The Legal Case Against a School Shooter’s Parents

Source: David Veksler / Unsplash

On November 30, 2021, fifteen-year-old Ethan Crumbley brought a loaded gun to his high school in Oxford, Michigan, and killed four people, injuring four. In an era that’s become defined by school shootings, the tragedy has stood out for an alarming reason: the accusation of gross negligence on the part of Ethan’s parents.

Following the shooting, James and Jennifer Crumbley were charged with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, with the prosecution noting that the Crumbleys were aware of their son’s troubled state yet bought the boy the weapon he used in the shooting just days before the event. This summer, prosecutors released more disturbing details, including messages between the parents discussing Ethan’s mental health, with Jennifer Crumbley going as far as saying, “My biggest fear was that he was gonna turn the gun on himself.” The new filing also notes that when James and Jennifer fled following the shooting, they took the receipt for Ethan’s gun with them, which prosecutors regard as “inference of their consciousness of guilt.”

The legal case against Ethan’s parents is of particular interest because it has the potential to set a precedent in which the state might hold parents criminally responsible for the actions of children who commit these terrible acts. This could create an additional incentive for gun owners to keep firearms well out of the reach of children, teenagers, and perhaps others in their household—helping prevent such tragedies.

Of course, it is difficult to say whether the state will be able to secure a conviction against the Crumbleys. The criminal court system requires the prosecutors to meet the highest legal standard. They must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the Crumbleys acted “with intent” when they purchased the weapon Ethan used, essentially demonstrating that the parents were participants in the act, albeit passive ones.

Regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, there is a possibility that the families of the victims will bring civil charges against the Crumbleys and other parents of mass shooters. Our country’s civil court system requires plaintiffs’ attorneys to meet a lower legal standard, proving that there is only a “preponderance of evidence” linking a defendant’s actions to the outcome. Instead of jail time, the system awards monetary damages, designed to both send a message and punish those found liable.

While the threat of financial penalties might not weigh quite as heavily as jail time, civil damages of this kind can be financially ruinous for all but the wealthiest individuals. To illustrate, OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder but found guilty in civil court years later, forcing him to pay $33.5 million to the families of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Simpson.

Unfortunately, the desired chilling effect of these cases, both criminal and civil, would almost certainly also extend to highly responsible family members of individuals with mental illness—people desperately trying to do what’s right for their loved ones in a broken system with little to no safety net. The last thing such families need is to fear legal consequences stemming from the behavior of their loved ones, which is often entirely beyond their control.

But as a society we must find a way to stem the tide of these tragedies, even as we struggle to find common ground on proven, common-sense measures such as “red flag laws,” which currently exist in only about half of U.S. states.

It is a distressing thought that putting a price on the life of one lost too soon could be the most effective way to save another, but, in reality, really no-one wins, and the broken system remains. We must do better.