This is the very first time that a parent has been held criminally responsible for the actions of a suspected school shooter.
The public reaction to this case has been mixed. For some, it is a victory that will encourage parents and guardians to take more steps to protect their kids. Others believe the decision will create a precedent for prosecutors in America to pursue any criminals who are motivated by politics.
The state had a heavy burden of proof, which they didn’t seem to be able to meet. It was not proved that Mrs. Crumbley knew her son was dangerous.
Shannon Smith’s defense attorney didn’t spend a lot of time in her closing arguments explaining the legal burden. She appealed instead to the jury’s common sense and emotions.
Smith’s arguments, while not entirely incorrect, were incomplete, according to Smith. The jury, on the other hand, agreed with the prosecution who claimed that they could convict despite the fact there was little evidence.
“You have made America worse!” said Nierman after the verdict. “Way To Go!”
The first thing he said was that he couldn’t believe it.
The evidence shows me that #KarenMcDonald is instigating a bad situation by failing to charge OxfordHigh admin #ShawnHopkins and #NicholasEjak. Notice she didn’t say those text were in St.Patrick’s Day and times kids are in school.#McDonald is not serious or interested about… pic.twitter.com/qW6tVGXsbl
— Bernice Sykes, PhD (Doc Bunny)🕊️❤️🤍💙🕊️ (@Docbunny2020) February 2, 2024
Crumbley could face 15 years in prison for each of the charges if convicted.
Neirman said, “This is not about Jennifer Crumbley. It’s about blaming someone for something which now belongs to your parents.
Nierman also brought to the fore the apparent double standard when it comes to imposing parental responsibility for youth crime.
“Let’s not skirt around the issue here,” he continued. “If Jennifer Crumbley was black, she would not have been charged…”
Niklas Starow, of Trial Watch tweeted:
Jennifer Crumbley guilty verdict is a very bad precedent for parents everywhere. State did not meet its burden. Jury was out for blood. This is not justice.
— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) February 6, 2024
Andrew Branca from Law of Self-Defense said on Making Law Simple Network it was due to a school shooting.
MGLaw responded, “They wouldn’t have brought charges had the incident occurred in a mall.
Ian Runkle replied, “Or even a shopping mall, but also a drug house!”
Runkle said that the principle established by the Jennifer Crumbley Case started with her. According to him, this principle will be applied in retrospect to parents who have a flawed behavior.
David Helm, an attorney at Making Law Simple Network told us: “We’re in a situation in which the state has stated twice, twice through its witnesses, and twice during their closing arguments, that no one could have predicted this. This is a police state on par with the Minority Report.
He continued criticizing what he called an activist jury. I think the jury in Jennifer Crumbley’s case acted on emotions and not on reason. It is a serious issue involving a shooting that occurred at a school. If the parent had been on trial for a lesser offense, would the jury have reached the same verdict?
Jennifer Crumbley will receive her sentence on April 30. The outcome of the shooting depends on the verdict given by James Crumbley, the father. He is scheduled to be tried in March.
