Others say this case was so unusual that it is unlikely to have wider ramifications.
"I don't fear that this is going to open the floodgates to parents being charged in a run of the mill case, if there is such a thing," said Frank Vandervort, a University of Michigan clinical professor of law.
precedent
noun
a decision about a particular legal case that makes it likely that other similar cases will be decided in the same way
Yup. The school shooter was obviously a piece of shit, and the mother may have been too. The issue is, does it rise to the level of criminality? Does someone have a duty to tell anyone, especially a government school, that they bought their child a firearm?
You're totally correct, and it pisses me off that I've heard "conservatives" arguing the inverse. The mother's no saint, but this sets a dangerous precedent indeed. If she aided and abetted, or encouraged, or something, that's one thing. But there's no evidence of that.
If taxpayer-funder cops have been found to have no obligation to protect the people who pay them, fuck the idea that parents have an obligation to inform to the government (that takes their money) about what property they've purchased for their family. This shit pisses me off big time. Mother of the year? Obviously fucking not. As I said, maybe a total piece of shit. But criminal, for not choosing to violate her own privacy, and that of her son, or for not being a mind reader? No thanks.
Does someone have a duty to tell anyone, especially a government school, that they bought their child a firearm?
That's what they are going for. Make suburban mom's feel like they are doing the right thing by turning anyone who seems a little bit off in to the police. Better to be cautious and do a red flag report on Timmy than have something bad happen to both of you.
Next step will be you are legally responsible for turning in your neighbors if anything is off.
This is too true. I had my brainwashed-by-living-in-a-liberal town sister call the cops on me because I said I thought a lot of kids (girls mainly) were faking being trans because it was trendy.
Granted, but what about buying a gun for someone who you admit is mentally ill?
Seems like the difference is between buying a gun for your son because he likes target shooting and buying him a gun because he says he's being stalked by demons.
I remember a law being proposed or maybe passed (completely blanking on where) requiring firearms be locked away when not in use. If something like that applied, and add your points with the gun potentially being left available, it is pretty clear they deem the parents responsible for a child's behavior... At least for White people.
"The People spoke!" Buck Myre, the father of Tate Myre, a 16-year-old killed in the shooting, told the BBC in a statement.
"You can agree or disagree with the people, but this is how the system is supposed to work."
It's not. There are written laws that need to be followed. This is not a country of mob rule.
This falls in line with them trying to bankrupt gun manufacturers. They can't legally take our rights to firearms away, but they will try every means possible to dissuade, get in the way of owning one, or open the ability strip your rights through unconstitutional means without hard evidence. This includes blaming others who were indirect influences, family members and the like.
precedent
noun
a decision about a particular legal case that makes it likely that other similar cases will be decided in the same way
After reading the BBC archive, it's not clear to me what facts make this case "so unusual" that it is unique and can't be used to scapegoat others.
So the mother:
Fucking stupid to equate this to manslaughter with a sentence of 60 years.
Yup. The school shooter was obviously a piece of shit, and the mother may have been too. The issue is, does it rise to the level of criminality? Does someone have a duty to tell anyone, especially a government school, that they bought their child a firearm?
You're totally correct, and it pisses me off that I've heard "conservatives" arguing the inverse. The mother's no saint, but this sets a dangerous precedent indeed. If she aided and abetted, or encouraged, or something, that's one thing. But there's no evidence of that.
If taxpayer-funder cops have been found to have no obligation to protect the people who pay them, fuck the idea that parents have an obligation to inform to the government (that takes their money) about what property they've purchased for their family. This shit pisses me off big time. Mother of the year? Obviously fucking not. As I said, maybe a total piece of shit. But criminal, for not choosing to violate her own privacy, and that of her son, or for not being a mind reader? No thanks.
That's what they are going for. Make suburban mom's feel like they are doing the right thing by turning anyone who seems a little bit off in to the police. Better to be cautious and do a red flag report on Timmy than have something bad happen to both of you.
Next step will be you are legally responsible for turning in your neighbors if anything is off.
This is too true. I had my brainwashed-by-living-in-a-liberal town sister call the cops on me because I said I thought a lot of kids (girls mainly) were faking being trans because it was trendy.
Granted, but what about buying a gun for someone who you admit is mentally ill?
Seems like the difference is between buying a gun for your son because he likes target shooting and buying him a gun because he says he's being stalked by demons.
It's a BBC article. They're not meant to inform you, they're meant to give you the illusion of being informed.
Dammit, Bobby!
Ah tell ya hwut!
Yes, exactly. I was throwing out the legalese definition of precedent to also point out how stupid the quoted gentleman is.
I remember a law being proposed or maybe passed (completely blanking on where) requiring firearms be locked away when not in use. If something like that applied, and add your points with the gun potentially being left available, it is pretty clear they deem the parents responsible for a child's behavior... At least for White people.
Also concerning:
It's not. There are written laws that need to be followed. This is not a country of mob rule.
It ought to be as you describe.
But it is not.
Lynch mobs are back on the menu boys!
this is not a genie they want out of the bottle.
This precedent will not work out well for black people.
If blacks had nearly the legal accountability of whites I would agree
If Black people had parents, I would agree.
Universal application of this standard would quite literally put every black person in the united states in jail.
This falls in line with them trying to bankrupt gun manufacturers. They can't legally take our rights to firearms away, but they will try every means possible to dissuade, get in the way of owning one, or open the ability strip your rights through unconstitutional means without hard evidence. This includes blaming others who were indirect influences, family members and the like.
It's shared blame, a core tenet of collectivism.