School shooting in Maryland - resource officer did something

[Ghost]

I’d like to hear one of your examples of when a parent is partially at fault.

I already offered several. But I'll try to fill out more... One, when you are raising a kid and they start to get involved with gangs and you know it. Let's say the kid is 14 or 15 and you're letting them be out late at night (past 11pm, say) and they get involved with a gang initiation and carjack someone or kill another rival gang member. Parent knew the kid was getting involved with bad folks, let them have too much freedom and the kid hurt someone. That parent is responsible. I'm not going to speculate on what the right punishment is because I'm not an expert in that. But that parent is responsible.

Or you have a HS kid that has had past issues with depression, bullying, etc. History of troubles with emotional issues, emotional maturity, etc. Perhaps they have a girlfriend and you've seen how rocky the relationship is. Your kid gets dumped by the girl but you still leave your gun out and unlocked. Probably not the wise choice. You made a bad call and did something risky and your minor child takes the gun to school and shoots the girl (or the new boyfriend). You're partially responsible because you didn't secure your gun in a situation you should have known was degrading.

Am I alone here? The only person who thinks a parent should have some type of responsibility for the actions of their child in certain situations where there were red flags? I'm not saying every possible action of the kid goes back directly to the parent. Sometimes parents just don't know. Sometimes they did everything they could and the kid still does bad. Obviously discretion gets applied, as it should to any legal case.

Parenting these days sucks and being held responsible as I describe would help change that.

So the parent who’s seen no signs is free to go but the one that ignored them gets punished in the event they both raised a child that did the same thing.

[BigBlue]

You guys really like to read crap around a corner and upside down and bring it to whatever extreme conclusion you like to make things sound ridiculous.

Everything is a shade of gray. But as a parent you have responsibility for what your minor child does. I'm not going into any more examples or specifics because I'm not here to debate a specific hypothetcial. Parent has a child... they have skin in the game in some fashion. No parent is totally immune from responsibility for their child's actions.

[Ghost]

You guys really like to read crap around a corner and upside down and bring it to whatever extreme conclusion you like to make things sound ridiculous.

Everything is a shade of gray. But as a parent you have responsibility for what your minor child does. I'm not going into any more examples or specifics because I'm not here to debate a specific hypothetcial. Parent has a child... they have skin in the game in some fashion. No parent is totally immune from responsibility for their child's actions.

The law should not be a shade of gray

[BigBlue]

Everything about the law is a shade of gray. It's called sentencing.

[yukonjasper]

Following this discussion, a question occurred to me. Is the issue with parents being responsible for the acts of their children troublesome, in this case, only because a gun belonging to the parent is involved. Is this centered around the gun and the taking of lives or can that same concept apply to any situation where there is premeditated great bodily harm or death?

[Ghost]

Following this discussion, a question occurred to me. Is the issue with parents being responsible for the acts of their children troublesome, in this case, only because a gun belonging to the parent is involved. Is this centered around the gun and the taking of lives or can that same concept apply to any situation where there is premeditated great bodily harm or death?

We as gun owners would be quite silly to have the opinion that killing with a gun is worse than killing with something else.

Actually it takes serious mental gymnastics to think murder with a gun is worse than another means.

[yukonjasper]

I agree.

[INOR]

BB, you’re not alone in how you view this. I agree with you. I just don’t have time for this at present.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Holland&Holland]

Everything about the law is a shade of gray. It's called sentencing.

If only there were a set of guidelines for this...

[Holland&Holland]

I’d like to hear one of your examples of when a parent is partially at fault.

I already offered several. But I'll try to fill out more... One, when you are raising a kid and they start to get involved with gangs and you know it. Let's say the kid is 14 or 15 and you're letting them be out late at night (past 11pm, say) and they get involved with a gang initiation and carjack someone or kill another rival gang member. Parent knew the kid was getting involved with bad folks, let them have too much freedom and the kid hurt someone. That parent is responsible. I'm not going to speculate on what the right punishment is because I'm not an expert in that. But that parent is responsible.

Or you have a HS kid that has had past issues with depression, bullying, etc. History of troubles with emotional issues, emotional maturity, etc. Perhaps they have a girlfriend and you've seen how rocky the relationship is. Your kid gets dumped by the girl but you still leave your gun out and unlocked. Probably not the wise choice. You made a bad call and did something risky and your minor child takes the gun to school and shoots the girl (or the new boyfriend). You're partially responsible because you didn't secure your gun in a situation you should have known was degrading.

Am I alone here? The only person who thinks a parent should have some type of responsibility for the actions of their child in certain situations where there were red flags? I'm not saying every possible action of the kid goes back directly to the parent. Sometimes parents just don't know. Sometimes they did everything they could and the kid still does bad. Obviously discretion gets applied, as it should to any legal case.

Parenting these days sucks and being held responsible as I describe would help change that.

Alright, I will lay off. I do believe your heart is in the right place and personal responsibility along with parental responsibility I think we can probably agree on. That said, I do believe that if you try to regulate this through a set of laws that makes a parent responsible for the actions of the child, beyond their own negligent acts then you really start down a very slippery slope. Lets say kid a grows up without a father and does a despicable act. Now the fact that he did not have a father figure probably plays some part in his development and ultimately his actions so one can say, "hey you should have been involved in the kids life so here you go slap you with X penalty". Of course then later you learn that the guy would have loved to have been involved but the gal did not want anything to do with him and the family intervened and slapped him with a do not contact order even though he never threatened her. He has limited resources to fight it and she has moved on so he lets the issue drop and now years later this is coming back at him. So lets charge the mom, I mean she is the one who worked 3 jobs and got an apartment in a less than desirable part of town so it must be her fault so lets charge her. Then we find out that really she has been doing her best raising the kid on her own and after her earlier crazy years got a degree and tried to provide the best she could. Of course working as much as she does he is home alone a lot so that probably contributed as well.

My point is a crime, should be something very definitive, a specific act that someone commits that is not legal. You mentioned you have a 17 year old who you trust. Good for you. What happens when that 17 year old messes up and betrays that trust. Is the act of trust something that should now be regulated as a crime.

See where the real gray is?

[Big and Tasty]

BB,
I too have pondered in a similar fashion. For example, the asshats that allowed uncontrolled access to a challenged 13 year old child here in the metro recently.

[Holland&Holland]

BB,
I too have pondered in a similar fashion. For example, the asshats that allowed uncontrolled access to a challenged 13 year old child here in the metro recently. Those asshats should hang.

So now we are back to extremes I see

[Big and Tasty]

HH, yeah that was a bit harsh. I struck it.

[Holland&Holland]

HH, yeah that was a bit harsh. I struck it.

Fair enough. We can all get passionate about our convictions at times

[BigBlue]

Alright, I will lay off. I do believe your heart is in the right place and personal responsibility along with parental responsibility I think we can probably agree on. That said, I do believe that if you try to regulate this through a set of laws that makes a parent responsible for the actions of the child, beyond their own negligent acts then you really start down a very slippery slope. Lets say kid a grows up without a father and does a despicable act. Now the fact that he did not have a father figure probably plays some part in his development and ultimately his actions so one can say, "hey you should have been involved in the kids life so here you go slap you with X penalty". Of course then later you learn that the guy would have loved to have been involved but the gal did not want anything to do with him and the family intervened and slapped him with a do not contact order even though he never threatened her. He has limited resources to fight it and she has moved on so he lets the issue drop and now years later this is coming back at him. So lets charge the mom, I mean she is the one who worked 3 jobs and got an apartment in a less than desirable part of town so it must be her fault so lets charge her. Then we find out that really she has been doing her best raising the kid on her own and after her earlier crazy years got a degree and tried to provide the best she could. Of course working as much as she does he is home alone a lot so that probably contributed as well.

My point is a crime, should be something very definitive, a specific act that someone commits that is not legal. You mentioned you have a 17 year old who you trust. Good for you. What happens when that 17 year old messes up and betrays that trust. Is the act of trust something that should now be regulated as a crime.

See where the real gray is?

I understand what you're saying and I agree there are challenges with the concept. But I'm frustrated by parents who don't seem invested in their kids, don't seem to do enough to raise them into good humans, etc. If not holding those bad parents responsible when their little 'failure' wreaks havoc on society then what type of actions can be done to encourage better parenting?