Can parents be held responsible for their childs’ gun violence in Wisconsin?

Published: Apr. 11, 2024 at 9:47 PM CDT
Email This Link
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn

WAUSAU, Wis. (WSAW) - In a significant legal development, the parents of school shooter Ethan Crumbley were both sentenced on four counts of involuntary manslaughter. The verdict, delivered on Tuesday, marks a potential shift in legal precedent regarding parental responsibility in cases of gun violence.

According to authorities, the parents’ culpability in the shooting stemmed not from direct involvement in the attack, but from their failure to prevent their son from accessing the firearms used in the assault. This case has sparked a broader discussion on gun access nationwide, including in Wisconsin, about what is needed to convict a parent.

“Causation in Wisconsin is defined as a substantial factor in bringing about a result,” John Gross, a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School, said. “The fact that the parents stored the gun in a way that allowed the child to access it would be viewed as a substantial factor in bringing about the ultimate harm.”

Wisconsin law sets a clear age threshold for parental responsibility when it comes to gun access, with obligations ceasing at age 14.

Safe storage, as outlined by Gross, includes using trigger locks, locked containers, and/or gun safes. Failure to comply with these standards constitutes a crime under Wisconsin law, whether a minor gains access to the firearm or not.

“The crime is not storing it safely and it doesn’t matter whether a child ultimately is able to reach the gun. It’s if they could,” Gross said.

More than half of the states, including Wisconsin, have implemented laws aimed at promoting safe gun storage practices.

Gross emphasized the importance of these measures, stating, “It’s really important to store the guns properly just to avoid something that could be really horrific and tragic, and easily preventable.”

While the Crumbley case may set a precedent, Gross noted that it may not directly influence Wisconsin law due to distinct differences between Michigan law, where the case was tried, and Wisconsin law.