Gun violence is a grave issue that affects communities across the world. While much of the focus tends to be on the perpetrators, an important question arises: Are parents responsible when their child commits such a violent act? This is not just a moral question but a legal one, with significant consequences for the families involved. Let’s dive into this complex issue in simple terms.
The Tragic Case of Payton Gendron
In 2022, an 18-year-old named Payton Gendron allegedly opened fire at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York. During this horrifying event, Zaire Goodman was shot in the neck, but fortunately, he survived. Gendron now faces multiple serious criminal charges, including first-degree murder and hate-motivated domestic terrorism. Although Gendron pleaded not guilty, the legal process is ongoing.
However, the legal spotlight isn’t just on Gendron. Goodman, the survivor, wants to hold Gendron’s parents, Paul and Pamela Gendron, accountable as well. Goodman’s lawyer has taken legal steps to preserve testimony and gather evidence for a civil lawsuit against the parents. The argument here is that the parents ignored warning signs and were “willfully blind” to their son’s potential for violence. This case raises the important question of whether parents can be held responsible for their children’s actions.
Can Parents Be Held Liable?
The idea that parents might be held liable for their child’s actions is not new, but it is rare. A more concrete example is the case of Ethan Crumbley, a 15-year-old student who was responsible for a mass shooting at a high school in Oxford, Michigan. In this case, Ethan’s parents are on trial for involuntary manslaughter. The prosecution argues that not only did Ethan’s parents give him a 9mm Sig Sauer pistol as a present, but they also ignored clear warning signs of his intentions.
In a significant legal decision, Ethan’s mother, Jennifer Crumbley, was found guilty of manslaughter charges related to the shooting. This conviction is noteworthy because it marks one of the first times a parent has been held criminally responsible for a child’s involvement in a school shooting. This case sets a potential precedent for how parents might be held accountable in similar situations.
What Can Parents Be Liable For?
Parental liability can cover both civil and criminal acts committed by their children. When it comes to civil liability, this usually involves compensating the victim with monetary damages. Criminal liability, on the other hand, can result in fines or even jail time for the parents.
For instance, let’s say a child takes their parent’s car and accidentally drives it into a neighbor’s house. The parents might be liable for the damage caused to the house. However, some states limit the amount of money parents have to pay in such situations.
But what if a child uses that car to run over a person? In this case, the parents might face criminal charges, particularly if they were reckless, such as leaving the keys in the car with the engine running. The legal stakes are much higher in cases where someone is injured or killed.
Civil Liability: Negligence
In civil cases, parents can be held liable for negligence if their actions (or lack of actions) contributed to the harm caused by their child. Negligence lawsuits rely on four key factors: duty, breach, causation, and damages.
- Duty: Did the parents owe a duty of care to the victim? In the case of the Buffalo shooting, Goodman’s lawyer might argue that Gendron’s parents had a duty to prevent their son from committing violence.
- Breach: Did the parents fail to act in a way that would have fulfilled their duty of care? The argument could be that the parents ignored signs that their son was planning something dangerous.
- Causation: Did the parents’ failure to act directly lead to the victim’s injury? In other words, would Goodman have been shot if the parents had intervened?
- Damages: Was Goodman harmed as a result of the parents’ actions or inactions? The injury Goodman suffered would be the damage in this case.
If all these factors are proven, Gendron’s parents could be held liable for negligence in a civil lawsuit.
Criminal Liability: Involuntary Manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter is a serious criminal charge that involves unintentionally causing someone’s death through reckless or negligent actions. For example, if a person drives under the influence of alcohol and accidentally kills someone, they could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
To prove involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution needs to establish three factors:
- Causation: The defendant’s actions caused someone’s death.
- Dangerous Conduct: The behavior was inherently dangerous or showed a reckless disregard for human life.
- Knowledge: The defendant knew or should have known that their actions were dangerous.
In the case of Ethan Crumbley, prosecutors argue that giving a firearm to a 15-year-old and ignoring clear warning signs of potential violence amounts to reckless disregard for human life. This is why Ethan’s parents are facing criminal charges.
Child Access Prevention Laws
Another aspect of criminal liability comes into play with Child Access Prevention Laws (CAPS). These laws, often referred to as “safety storage laws,” hold gun owners responsible if a child gains unsupervised access to a firearm. Studies have shown that a significant percentage of guns used in youth suicides, unintentional shootings, and school shootings come from the home or the homes of relatives or friends.
Currently, 29 states and the District of Columbia have laws that impose criminal charges on gun owners who fail to safely store their firearms, allowing children to access them. However, there is no federal law requiring the safe storage of guns. This legal gap highlights the importance of responsible gun ownership and the potential consequences of neglecting it.
The Burden of Proof
In legal cases, the burden of proof is crucial. For civil cases, the standard is the preponderance of the evidence, which means that the plaintiff must prove that it is more likely than not that the defendant’s actions caused the harm. In criminal cases, the standard is higher—beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because the burden of proof is lower in civil cases, they are generally easier to win than criminal cases. This is why even if a criminal case against the parents fails, a civil lawsuit might still succeed.
The Age of Majority
It’s also important to note that parental liability often depends on the age of the child. Most states hold parents responsible for their children’s actions until they reach the age of 18, which is the age of majority in most places, including New York. Since Payton Gendron was 18 at the time of the Buffalo shooting, holding his parents legally accountable might be more challenging.
Conclusion
Parental liability for a child’s gun violence is a complex and evolving area of law. As more tragic events unfold, the legal system continues to grapple with how to balance the responsibilities of parents with the actions of their children. While criminal cases against parents are still relatively rare, civil lawsuits may become more common as victims seek justice and accountability. It is a sobering reminder of the importance of vigilance, responsibility, and the potentially devastating consequences of ignoring warning signs.