🇳🇱
I was thinking more about your idea of holding parents liable for their kids actions as a deterrant to scbool shootings
One big concern for that is, especially if applied more generally, would be a huge deterrant for parents to adopt problem children, which coukd have a devestating effect on how these kids grow up if all the most trouble prone kids never get adopted.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins What if an element of negligence were required? I.e. if the kid got the gun from your unlocked safe, you're liable. If they got it from a friend, though, you couldn't know about it and wouldn't be liable.
That would seem to solve the adoption corollary.
@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins
Yea if the parents were clesrly negligent they should be liabke regardless if its your kid. If inleave my gun in my backyard and a strangers kid picks it uo and shoots himself or someone else i shoukd be liable then too... the fact that it is **my** kid is kind of incidental.
@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins
That was how inunderstood Casey's original proposal, yes. Basically to hold them accountabke for how thry raised their child basically.
@LouisIngenthron @realcaseyrollins
Also im not sure kids who are commiting crimes care much about wjat their parents think...
@freemo @realcaseyrollins Fair. Then I understand your OP was about holding them responsible just for the familial relation? With no evidence of any crime or negligence committed by the parent?
That seems like a due process nightmare. But more importantly, I think it would act as the *opposite* of a deterrent. If rebellious kids knew they could commit a crime and get their parents jailed? Hoo boy.