The Crumbley family is representative of the United States. At least a good part that makes weapons an object of worship.
The father, James Crumbley (now 47), bought a SIG Sauer 9mm semi-automatic pistol as an early Christmas gift for his son, Ethan. His mother, Jennifer (now 45), took him shooting, to practice.
Jehn, as they call her, paid for half an hour and 100 bullets. On her return, she posted a proud photo of her daughter on Instagram. She fired 14 consecutive bullets in rapid sequence. “Mother and son testing the new Crismas gift.”
Ethan, who was 15 at the time, fantasized on a math worksheet about “a bloodbath everywhere.” He made it happen.
The son is today sentenced to life imprisonment, after accepting his guilt as the author of the massacre at Oxford High School in Michigan, on November 30, 2021. Thanks to his SIG, Sauer ended the lives of four classmates and He left seven others injured.
Up to this point it will be said, unfortunately, that there is nothing new or surprising in a US with a population that is more armed – an average of more than one of these devices per citizen and there are 332 million registered – than the armies of many countries.
The difference in this matter is highlighted these days in a Pontiac court, in a never-before-seen summary that can make a difference, since it is a test for the accusations of prosecutors when pursuing responsibilities in this type of events.
Recently, some parents whose children committed gun violence have been accused and accepted charges of reckless conduct or neglect.
For the Crumbleys, this is a much larger thing. Waiting for James' turn in March, Jennifer sits in the dock in a trial in which she faces a possible sentence that has been considered a historic punishment. She is accused of four involuntary homicides and, if the jury finds her guilty, the sentence would rise to fifteen years.
Legal experts say this is a groundbreaking case that could weigh heavily on how society views parental culpability for their children's access to guns. They argue that, regardless of whether it will encourage other prosecutors to go down this path, the issue has the capacity to create real incentives for parents to be more cautious in facilitating that access.
Others add, however, that these parents are nothing more than the scapegoats for the political inaction against this scourge and the open bar given to the sale of weapons.
That son to whom the Crumbleys gave the gun, just a few days before the massacre, had given clear signs of his mental health problems. Marc Keast, the accuser, argued that Ethan issued numerous warnings that, if James and Jennifer had heeded, would have prevented the massacre.
Ethan told his friends that he heard voices, suffered from paranoia and insomnia. She told his parents that they lived in a ghostly house, but “they didn't want to know anything” about the writings in which his son aspired to commit a massacre, alternating drawings of guns and requests for help. “My parents don't listen to me,” he wrote. The day of the tragedy they were called to school, where they explained the strange behavior of his son and his apocalyptic phrases. They begged them to take him immediately to a psychiatric consultation. The couple rejected the advice, made his son continue in class and did not warn that he had a gun in his backpack. Before long, Ethan opened fire.
Reading various emails between the couple and friends showed a woman more concerned about her horses than her son. At her trial it was even discovered that she had a lover, to whom she sent a message after the shooting in which she assured him that “I have failed as a mother.” Then, in addition, she blamed the school system and the institute.
“I was not in charge of the custody of the weapon,” Jennifer responded in her testimony in court over the last two days. That was up to her husband. “I would have preferred him to kill us,” she sobbed.
