RECENT VERDICTS THAT CHANGE THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE

James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High School shooter Ethan Crumbley, was found guilty on March 14, 2024, of involuntary manslaughter for his role in the killings of four students in 2021. The decision in Crumbley’s case follows the February conviction of Crumbley’s wife, Jennifer Crumbley, on the same charges, one involuntary manslaughter charge for each child their son killed. The cases mark the first time in the U.S. that parents of a mass shooter have been held directly responsible for the deaths their child caused.

The verdicts raise difficult questions about the level of control parents have over the actions of teenage children, as well as the level of accountability society can reasonably demand. Crumbley had bought his son the gun used in the shooting four days before the killings, having taken him to the shooting range on several occasions and supervising his usage there.

But during Crumbley’s trial, as well as that of Jennifer Crumbley, questions were raise about whether the gun was secured in a way that would deter their son from accessing it easily. The backdrop to these actions is the parents’ knowledge of their son’s mental health issues: how much did they know and when did they know it? In legal terms, this knowledge is part of establishing foreseeability. 

With respect to the question of the parents’ knowledge of their son’s problematic mental health, their meeting at their son’s school immediately prior to the mass shooting was key: both parents met with school officials on the day of the mass shooting; the officials were alarmed at pictures and notes drawn and written by Ethan that they had discovered. If they were not aware of their son’s dark thoughts before (and there were many indications that they were), the parents were made aware then, and becoming aware at that meeting meant being aware in time to prevent the subsequent carnage. The two issues, a lack of safe storage and mental illness, coalesced to become a lethal combination.  

In some ways, the verdicts are not as radical as they seem at first; if a small child accesses a firearm and injures himself or another child while “playing” with it, parents can and have been held responsible. However, the accountability of parents for this sort of tragedy is usually limited to gross negligence with respect to the unsafe storage of the gun. Finding parents of a shooter guilty of killing is a whole new level of culpability.   

MORAL VERSUS LEGAL CULPABILITY

Is it appropriate? Should parents have liability beyond the storage of the weapon? This fundamental question has haunted U.S. society since Columbine in 1999, arguably the first mass school shooting in the country. At Columbine, the perpetrators had exhibited signs of mental illness, and ultimately died by suicide after the massacre. In addition to signs of mental illness, the pair of shooters had amassed an arsenal of weapons, including homemade bombs. Many people were left wondering how parents could have failed to notice all of these troublesome signs.

People went on to debate whether holding parents responsible for the criminal actions of their children was the province of morality or the law, a debate that continues today. What most could agree on, however, is that parents at least have a duty to ensure that deadly weapons are kept beyond the reach of kids, even kids approaching the age of majority. Safe storage laws, sometimes referred to as Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws, have been enacted in 16 states and D.C. A dozen and a half states and the District of Columbia passed red flag laws, or extreme risk protection orders, that would allow judges to order the confiscation of firearms from people considered to be dangerous to themselves or others. (Georgia does not have a CAP or red flag law; Michigan had a CAP law.) Unfortunately, “straw man” purchases of the type used to obtain weapons for the Columbine and Oxford, Michigan mass shootings (and others) are still providing access to guns to those who should not have them.  

THE LEGACY OF THE CRUMBLEY CASES

Legal experts point out that the guilty verdicts in the Crumbley cases rested on specific facts, facts that formed a picture of inattentive even reckless parents, a very disturbed teenage child, a missed opportunity to avoid the mass shooting, and unrestricted access to a firearm. These facts were so egregious on every level that they are unlikely to all be present in future cases: how many parents would buy a gun for their teenager who has exhibited mental health problems, allow that teen unfettered access to the gun, and then ignore the recommendation of school counselors to take that child home or to a mental health screening when a distressing picture of the gun and words about shooting the school are found on his notebook in class?

Because the presence of so many risk factors at once is unlikely, the Crumbley verdicts may have more limited precedent than at first thought. The cases might have a very narrow application going forward. However, the very fact that parents of a teen shooter were charged with involuntary manslaughter is likely to give parents and other caregivers pause. The charge directly links parents with the victims, not just the weapon (as with safe storage laws). The charges and guilty verdicts indicate society’s frustration with the lack of meaningful alternatives to address the growing epidemic of gun violence in our country. At least one thing is clear: parents need to be vigilant regarding their guns and their kids.

If you or someone you know has been injured, contact Dave Thomas at The Thomas Law Firm for a free evaluation of your case.