The Georgia Case Against a School Shooter's Father Treats an Inattentive Parent As a Murderer
The charges, which could send Colin Gray to prison for the rest of his life, are part of a broader attempt to criminalize parental failures.

Colin Gray, whose 14-year-old son is charged with murdering two students and two teachers at a Georgia high school last month, himself faces 29 criminal charges that could send him to prison for the rest of his life. The case is part of a troubling trend in which prosecutors seek to spread the blame for school shootings by criminalizing parental failures.
Judging from the allegations against him, Gray is no one's idea of a model parent. Prosecutors say he failed to securely store the rifle used in the September 4 attack at Apalachee High School in Winder, a weapon he bought his son, Colt, as a Christmas present.
Gray allegedly knew Colt was deeply troubled but failed to get him the help he needed. He allegedly disregarded signs that Colt was prone to violence, including a photograph of a school shooter that the teenager had on his bedroom wall.
If the Apalachee High School shooting had involved a handgun, these claims might have supported a felony charge under a Georgia statute that applies to a parent who "furnish[es] a pistol or revolver to a minor" when he "is aware of a substantial risk" that the minor "will use a pistol or revolver to commit a felony offense." But because that law does not cover rifles, prosecutors are relying on other statutes that are less obviously applicable.
An indictment unveiled last week charges Gray with two counts of second-degree murder, each of which is punishable by 10 to 30 years in prison. That is the most serious charge ever brought against a school shooter's parent.
The murder charges are based on a statute that applies to someone who "causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice" while committing "cruelty to children in the second degree." The latter crime is defined as causing a minor to suffer "cruel or excessive physical or mental pain" with "criminal negligence," which in turn is defined as "an act or failure to act which demonstrates a willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the safety of others who might reasonably be expected to be injured thereby."
Gray also faces 20 counts of cruelty to children, two counts of involuntary manslaughter, and five counts of reckless conduct. All of the charges directly or indirectly rely on standards that require more than proof of inattentiveness or carelessness.
To convict Gray, prosecutors will have to persuade a jury that he should have known his son was inclined to commit mass murder and willfully, recklessly, or consciously disregarded that danger. Although that previously would have seemed like a daunting challenge, it looks less iffy in light of two verdicts that Michigan prosecutors obtained earlier this year.
In separate trials, juries convicted Jennifer and James Crumbley, the parents of a teenager who killed four students at Oxford High School in 2021, of involuntary manslaughter. They received prison sentences of 10 to 15 years.
The allegations in that case were similar to the allegations against Gray: that the couple ignored warning signs and allowed their son unsupervised access to the gun he used in the attack. The legal standard also was similar: Prosecutors had to prove that the defendants "willfully disregard[ed] the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act."
It is plausible to argue that the parents in these cases share moral responsibility for their children's crimes and should be held civilly liable. It is much more of a stretch to argue that their failures amounted to criminal negligence, let alone murder.
Warning signs are always clear in retrospect, and people want to believe that teenagers bent on mass murder can be thwarted if only adults pay enough attention, take "red flags" seriously, and intervene before it is too late. However reassuring that belief might be, it does not justify sending a father to prison for life because he never imagined his son capable of such a horrifying crime.
© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
His son threatened to shoot up a school, so the dad goes and buys him a gun. And not just any gun, he buys him a rifle. Which the kid then uses to shoot up his school.
He should be tried as an accessory. Because he was.
i try not to be surprised anymore by this rotten website, but this article is a new low. absolutely fucking disgusting
Thanks for Your PROFOUND and DEEP insights!
I hope that they will punish YOU for what I have said and done, that You might FINALLY understand that punishing one person for the doings of another is beyond unjust! I'd hope that You could understand it by a better method, but if YOU desire suffering in order to learn, then so be shit!
Your name says all we need to know about the value of your opinions.
fuck you and fuck your beliefs.
"Paying attention to your children science is junk science." - Reason
“Paying attention to the profound injustices involved in punishing one party for the doings of another party, science, is junk science.” - Casually Mad
(Shall we punish Rethugglicans for the doings of Demon-Craps? Now THAT I can get on board with! Punish ALL politicians! Except "Team L" of course.)
The New Justice... Punishing "Person A" for what "Person B" does. Got it! Schools today are full of social workers and nannies of various kinds, and even cops. Charge them also for what "Person B" did!!! They should have KNOWN, and prevented it! It was their DUTY, dammit!
Let me just ask what you think the level of responsibility is that the father has in this? A few things not mentioned or glossed over in this article that is present in others:
- Both Colt and his son had been questioned about threats the kid had made at school, which Colin Gray had denied doing. When asked if his son had access to a gun at home, the father truthfully answered no. He then bought him a semi-auto rifle for Christmas, after that.
- The photo of the school shooter (the Parkland, FL one) wasn't isolated on his wall somewhere. It was next to newspaper clippings of mourning students. It was described as a "shrine" by the Georgia State investigator.
- According to that investigator's testimony, the mother told her in an interview about how her son had joked about school shootings and asked the father to buy him a "shooter mask" so he could finish his "school shooter outfit".
- Colin had sent text messages to both parents before the shooting, saying that it wasn't his [the father's] fault, and to his mother, "I'm sorry." The mother called the school to tell them to find her soon immediately, the father never did. He went home early from work after his daughter had texted him that her school was on lockdown.
Who pulled the trigger? Was the trigger-puller COERCED (threatened, bullied) into doing it? ... The kid was NOT a remote-controlled robot! Morally-ethically the father is guilty as all git-out! (Thanks for the facts you listed.) But CRIMINAL (as opposed to civil) prosecution here (as in other cases) is unjust. Some things are bad, but best left outside of the law (being unfaithful, getting a divorce, getting a bad haircut, being a messy housekeeper), and some things should be prosecuted civil law, not criminal law. Else we get (under Government Almighty) all bad things punished, all good things rewarded, and little if any room left for free individuals.
You know what other Georgia case is questionable?
Fani 'The Smasher' Willis' case before the GA Supreme Court?
Hmmmm...
If parents are going to be held culpable for the acts of their children, can parents get retroactive abortion rights to the 54th trimester? /sarc
Maybe the school shooter's murder charges should be reduced to "administering late term abortions without a medical license".
I think you mean “administering late term REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE without a medical license” and the idea that he would even need a license is offensive to women everywhere who are this ->||<- close to being forced to use a coathanger in a back alley.
Coat hangers are a difficult choice of tool at 60 trimesters.
Commenter_XY : 54th trimester? Is there something special about age 13-1/2, or did you forget that a trimester is 1/3 of 9 months, not 1/3 of a year?
There's a dangerous precedent being set here.
If the parents, why not the friends? If the friends, why not the teachers? If the teachers, why not the administrators? Ooh, let's suppose the kid is in some kind of stupid therapy - why not the therapist? Then things get REALLY fun. Who do we get to hold accountable for it all?
A simplistic view is that an overly-emotional and aggrieved public is demanding and unjust pound of flesh. Which is accurate, but again simplistic. A more complicated view has to consider the motives.
And they are screaming a very new and lateral approach to anti-2A. Terrorize anyone who supports 2A into fear of liability/criminality in order to compel self-abrogation of one's rights. And teaching those rights to their children.
Let's take it out of 2A territory. I regularly leave my car keys in the same place every day when I come home from work. Or, better yet, I have purchased my hypothetical kid a car of his own. If my hypothetical kid then grabs my car keys or uses the vehicle I bought him to intentionally run someone down - am I now criminally responsible for that? Should I be?
Seems like nonsense. But, when anti-2A uses the same argument, the anti-2A crowd doesn't seem to appreciate the dissonance. When you realize that, you realize what these cases are really about.
It's just anti-2A.
"why not the friends? If the friends, why not the teachers? If the teachers, why not the administrators?"
Because those people didn't provide the weapon used.
That's not the standard to which they were being held. From the article: To convict Gray, prosecutors will have to persuade a jury that he should have known his son was inclined to commit mass murder and willfully, recklessly, or consciously disregarded that danger. ... The legal standard [in the Crumbly case] also was similar: Prosecutors had to prove that the defendants "willfully disregard[ed] the results to others that might follow from an act or failure to act."
This is how they're coming at 2A sideways. By NOT making it about the gun, but by making it about "ignoring warning signs."
Providing a gun to teenager with a fascination with school shooters and obvious mental health problems, who had been accused of threatening his school before? That is evidence of the father's willful negligence. The gun was never locked up. In fact, the father expected the gun to be propped up against a guitar in Colin's room when he got home that day. It wasn't.
You know, it is just weird to me how people want the 2nd Amend. to mean a right to own guns, but they also want there to be no legal consequences when people are stupidly careless in how they store a deadly weapon, and who they allow to access it.
You do a lot of talking, but you conspicuously avoid talking about the standard to which he's being held.
they also want there to be no legal consequences when people are stupidly careless in how they store a deadly weapon, and who they allow to access it.
.......... why should there be?
Remember Prosecutors are elected officials. They play to their voters to hell with justice. If Crumbley had used a rifle or a shotgun, this parents couldn't have been charged.
By the way for those of you who believe that the parents should be held accountable for every thing that their child does, stop voting Democrat. One of the Democrats main goals is to make children answer to no one. If you think that I'm full of crap, look at who pushed the Child's right to have an abortion without parental notification and look who's pushing for a child to be able to transition with out a parent's notification or permission.
Because parents are guardians. Friends are not.
Parenting / guardianship has legal responsibilities. Friendship does not.
Legal responsibilities doesn't imply criminal liability for the actions of others.
If a legal adult lives with their parents, can we hang his robbery or rape on the parents too? Why not? They should have recognized the signs. He lives with them after all.
Uh... if the guy's got pictures of serial rapists on his wall and the parents bought him the rohypnol... I can understand the conception that at the very least a jury should have a look.
And, yes, if we were talking about him living in an apartment with roommates and he kept pictures of rapists on the wall and one roommate bought him rohypnol he used... I can *still* understand the conception that at the very least a jury should have a look.
Clearly there needed to be a Telescreen in every room.
Unless they were holding his penis and putting it in his victims vagina, how are they in ANY way responsible for his actions?
Are you seriously arguing that two people can’t murder the same person or that two people cannot be equally responsible for a quadruple murder? Even third graders can do that math.
I get that you might not agree with any particular charge or find the punishment excessive or double jeopardy shouldn't happen at the state and federal level or whatever, but you’re essentially making the patently absurd assertion that only one person can have agency for the totality any given crime or act.
Are you seriously arguing that two people can’t murder the same person or that two people cannot be equally responsible for a quadruple murder?
Yea, with intent.
Gosh did his dad want to shoot up the school too?
Parents have a duty to care for the child, and to ensure that the child does not harm themselves or others. Teachers and school staff can only do so much to monitor a student, because they have 20 or more of them for every adult on campus to deal with. Not to mention that parents are the ones with real leverage over their child's behavior, even at school. I could do nothing to get my students to behave properly or work at learning that the parent didn't have 10x my leverage to use to motivate them. And therapists? Well, they actually do have a legal duty to notify authorities if they believe that a patient is a threat to themselves or other people. That is the main exception to the privilege.
Parents have a duty to care for the child
Weirdly enough, they don't. What they have is a duty to not harm/neglect their child. If you want to feed him a steady diet of poptarts, mac'n'cheese, and microwave lasagna, and then plop him down in front of the television for most of his waking hours - I mean, it's terrible parenting, but the kid is fed and sheltered.
The laws are against neglect and abuse. Not against "bad parenting," whatever that means.
Which, incidentally, gets to the heart of why this case is problematic.
and to ensure that the child does not harm themselves or others.
That's an impossible demand. When I was a kid, I jumped from a folding table to a basketball hoop trying to dunk. The table collapsed and I broke my arm. Was that mom and dad's fault?
No, I was a stupid kid who did a stupid thing. It happens. Sometimes it even harms others (I could tell you stories that involve a potato cannon). Sometimes it's even fatally tragic.
Still not mom and dad's fault.
Teachers and school staff can only do so much to monitor a student, because they have 20 or more of them for every adult on campus to deal with.
Yea, but if you fail in that we should still throw the book at you. You could have done something, and you didn't.
Absurd, right?
Same reason it is for the parent.
Weirdly enough, care (as in custody or protection of a person) is an antonym of neglect. In every situation where "neglect" is at issue, there is a line that gets crossed and civil liability becomes criminal liability for that neglect. Is it neglectful to leave a power tool plugged in sitting on your driveway while you go inside to take a dump, and the neighbor's toddler runs over to and hurts themselves? Absolutely. How much liability is on the tool owner and how much on the parent? Or is it just an unfortunate accident? What about someone trying to teach a child to shoot a gun and they stupidly have the 9 year old handling a fully automatic Uzi?
At least in that case, the person that was most neglectful was the one killed. Still tragic, but there would be no point in trying to assign anyone else any blame.
Is it neglectful to leave a power tool plugged in sitting on your driveway while you go inside to take a dump, and the neighbor’s toddler runs over to and hurts themselves? Absolutely. How much liability is on the tool owner and how much on the parent?
Yea, but you're shifting the argument here. We're not talking about civil liability. We're talking about criminal liability. Very different things.
What about someone trying to teach a child to shoot a gun and they stupidly have the 9 year old handling a fully automatic Uzi?
Haha, you're doing the thing. The thing where you cite yourself as an authority on a subject. lol. Which of Reason's staff writers are you?
Is it Emma? I'll bet it's Emma. You seem like someone who doesn't have a chin.
When the child is 14, is living under your roof, and uses your tools that you failed to secure to cause grievous bodily harm then you are also responsible.
When the child is 14, is living under your roof, displays clear signs of sociopathy and mental or emotional distress that you ignore and uses your tools that you failed to secure to cause grievous bodily harm then you
arecould be also responsible.Otherwise, you want to end up with blunt-ended 2.5″ kitchen knives like Britain? Because that’s how you end up with blunt-ended 2.5″ kitchen knives like Britain.
And ‘ignore’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘fail to book an appointment with a duly-licensed psychiatrist’ but probably could/should include ‘taking the picture of the school shooter off of their wall and finding something else more constructive to do’.
This sort of prosection happens in the ghetto all the time.
How many single mamas were convicted for getting their sons guns used to kill rival gang members?
Almost none? Even if they buy their felon son a gun, they're seldom charged.
skin color
What is the status of the parent-child legal relationship? If we believe that parents have more legal control on their minor kid's lives than others, including the state, then how does this frame parent's liability?
I get that these parents may very well be negligent. But every time prosecutors convince juries to convict based on novel interpretation of law, sooner or later the shit goes sideways and some innocent person gets screwed. This is an expansion of the police state and libertarians should be wary of it.
Z Crazy pointed out above these sort of charges have been done before.
Ever geard of Deja Taylor?
Parental responsibility is very libertarian. If we had victim prosecution, I'd expect the same charge. Very few people would accept treating a 14-year old as an adult. Crackers Boy below points out the hypocrisy of charging the kid as an adult yet charging the parent as if the kid were still a kid. That hypocrisy doesn't change the fact that most people hold parents at least partially responsible for what their 14-year old kids do.
Very few people would accept treating a 14-year old as an adult.
Says who, Stupid? Most people would assume that they're old enough to know that shooting four people to death was wrong and punish them for it. 14 puts them right at the top tier of 'The rule of 7s'.
This is specifically why some states prioritize the criminal act over the age of the perpetrator and others prioritize the age of the perpetrator over the act.
But then, I guess when you identify as "Stupid Government Tricks" it's not necessarily clear whether you're perpetrating them, advocating for them, falling for them, or a combination of the three.
The MAGA/Republicans are always whining about parental rights.
Well Karen, that comes with parental responsibility too.
Since when was Jacob Sullum MAGA?
That's because the Liberal Socialist left undermines the Parent's authority over their children. You know, like abortions and sex changes without parental approval or notification. My Cousin's daughter ran away from home after an argument with her parents. About three days later he found out that she was in school. He goes to the school and asks to talk to her. The school denied him his request and went so far as to call the Police on him because she said that she felt threatened by him. Think about that the next time you want to blame MAGA.
Again. The shooter is being charged as an ADULT. As an adult, he is responsible for his actions. If he was 40 years old, would the prosecutor be looking to arrest his 65 year old father for being a shitty parent?
Either he's a kid and dad may be culpable, or he's an adult.
CB
That's an excellent point, but a Stupid Government Trick doesn't answer the more fundamental question of parental / guardian responsibility.
There's nothing so fine as to be able to eat your cake and still having it.
No. This aspect isn’t the least bit controversial and Crackers Boy is a retard.
Charged as an adult doesn’t mean and never has meant “Charged as though he were 18.00 yrs. old.” and has always meant “Charged under the presumption he knew what he was doing was wrong.”
Further, actual, no-shit adults can be responsible for each other’s actions *and* mutually or near-mutually culpable in the same crime. Even most 6 yr. olds understand this.
As has been hashed out for retards here at Reason before, some states automatically charge certain crimes like multiple homicide as adult criminal charges by default as they don’t generally conceptualize (e.g.) 6 yr. olds committing such crimes. Other states prioritize the age of the suspect over the crime itself because they get a lot of 10, 11, 12… yr. old kids shooting other kids that they prefer to reform (and exploit for tax dolars). The idea that one or the other is more or less “having their cake and eating it too” de facto, is just plain, simple-minded retardation.
This is the same stupid, dishonest sophistry of “Antifa doesn’t elect a board or carry membership cards, so the protests are mostly peaceful and crime is down.”
There's nothing like going online and calling everyone a retard. It must be tough being so much better than everyone else.
Aware and better are not synonyms. If I see regular humans running a 5.0s or better in the 40 yd. dash, and a human comes along, running a 7.0s, I'm not better them by observing that normal humans can run a 5.0s or better. As indicated above, doli incapax is generally conceptualized globally (even if not by that name specifically) and dates back to the Middle Ages. If we were all medieval peasants, it would make sense that I was somehow exceptional in having heard of and understood the policy. Since we all live in the (post-)Information Age, I'm specifically *not* so much better and can only assume the person's intellectual effort has been retarded to that of a medieval peasant.
I in no way disagree that it's far easier to know nothing and open your mouth demonstrating how little you know than it is to refrain from speaking.
Charged as an adult doesn’t mean and never has meant “Charged as though he were 18.00 yrs. old.” and has always meant “Charged under the presumption he knew what he was doing was wrong.”
If that's the case, then why are teenagers ever not charged as adults? Unless they are actually retarded, teens definitely know right from wrong (or at least have the capacity to). I think there is more to it than that. At least in some states, there's some notion of giving wayward juveniles a second (or higher order) chance. Which is perhaps questionable when it comes to serious crimes like murder.
If that’s the case, then why are teenagers ever not charged as adults?
Are you asking me, on a libertarian website, why I or other people don't conform to your conceptions of retaliation after a violation of the NAP?
Seriously, you guys sound like my kids. OK, Zeb if all your friends were (not) charging teenagers as adults would you (not) charge them as adults too?
Now, if I say the question is over 500 yrs. old, has not just a hundred different answers but a couple dozen different inferred policies for answers, and someone comes along and says "Why don't we charge teenagers as adults the way (I think) all my friends do/should?" what am I supposed to think about that person? Have they been asleep for the last 500 yrs.? Do they really not understand that some places have differing definitions of, e.g., rape/consensual sex that might apply differently to people of differing ages?
The dude shot four people with the gun his Dad gave him. This isn't some novel charge for a non-crime with no victim. A jury in Georgia is going to look at it. The odds and fear of it being spun up into some sort of federal law are insane and the fact that they would *still* have to be distorted outside of victims to run afoul of libertarian sensibilities makes it doubly so.
You guys know about Jeffrey Reinking, right?
Are you really this retarded? This is an Emma Camp level understanding of the law.
Two adults can be responsible for different aspects of the same overall crime.
Again, not to implicate anyone of anything with regard to this specific case, but your take would be more of an honest mistake if you'd said something to the effect of "But the kid can't be tried as an adult if he hasn't had an adult beverage?!"
The word "responsible" is not found in any leftist vocabulary.
It's always someone elses fault...usually society's.
The charges seem a bit iffy, but jailing a redneck for naming his son Colt for a few years at least should keep him from breeding for a while-- and that's a good thing.
Why not just forcibly sterilize them? Or, better yet, put them in some kind of camp where they can... concentrate... on how best to fit into a perfect society? (According to your - and only your - definition, naturally.)
What have you got against horses?
Apply this to parents that know their kid is involved in gangs and watch the pushback from the left.
This is insane. Parents don't "own" their 14-year-old children and they really can't know what's going through their minds.
If the kid had stolen a rifle from a neighbor's house, I would be inclined to agree.
If the prosecutor was charging the father on the grounds that his son went on a shooting spree because his dad was too strict while potty training him as a toddler, I'd certainly agree.
But this Father Of The Year, AFTER being questioned about his son threatening to shoot up his school, bought him the rifle that he used to shoot up his school. It's like the father showed a depraved indifference to the dangers his child posed or something...
I think a state needs to have clearly established law in this regard before charging someone in this fashion. I'm not familiar with the extent to which the state of Georgia interferes with the parent-child relationship. California, for example, has decided that it's decisions (especially with regard to trans issues) supersede parental rights. As such, they have taken on the ultimate role of legal guardian.
So when minor kid screws up and kills or badly injures someone else, who should be legally responsible? The state? The school? The kid's church? I realize most Reason readers hate the government anyway even when cashing their federal social security and other checks, and/or their paychecks if they work for the government, but somewhere along the line the buck stops with parents and guardians who, as here, screw up, make weapons available to their troubled kids, then wonder why their troubled kid goes off the rails. I do think the state in this case overcharged the father, when negligent homicide or criminal endangerment are the only crimes the father should be charged for. Expect more of these cases against parents when people die at the hands of their children.
An abdication of responsibility is negligence. Negligence cases such as this belong in the CIVIL courts. Criminal courts should freed up to prosecute dark hearted miscreants who intend harm to others, not mere breach of duty.