They just charged the father of the school shooter with second degree murder. This thread is only tangentially about that. That's why I left the names and links out.

What this is about is this: this is new, and I'm not completely comfortable with charging anyone with a crime committed by someone else unless they were actually an active, willing accomplice.

We don't hold the son accountable for the sins of the father. That's flat un-American. But apparently we do hold the father accountable for the sins of the son.

I think I can see both sides, but I gotta tell you, when the defendant has a different name from the perpetrator, I think we're standing at the top of a slippery slope.

So I haven't made up my mind yet, but at first glance, I lean towards being against holding someone accountable for the crimes of another.

CDF! Where you at, son? Pay attention and weigh in!

First, facts are slim at this point. We don't know much and some of what we do "know" is second hand.

However, IF this parent knew his kid was talking about shooting up a school and IF he bought his kid a gun capable of doing that and IF the kid had access to said gun, then he definitely should be charged with something.

I have to read what means Second Degree Murder in GA. It appears GA does not have a safe storage law, so the father can't be charged with that. I wonder if it's like the dad lets the kid drive even if he's drunk, and the kid kills a pedestrian. Maybe It's like that. That's it so far. To me, the dad did a terminally foolish thing. More later.

on edit, this is from the AP, with a link. The charges are in the first three graphs.

“These charges stem from Mr. Gray knowingly allowing his son, Colt, to possess a weapon,” Hosey said. “His charges are directly connected with the actions of his son and allowing him to possess a weapon.”

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-high ... dium=share

Second edit:

This is what the google AI condenses it to, and below that is a link to the actual Georgia statute.

n Georgia, second-degree murder is when someone causes the death of another person while committing second-degree child cruelty, regardless of intent. The punishment for second-degree murder is 10 to 30 years in prison.

Georgia's second-degree murder statute was created in 2014 to address the issue of child deaths caused by abuse being punished the same under the state's felony murder rule.

Statute page:

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/ti ... on-16-5-1/

A similar thing happened with another shooter, and that story is in the AP link. Seems to me the father is going to go to jail.

CDF

He should be tried and if convicted, imprisoned. He bought the rifle for the little twit AFTER the investigation LAST year for threats to do a school shooting. I'm sure dad thought is sweet little boy would NEVER do anything like he has done today. Daddy is culpable in this dastardly crime.

I think I should have done a better job of explaining what I want to talk about.

I'm not interested in the specific facts of this case nor either the letter or the intent of Georgia law. I don't care about the facts of this incident, because it's not a hypothetical, or the technicalities of the law for the same reason. Neither should ever be used to guide a moral compass, and it is where that moral, ethical path lies that I want to discuss.

If you must talk about this specific case, why don't you go start a thread? In any case, in this thread, I won't respond to any post that brings up a specific case, because you're not in the conversation I invited you to join.

I want to talk about punishing one person for the crime or crimes of another. I'm willing to consider the merits of the idea, but I remain unconvinced that it's a moral, ethical path. I'm trying to separate the raw emotional reactions I see, read and hear about this case from legitimate moral logic, and I question whether one is ever morally responsible for the actions of another.

I also question why being a parent confers moral responsibility for the actions of another, and I point out that one, insanity probably changes that assignment of responsibility, if indeed it exists at all, and two, it's hard to point at a mass shooter and claim they aren't insane.

I also ask if insanity doesn't change the parent's responsibility, what would? Is the parent liable forever?

Does your answer change if the criminal is over eighteen?

If this is a valid, moral path, and assuming a valid, moral judicial system, why don't we charge parents with speeding when we catch their kid in a speed trap?

I'm leaning towards the path where we don't charge the parents because the kid was prepared, raised, taught and shown so that at the moment of decision the kid would make the right decision, whatever that decision for the case is.

The problems with my little vision are legion. A bad raising results in a bad decision. Insane raising insane leads to insanity. But I'm afraid of where it can go if we hold your brother as your keeper, particularly if you either always were or suddenly become mentally ill.

Now, I know for a fact that there are some of you here that can grok hypothetical discussions of moral theory-- I've seen you do it. I also recognize that there are others here who won't be able to let go of the emotion generated by a child with a civilian body count. I leave it to your speculation which of those I'm talking with, and, therefore, who I'll respond to.

Be moral. Be well. And if you carry, be right.

Carry on.

More and more people are going thru this and they just want the bleeding to stop. James Carville probably summed it up best about this type of shooting, saying 'these young boys can't get a girl, but they can get a gun'. Sometimes, a gun is a terrible thing to have. Been in and seen a few fistfights when I was in school, everyone went home alive.

Aiding and abetting may be a starting point for this conversation. Aiding and abetting a crime is itself a crime, and is often charged as such. Drive the getaway car for a robbery? Crime even though you didn’t commit the actual robbery. Willfully shelter the robbers after the fact? Same. It’s the willfully part that makes it a crime.

Ylatkit wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 1:47 am I think I should have done a better job of explaining what I want to talk about.

--snrps--

I want to talk about punishing one person for the crime or crimes of another. I'm willing to consider the merits of the idea, but I remain unconvinced that it's a moral, ethical path. I'm trying to separate the raw emotional reactions I see, read and hear about this case from legitimate moral logic, and I question whether one is ever morally responsible for the actions of another.

--snrps--

If this is a valid, moral path, and assuming a valid, moral judicial system, why don't we charge parents with speeding when we catch their kid in a speed trap?

I'm leaning towards the path where we don't charge the parents because the kid was prepared, raised, taught and shown so that at the moment of decision the kid would make the right decision, whatever that decision for the case is.

--snrps--

This request means a lot of words have to happen. It's the nature of philosophy. So it goes.

I will, as it were, take a shot. I misunderstood and responded to the specifics of the case.

Humans are a violent, territorial, and aggressive species. If we assume that morality is embracing our true natures, then everyone should be armed, there are no police, and it's Mad Max on steroids. If we assume that morality precipitates from some shared vision of stability, order, and liberty, then a way to maintain that situation must be developed.

The history of human societies shows us two very broad approaches to the morality conundrum. The earliest one might be called "religion," where a code of conduct comes from a god or gods, and those who do not follow it suffer some manner of punishment, from being banished from the tribe to being executed by the tribe. And when two tribes meet in the yellowed wood, a possible clash between codes may precipitate. The second approach might be called "laws," which are developed more or less collectively and agreed upon. When two tribes meet in the yellowed wood, they may discover their laws differ, and a clash may result.

I think codes were developed to protect and increase the resources of the tribe so that all may survive. When another tribe wants some of those resources, a clash may result. Or a deal may be struck.

I believe this is where we sit. American society differs in its approach to codes, like Chinese and German and Ecuadorian and all the other societies differ in their approaches. Human history is replete with examples of clashes and deals. A saying exists that I'll warp to this discussion: "I am principled. That person over there is stubborn, while that other person over there is pig-headed", and each of the three is talking about the same code--so, that's the human condition. Islamic morality might say to cut off the hand of a thief, where American morality says jail that person for time T depending upon the value of the thing stolen. Yet somehow American and Islamic societies may exchange goods and services peacefully. "Clash or deal?"--a new TV game show, eh.

So, now I have put "codes" out there. For example, the Islamic code and the American code might differ on parental responsibilities. Each tribe enforces its code differently, yet we can deal if we want to.

I believe governments developed to protect, increase, and distribute the tribe's resources. Some tribes try a top down thing, and other tribes attempt a bottom up thing. There's always a group who tries to undermine the top down approach, and there's always some group trying to dominate the bottom up group. Then there's anarchy, which is not chaos, but rather each person in the society accepts no leadership while somehow avoiding murdering everyone else to steal their resources.

The American code tasks parents with responsibility for their children until those children become adults. The code is pretty broad: some parents keep their kids sequestered until adulthood while others raise their kids like boxes of puppies turned loose until the street lights come on. If I knew my son wanted to shoot up a school, I would not allow him guns. My son is in his 40's, has guns, and has not shot up any schools; he has two kids, a wife, and a dog.

A definition of morality for me is like a fresh avocado pit: the harder I squeeze it, the more likely it is to squirt out of my hand. I have to hold it gently, letting it roll around in my hand without it falling to the ground. I have guns, but I have not yet encountered someone who needed shooting. I would love it if the pig-headed folks accepted my moral code. Alas, that is not to be. But I'm not going to shoot them unless they try to shoot me first.

Parents attempt to infuse our kids with a code that will allow them to choose whether to reproduce, then whether to raise their kids so they don't need shooting. Sometimes misteaks are made. Codes are followed. Tears are shed.

I have written about the differences between liberty and freedom. It turns out that some folks are principled about liberty and live lives accordingly. Others are stubborn about "muh rights" yet begrudgingly follow the codes while constantly kvetching about infringements. Others are pig headed and say "hold muh beer while I freely engage in stupid and foolish shit."

So many, so many words really to say, "Welcome to the monkey house." I believe our tribe keeps itself stable and orderly by discussing the code amid an established mechanism to change that code as new information becomes available and accepted. And this is why I claim that democracy is a messy business. Be careful out there.

CDF

The trial and conviction of Ethan Crumley's parents in Michigan after Ethan shot and killed 4 people, set a precedent. The Crumley's were aware that their son had mental health problems and didn't secure their firearms and seek treatment for him. Colin Gray got a warning when he and his son were interviewed by the local sheriff over Colt's Discord postings last year. One news report said Colt Gray was being bullied, something that schools have to take action on when victims or others report it to them. They too can be held liable.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/accuse ... ning-signs

Aiding and abetting comes into play when the perp, a minor, cannot himself acquire the weapon he used to commit murder. A rifle by definition is a controlled weapon with legal age limits to buy in society. If through negligence or active participation a parent, adult, or legal guardian helps a child gain access to the weapon, then legally and morally that “parent” can be deemed legally liable for the crime and prosecuted as an accomplice. The moral argument for that implies that an adult with the legal power to purchase a controlled weapon is —by definition— held responsible for how it is used, especially if he gives it to a minor, especially if said minor had a history of expressing dangerous, murderous intent.

I believe a similar moral argument is employed by the World Court to prosecute military commanders who use child soldiers. Children are by definition less legally culpable than the adults who care for them because their brains are still growing, their prefrontal cortex not fully developed, their reasoning skills are deficient compared to adults. (This is also similar to the mental illness defense.) Responsibility for the actions of children is often justifiably being transferred onto the parent/adult guardians of those who commit crimes —but not the other way around— for this brain developmental reason. Regardless of whether it is true for every individual or not, the legal definition of a fully formed adult is 18 y/o. As a result the legal adult who is capable of buying his own AR-15 is wholly responsible for his own actions with said weapon and the parents are rarely seen as culpable of such cases due to age.

People are held accountable for the crimes of others all the time. I'm not sure what you aren't understanding. If someone tells you they are going to plant a bomb, and you have an opportunity to stop said crime either directly or by notifying the authorities, and you fail to do so, you can be held accountable. If you agree to be the getaway driver for a robbery and one of the robbers is shot dead by the police, you can be criminally held responsible for the death. Many people are "mandated reporters", who are bound by law to report suspected abuse to authorities and can be criminally prosecuted for their failure to do so. You did not plant the bomb, shoot the robber or abuse the child, but you can be held criminally accountable for the crimes. This is nothing groundbreaking.

And I turned twenty-one in prison doin' life without parole
No one could steer me right but Mama tried, Mama tried
Mama tried to raise me better, but her pleading, I denied
That leaves only me to blame 'cause Mama tried

Merle knew.

CDF

Since you want this to remain generic, research "aiding and abetting" which refer to acts that tend to occur before a crime, and "accessory to a crime" which can also include acts afterwards, such as assisting in escape or avoiding arrest.

There are laws that vary from state to state as well as at the federal level that cover these kinds of actions.

To determine if a specific set of actions falls under one of the definitions, you would have actually look at the particulars of the offense the person is being charged with and the jurisdiction in which it occurs.

This is the kind of gun control I believe in: You don't give access to guns to people with clear, violent emotional tendencies. And if you do, you're as responsible for their actions as they are, or more.

wooglin wrote: Fri Sep 06, 2024 6:54 am Aiding and abetting may be a starting point for this conversation. Aiding and abetting a crime is itself a crime, and is often charged as such. Drive the getaway car for a robbery? Crime even though you didn’t commit the actual robbery. Willfully shelter the robbers after the fact? Same. It’s the willfully part that makes it a crime.

After turning this over since you wrote it, (sorry, as CDF says, lots of words have to happen. I agree. I think this is going to be a slow-motion, low action kind of thread. Or anyway one can only hope.) it strikes me that the first line that has to be drawn is this: is intent necessary for there to be aiding and abetting?

If not, that implies that one could conceivably be guilty of aiding and abetting without even knowing it.

Yup, gonna have a problem with that, oh, yup.

If you don't know you've committed a crime, you can't make a deliberate choice to stay within the law.

And if intent is necessary for there to be aiding & abetting, intent of what? Intent to help commit a specific crime?

And again, the car keys. Is a parent who teaches his kid to drive and gives him the car keys guilty of aiding and abetting the vehicular homicide that his kid then commits?

Why is a car different from a gun?

P.S. CD, I'm still slugging my way manfully through your post.

Cars and guns are similar, but guns are more special. A person has to be in the car and pilot it into someone to kill them. Guns are special. Here is Billy Dixon at the Second Battle of Adobe Walls:

On the third day after the initial attack, 15 Indian warriors rode out on a bluff nearly a mile away to survey the situation. At the behest of one of the hunters, Dixon, renowned as a crack shot, took aim with a rifle that he had borrowed from Hanrahan and cleanly dropped a warrior from atop his horse. "I was admittedly a good marksman, yet this was what might be called a 'scratch' shot."[1]: 233  Seeing their fellow warrior killed from such a distance apparently so discouraged the Indians that they decamped and gave up the fight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ba ... dobe_Walls

This is why we pay closer attention to guns as weapons than to cars.

Ylatkit, to steal from Mark Twain, I will say that had I taken a week more to write it, it would have been shorter.

CDF

Clemens knew how the cow ate the cabbage.

And likewise, a gun has to be picked up, loaded with ammunition, pointed at someone, and the trigger pulled for someone to kill someone. The gun doesn't do any of that on its own any more than a car does what it does on its own.

I don't believe we should treat a 3,000-lb missile capable of over 100 mph, or a 9" blade specifically designed to cut flesh that's in lots of kitchens, differently than a gun. They're all tools. A car is a good tool for getting around, even traveling long (by our standards) distances. Likewise, it's also a very effective injuring and even killing tool, as crash statistics will reveal. Likewise, a kitchen knife is a great tool for preparing food, because it cuts flesh (e. g. chicken, beefsteaks, pork chops, lamb chops, etc.). For that reason, it is also a very effective tool for injuring and even killing people, with remarkable dispatch.

It is with very good reason that a whole generation of White women of a certain age have their hair on the back of their necks stand straight up in terror when they hear that "Psycho" music. Sadly, that horrible movie scene does represent the reality of what is at times done with a kitchen knife. Same goes with axes and machetes, which is why the "Friday The 13th" movies were as scary to so many people as they were.

Yet all of these things (yes, including guns) are also useful tools when employed as such, which fortunately is the vast majority of the time.

That's why we need to look at intent of the individual who committed the crime, not the tool itself that he or she might've used. And we certainly should not charge people with crimes committed by others. I think Ylatkit has a pretty good point here about that.

We have yet to see the example of someone getting killed at "nearly a mile" with a thrown kitchen knife or with a Volkswagen launched from a tremendous trebuchet. For this reason, guns are special, and they require special consideration. For example, no kid could load a gun if the gun were stored securely locked up and if no adult gave the gun to the kid.

Guns are special and require special consideration.

CDF

I have a problem with the idea that granting your child access to firearms constitutes aiding and abetting if that child kills.

For the moment, and temporarily for this branch of the discussion, I'll suggest that if a child kills, that, by itself, proves that the child needed mental help. (Exception, obviously, for war or law enforcement work. That [and PTSD and the mental mess that combat leaves] is an entirely separate, huge discussion.) I can see how failing to deliver that help could conceivably be aiding and abetting, but it seems to me like there is a maze of circumstances surrounding every shot, and that there's only one or two narrow paths through those circumstances that lead to aiding and abetting on the part of the parent.

There are many, many serious problems with this idea, I think. The parent would have to be right, about the need, about the level of that need, and about the response.

One of the problems with charging someone with the crimes of another is that in this case, you'd be charging the parent with aiding and abetting for making a mistake, not for deliberately committing a crime.

CDFingers wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2024 4:53 pm We have yet to see the example of someone getting killed at "nearly a mile" with a thrown kitchen knife or with a Volkswagen launched from a tremendous trebuchet. For this reason, guns are special, and they require special consideration. For example, no kid could load a gun if the gun were stored securely locked up and if no adult gave the gun to the kid.

Guns are special and require special consideration.

CDF

Dead is dead, and the distance is irrelevant, especially when deciding to charge a parent with murder because their kid killed somebody, be it with a car, knife, gun, baseball bat, or whatever else. I know you've said to me before that "your father should have been put in jail" had someone broken into our (locked) house, stolen his gun, and committed a crime with it. I cannot accept that. The person who broke into our (again, locked) house, stole his gun, and then committed the crime with it should've been put in jail, not my Dad. Fortunately, of course, nothing like that ever happened.

I'd much rather see that root-cause mitigation that you keep mentioning than charging parents with murder under these sorts of circumstances. You're right on that point, 100%. This sort of thing wasn't happening not so many years ago. The worst thing, generally, that would happen is that kids would fight it out with fists after school, and it was settled. Back in the day, the gym teacher would drag both kids to the gym, put boxing gloves on both of them, put them in the ring, and tell 'em to settle it, then and there. I think we need more of not just that, but also proper parenting, like what I got and what a lot more kids got back then. I never *dreamed* of shooting another kid, even when I was upset with that kid. I'd think about kickin' his butt, sure! Even happened once or twice back then. But shooting someone? No way.

Root-cause mitigation, not charging parents with murder, is the solution.

Laws exist to punish the perp after the fact as well as to deter others from making the same crime. Different states have different laws, but this is the "morals" thread. Many moral codes include punishing those who violate the codes. And that is one way communities keep themselves stable and orderly.

Personally, I find it morally irresponsible to allow an under-18 unsupervised access to a gun.

CDF

CowboyT wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2024 8:13 pm I know you've said to me before that "your father should have been put in jail" had someone broken into our (locked) house, stolen his gun, and committed a crime with it.

I think any moral responsibility shifts at the commission of the first associated moral crime. In this case, when someone breaks in, whatever happens as a direct result is on whoever did the breaking in.

Believe it or not, this comes from experience. Sort of. When I was a boy, even without the vocabulary, the principle of unintended consequences occurred to me, and I could see that if I broke through that door with Glen, things could spin out of our control and we could end up in trouble for way more than a broken door. In my sweaty little mind, on the other side of that door was chaos, and it would be all be our fault if we went through that door. That line of thought actually stopped me, and I left and went home, Glen and I stopped being friends, and I have never broken into a house.

CDFingers wrote: Sat Sep 07, 2024 8:22 pm Laws exist to punish the perp after the fact as well as to deter others from making the same crime. Different states have different laws, but this is the "morals" thread. Many moral codes include punishing those who violate the codes. And that is one way communities keep themselves stable and orderly.

Personally, I find it morally irresponsible to allow an under-18 unsupervised access to a gun.

CDF

I'm willing to stipulate that most systems of law are the attempts of fallible humans to establish a code of conduct that is at least defensibly moral, if not a straight up moral code.

I don't think any present code is 100% moral, because any such code, by definition, has to accommodate both the Big Enders and the Little Enders.

I'm still chewing on your under eighteen comment. I joined the army at seventeen, but there was nothing unsupervised about my access to weapons there. The army then (no idea about now) was serious about supervision.

It's a really tough call on the border between freedom of parents and the desire to keep communities safe and orderly. Supervision would be a good compromise.

CDF