Can parents be held responsible when# their child commits a mass shooting?## In this particular case, the teenage# shooter has already been convicted.

But, as William Brangham reports, officials are## also seeking to prosecute his parents in# WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On November 30,# 2021, tragedy came to snowy Oxford## High School in Michigan.

A student opened fire,# killing four students, injuring seven others.

The gunman, then 15-year-old Ethan Crumbley,## received a life sentence last year.

But now# his parents, James and Jennifer fa ce their own charges of involuntary# manslaughter.

It is a first-of-its-kind## effort to hold parents criminally responsible# for a school shooting done by their child.

WOMAN: This case is unprecedented in# Oakland County and perhaps the state.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Prosecutors say# the Crumbleys new Ethan was troubled,## but acted negligently.

James Crumbley# bought for his son the gun he used## to kill his classmates.

Concerns# flagged by the school went unheeded.

The day before the shooting, on November 29,## Oxford High informed Jennifer Crumbley# that her son was looking on his phone.

She texted him: "LOL.

I'm not# mad.

You have to learn not to get caught."

Hours before the shooting began, teachers# discovered this worksheet on Ethan's desk## covered with violent warning signs.# Below a drawing of a gun, he wrote:## "The thoughts won't stop.

Help me" and# "Blood everywhere" and a drawing of a bullet.

When a teacher saw the sheet,# he scratched much of it out,## including what appears to be a shooting victim# dripping with blood.

Ethan's into school that morning, but officials# say they resisted taking him home and## made no mention of any gun.

Shortly after# they left, their son began his rampage.

When news of the shooting# got out in the community,## Jennifer Crumbley texted her son, writing:# "Ethan Karen McDonald is the Oakland county prosecutor.

KAREN MCDONALD, Oakland County,# Michigan, Prosecutor: Th that a parent could read those to a deadly weapon that they gave him is# unconscionable, and I think it's criminal.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The defense claims# the Crumbley had no way of knowing how## troubled their son really was.# Both have pleaded not guilty.

For more on this case and its broader# implications, I'm joined by Ekow Yankah.## He's the Thomas M. Cooley professor# of law at the University of Michigan.

Professor Yankah, thank you so much# for being back on the "NewsHour."

I mean, as a scholar of the law, what# do you make of this case?

I mean,## it is not that common that we hold other# people responsible for the EK OW YANKAH, University of Michigan# Law School: No, that's exactly right.

In fact, one of the fi is that, even under some really awful facts,# when other people take action, that, as we say,## severs the causal chain.

It makes it not your# action.

It's a classic example in first-year## law school to say that, if you give somebody a# gun and they threaten to kill themselves, and## you give them the gun, you encourage them to kill# themselves, and they do, you're not responsible.

So, even under odious circumstances, you're# typically not responsible.

That being said,## one of the things we do to our law students# is push them on how far these examples can## go.

How terrible do I have to make# the facts?

How odious do I have to## make it?

How close to the edge before# you finally say the law has to give?

And the truth is, if I was coming up with an exam# question, I couldn't come up with facts that were## more upsetting, more cutting, and seemingly more# disturbing than the ones we have in this case.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Given all of# that about the law, what do you## think are the biggest challenges facing the# prosecutio EKOW YANKAH: So, I think there# are two challenges.

The one we## already spoke about is just the# An d that's something that is deep in our legal# culture.

That is, human beings ar for their own actions.

And so the prosecution here# is going to be going up against what every judge,## what every other lawyer has learned,# what every defense lawyer has learned,## and what they're going to be conveying# to the jury as our bedrock Bu t setting aside the legal machinations,# there's also just what the law reflects,## the kind of moral intuition that we# aren't responsible when other people## do bad things.

And that's going to be true# even when these facts are heartbreaking,## because you're going to have people thinking# about, of course, I'm doing my best to be a## great parent.

Of course, I'm trying to bring# my child up to be successful and flourishing.

But what if you have a child who's difficult,# problematic, has shoplifted, gets in fights## at school?

I think, quite outside of the dry,# technical legal language, there's going to be## a lot of people out there who just think, when,# 13, 16, 17, 18, when will it be the case that I## can't be held responsible, no matter the best I# do for my child, for their abhorrent behavior?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Does the fact that Michigan# passed a law that in essence makes it a crime## for you not to secure a gun and a minor# gets access to that, doesn't that imply## sort of de facto that what these parents# did at the time wasn't against the law?

EKOW YANKAH: Well, you're certainly right that,# in the wake of the of highly visible events,## we often pass laws.

And that is by some# people going to be taken as a defense.

But, of course, sometimes we pass laws to# make our legal responsibilities more clear## or to help fill a lacuna.

And to be perfectly# honest, criminal law scholars know that we## often pass laws just to add penalties# to things that are already illegal.

So, for example, I remember when Philadelphia# passed an anti-carjacking statute.

It was,## frankly, an opportunity for public officials# to say we're doing something about it.

But## nobody really thinks that, before that# law was passed, carjacking was legal.

So, of course, they will make the argument# that this wasn't illegal when it happened,## but the prosecutor's going to argue# that this was criminally ev en under the slew of statues they had# before this specific law was passed.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, this prosecutor# has made it very clear that she hopes that## this will spur other gun owners basically to# do a better job of securing their firearms.

And I'm just curious if you think that, if# this prosecution is successful, that this## will spur other prosecutors in other states maybe# elsewhere in the country to take on similar cases.

EKOW YANKAH: Look, the law lives on precedent.# And I certainly think it's the case, as you said,## that given that we have this kind of deep# legal intuition that you're never going to## be responsible for somebody else's acts, a# successful prosecution in a highly visible## and painful case of a school shooting# is going to rocket across the country.

It's not an accident that it'll be on PBS,# on all the major news channels.

And that## will give prosecutors one more tool in their# arsenal.

Because of the nature of precedent,## and because any time you do something# unprecedented, legal actors are going to## take notice, I think there's no question that# prosecutors are going to use this as a tool.

Sadly, we should also admit these cases are# incredibly painful and incredibly visible## and all too repetitive.

And so the fact that# there's a successful prosecution in this case## will -- if there's a successful prosecution in# this case, there will almost certainly be another.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Ekow Yankah,## professor of l EKOW YANKAH: Thank you for having me.