Apalachee High School: Multiple shooting victims at high school, one person arrested

ThatRobGuy said:

If I bought my brother a car, and he gets drunk, and drives the car through a crosswalk and kills people, am I on the hook for vehicular manslaughter?

Click to expand...

If your brother is an unrepentant alcoholic who frequently talks about running people over for fun and has a shrine dedicated to drunk drivers in his house, and you're aware of all of this, then yeah, you might be on the hook for 2nd degree murder when he plows through a crosswalk.

There's not seeing the flaws in your family members that outsiders might notice, and then there's ignoring those outsiders when they repeatedly tell you about those flaws and missing massive red flags waving directly in your face.

RocksInMyHead said:

If your brother is an unrepentant alcoholic who frequently talks about running people over for fun and has a shrine dedicated to drunk drivers in his house, and you're aware of all of this, then yeah, you might be on the hook for 2nd degree murder when he plows through a crosswalk.

There's not seeing the flaws in your family members that outsiders might notice, and then there's ignoring those outsiders when they repeatedly tell you about those flaws and missing massive red flags waving directly in your face.

Click to expand...

With this precedent that's getting set, what is the limiting principle?

...because I can quickly see this devolving into the kind of mentalities that we saw in the late 80s & early 90s where people started wanting to legally go after musicians and video game makers when people.

When someone engages in assault, are we going to start going after parents and siblings who taught them how to throw a punch when they were younger?


While I think there's a strong case for things like criminal negligence charges in cases like these, but if we're going to start employing felony murder/assault charges against people who didn't personally commit the crimes, we should really think about getting some robust (detailed) laws and guardrails in place around this, otherwise we're going to have prosecutors going scorched earth on some of these -- and sometimes in ways that are self-serving for the prosecutors, especially in cases where the position is elected and not appointed.

For instance, if Prosecutor Joe Schmoe wants to convey a "tough on crime" persona to the base, "Not only did I prosecute that armed robber, I busted his parents for buying him that grand theft auto video game 2 years ago"... that's not a good system.

ThatRobGuy said:

Are we going to charge Luigi Mangione's parents for whatever household environment or teachings that led to him having the idea that it's okay to kill a healthcare executive?

Click to expand...

Did Mangione's parents buy him the gun after being told that their son is likely to kill someone?

I agree that convicting Gray of second degree murder and manslaughter is overkill - aiding and abetting might be more suitable.

DaisyDay said:

Did Mangione's parents buy him the gun after being told that their son is likely to kill someone?

I agree that convicting Gray of second degree murder and manslaughter is overkill - aiding and abetting might be more suitable.

Click to expand...

No, but I see no indicator of any concrete lines being drawn in the sand for where the liability stops.

I can see where various criminal negligence charges could be appropriate as I noted before (however, those are already on the books)

In the past, there's been a much higher legal bar to clear to convict people who didn't actually commit the crimes personally (think cases like Charles Manson)

...but we're going to weaken that standard to "something you did was in a chain of events that ultimately led to someone else committing murder, regardless of your intent, so that makes you guilty of second degree murder", then there's a lot of parents who would be on the hook.

ThatRobGuy said:

With this precedent that's getting set, what is the limiting principle?

Click to expand...

Gross negligence directly contributing to someone's death. That's the unifying principle behind the two cases where parents have been convicted in connection to their children committing murder. Both Jennifer Crumbley and Colin Gray knew that their sons were troubled and had expressed interest in or admiration for school shootings. They had witnessed this behavior themselves and had also been told by others, including school counselors. And, in spite of that, they purchased guns for their sons and/or failed to secure the weapons in the house properly. That displays a degree of willful negligence that the juries in both cases agreed rose to the level of criminality.

ThatRobGuy said:

I can see where various criminal negligence charges could be appropriate as I noted before (however, those are already on the books)

Click to expand...

Manslaughter is one of the charges that can arise from criminal negligence. 2nd degree murder does not have a fixed definition; it varies by state - in Georgia, it's specifically designated as causing the death of a child through criminal negligence (well, child cruelty, but in practice, this frequently ends up meaning criminal negligence - e.g. leaving your kid in a hot car), which is why Gray was charged with it.

ThatRobGuy said:

...but we're going to weaken that standard to "something you did was in a chain of events that ultimately led to someone else committing murder, regardless of your intent, so that makes you guilty of second degree murder", then there's a lot of parents who would be on the hook.

Click to expand...

That's an extraordinarily dishonest framing of the charges in either of these cases.

RocksInMyHead said:

That's an extraordinarily dishonest framing of the charges in either of these cases.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a intended to be a framing of this particular case.

It was meant to highlight the potential for broad interpretation on it if some limiting principles aren't established.


What makes this rather interesting, as well, is that the son who actually committed the murders is being tried as an adult.

Seems like that should be an either/or type of situation.

If you look at the prosecutor's opening statement:
"This case is about this defendant and his actions -- his actions in allowing a child that he has custody over access to a firearm and ammunition after being warned that child was going to harm others."

The basis of the charges against the father are that he allowed his child to access the firearm and ammunition, and giving a child access to those things represents a point of negligence (for which the adult would be responsible)

The type of negligence being referred to on the part of the father is, in part, predicated on the custodial nature of his son (Colt) being a child.

In essence:
"You're on the hook for giving a kid access to a gun, because he's a kid, that's very irresponsible"
but then
"We're going to try Colt as an adult"


So, to me, it seems like it should be
"Colt gets tried as a juvenile, his dad gets the "grown up" punishment"
or
"Colt gets tried as an adult - implying he's old enough to be responsible for his own actions - and the father gets negligence charges"

As opposed to what they're currently doing, which is selectively choosing when Colt is or isn't an adult for the purposes of charging two people for the same murders.

ThatRobGuy said:

It wasn't a intended to be a framing of this particular case.

It was meant to highlight the potential for broad interpretation on it if some limiting principles aren't established.

Click to expand...

The limiting principles are already established. Gross criminal negligence directly leading to someone's death. That's involuntary manslaughter in most jurisdictions and can be other crimes as well, depending on local laws.

ThatRobGuy said:

What makes this rather interesting, as well, is that the son who actually committed the murders is being tried as an adult.

Seems like that should be an either/or type of situation.

If you look at the prosecutor's opening statement:
"This case is about this defendant and his actions -- his actions in allowing a child that he has custody over access to a firearm and ammunition after being warned that child was going to harm others."

The basis of the charges against the father are that he allowed his child to access the firearm and ammunition, and giving a child access to those things represents a point of negligence (for which the adult would be responsible)

The type of negligence being referred to on the part of the father is, in part, predicated on the custodial nature of his son (Colt) being a child.

In essence:
"You're on the hook for giving a kid access to a gun, because he's a kid, that's very irresponsible"
but then
"We're going to try Colt as an adult"

Click to expand...

There are a number of misconceptions to unravel here:
1. Trying a child as an adult does not mean that they are considered an adult in all aspects of their life (especially retroactively). It's an acknowledgement that an especially severe crime was committed; one that cannot necessarily be chalked up to "youthful indiscretion," and one that merits a more severe punishment.

2. Regardless of how he is tried or whether or not he's now considered legally an adult, he was - physically and legally - a child when these events took place, and his father had no reason to treat him otherwise. The father's trial is about his actions at that time and acting under that knowledge.

3. You're mischaracterizing the prosecution's argument. They were not arguing that it's irresponsible to give a kid access to a gun in a general sense, but rather that Colin should have known that it was irresponsible to give his child, in particular, access to a gun based on his past behavior.

4. I see no reason why the age of the shooter matters here. If you know that a person reasonably poses a danger to people, and you give them (or allow them unfettered access to) the means to be a danger, and they do end up hurting people because of it, you should bear some responsibility. It doesn't really matter what that person's relationship to you is or how old they are.

ThatRobGuy said:

So, to me, it seems like it should be
"Colt gets tried as a juvenile, his dad gets the "grown up" punishment"
or
"Colt gets tried as an adult - implying he's old enough to be responsible for his own actions - and the father gets negligence charges"

As opposed to what they're currently doing, which is selectively choosing when Colt is or isn't an adult for the purposes of charging two people for the same murders.

Click to expand...

Multiple people can commit crimes in connection to a single murder. This is not a novel concept. They both got "grown-up" punishments for the "grown-up" crimes they committed. Colt has been charged as an adult with "malice" murder (a Georgia thing, I guess). Colin was tried for involuntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder (which, in Georgia, is the killing of a child via abuse/negligence, regardless of intent).

To be crystal clear, the second scenario you proposed is exactly what happened. Colt is being tried as an adult with the Georgia equivalent of 1st-degree, premeditated murder. His father was tried for two charges that are both tied to his supposed negligence, and the jury agreed that he was, in fact, criminally negligent and therefore guilty. It's just that Colin's criminal negligence was determined to rise to the level of a felony.

Ordinarily, I don't agree that parents should be held criminally responsible for the misdeeds of their children, but in a case such as this where the parent actually buys the child a weapon when they have been warned, I think it's warranted.

Teen Colt Gray sentenced to life without parole for deadly mass shooting at his Georgia high school​

Two teachers and two students were killed in the Apalachee High School shooting.

Colt Gray, 16, faced a sentence of life with or without parole after pleading guilty to all 55 counts against him, including murder and aggravated assault.

"You wrote, 'I want to make history. I want people to remember the pain I caused,' and there you succeeded," [Judge] Primm said. "The pain that you visited upon this community is unlikely to disappear in my lifetime."

The judge continued, "You do not seem to be tormented by what you did. You seem to relish following in the footsteps of the murderers you idolize, you aren't wracked with guilt. You're proud of yourself."

Father sentenced to 15 years in prison in Georgia high school shooting carried out by teenage son​

[Judge] Primm said the father was convicted because "the warning lights were flashing brighter and brighter" and he didn't get his son help or remove his access to guns.

"No parent thinks that their child is going to be the next school shooter, but it became more and more obvious that something bad was going to happen," Primm said.

The judge told Colin Gray that if he had used gun locks or removed the ammunition from his house, "you wouldn't be here today."

Primm sentenced the father to 15 years confinement for each second-degree murder count. Those and lesser sentences on his other counts will run concurrent with one another, for a total 15-year prison sentence, the judge said.