The Crumbley family is representative of the United States. At least for 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 present for his son, Ethan. Mom, Jennifer (now 45), took him to shooting range, to practice.
Jehn, as they call her, paid for half an hour and 100 bullets. When they returned, she posted a photo on Instagram proud of her son. He got to fire 14 consecutive bullets in quick succession. “Mother and son trying out the new Christmas gift”.
Ethan, who was 15 at the time, fantasized on a maths worksheet with “blood all over the place”. He made it happen.
The son is today sentenced to life in prison, after accepting guilt as the perpetrator of the massacre at the Oxford High School in Michigan on November 30, 2021. Thanks to his SIG Sauer, he put an end to the lives of four colleagues and injured seven others.
So far it will be said, unfortunately, that it is nothing new or surprising in a USA with a population that is more armed – an average of more than one of these devices per citizen and there are 332 million of them – than the armies of many countries.
The difference in this issue is highlighted these days in a court in Pontiac, in a never-before-seen summary that can make a difference, since it is a test for the imputations of the prosecutors due to the fact that responsibilities are pursued in this kind of events.
Recently, some parents whose children committed gun violence have been charged and pleaded guilty to reckless conduct or negligence.
For the Crumbleys, it’s a much bigger affair. Waiting for James’ turn, in March, Jennifer sits in the dock, in a trial in which she faces a possible conviction that has been considered a historic punishment. She is accused of four counts of involuntary manslaughter and, if the jury declares her guilty, the sentence would amount to fifteen years.
Legal experts point out that it is an innovative case that can have a great impact on how society sees the culpability of parents for their children’s access to weapons. They claim that, aside from whether it will encourage other prosecutors to go down this path, the issue has the ability to create real incentives for parents to be more proactive in facilitating this access.
Others add, however, that these parents are nothing more than scapegoats for political inaction against this cycle and the free rein given to the sale of arms.
The son to whom the Crumbleys gave the gun, just days before the killing, had shown clear signs of mental health problems. Marc Keast, prosecuting, argued that Ethan issued numerous warnings which, if James and Jennifer had heeded, would have prevented the killing.
Ethan told friends that he heard voices, that he suffered from paranoia and insomnia. He told his parents that they lived in a ghostly house, but “they didn’t want to know anything” about the writings in which their son aspired to commit a murder, alternating between drawings of guns and requests for help. “My parents don’t listen to me,” he wrote. On the day of the tragedy, they were called to school, where they were told about their son’s strange behavior and apocalyptic phrases. They begged them to take him to a psychiatric clinic immediately. The couple rejected the advice, had their son stay in class and didn’t give notice that he had given away a gun. After a short while, Ethan opened fire.
Reading several emails between the couple and some friends showed a woman more concerned about her horses than her son. In the 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, he blamed the school system and the institute.
“I wasn’t in charge of the custody of the weapon,” replied Jennifer to the witness on the stand of the last two days. That belonged to the husband. “I would have preferred him to kill us”, he sobbed.
