is obvious (and covered by existing laws, hence the guilty verdict here). At the other extreme, I don't think having a gun stolen during a legitimate robbery should be criminalized, since that's moving into victim-blaming territory.

I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but a parent in this sort situation has some responsibility both from the failure in parenting and the failure in securing the firearm. Makes for an easy agreement with the verdict in this specific situation, imo.

[–] KillerTofu@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Having an unsecured gun stolen during a robbery vs having a secured gun stolen during a robbery are different though.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 41 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I can't be the only person who cringes anytime a juror from a big trial does a press tour, right?

Creepy as fuck, and makes me wonder what will come out about their conduct during trial.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We pay jurors a pittance to give up weeks if not more of their lives for these massive cases. I can’t blame them for wanting to get something more from it.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yup. When I got roped into jury duty, it almost caused me to go homeless; I lost a five figure contract because I couldn’t guarantee availability anymore. And the $4 per day from jury duty didn’t even cover the cost of my parking.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

you show up for 1 day, tell the judge (if you are selected as a jury candidate for a trial) your financial situation and they'll excuse you and say they will call you up at a later time.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

My state/county doesn’t have an exemption for financial burden. And even then, voir dire happened on the first day of the contract, so I still would’ve missed out regardless.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

15 minutes of fame

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, seems fraught. That said, I feel a little different where it might be attached to a societal issue like gun control vs something where it's a tabloid driven murder case or something.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

People ask "how did this happen?" after a shooting. The inevitable answer "they were raised bad" is now being scrutinized and this is what it looks like when we agree raising a child is now a legal liability. Making good parenting a legal requirement is a good step towards better adults. It's going to be interesting seeing those who believe "property rights over human rights" spin this decision to make them the victim.

[–] CCMan1701A@startrek.website 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Ok, sure, but some pro-life states make you have kids even if you don't want to continue with the pregnancy. So this may cause unfit parents to exist due to government policies.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Which is why we need to make the Republican party extinct.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

There's definitely an opportunity for a slippery slope here. At the same time, these parents put strawman examples of negligent parents to shame. They did almost everything bad except actively aid their son in the act.

[–] JustARaccoon@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The issue is though who defined what is and isn't "good parenting"?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Good thing they withheld her last name, because she's about to become an instant celebrity for lonely dudes into pale gothy women.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I respect a chick that goes full Elvira for a morning show interview. Staff makeup team must've been over the moon about touching her up.

[–] UNWILLING_PARTICIPANT@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Thank you! I know it's vapid, but I can't believe I had to scroll so far to find people talking about this absolute lewk!

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 10 points 9 months ago

Yes, and as long as you have those irresponsive gun owners, your school shooter problem will not go away.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago

That's almost impossible to prove to a jury in a civil case. Pretty landmark they proved it in a criminal one. I still wouldn't expect it to be a trend though.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 8 points 9 months ago

Is it not weird that jurors can just get out there and start selling their stories after being involved in a trial...? It feels weird.

[–] CeruleanRuin@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

They didn't go far enough. Anyone who treats guns like this around children should be nailed to a building and pecked to death by birds.

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

There are colloquial sayings related to cautioning against giving matches to children. “Like giving matches to a child,” used metaphorically to describe any reckless or dangerous act of enabling someone ill-equipped to handle a situation. This underscores the inherent risks and potential for harm in such actions, reflecting a common understanding that certain tools or privileges should only be entrusted to those who can handle them responsibly.

We have this baked into us, that things like matches shouldn’t be left to children. But for some fucked up reason, some adults think firearms and children mix.

This mother has no regrets about her parenting and wouldn’t change anything?! She’s kidding herself to sleep at night.

load more comments
view more: next ›