Causation under either theory per the prosecutor:

There may be more than one cause of death. It is not enough that the defendant's act made it possible for the death to occur. In order to find that the deaths were caused by the defendant, the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the deaths were the natural or necessary result of the defendant's act.

Further, since there may be more than one cause of death, the defendant's acts or inactions need not be the sole cause of harm to the victims. In order to find that the death was caused by the defendant, the jury must also find beyond a reasonable doubt that her son's act of shooting someone was reasonably foreseeable."

This is a very tricky situation for the jury. Many of the jury members were parents, too. Do you feel that parents should be held responsible under criminal negligence rules for the acts of their children? Be sure to consider the possible additional applications of this landmark decision. What if a 16 year old uses the family car and hits someone? What if a 15 year old gets upset about losing a sporting event and throws a bat or chucks a ball over the fence and hits someone? There is a case pending in Civil court right now where a kid at a tennis match became upset over a line call so he angrily batted a tennis ball across the courts and hit another player in the eye. Of course, the victim's family is suing for money damages in a civil negligence case but with this landmark ruling, the parents of the kid who swatted the tennis ball may now be charged criminally for the actions of their child. Could this ruling go too far?

Context given before the question---- Taken from the local headlines, and, sadly repeated over and over is that children under the age of 18 are gaining access to firearms. I know that the Oxford shooting case hits very close to home for all of us so this DB post might be painful to ponder. I apologize in advance for this. Please focus on 1) the first ever application of the law of criminal negligent homicide on the parent of a mass shooter, and 2) how our laws do change as the society changes its perception of what is right and wrong.

There were 2 separate theories of negligence put forth by the Oakland county prosecutor for the parent of the Oxford shooter:

"Theory 1: Gross Negligence in the Performance of a Lawful Act

• Defendant caused death
• In doing the act that caused death, defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner

Theory 2: Gross Negligence in Failing to Perform a Legal Duty

• Defendant had a legal duty to the victim
• Defendant knew of the facts that gave rise to the duty
• Defendant willfully neglected or refused to perform that duty and her failure to perform it was grossly negligent to human life
• The death of the victim was directly caused by defendant's failure to perform this duty