0:02

This is Hear Me Out. I'm Celeste Headley. For

0:04

the first time, the parents of a

0:07

school shooter are facing manslaughter charges for

0:09

the actions of their son. James and

0:11

Jennifer Crumbly are facing a decade, maybe

0:14

more, in prison, but they

0:16

did not pull the trigger that killed four students in

0:18

2021. Their son, now

0:21

a legal adult, did. At the

0:23

core here is a question about how and

0:25

whether we can prevent mass

0:28

shootings by enforcing legal consequences for

0:30

perpetrators. Are we addressing violence by

0:33

punishing anyone and everyone whose actions

0:35

might have led to a tragic

0:37

end? Or are we missing

0:39

the bigger picture? Everyone

0:41

has so much energy around the Crumbly's,

0:43

and I'm very sympathetic to that. But

0:45

focusing on the parents right now, that's

0:47

what we have. That's terrible. That's not

0:49

how policy should work, and this is

0:51

a nightmare. Kim Whaley, a

0:54

professor and legal analyst, joins us in just

0:56

a moment. Sign

1:03

up to The Economist for in-depth

1:05

curated expert analysis of world events

1:07

and topics ranging from business and

1:09

culture to science and technology. You'll

1:12

get the weekly digital edition,

1:15

online-only articles, curated newsletters on

1:17

politics, the markets, science, culture

1:19

and China, and full

1:21

access to The Economist podcast plus. The

1:24

Economist is independent journalism for

1:26

independent thinking. Go to economist.com

1:28

and get your first month

1:31

free. Welcome

1:33

back to Hear Me Out. I'm Celeste Headley. Late

1:36

last month, Ethan Crumbly turned 18.

1:39

If his name sounds familiar, it's because

1:41

when he was 15 years old, he brought

1:43

a gun to school in Oakland County, Michigan,

1:45

and opened fire. Four people

1:47

were killed, seven injured. There

1:49

have been nearly 85 school shootings since the year

1:52

2000 in the US, but there's

1:54

a unique twist to Crumbly's case.

1:57

Ethan's parents, James and Jennifer Crumbly,

2:00

have also been found criminally liable

2:02

for the shooting. They've been sentenced

2:04

to 10 to 15 years in

2:06

prison for involuntary manslaughter. They are,

2:08

of course, intending to appeal,

2:10

but this is the first time the parents

2:12

of a mass killer have been found responsible

2:14

for their child's crimes. So,

2:17

as Ethan Crumbly transfers from a

2:20

juvenile correctional facility to a protective

2:22

custody unit for adults, should

2:25

his parents be held accountable? Our guest

2:27

today says the Crumbly parents aren't dangerous

2:29

to society. They're scapegoats for a much

2:31

bigger problem. Our guest is Kim Whaley,

2:34

a law professor and writer. Welcome, Kim.

2:36

Thanks for having me, Celeste. So,

2:40

you wrote a piece called The

2:42

Crumblies Are Being Scapegoted for America's Gun

2:44

Failures. To start us off, can you

2:46

give us a really brief sort of

2:48

summary of your opinion here? My

2:51

opinion is less about fairness to

2:53

the Crumblies, which I think the

2:55

headline, which, you know,

2:57

editors choose, but the headline,

2:59

I think people read that

3:02

and thought, oh, you

3:04

know, you're sort of forgiving what

3:07

the front Crumblies did. No, my argument

3:09

is that in moving

3:11

liability to parents in this way,

3:13

we are taking our eye off the ball, which

3:16

is that the real problem is

3:18

the scourge of gun

3:21

violence in the United States and the

3:23

refusal of legislators, both

3:26

at the congressional level and the

3:28

state level to enact common sense

3:30

safety requirements around this kind of

3:32

dangerous weapon, the kinds of common

3:35

sense safety requirements that we have

3:38

from anything from, you know, seat

3:40

belts to, you know, minimum

3:42

ages for purchasing, vaping mechanisms,

3:44

all kinds of things. And

3:47

people, I've lost sight of

3:49

the fact that the reason

3:52

that people are being killed

3:54

in these numbers by guns, including children in

3:56

high school, has to

3:58

do with the failures of law. lawmakers and

4:00

the United States Supreme Court, frankly, that

4:03

is making it harder and harder even

4:05

for lawmakers to pass

4:08

reasonable gun restrictions to

4:10

ensure public safety. So,

4:14

I mean, I agree with everything that you just said, but

4:17

I think both things can be

4:19

true. I think both

4:21

the crumblies, I think it can be both fair

4:24

to hold the crumblies accountable

4:26

for what was egregious behavior,

4:29

and it can be true that

4:31

there's a larger problem with guns

4:33

and almost

4:36

impossibility to pass any kind of

4:38

common sense gun legislation. Would you

4:40

agree? It depends on sort

4:43

of the scale of accountability. So

4:47

sure, holding them accountable for negligence

4:50

in protecting

4:53

their children. You

4:56

know, maybe a tort, some kind

4:58

of financial penalty. But

5:01

here what we're talking about, the reason this one

5:03

got so much national publicity,

5:05

the reason this was covered by

5:07

major news networks is because the

5:10

crumblies were prosecuted and convicted as if

5:12

they actually pulled the trigger, as

5:15

if they were participated

5:17

in some way in the killings

5:19

in the same way that someone

5:21

might have been a bystander at

5:23

the time or in the

5:28

school at the time working with

5:30

him to facilitate that. It opens

5:33

up this major scope

5:35

of liability that we've never seen before.

5:38

I mean, if you have

5:40

a car and if a teenager and your

5:42

kid runs over someone, we

5:45

don't hold parents accountable unless

5:48

they have crossed

5:50

legal boundaries like giving an underage

5:52

child a car. Here,

5:55

in Michigan, at the time these

5:57

crimes occurred, there was no

5:59

requirement. that there be guns locked up in the

6:01

home. And so essentially what the jury did

6:04

was hold the crumblies accountable

6:06

for not imposing within their homes

6:09

the kind of reasonable restrictions that

6:11

the state of Michigan was not

6:13

willing to do until after these

6:15

tragedies. The law changed in February

6:17

of this year. But

6:19

at the time, sure, you

6:22

know, they obviously were not

6:24

strong parents. They made a lot of seriously

6:28

negligent mistakes. But turning that

6:30

into a crime is a

6:32

really different thing than

6:35

saying they should

6:37

be held accountable for not

6:39

taking steps that were

6:41

consistent with the gun

6:43

laws in that state at the moment. So

6:47

a couple things here. Let me start with the

6:49

fact that we've never seen this kind of liability

6:51

before because that's not entirely true. Yes,

6:55

there's the property damage. If my son

6:57

goes next door and takes a bat

6:59

to my neighbor's windshield, then yeah, I

7:02

have to replace that. But

7:04

there are, we have had examples

7:06

of parents being held accountable for

7:08

behavior, status offenses,

7:11

behaviors that are illegal because the kid is under

7:14

18. And that includes, let's

7:16

go back to your car example. If

7:18

I supply my

7:20

child with alcohol and then let

7:22

him get behind the wheel of

7:24

a car and then

7:26

he runs somebody over, there has been,

7:29

there have been parents held accountable for

7:31

that kind of behavior when they're letting

7:34

somebody do something, not only that's illegal because

7:36

they're letting a minor drink, but there

7:39

is at least a spirit of law in a

7:42

number of states. And there's federal laws saying that

7:44

you can gift a

7:46

gun to a minor as long as

7:48

they're using it for limited purposes, right?

7:50

But there is precedent for

7:52

holding parents accountable for

7:54

behaviors that result in

7:57

serious injury or even

7:59

death. Well, in your example, I

8:02

think the critical fact was that they gave

8:04

alcohol to a minor against

8:07

the law, a law requiring that minors

8:09

be people be a certain age before they

8:11

can drink. What I'm saying is,

8:13

if it would have been a

8:15

very different case if

8:18

that Michigan law had been in place and

8:21

they had notice of the law and

8:23

they violated the law and did

8:25

not lock the guns up. I mean, essentially

8:27

the theory here was even

8:29

though Michigan at the

8:31

time had no restrictions on

8:34

holding these weapons in

8:36

the home and making sure that

8:38

there were safety measures in place.

8:41

And just be clear, the federal United

8:44

States Congress has enacted years

8:46

ago sweeping immunity laws that

8:48

don't even require, that make

8:50

it impossible virtually to sue

8:52

gun manufacturers to require reasonable

8:54

safety measures. You're talking about

8:56

a car. We have all kinds of

8:58

safety mechanisms on a car. We have seat

9:01

belt laws. We have

9:03

airbags. We have

9:05

legal limits on when

9:07

you're supposed to stop, how fast you're supposed

9:09

to drive, when you put your blinker

9:11

on, all of these restraints. They're

9:13

essentially saying we as a society

9:16

are going to allow the number

9:18

one killer of children in the United States. Eight

9:22

in 10 deaths

9:25

in the United States are

9:27

caused, involve a, or murders I

9:29

should say, eight in 10 murders in the United States are

9:31

caused by a firearm. We

9:34

are awash in

9:36

irresponsible gun use

9:38

and possession in the United States. We can't

9:40

even get national

9:42

red flag laws, reasonable

9:44

restrictions, gun safety. You

9:46

have to impose,

9:49

have a certain kind of locking mechanism or

9:52

we have to have background checks to make sure

9:54

criminals or people with severe mental illness, we can't do

9:56

the most basic things and we do it in other

9:58

areas of tort law. So

10:01

that sky's the limit. We as

10:03

a country, we as a society are not

10:05

going to impose those in large measure. But

10:08

if a family goes along

10:11

with that standard, we're

10:13

going to hold them to a higher standard

10:15

in their home. It's

10:17

not negligent for our lawmakers to not keep

10:19

the public safe, but we're going to impose

10:21

a higher standard on parents. You need to

10:24

impose in your household laws that we're not

10:26

willing to do as a society. I'm essentially

10:28

saying, Celeste, we should put our

10:30

money where our mouths are. We should say, if

10:33

the jury's right, and I think that this

10:35

is outrageous, I have four children. It's inconceivable

10:37

that you would have purchased a

10:39

gun for a child like this and not paid

10:41

attention to his cries for

10:44

help. And ignored

10:46

his obvious

10:48

need for some serious intervention taken

10:50

to a firing range.

10:56

I think the mother, there's something along

10:58

the lines of, you know, hide your – don't let

11:00

them see whatever. I mean, I can't remember. I don't

11:02

have all the facts in my hands in this moment.

11:05

But clearly, there were

11:07

lots of warning signs that the

11:10

crumbly should have done more with this weapon.

11:13

My argument is, if

11:16

we're pushing liability to individual parents,

11:18

we are ignoring the huge problem in this

11:20

country. If we believe the individual parents should

11:22

be held liable, then we should also be

11:24

voting for legislators who are going to impose

11:27

those kinds of restrictions and those

11:29

reasonable safety measures for the rest of us, like

11:31

we do with cars, like we do with alcohol,

11:33

like we do with cigarettes, like

11:36

we do with other kinds of dangerous weapons.

11:39

You have to be licensed specially to drive

11:41

a truck. And those things get

11:43

– you know, you have to have them renewed. There

11:47

are all kinds – you have background checks

11:49

for all kinds of basic jobs, but not

11:51

to have a weapon that more

11:53

than 50 percent of the gun

11:56

deaths in the United States are due to suicide. It

11:58

is extremely dangerous. dangerous to have

12:00

it in your home. It's much more dangerous to

12:03

have a gun in your home than it is

12:05

safe to have a gun in your home because

12:07

you're gonna somehow stop an intruder. To

12:10

me, there's just like this disconnect, this

12:13

psychological distortion to say,

12:16

oh, these crumblies are so awful, but

12:18

then we're just looking

12:20

and standing by the sidelines

12:23

while we allow 400 million

12:26

guns in this country now

12:28

the Supreme Court has held even

12:30

having a concealed

12:33

carry law violates the Second Amendment. I mean,

12:35

to me, it just makes no sense. So we

12:37

have to take a break, but there is a

12:39

lot to talk about here. And I mean, I

12:41

gotta say, I agree with 90% of

12:45

what you're saying, but there's still areas

12:47

here in which I gotta push back,

12:49

which I will do after

12:51

a break. You're listening to Hear Me Out. I'm

12:53

Celeste Headley, and we're talking about whether or not

12:55

Ethan Crumbly's parents should have

12:58

taken the sentence that they've

13:00

been slapped with. We'll be back in a moment,

13:02

stay with us. Hi,

13:12

I'm Jeremy Stahl. I'm Slate's

13:14

Jurisprudence Editor. Ordinarily, I edit our courts and

13:16

legal coverage from the comfort of my home

13:18

office in Los Angeles, but for the next

13:21

month and a half, I will be locked

13:23

in a lower Manhattan courtroom with the rest

13:25

of the press, a

13:28

jury of 12 New Yorkers, Justice Juan Marchon, prosecutors,

13:32

Trump's defense team, and the former

13:34

president himself as history unfolds. I've

13:36

temporarily moved myself and my family

13:38

from Los Angeles to New York

13:40

to cover this case firsthand, like

13:42

I have done in other cases,

13:44

including the Paul Manafort case, the

13:46

Roger Stone criminal trial, and Donald

13:48

Trump's first impeachment. I'm

13:50

hoping that my background knowledge of the

13:52

many, many criminal travails of our former

13:54

president can offer something to you, Slate's

13:56

listener. Over the next several weeks, you'll

13:59

be hearing from me. on Amicus, Slate's

14:01

legal podcasts, and in articles on

14:03

slate.com, from the jury selection, to

14:06

the opening arguments, to

14:08

the witness testimony and cross-examination,

14:10

and the prosecution's case and

14:12

the defense's case, and ultimately

14:14

to a final verdict. We

14:17

will be providing you wall-to-wall coverage

14:19

throughout the entirety of the trial

14:21

as it unfolds from the courtroom.

14:24

There's no way I'd be able to do it without the

14:26

support of Slate Plus. So if

14:28

you're not already a subscriber, please join today

14:31

by clicking try free at

14:33

the top of the Amicus

14:35

show page on Apple Podcasts,

14:37

or visit slate.com/amicusplus to get

14:39

access wherever you listen. Thank

14:42

you so, so much. Hi,

14:48

I'm Josh Levine. My

14:50

podcast, The Queen, tells the story

14:52

of Linda Taylor. She

14:54

was a con artist, a kidnapper, and

14:57

maybe even a murderer. She

14:59

was also given the title, the welfare queen,

15:01

and her story was used by Ronald Reagan

15:04

to justify slashing aid to the poor. Now

15:07

it's time to hear her real story. Over

15:10

the course of four episodes, you'll find out

15:12

what was done to Linda Taylor, what she

15:14

did to others, and what was done in

15:16

her name. The great

15:18

lesson of this, for me, is

15:20

that people will come to their own conclusions

15:23

based on what their prejudices are. Subscribe

15:26

to The Queen on Apple Podcasts, or

15:28

wherever you're listening right now. Welcome

15:31

back. I'm Celeste Headley, and this is Hear Me

15:34

Out, a podcast from Slate. Today

15:36

we are talking about who's responsible

15:39

for school shootings in particular. In other

15:41

words, when a child picks up a gun,

15:45

are his parents liable? Our

15:48

guest today, Kim Whaley, says the

15:50

crumblies in particular and

15:52

parents writ large shouldn't be held responsible

15:55

for a lack of reasonable gun restrictions.

15:58

That, Kim, I totally agree. with

16:00

you on. I don't agree with you that the

16:02

the Crumbly's shouldn't have been sentenced

16:05

to this harsh sentence. And the

16:07

reason I say that is because this

16:09

isn't really a precedent, this idea that

16:12

this could set a precedent for other

16:14

parents. I find that really hard to

16:16

buy. I mean every step

16:18

of the way the judges who

16:21

heard this case or shared an opinion

16:23

on this case kept repeating over and

16:25

over how exceptional

16:29

the details of this particular case was,

16:32

that the bar was almost

16:34

impossibly high here. You almost never

16:37

get the kind of evidence

16:39

that we had of negligence and absolutely

16:42

irresponsible behavior as you do in this

16:44

case. In fact, I went

16:46

back and checked a panel of judges

16:48

for the appellate court said we shared

16:50

defendants concerned about the potential for this

16:52

decision to be applied in the future

16:55

to parents whose situation vis-a-vis their child's

16:57

intentional conduct is not as closely tied

16:59

together and the warning signs and evidence

17:01

were not as substantial as they are

17:03

here. But they said their concerns

17:05

were significantly diminished by the fact that

17:07

the Crumbly's actions, that Ethan's actions were

17:10

reasonably foreseeable and that's the ultimate test

17:12

that must be applied. I mean I

17:14

just don't see this as a slippery

17:16

slope. I mean it's hard

17:18

enough to prove neglect

17:21

or negligence. Really

17:24

difficult, but in this case there

17:26

was such an abundance of evidence

17:28

for as they say reasonably foreseeing

17:30

what would happen. I don't

17:33

think this is a standard. Well

17:36

two points. One is just to be clear as I

17:39

said at the top of the show I am not pulling

17:41

out the violence for the for the

17:43

Crumbly's. I don't actually take issue with

17:45

what the judge did. I'm

17:48

making a bigger policy argument so I'm

17:50

not interested really or the

17:52

piece, as I

17:55

know you've read, the piece doesn't

17:57

make the argument really that this

17:59

is a unfair to the crumblies, the

18:01

piece makes the argument, like I've laid out

18:03

here, that this is the wrong

18:05

place to put our energies around controlling

18:07

gun violence. On your other point,

18:09

in terms of, okay, what's

18:12

the standard of proof, how much negligence

18:14

needs to be in place, whether

18:18

a judge sentences

18:20

someone to a term for

18:23

criminal negligence, which is this watch, just so everyone gets

18:25

clear, there's nothing in the statute saying

18:27

anything about guns. This is a generic,

18:30

one size fits all criminal and negligent

18:33

statute, and

18:35

basically saying, they should

18:38

have done more, they should have known to

18:40

do more, and that's what puts

18:42

this from civil negligence, which would

18:45

just be a tort, into the realm

18:47

of a crime. That's a really big

18:49

leap. That is taking someone's liberty away.

18:52

And you could say, given

18:54

the lack of precedence, I'm not sure that their

18:56

lawyers made this argument, that they weren't

18:58

really on notice, that what

19:00

they were doing could land them in jail. Now

19:02

everyone else knows. So in a way, they are

19:04

the canary in the coal mine, they are the

19:07

fall guys, now parents are on notice.

19:09

Prior to this, they reasonably

19:11

could have said, we had no idea,

19:14

by not taking care, better care of our

19:16

son, we could go to jail. Now, maybe

19:18

that's a good thing from this, because people

19:21

will be aware, and so maybe there's a

19:23

trickle down effect. But I wanna push

19:26

back on your point about judges. The

19:28

issue isn't so much what happens at trial.

19:30

The issue is will prosecutors bring the case?

19:34

A prosecutor can bring a case, you need

19:36

to hire a lawyer, or

19:39

get a criminal defense,

19:41

a public defender. In some states, they're

19:43

way overworked, it's very hard to even

19:46

get that kind of representation. It

19:48

doesn't get triggered constitutionally, sometimes

19:51

until later in the case. A

19:54

prosecutor on a lesser set of facts,

19:56

could put families through the paces. based

20:00

on this precedent because in many

20:02

states prosecutors are elected. People

20:06

feel vindicated by this verdict. They

20:08

might wanna be tough on crime

20:11

because they wanna get their constituents

20:13

who's the voters to see, we're

20:15

clamping down on guns by going

20:17

after this family. Now, ultimately, mom

20:19

in case the next case might

20:21

be acquitted, the jury might be

20:24

a hung jury and they decide

20:26

not to not to redo it.

20:28

Maybe she'll get, there'll be a

20:30

reversal on appeal. What happens to her

20:32

and her family and her children going

20:34

through that now that this thing has

20:36

been established? I mean, I would argue, look

20:39

at what happened with Dobbs. At the time

20:41

that Dobbs came down, experts

20:44

in the field, and I've done a lot of work on

20:46

this, said there's no way they'll go after the women. There's

20:49

no way they'll go after the pregnant people.

20:52

That has happened in such a rapid

20:54

clip, right? Everyone made that particular

20:56

argument. And I would say, listen, the

20:58

answer to the Crumbly's case, I mean,

21:01

their fate is sealed in this moment.

21:03

The answer to the Crumbly case is

21:05

to now let's pass criminal negligence

21:08

laws relating to gun ownership. So

21:11

everyone understands what

21:13

to expect. One other

21:15

point, there was an argument this

21:18

week in the United States Supreme Court on whether there should

21:20

be immunity for presidents of the

21:23

United States if they commit crimes. And the

21:25

argument was made, listen, you need

21:27

to make it really clear to presidents that

21:30

if they do something, it could be a

21:32

crime. So if the Supreme Court justices are

21:34

making that argument with respect to the most

21:36

powerful person on the planet who already has

21:38

civil immunity, who already

21:40

has all these protections, I

21:42

think the same argument could apply

21:45

to mom and dad, who obviously

21:47

had and have

21:50

severe problems, as did their son. And

21:52

the last point is obviously this child is

21:55

the one who suffers, It's

21:58

a tragedy, of course. all the... That that

22:00

the deaths are horrific in the families that have suffer

22:02

from the deaths. But I'm just. Saying in

22:04

terms of the policy around guns

22:06

on Ethan himself. ah. Should.

22:09

Have had more imports across the board. And

22:11

I also wonder you know what does this

22:13

mean for teachers? If you

22:15

could you could take it this case

22:18

this and say hey. You're the kid

22:20

in your class. Did x y z the stall?

22:22

The. Warning signs were there. you didn't

22:24

check his backpack and it's once you

22:26

start. You open pandora's box.

22:29

There's no way to to have to.

22:31

Know whether prosecutors won't won't

22:33

take this case and ring

22:35

the case even if is

22:37

it. There's no conviction. So

22:41

I'm. Again, I feel like

22:43

you and I are are much more and

22:45

agreements and we are in disagreement here. It's

22:48

just this one final line and I want

22:50

to be clear that I understand because I

22:52

understood you to say that you felt that

22:54

because Michigan law did not make their actions

22:57

illegal when they happened. That I have to

22:59

see to say that the the Crumbly should

23:01

not have been held criminally responsible for what

23:03

their son did is is that incorrect. I

23:07

think that's probably. An overstatement: I don't have it

23:09

in front of me. I'm he can read it for me.

23:11

I don't have it in front of me either, but I

23:13

know I'm. Not making my argument

23:15

was. Was. To say

23:17

in that regard. The.

23:20

One that I just made which is that there are there.

23:22

Is a or vagueness to this

23:24

generic Criminal negligence statutes First of

23:26

all but settle. The main point

23:29

was that my a net was

23:31

we as a society are not.

23:34

Choosing. To vote. In.

23:36

Legislators who as a society will

23:38

draw that line. And we desperately

23:40

need it. As a country, we need

23:43

those laws. And we're not willing

23:45

to do that. And. to me

23:47

idol it just doesn't make sense to me

23:49

we have seatbelt laws we all we have

23:51

people got so upset about you know basking

23:53

during cove it in there were there was

23:55

a lot of pushback made a big discussion

23:58

about how much government should intervene If

24:01

government should intervene with

24:05

gun legislation, I think that

24:07

that would be not just protect these

24:10

six children that were murdered, but lots of

24:12

people, and we're not doing that. And that's

24:14

what I don't understand. Yeah, and that part

24:17

I completely agree with. And

24:19

the vast majority of Americans agree with

24:21

that. It has

24:23

been for many years a majority

24:27

of opinion among Americans that we should

24:29

have tighter gun controls, that we should

24:31

have background checks, that there should be

24:33

common sense laws in place dictating

24:35

how you secure a firearm in

24:38

the home, et cetera, et cetera. But

24:40

I think we can have that and

24:42

also hold parents accountable for criminal behavior

24:45

on the part of their children. And

24:47

I don't think, I mean, yes, this

24:49

is the first time this kind

24:51

of sentence has been handed down with

24:53

these specific details. But again, I would say

24:56

that the evidence was just

24:59

absolutely overwhelming in the Crum's Lee's

25:01

case, that they ignored all of

25:03

the signs any reasonable person would

25:06

pay attention to. But

25:08

we've had other parents sentenced.

25:12

Mother in Virginia got a two-year prison

25:14

sentence when her six-year-old son brought a

25:16

gun to his elementary school and shot

25:18

his teacher. A father applied

25:20

for a firearms permit on behalf

25:22

of his son when his son

25:25

was too young to apply. And

25:27

he pleaded guilty and he had

25:29

to go behind bars as well.

25:31

I mean, the dad in Illinois

25:34

pleaded guilty to reckless conduct charges

25:36

because of the shooting at the

25:38

parade in Highland Park. I mean,

25:41

these things are precedented. And

25:43

I think- But those are, you can distinguish a lot of

25:45

those, what you just said, right? I mean, yes. And

25:48

that means that the government went after you and it's

25:50

easier to plead guilty than to put them to their

25:52

proof, which is kind of my point. And

25:55

if you're going to buy a gun violating

25:57

the purchase laws on behalf of your son,

25:59

they're you've crossed a legal boundary. What

26:01

I'm trying to say isn't so much that

26:04

these are good parents and that they

26:06

shouldn't have been held accountable. What I'm

26:08

saying is we are imposing on them

26:11

legal restrictions that we are not as

26:13

a society willing to push for to

26:16

protect the public writ large. That is

26:18

my only point in the piece. Let's

26:21

take it one step further because the law

26:23

then did get changed in Michigan. Now,

26:26

frankly, that law was specifically

26:29

for parents and how

26:31

you handle guns

26:33

with minors. So maybe

26:35

that's- So why would we need a law if the

26:37

criminal negligence law was good enough, right? I mean, I

26:40

think you could use that to prove my

26:42

point, which is that the legislators realize we

26:44

probably need this and

26:46

that that generic law didn't do what

26:48

it needed to do. I mean, the

26:50

crumblies in a way were scapegoated. Now,

26:53

is it unfair? I just wanna make,

26:55

again, really clear. It's a horrible tragedy.

26:57

I'm a mother of four. It was

26:59

despicable and awful. How I

27:01

agree with everything you're saying. I'm

27:03

making a policy argument around, okay,

27:05

we're awash in a gun

27:07

scourge in the United States and

27:11

where is the accountability and how is the

27:13

accountability gonna go? Is it gonna go in

27:16

individual prosecutors to stress generic laws to hold

27:18

third parties accountable because we can't get

27:20

anything done in another direction? That's

27:23

a sad state of affairs. I don't think

27:25

that's the way this should be coming down

27:28

in terms of protecting the public. So there's

27:30

still more to talk about and we will

27:32

continue this conversation in a moment, but we do

27:34

have to take a break. This is Hear Me Out. I'm

27:36

Celeste Headley and we will return. And

27:45

we're back. This is Hear Me Out, a

27:47

podcast from Slate. I'm Celeste Headley and we're

27:49

talking about who's responsible for making sure guns

27:54

stop killing so many people or

27:56

the people who are pulling the triggers stop

27:58

using guns to kill. kill so many people.

28:01

And my guest today is a legal

28:03

expert, a law professor

28:05

writer, Kim Whaley, who says the

28:07

crumblies were scapegoated. Although,

28:10

I mean, I'd have to

28:12

argue, we were just talking about the Michigan law, and you

28:14

were saying that the legislators in Michigan

28:17

suddenly realized that the law they had wasn't

28:19

good enough and that they needed to make

28:21

a stronger law. I mean, I think

28:23

that's kind of how laws end

28:25

up getting made, isn't it? I mean, that's the

28:27

process. I'm not excusing. I mean, I hope not.

28:29

I hope we don't just wake until

28:32

there are dead people before we pass the

28:34

laws. Anyway, although that is, although

28:36

many times it does. As you just

28:38

said. Wait, let me finish. Okay. So

28:41

that is how off, sadly, tragically,

28:43

it is usually how laws

28:45

get made. Many

28:47

of the laws they're using, they've used

28:49

to prosecute January 6th, protests,

28:51

rioters, for example,

28:53

insurrectionists were created after

28:56

they realized that the KKK was murdering

28:59

hundreds, if not thousands of people. Like

29:01

that's how laws

29:03

often end up getting passed. And

29:07

unfortunately, that's kind

29:10

of how gun laws should

29:12

get passed. I mean, you would have

29:14

think that after Sandy Hook, we would

29:16

have seen more gun legislation passed. So,

29:21

you know, I think there's something to be said

29:23

for the fact that guns

29:26

are really, really dangerous. And we

29:28

need all kinds of people held

29:30

responsible. I think parents should be

29:32

held responsible. I also think

29:34

gun manufacturers should be held responsible. I

29:37

think gun salespeople should be held responsible.

29:39

And I definitely think gun owners should

29:41

be held responsible in the same way

29:43

that we hold car

29:45

makers responsible and car dealerships

29:47

responsible and car owners responsible.

29:50

When something goes wrong that kills people

29:52

in a vehicle, I just don't think

29:54

we should limit the people who end

29:57

up being held accountable.

29:59

Well, I I don't disagree with you

30:01

either. I think there's a line between a tort, a

30:03

civil tort, and a crime. And just to

30:05

your point with the mother in Virginia,

30:10

she was charged with felony child neglect

30:13

and recklessly leaving a loaded firearm so

30:16

as to endanger a child. Crumblies

30:18

were charged as if

30:21

they actually pulled the trigger. It's a different

30:23

concept. They were not charged around

30:27

neglecting their child in a reckless way. They

30:29

were charged with causing the murder. And so

30:31

it's kind of a nuanced legal argument. And

30:33

I would also push back, I disagree that

30:36

we need to have dead people to

30:38

decide that we should have lockup

30:41

guns in homes. I think we have plenty

30:43

of statistical evidence. We have

30:45

the numbers of people that are dying. The

30:49

legislatures could sit down today without needing

30:51

to have these tragedies happen, just like

30:53

Congress does. They do all the time.

30:55

They get experts. They say, should we

30:57

have a new law on this? They

31:00

sort of thoughtfully gather information and

31:02

make laws. I think

31:04

we're well past the moment where

31:06

we need more tragedies to get people off

31:08

the dime. And that's my point. If

31:11

everyone has so much energy around the crumblies,

31:13

and I'm very sympathetic to that. I mean,

31:15

of course, poor families who lost their children,

31:18

it's horrific. And there should

31:20

be accountability. But focusing

31:22

on the parents right now, that's what

31:24

we have. That's terrible. That's

31:26

not how policies should work. And this

31:28

is a nightmare. We

31:30

stand out across the globe. We have more

31:33

guns in America than human beings. And

31:36

we have a Supreme Court that is enlarging

31:38

the Second Amendment to make it harder to

31:40

pass gun legislation. I think this

31:42

is a rallying cry for people. I'm

31:44

trying to wave the flag. Folks, this

31:46

is bad. This is

31:49

where it's come to. We're using generic manslaughter

31:51

laws to hold parents accountable because

31:54

our legislators won't do anything.

31:56

The point of my piece is we

31:59

need to focus. I'm a real problem.

32:01

The. Real problem is it is

32:03

not assemblies of real problem is

32:05

that we are allowing these dangerous

32:08

weapons to just. Be. Everywhere

32:10

in America that is that's just

32:12

a up at. That's a tragedy

32:14

itself. and the problem. There's not the

32:17

crumbling, the problem there. Are lawmakers

32:19

And the Supreme Court. I

32:21

mean I I agree with again it's like

32:23

I I I feel like a broken record.

32:25

Your I agree with just about everything that

32:27

you just said. I think the legislators absolutely

32:29

have. Been. Cowards. I'd never said we need

32:31

more dead people. it's just that that's

32:33

often how laws get past. is because

32:35

people die. But you're also

32:38

correct that we've had more than enough. Death.

32:40

As I said, one would think

32:42

that their tolerance for lax got

32:44

done to station, would have ended

32:46

with Sandy Hook and yet here

32:48

we are. On the other hand,

32:50

I think the problem. Metaphorically

32:53

speaking at is also the Crumb

32:55

Blaze. I think we have a

32:57

lot of very irresponsible. Parents.

33:00

Who don't see a gun?

33:03

They see guns politically, And

33:05

they see guns symbolically. And

33:07

they created gun culture within

33:09

their own families. I'm. And.

33:12

Although I absolutely believe in

33:15

people's rights to. Embrace

33:18

Guns to Collect Guns To

33:20

Own guns. Absolutely. However, I

33:22

think that what there should

33:24

be a higher standard when

33:26

it comes to allowing children

33:28

to access guns and if.

33:32

If the crumbly or the first of the

33:34

parents held responsible. Then I feel

33:36

like that's okay. the number of

33:38

of kids who as you mentioned,

33:40

commit suicide, but also the number

33:42

of accidental shootings were one child

33:44

injures or even kills another child

33:46

because a gun was made to

33:48

accessible, it was not locked, it

33:50

was loaded. I'm. I. I

33:53

absolutely believe that the problem is is

33:55

a lack of a reasonable bunch of

33:57

legislation. I believe the problem is aggressive.

34:00

lobbying that for somehow works.

34:03

But I also think parents in the

34:05

end have to be responsible

34:07

for having a deadly weapon in their home

34:10

that they allow children to access. I

34:12

don't disagree. I think we actually, I think we are 100%

34:15

in agreement on that. Great. Awesome.

34:17

Yeah. You know,

34:19

I just, I think that the

34:22

way this case was put together in particular

34:24

is crossing a Rubicon. I

34:27

mean, you're a legal expert and I'm not.

34:29

So I am not probably as skilled

34:31

in recognizing legal Rubicons when I

34:33

see them. But my instinct is

34:36

to say this bar is just, was

34:38

just too high. Well, you made a good

34:40

point too. I mean, that's sort of the

34:43

culture of identifying

34:46

with guns as if it's somehow American.

34:48

I mean, we have members of Congress

34:50

that send out Christmas cards holding guns

34:52

and the judge, the judge criticized

34:54

the- Yeah, the judge criticized the

34:56

crumblies, Mrs. Crumbly in particular, for sort

34:58

of creating this

35:01

culture around guns. But that is our culture.

35:04

So I guess to your point, if the crumblies

35:06

are going to be held accountable, we should be

35:08

holding everybody accountable. And

35:10

that's another way of framing it. I

35:12

don't disagree with that. I think

35:14

that one of the things that makes it so difficult

35:16

though, Kim, is that anytime

35:18

you bring up guns because of

35:21

this culture, people dig

35:24

the trenches and will

35:26

not even open themselves up

35:29

to the idea of changing their minds. I

35:31

mean, what kind of response did you get

35:33

to your piece? Which I encourage

35:35

all of our listeners to read because as Kim mentioned,

35:38

the headline does not really

35:41

get into the nuance of what an argument is.

35:43

But what kind of response did you get? I

35:47

got from legal people. I had

35:50

some response from lawyers who said, you're

35:52

right. We shouldn't be criminalizing torts unless

35:54

we're going to pass crime,

35:57

criminal statutes that criminalize

35:59

torts. But

36:01

then there were a lot of people

36:03

that I think probably from the headline, to

36:05

read me as saying that

36:07

the crumblies were victims here and

36:09

that the system was against them.

36:11

And there

36:13

was certainly a strong view that you

36:16

need to take care of your kids and you need to keep dangerous

36:18

things away from your kids. That again, I

36:20

don't disagree with it. I'm a mom

36:22

and we could have a whole show on

36:25

how many things were wrong with that

36:27

story on so many levels. Tragedies top

36:29

to bottom. So

36:31

I was surprised though by

36:34

the reaction, which

36:37

there were some that were quite negative.

36:39

I got some pretty unkind feedback. And

36:43

it kind of ties

36:45

in with what you just said, which is that we're

36:48

also not going to have a

36:51

discussion around constraining guns, which maybe

36:53

at the end of the day, scapegoat is the

36:55

word. If you can't have

36:57

that conversation and we have

36:59

this anger towards this couple, there's

37:02

a problem. Well, that's as good

37:04

a place to end as any because if

37:07

there's anything else this show encourages people to

37:09

do, it's to actually listen to everything someone

37:11

is saying and respond with

37:14

facts and civility and respect. But

37:16

I really appreciate it. We enjoyed the piece and I'm so

37:18

glad you're able to come on and talk to us about

37:20

it more. Well, thank you for giving me the opportunity to

37:23

explain it. I actually really, really appreciate it. And

37:25

it was a terrific, lively discussion. As

37:32

we mentioned, any conversation about

37:35

guns, gun violence, school shootings,

37:37

mass shootings generally

37:40

leads to a high

37:42

level of outrage, a

37:44

justifiable outrage and

37:47

strong opinions. We

37:49

know you have strong opinions on this issue

37:51

and guess what? We want

37:53

to hear them. So email us.

37:56

It's hearmeoutatslate.com. Really, we want to

37:58

know what you think. Last

38:00

week, we had Professor Stephen Mintz on the show

38:02

to argue that college

38:05

students' protests can have unintended

38:07

and serious political consequences that

38:09

set us back rather

38:11

than push us forward. That

38:14

was, in light of current events, a pretty hot

38:16

take, and it got you talking. So before we

38:18

go, I want to share a comment. These

38:20

comments came from Rudolph, who wrote in part, the

38:23

very conservative right is against

38:25

everything public, transport, education, welfare,

38:27

etc. Your guest should know

38:29

this. Reagan took advantage of

38:31

the student protests the way he took

38:34

advantage of the air traffic controller strike.

38:36

Of course, the emotional reaction comes first.

38:38

Maybe he's right, and coalition building is

38:40

wise, but young people are going to

38:42

want to act now, and beginning a

38:45

10-year plan of attending meetings isn't

38:47

sexy. Thank you very much, Rudolph.

38:49

We love hearing from you. We love hearing all the

38:51

things that you have to say, whether you agree with

38:53

our guests or not. So let us know what is

38:55

on your mind. It's hearmeouttslate.com. Hear

38:59

Me Out is a podcast from Slate.

39:02

The show is produced by Maura Curry.

39:04

Ben Richmond is the Senior Director of

39:06

Podcast Operations, and Alicia Montgomery is the

39:08

VP of Slate Audio. I'm your

39:10

host, Celeste Hedley. Until next

39:12

time, speak your mind, but please keep it

39:14

open.