US Father Gifts Rifle to 14-Year-Old Son...Prosecutors Charge "Murder" Controversy

"Parents Also Face Criminal Punishment" vs "Excessive Investigation... No Practical Benefit"

In the United States, the father of a 14-year-old shooter was charged with murder for buying a gun for his son, sparking a heated debate in American society. While some argue that parents should be held criminally responsible if they allow their children access to firearms, others contend that imposing liability on parents through a form of 'guilt by association' leads to excessive investigations and yields no practical benefits.

According to foreign media on the 7th, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) reported that on the 4th, they arrested and charged Colin Gray (54), the father of 14-year-old shooter Colt Gray, who killed four people with a semi-automatic assault rifle at a high school near Atlanta, Georgia, with four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second-degree murder, and eight counts of child abuse.

Students mourning the victims at the Georgia high school where a shooting occurred on the 4th [Photo by AFP/Yonhap News]

U.S. CNN cited investigative officials saying that Colin Gray purchased the gun used in the shooting as a holiday gift for his son last December.

At a press conference, Chris Hodge, director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, stated, “The incident began when Colin Gray allowed his son Colt Gray to possess the weapon.” Subsequently, authorities applied these charges based on the belief that the father gave the weapon to his son, marking a new legal approach by prosecuting a parent for their child's crime.

According to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security investigation, 75% of all school shooters in the U.S. brought firearms from home. Some experts argue that if parents prevent their teenage children’s access to guns at home, school shootings could be prevented.

Earlier in April, the parents of a teenage boy who shot and killed other students at a U.S. high school were each sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison. This was the first ruling holding parents responsible for a school shooting, asserting that the tragedy could have been prevented if the son had not been neglected.

At that time, the Oakland County Court in Michigan sentenced James Crumbley and Jennifer Crumbley, charged with involuntary manslaughter, to 10 to 15 years in prison. During the trial, prosecutors emphasized parental responsibility, arguing that “due to the parents’ neglect, the son’s mental health issues gradually worsened over a long period, ultimately leading to the shooting tragedy.”

James Crumbley, who was charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to prevent his son's school shooting, is speaking ahead of sentencing at a trial held on April 9 (local time) at the Oakland County Court in Michigan.
[Photo by AP News]

The father purchased the handgun used in the crime together with his son and did not lock the drawer where the gun was stored. The day after buying the gun, the mother posted on social media, “The day mom and son tested their new Christmas gift,” after practicing shooting at a range with her son. The court pointed out that these parents allowed their son free access to the gun and ammunition and glamorized the use and possession of firearms.

However, Karen MacDonald, the prosecutor who charged the Crumbleys, said that such prosecutions do not always mean that the parents of shooters should be held responsible for their children’s actions.

Tim Carey, an advisor at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Prevention Policy, also said, “In both the Crumbley case and this case, the parents are not being prosecuted for their children’s crimes but are being punished for their own criminal acts that allowed such violence to occur.”

Some have pointed out that prosecuting parents in relation to school shootings could lead to excessive investigations by prosecutors and does not help in deterring shootings.

Cynthia Godsoe, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, criticized prosecuting the parents of school shooters, saying that while it may be popular with the public, police, and prosecutors because it appears to address the problem, “in reality, it does nothing.”