“The parents faced prison for failing to intervene despite obvious warning signs that their son was troubled and for failing to keep a gun locked away in their home.”
If that’s all they got, the convictions should get overturned, I think.
If they "missed the obvious warning signs", on first pass, I certainly didn't see how that could stand up. I have not been actively following this case and didn't know the details well. I could just see the defense attorney saying:
"So. What exactly ARE the 'obvious warning signs'? My client is not an expert or authority on these kinds of things, how could they be expected to diagnose a mental illness?"
But, according to the article: "...At their trials, jurors heard testimony about how the parents went to the school the day of the shooting to discuss a violent drawing found on Ethan’s math assignment with officials. The pictures showed a gun, a bullet and a person bleeding with the words, “Blood everywhere,” and “The thoughts won’t stop — help me.” But James and Jennifer didn’t take Ethan, then 15, out of school that day, instead returning to work after the school gave them list of mental health services, according to trial testimony..."
That may not be an obvious warning sign to some, but I would think they would have taken him out of his school, verified the location of the handgun if he had it with him, and taken custody of it. I don't think that paragraph above is helpful to the parents, although the same day information and failure to take him out of school when they knew he had access to a handgun (which they had given him) is definitely harmful.
I don't have a problem with any kid being taught how to use firearms with safety and proficiency. I am one of those people who think anyone should be able to carry a firearm everywhere, even openly or slung over their shoulder. But with that comes the responsibility. I don't think the parents are going to get this overturned, even if I do think it is the gun-grabbers going at it for all they are worth.
I fully get why some people think it is unfair. It is one thing if it had been THEIR firearm left out for him to grab. That is No Good. The fact that they purchased the handgun for him made it even worse.
The only reason I would have stuck up for these people is the obvious big-bucks and political targeting by the Left. But after reading that article, if it is factual, I can't see putting a principle so dear to me (2nd Amendment rights) on the ideological block to defend their actions. I just can't.