Remember this case?

+ Bonus:
“Five trans players dominate women’s college volleyball game, sparking outrage and claims of ‘cheating’ “—
https://nypost.com/2024/02/07/news/video-allegedly-showing-five-trans-players-playing-in-womens-volleyball-game-sparks-outrage/

Yep, keep on letting that “freak flag fly”….

I wonder if the case will become a topic of discussion, or even a cause celebre for feminists: the defense of a career woman who breaks with traditional ideas of family and “leans in” the business world too much. Probably not, as the shooter’s father is also going on trial. If the children of people like this shouldn’t have guns, it’s also true that people like this probably shouldn’t have children, and that’s probably the takeaway for feminists and others.

So, two years with no income.
If found not guilty, they have still lost everything they owned.

And for those who say the parents should have got help for the kid, what kind of help? A psychiatrist cannot talk a crazy person out of being crazy, and that same crazy will generally stop taking prescribed meds that may, or may not, calm him down.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4362563-mother-of-six-year-old-who-shot-teacher-sentenced-to-two-years/

It’s quite a bit more than that, primarily overreach of state authority. If persons associated with, and potentially subordinate to, an event can be caused to suffer full responsibility for that event, there is no limit to what government can do in the arena of demanding, and enforcing, responsibility. One has to ask how far down the “degrees of separation” chain prosecutors intend to go.

One version of this is suing a gun manufacturer because Person X procured one of their fully functional products, through means legal or iillegal, and used it criminally. The future version will be the owner of a gasoline station serving felony time for selling the gasoline fueling the car that a drunk driver operated which wound up in an accident that claimed the life of some valued personage.

That such punitive action is employed selectively is evident by the lack of similar prosecution for single inner city mothers whose offspring populate the crime report pages. I also note that quite a few members of that same “prosecutorial class” embrace no-bail release programs for miscreants, a number of whom are initially charged with crimes of violence.

The father was charged because he sponsored his son’s application for a Firearm Owners Identification card (FOID). The soonsorship was required because the son was under 18. The son bought the murder weapon after he got his FOID.

The father was charged with reckless conduct causing great bodily harm, which is a felony, although the son could have conceivably obtained an FOID and the gun without his father’s signature, *after* he turned 21, nine months before the shooting. The father accepted a plea deal, spent a month in jail and was fined I think $20K.

I believe the prosecution of the father was political, because people were understandably outraged by the shooting, (and yes, there is a strong anti-gun culture in Highland Park.) While it was obviously a mistake to sign the FOID application, the father argued persuasively (IMO) that he shouldn’t have been expected to predict what would happen two and a half years after he signed the paperwork.

https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2022/12/16/prosecutors-file-reckless-conduct-charges-against-father-of-highland-park-parade-shooting-suspect/

Just wait and see if the same parties who cheer this verdict cheer when the precedent is applied to underage minority murderers and their often struggling parents or, more likely, single parent (mother). If you think the Crumbleys were shitty parents, just wait until you get the case-by-case on parenting styles of the inner city!

Bad, bad precedent.