Following the horrific assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, questions arise about the potential legal liability of the shooter’s parents. The incident left one person dead and three injured, including Trump himself.
Authorities identified the shooter as 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks, who fired upon the pro-Trump rally from a rooftop roughly 130-150 yards away. The attack injured Trump, 57-year-old David Dutch, and 74-year-old James Copenhaver. Tragically, 50-year-old Corey Comor lost his life shielding his family from the gunfire.
Image of Donald Trump at a rally
While the FBI investigates the shooting and security failures that enabled it, the focus shifts to the shooter’s parents, Mary Elizabeth Crooks and Matthew Brian Crooks of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. Both are licensed professional counselors, described by neighbors as “nice people” for whom this tragedy seems uncharacteristic.
Reports indicate the parents are cooperating with law enforcement. Matthew Crooks reportedly informed CNN he was awaiting communication from law enforcement before commenting publicly. The investigation seeks to determine their awareness of their son’s intentions, although initial findings from his cell phone and computer data reveal no overt political or religious motivations.
Crooks, a nursing home worker with no prior criminal history, shocked his employer, Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehab Center. Living with his parents in suburban Bethel Park, approximately 50 miles from the shooting site, Crooks reportedly used an AR-15-style rifle and 5.56 ammunition, legally purchased by his father, Matthew. Reports vary on the purchase date, ranging from six months to a few years prior.
Image of an AR-15 style rifle
The firearm, registered to his father, was reportedly one of 20 guns registered to him and stored in their home. The Washington Post reports that this type of weapon is prevalent, with about one in 20 adults in the United States owning one.
Pennsylvania law mandates background checks for long guns purchased from licensed dealers but not for private sales. Permits and registrations are not required, and open carry of rifles by young people is permitted in emergencies. Additionally, Pennsylvania lacks laws requiring safe storage of firearms by gun owners. Thomas and his father were reportedly members of the Clarion Sportsman’s Club, a local shooting club.
This raises questions about the parents’ legal culpability and the potential for criminal charges. Parallels are drawn to the case of Jennifer and James Crumbley, parents of the Oxford High School shooter, who were convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Their convictions stemmed from the purchase of the weapon used in the shooting, their failure to secure it properly, and their failure to prevent their son’s access.
The jury in the Crumbley case deemed the shooting foreseeable, citing egregious factors. On the day of the shooting, the school summoned the parents due to their son’s disturbing drawings, yet they did not remove him from school, nor did they secure the gun, nor inform the school about it. The shooter had reportedly confessed to his family about hearing voices and requested help from his father to see a doctor, but his father allegedly dismissed his concerns.
Image of a gavel in a courtroom
These factors contributed to the determination of foreseeability in the Crumbley case. However, the current case differs as the shooter was an adult living with his parents.
Michigan law, under which the Crumbleys were prosecuted, recognizes a parent’s legal duty to care for their minor child. Reckless breach of this duty can result in an involuntary manslaughter conviction. Jury instructions in the Crumbley trial emphasized this parental duty and highlighted that failure to secure firearms properly and recklessness in providing a gun to a 15-year-old, especially one exhibiting signs of mental illness, constitute a breach of duty.
However, the current case involves an adult, and Pennsylvania law, like Michigan’s, does not impose a duty of care on parents for an adult offspring. This distinction is crucial in determining parental liability.
Furthermore, the fact that the shooting occurred 50 miles away from the shooter’s home weakens the argument of foreseeability. It is unreasonable to expect parents to foresee their adult son traveling such a distance to commit an act of violence, even if they were aware of potential issues.
The absence of a red flag law in Pennsylvania at the time of the shooting further complicates the matter. Red flag laws, or extreme risk protection orders, allow for the removal of firearms from individuals deemed a danger to themselves or others.
While Pennsylvania has since enacted a red flag law, its absence at the time of the shooting makes it difficult to argue that the parents had a duty to report their son’s access to firearms, even if they were aware of potential mental health concerns.
However, the discovery of explosive materials in the shooter’s car and a detonator on his person introduces a new dimension to the case. If evidence emerges that the parents were aware of bomb-making materials in their home and their son’s access to them, a stronger case for negligence could be made.
Knowledge of illegal activities, such as bomb-making, coupled with knowledge of their son’s access to firearms, could establish a direct link between the parents and the shooting, potentially strengthening a case against them.
It’s important to acknowledge that the investigation is ongoing, and while there’s currently no evidence to suggest parental responsibility, the discovery of new information could alter the course of the investigation.
Factors such as the extent of the parents’ knowledge of their son’s activities, their awareness of his mental state, and their actions in response to any concerns will be crucial in determining if any legal ramifications are warranted.
