Debate: After a school shooting, should parents be held accountable? | Pro/Con

It’s a story that’s become all too familiar lately: On Nov. 30, a 15-year-old in Michigan brought a gun his father purchased on Black Friday to school, killing four students and wounding seven others. What’s different about this case is that prosecutors have charged the boy’s parents with involuntary manslaughter.

When kids engage in gun violence, parents are rarely charged. In this case, prosecutors argue that the boy’s parents failed to heed several warning signs — such as a violent drawing and message — and made the gun available to him.

The case is raising the question: Should these types of charges happen more frequently? In other words, when a kid shoots someone with a parent’s gun, should the parents be held accountable?

By Adam Garber

Last week’s horrific mass shooting in Michigan reminds us of a simple fact: A significant percentage of the guns used in school shootings come from the home. This time, the irresponsible gun owners — the shooter’s parents — may pay a price. The prosecutor has charged them with involuntary manslaughter because the evidence makes it clear: their negligence enabled the shooting. The parents purchased the gun, likely for their son, failed to keep it secure, and didn’t heed all the warning signs from their child.

» READ MORE: Suspect’s parents charged with involuntary manslaughter in Michigan school shooting

In this case, with the facts as egregious as they are, these charges are entirely warranted. This was the right response, tragically too late, and one that should be used more often by law enforcement when appropriate.

While accountability after the fact is important, we also need to put a greater emphasis on prevention. And we know exactly how the Oxford school shooting could have been halted. Simply securing the firearm with a lock so minors can’t access it, and locking up ammunition separately, could have saved four lives in Michigan.

The brains of young people are still developing, making them prone to impulsive decisions. Add to that the fact that high school is difficult, especially in a pandemic, and that kids’ emotions can leave them troubled in moments of crisis. That is true in every country around the world, yet the frequency of school shootings is unique to the United States. And most of those shooters, according to the U.S. Secret Service, get the gun from their family, who has not securely stored the weapon.

The Michigan prosecutor was right in calling gun laws in Michigan woefully inadequate — and the same can be said about Pennsylvania. Neither state requires gun owners with minors in their home to secure their firearm in a safe or otherwise lock it up.

Changing that law would make it clearer to gun owners with minors in the home: secure your weapon or prepare to face potential charges for gross negligence. And if there are warning signs such as clear threats of violence, you have an obligation to get your child help — for their sake and the rest of the community.

“Changing that law would make it clearer to gun owners with minors in the home: secure your weapon or prepare to face potential charges for gross negligence.”

The prosecutor’s action in Michigan provides a roadmap for other law enforcement officials to send a message to all gun owners with minors in their home: You have a responsibility to secure your firearm. A child will rarely make it through a locked safe, giving everyone more time to identify warning signs and get the appropriate help. And if your child still gets access to a gun, you’ll have the peace of mind to know you did everything in your power to prevent the bloodshed.

The General Assembly should pass a safe storage law, such as Senate Bill 581, that would make this moral obligation a legal obligation. But with millions of Americans living in a home with at least one unlocked, loaded firearm, we cannot wait for that action. When parents fail to secure their firearm or act on very clear warning signs, they should face close investigation and potential legal accountability.

This isn’t about whether people should own a firearm. It is about our obligation to each other in a civilized society by taking the simple step of locking up a firearm so that it cannot wreak havoc in the home and community. The only people who should be worried about such a law are irresponsible gun owners who endanger children by failing to lock up their firearms.

Adam Garber is executive director at CeaseFirePA Education Fund, the commonwealth’s gun violence prevention advocacy organization.

By Dillon Harris

The recent news that Jennifer and James Crumbley, parents of Ethan Crumbley, the 15-year-old student who last week killed four and injured seven other people at his high school, have each been charged with involuntary manslaughter has prompted questions about why more parents of minors charged with violent offenses are not criminally charged. The laws of the different states vary significantly, as do the facts of every situation, resulting in a variety of different reasons that more parents are not criminally charged when their minor children commit violent acts with firearms or other weapons.

» READ MORE: Three of my students were shot and killed last month. Philly’s leaders are nowhere to be found. | Opinion

Even still, there are a few general reasons that are likely consistent across many states and circumstances. First, prosecutors frequently exercise their discretionary authority by declining to bring criminal charges in cases where they do not believe they can prove each element of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt — the rigid standard that underpins our criminal justice system and is required to be met in order to convict an individual of a crime.

Next, how the parents publicly or privately react or are otherwise affected by the violent act may also play a part in a prosecuting attorney’s decision to bring charges. Parents who actively ignore or obscure potential warning signs of mental distress or homicidal ideation, for example, would be more likely to be criminally charged than parents who do not, or even those who are among the victims of the minor’s violent acts.

Finally, while every state will have offenses clearly applicable to the immediate violent act committed by the minor, many states likely lack an offense that is clearly applicable to the conduct of the parents. For example, Pennsylvania’s version of involuntary manslaughter requires that, as a direct result of doing a lawful or unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, a person causes the death of another. To meet the recklessness or gross negligence standard, a prosecutor would need to prove that an individual acted in conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

“I believe the criminal justice system is usually much better suited to address the minor who intentionally and of their own volition commits the violent act.”

Storing a firearm in a location accessible to a minor, on its own, will rarely be enough to satisfy such a requirement. This is where the facts of each situation become relevant. The minor’s age, maturity, independence, and experience with firearms are important, along with the method, location, and level of access to the stored firearm, are all among the factors which would be relevant to an evaluation of whether any specific storage method constituted recklessness or gross negligence. As a minor grows older, matures, and gains experience and independence, the risk associated with their use of firearms ostensibly decreases. Similarly, as the method of storage increases in complexity or difficulty of access, the risk that the minor may be able to access the firearm unsupervised also decreases. As these risks decrease, it becomes more difficult for a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a parent acted in conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

Then, even if recklessness or gross negligence can be established, the storage of a firearm in a location accessible to a minor does not directly cause the death of another. That storage may be a step in the chain, but there are several intervening steps not caused by the storage, including the firearm being taken by the minor and actually used to kill another person.

While I make no excuses for what may in many circumstances be questionable or poor decisions by parents, I believe the criminal justice system is usually much better suited to address the minor who intentionally and of their own volition commits the violent act.

Dillon Harris is a civil rights attorney in Bechtelsville who focuses on firearms law.