Colin Gray, the Georgia father whose teenage son Colt killed four people in a 2024 school shooting, was sentenced Thursday to 15 years in prison in a landmark case testing the limits of who can be held responsible for a mass shooting.
Not sure what the goal is here. The dad had no intent to kill, so it literally can’t be murder. The disincentive aspect is irrelevant because deterrence only works against planned crimes.
This looks like the usual “we had to do something”. Nothing changes.
If you accidentally run someone over in a car being negligent, you get charged with manslaughter. If you’re a getaway driver in a crime where someone dies, you’re charged with murder.
This is no different. He was a key part of a scheme to kill children, whether it was intentional or because of negligence.
The kid had an unhealthy interest in school shooters, including having a photo of one on his wall. The police spoke with the father about concerning statements from the kid. And yet the father still bought the kid a semi-automatic weapon. It’s a short, straight line of responsibility here.
I suspect the father had his own unhealthy interest in weapons, considering he named his own kid Colt. You can understand how a guy who worships guns is likely to dismiss anything that means he’s going to have to dial it back. He loved guns more than he loved safeguarding his sons literal future.
The deterrence is (obviously, I thought) further upstream. Parents should not treat firearms as toys to give their children. Hopefully the risk of spending years in prison will make the next parent who is considering buying their kid a gun also consider how they’ll keep control of it and ensure safe, responsible use. (As opposed to this guy, who just left it unsecured in his kid’s closet)
If you haven’t read the details of this case, I encourage you to do so. This isn’t a “it could happen to anyone” situation we’re talking about here.
Not sure what the goal is here. The dad had no intent to kill, so it literally can’t be murder. The disincentive aspect is irrelevant because deterrence only works against planned crimes.
This looks like the usual “we had to do something”. Nothing changes.
Criminal negligence
If you accidentally run someone over in a car being negligent, you get charged with manslaughter. If you’re a getaway driver in a crime where someone dies, you’re charged with murder.
This is no different. He was a key part of a scheme to kill children, whether it was intentional or because of negligence.
Come on man when are we going to hold people accountable for abusing 2A rights. Tens of thousands of people die every year and they don’t have to.
The kid had an unhealthy interest in school shooters, including having a photo of one on his wall. The police spoke with the father about concerning statements from the kid. And yet the father still bought the kid a semi-automatic weapon. It’s a short, straight line of responsibility here.
I suspect the father had his own unhealthy interest in weapons, considering he named his own kid Colt. You can understand how a guy who worships guns is likely to dismiss anything that means he’s going to have to dial it back. He loved guns more than he loved safeguarding his sons literal future.
Aiding and abetting. Been a good long time since I done me any abetting. That’s a crime.
Stfu Manson. You had your turn.
It gets rid of dead beat irresponsible dads
The deterrence is (obviously, I thought) further upstream. Parents should not treat firearms as toys to give their children. Hopefully the risk of spending years in prison will make the next parent who is considering buying their kid a gun also consider how they’ll keep control of it and ensure safe, responsible use. (As opposed to this guy, who just left it unsecured in his kid’s closet)
If you haven’t read the details of this case, I encourage you to do so. This isn’t a “it could happen to anyone” situation we’re talking about here.