Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm very pleased to welcome back to the show one
of my favorite guests and a guy who does great
credit to Fox News every time I see him on
there as a contributor, And that's Paul Morrow. He is
a retired NYPD inspector.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
He is an attorney.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
He is the proprietor of a website and a substack
called ops desk ops d e sk And we have
a lot to talk about today, Paul.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Can I ask you about what you.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
And I were just talking about thirty seconds ago before
we got on the air, about your neighborhood in New
York or do you not want to talk about that?
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Well, we can, that's fine.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
So you mentioned that you.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Live in a particular area of New York that I
won't mention that, and I mentioned to you, Oh, I
know that neighborhood was pretty rough when I was in college,
and you said it got nicer, but it's getting less
nice again. And I was just really curious about why
why it's getting less nice again.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Well, you know enforcement that kept it.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I see, it had been kind of crummy pretty much
my whole life, and the routine broken windows policing enforcement
and the incarceration and all the other various programs that
undeniably worked, including some of the mental health programs, had
(01:22):
the neighborhood come back strong. And you know, if it's
safe and affordable, I think you know, then prosperity is
going to follow. And so for a long time over
let's say the course of about twenty years, which I
would say was something of a renaissance here in New
York City starting in the late nineties, new businesses were coming,
(01:44):
there were more tourists, new buildings were going up, and
it really was a sea change. And then realistically it
began to go the other way under build a blazeal
and it just really does show you that leadership and
policy does matter. These things don't happen in a vacuum,
and little by little you sort of slippage begin. And
it's much harder to build than it is to tear down.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
These things can go south, very very quickly.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
And as of now, over the last five years, the
crime rate, the violent crime rate in New York City,
which is the thing that matters because the property crimes
are not reported, the violent crime.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Rate in New York City is up over a third.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
And between that the homeless population, for which there is
no room in the shelters anymore, and no programs to
get them in.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
It's just going completely in the other direction.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
All right, just one more question on this, and then
we're going to switch to yesterday's terrible events. You know,
I was born in New York City, you know, went
to college in New York City, and I don't spend
a ton of time talking about it on my Colorado
radio show. But I'm curious to the extent that it's
not getting better right now. Do you think that's because
of explicit police policy that keeps it from getting better
(02:58):
or is it more more like they can't they're having
trouble recruiting enough cops, they don't have enough people, Like is.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
An explicit policy. I know it was explicit policy under
de Blasio, but what about right now?
Speaker 4 (03:14):
It's the same because the mayor led the way with
build a Blasia the previous mayor. But all this stuff
was conquatized under the current mayor with the city council.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
And even if this.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Mayor really wanted to, which I don't believe he does
because he's never really pushed it, the city council and
the state legislature have just locked in place. They've institutionalized
all of the changes that I'm alluding to, and so
you're not gonna be able to fix it without them.
And it really it's very easy to date it. When
we lost the balance in the state legislature, they lost
(03:53):
a couple of Republican seats, and once there was no counterbalance,
when the legislature had a suit or majority that could
even overrule the governor, you had a slate of criminal
justice reforms that were put in that to police defied
belief and they were not done with the input of
(04:14):
any cops or any prosecutor. Is nobody from the law
enforcement side, nobody from corrections. A lot of them are
corrections reforms, and it was done realistically by the defense Bar.
It was the wish list of the defense Bar, and
you really can date it from there. Once that happened,
it's really just been downhill from there. You could fix
this with some strong policy realistically probably take about six months,
(04:36):
but their will and the personnel are just not there.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
And you'd also have to strengthen the southern border.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
And because now as an overlaid all of that, you've
got the migrant explosion here, and that's just not going
away anytime soon either.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Right, In a way, I feel like we in the
Denver metro area are suffering a smaller version of that. Actually,
on a percentage basis, there's no city in the country
that has received more illegal immigrants as a percentage of
our population due to Biden's open border, Biden Harris's open border,
than Denver. We've got more than anybody as a percentage
(05:12):
of population, and crime's gone up and all kinds of
stuff has gone up. And so anyway, all right, enough
of that, So I invited you on the show to
talk about another school shooting. As you know, we have
more than our share of him here in Colorado. This
one was in Georgia yesterday, and when I asked you on,
I figured something would come up that I really needed
(05:33):
you to talk about. And there's a lot to talk
about here. But I got two questions, the short, short question. First,
were you surprised that the name of the shooter was
made public given that the shooter is only fourteen years old?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I was not.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
First of all, these things always leak out anyway, but
as you know, he's going to be charged as an adult.
They went with that, and so consequently I guess they
felt that they could release his name.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
He will be charged with murder.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Now, he's not eligible for the death penalty, which Georgia
has because nationwide, you can't be charged with the you
can't have the death penalty on the table as a
sentence unless you're eighteen or older.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
But essentially the law.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Is going to treat him as an adult, and so
I think they made that calculus, looked at Georgia law
and said, yeah, we can release it, and so they did.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
What's your opinion on charging him as an adult.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
The right move?
Speaker 4 (06:30):
You know, look, you'd like to say, hey, we are
going to make allowances for the fact that he's only fourteen,
et cetera. But you know, when you look into the
fact that he was visited by law enforcement at thirteen,
apparently unrepentant, apparently just had this thing fixed in his head.
(06:51):
I'm sorry, and it does seem, you know, like a
sort of draconian, but you killed four people, and the
law under our system allows for the fact that if
you do something that egregious, we are going to be
able to charge you as an adult. Jogia law is
thirteen enough for murder, and so that is the law
(07:16):
and if that's the case, then he's going to get
the full extent of the law, minus the fact that
the law in Georgia does recognize the law nationwide recognizes
that below eighteen, you don't have capacity enough to form
the intent that would get you the death penalty. I
know it sounds like a distinction without a difference, but
(07:36):
that's the law that we have. And as a result,
you know, I don't really have a quarrel with it
because this was just so egregious. You really, you really
have to go pretty far to get charged as an
adult at fourteen years old, but he did.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Yeah, and again I'm going to ask this question without
intending any sympathy at all this for this killer.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
This is a case that you might, if it.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Didn't exist, you might make it up in a law
school class to spur a discussion about the role the
balances of the roles within the criminal justice system between
retribution and rehabilitation.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Yeah, I suppose you could.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
And you know, I guess the supposition would be, Okay,
he is fourteen, there's a good chance he will get
out at some point, and you'd hope that he'd be rehabilitated,
because even if he did thirty years, you know, he
would get out as a relatively young man. So I
don't know what Georgia state law contemplates as its theory
(08:50):
of incarceration. The various states will sometimes explicate, you know,
we think rehabilitation is the way to go. To New York,
I think still operates under theory of rehabilitation, although I
don't see too many people being rehabilitated, but that's a
different discussion. But yeah, I mean, I think in his case,
I guess the theory would be, because he's only fourteen,
(09:13):
if and when he does get out, because even if
he's given life, there's a good chance that he will get.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Out at some point.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
You know, the theory would be, well, he's older, wiser,
learned his lesson, and we can let him out. And
you know, all you can say is you hope that's
the case. But then there's also the issue of the
vicarious liability, which we saw in the Ethan Crumbly case
in Michigan.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
And I don't know that this is.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Going to be possible under Georgia law, but they stretched
in Michigan, and I think the interesting question becomes, is
there any criminal liability that could attach to the parents
because apparently, according to the reporting the parents, the father
specifically assured law enforcement that the son would have no
access to guns, despite the fact that he seemed to
(09:56):
have formed this idea of doing a school shooting last year.
Obviously he got the on, Obviously he shouldn't have had
the gun, and he did what he did. So at
the very least, they're looking at major civil liability. But
as happened in the Crumbly case, the parents were held
liable or involuntary manslaughter. And I'm wondering if we're going
to see something like that in Georgia because it's very
(10:17):
fact specific and these things really have to be egregious,
but Crumbly felt like a threshold. Doves had some issues
with it because Crumbly, what Crumbly did was just as
Betty killed four people, but it was so bad that
they went forward with it, and I'm wondering if we'll
see something similar.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
We're talking with Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
He's an attorney as well.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Website is opsdesk dot org opsdesk dot Org. I think,
if I'm going to be loyally about it, I think
a slight difference in the Crumbly case in Michigan where
the parents got convicted for crimes committee by their son
in addition to the son. Of course, is going away
is that they bought their son the gun and they
(11:01):
gave they gave their son the gun. And in this
case that doesn't appear to have happened. And if I
were just going to play lawyer here, I think that
could be a significant difference. But I think the main
thing will be and you're the lawyer, so you tell me.
I think the main thing relating the question you was
raised is the actual difference is between Michigan law and
Georgia law. And I think Georgia law is probably going
(11:21):
to be making a lot more difficult to pin something
on the father here.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
From what I've seen. Yeah, I think that's that's accurate.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Georgia law does have a curious liability that could shade
into criminal from what I've seen, but it comes off
of a crop of cars, you know. So let's say
a different scenario. The parents let the kid get drunk
at fourteen and gave me the keys to the car
and said, you cat, you can go and drive, and
he runs somebody over. It looks like that is very
common civil statute, common law rather on that, and I
(11:56):
don't know that it's going to be possible, you know,
in Georgia, as you say, and again as we both
say that it is very very fact specific. One thing
that is a little bit disturbing here, more than a
little bit that you didn't have in the Crumbly case,
is that law enforcement did visit and got a reassurance
from this father. On the other hand, as you say,
(12:18):
the Crumbly situation.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
They gave him the gun.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
And in fact, when they were called to the school
to have the parent teach a conference, he was sitting
there with the disturbing drawing that brought them up to
the school to begin with, and he had his backpack
with him and the gun was in the backpack, and
that was one of the things that was I think
so salient in that case and led the jury to
convict so quickly in both cases because the parents would
try separately.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
So look, well, I have to see how.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
It plays out. I think obviously the parents are in
for a mile of hard road here. And if you're
following the story, some of the relatives have come out
very vociferously in defense of the kid and are saying
things like, you have no idea what this kid's been
dealing with, etc.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Etc.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
So I don't know if they're going to come up
with some sort of an abuse case if he was
picked on at school. The school year just started and
given his age, he's only a freshman. But maybe there's
going to be some sort of a argument that he
was bullied at school and that led to this, which
maybe they hope he's going to mitigate it. I don't know,
(13:17):
but it's interesting to me that not the parents, but
is an aunt who's speaking out for the family, and
she's being quite aggressive.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Sounds like almost try to drift in the direction of
an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
There's something something in that direction.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
So I want to just follow up with you on
You've mentioned this a couple of times now, and to me,
it was a remarkable piece of information that a little
over a year ago, the FBI got anonymous tips about
online threats about a school shooting.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Although the school.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Wasn't named and it wasn't sort of an immediate I'm
going to do it tomorrow, but still they got multiple tips.
They figured out it was from Georgia. They contacted law
enforcement in Georgia, who figured out it came from or
they yeah, I'll just say they figured out it came
from this kid.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Even though the kid denied it. So pick it up
from there.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
So Georgia law enforcement determines that maybe based on an
IP address or something, I don't know, that this kid
is posting these kinds of threats.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Then what happens.
Speaker 4 (14:16):
So apparently then they visit and the statement from law
enforcement is kind of confusing because one of the things
they say in the statement from the FBI, they give
the sort of choreography of what occurred. The FBI gets
the tip, they give it to local law enforcement, a
sheriff's office, not the one that is involved in this case.
(14:39):
So apparently they were living that is, the Gray family
was living elsewhere in a different COUNTI a different sheriff's
office went and then, you know, as we said, the
father assured them that the kid had no access to
the guns. But the statement says that there was not
enough probable cause to arrest him. And then the fact
(15:00):
that the father and the kid apparently denied that the
kid had done it, and that doesn't hold water. Probable
cause should not be the issue. The real issue was
that the kid is thirteen, and at thirteen in Georgia,
the kid would not be arrestable or a threat, let's say,
because the list of crimes for which a thirteen year
old can be prosecuted in Georgia, they're all very violent
(15:26):
and serious felonies. So I don't know why they would
try to use that as an out, because, as you mentioned,
what you would do in that case is you would
just do the digital forensic work and you would bring
it back to the fact that it goes to that computer,
which you can demonstrate digitally, and then you have probable
(15:46):
cause right there, and then it's realistically, if the probable
cause was the issue, you say, look, kid, it comes
back to your computer and your social media account. In
this case is apparently a gaming site comes back to you.
You're under arrest of burden of proof is on him,
because yeah, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
But you're over the threshold where you could arrest.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
I don't know that that was properly lawyered, and I
find that to be somewhat confusing, and it's led to
some confusion in the media. I've seen people trying to,
you know, pull apart what this means, and I actually
don't know why they went with that route. They should
have just said he was thirteen, he was not arrestable.
As a result, we had assurances from the father. I
think they were doing everything they can to kind of
(16:28):
shade any culpability on their part. But because obviously nobody
followed up, because you know, there's no reporting of that.
So yeah, I find that to be quite confusing, because
you would be able to link it to the kid
with enough detail, especially with the fact that it's a
gaming site that goes to him, you'd have PC So
(16:50):
very confusing.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
There's gonna be a lot of wood could have should
have here? Give me one quick answer on the last question.
Then I got to go, h, do you think there
will be room here for an argument the school district? Well,
first of all, do we know if they knew about
these threats? And if they did know, should they have
diverted him into some other schools so we wouldn't have
access to this big high school and come do all
this stuff?
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Do you think the school district may have a problem here?
Speaker 4 (17:16):
From what I understand, No, I've seen no adition that
the school district had any knowledge of that, And I
don't know what Georgia law would be relative to what
you would do with a.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Kid who had an accusation like that.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
I don't think they'd have the ability really to keep
them out of the school, because it's a right to
go to school. And legally speaking, as you and I
just covered, the law decided maybe he didn't do it.
You know, they seem to have gone their route that okay,
you know, sorry for bothering you, and then left, so
legally it seems to have been treated as either it
didn't happen, or we got the wrong person, or well,
(17:52):
we really can't prove it anyway. And that certainly would
not be enough for the school to say, hey kid,
you can't come to the high.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
School for which you're qualified. Very very tough situation.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
But I would really like to know why they went
with that probable cause route, because that's the only thing
in this thing that I have to say. I smell
a little bit of a rat and I'm hoping we
get some clarity in regard.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Paul Morrow is retired NYPD inspector. He's an attorney. His
website is opsdesk dot org. Psdesk dot org. Also a
Fox News contributor. Thanks as always for your time in wisdom, Paul, appreciate.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
It anytime, buddy, love it.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Take care of us, okay, you too,
I'm very pleased to welcome back to the show one
of my favorite guests and a guy who does great
credit to Fox News every time I see him on
there as a contributor, And that's Paul Morrow. He is
a retired NYPD inspector.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
He is an attorney.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
He is the proprietor of a website and a substack
called ops desk ops d e sk And we have
a lot to talk about today, Paul.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
Can I ask you about what you.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
And I were just talking about thirty seconds ago before
we got on the air, about your neighborhood in New
York or do you not want to talk about that?
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Well, we can, that's fine.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
So you mentioned that you.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Live in a particular area of New York that I
won't mention that, and I mentioned to you, Oh, I
know that neighborhood was pretty rough when I was in college,
and you said it got nicer, but it's getting less
nice again. And I was just really curious about why
why it's getting less nice again.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Well, you know enforcement that kept it.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I see, it had been kind of crummy pretty much
my whole life, and the routine broken windows policing enforcement
and the incarceration and all the other various programs that
undeniably worked, including some of the mental health programs, had
(01:22):
the neighborhood come back strong. And you know, if it's
safe and affordable, I think you know, then prosperity is
going to follow. And so for a long time over
let's say the course of about twenty years, which I
would say was something of a renaissance here in New
York City starting in the late nineties, new businesses were coming,
(01:44):
there were more tourists, new buildings were going up, and
it really was a sea change. And then realistically it
began to go the other way under build a blazeal
and it just really does show you that leadership and
policy does matter. These things don't happen in a vacuum,
and little by little you sort of slippage begin. And
it's much harder to build than it is to tear down.
Speaker 3 (02:08):
These things can go south, very very quickly.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
And as of now, over the last five years, the
crime rate, the violent crime rate in New York City,
which is the thing that matters because the property crimes
are not reported, the violent crime.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Rate in New York City is up over a third.
Speaker 4 (02:25):
And between that the homeless population, for which there is
no room in the shelters anymore, and no programs to
get them in.
Speaker 3 (02:34):
It's just going completely in the other direction.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
All right, just one more question on this, and then
we're going to switch to yesterday's terrible events. You know,
I was born in New York City, you know, went
to college in New York City, and I don't spend
a ton of time talking about it on my Colorado
radio show. But I'm curious to the extent that it's
not getting better right now. Do you think that's because
of explicit police policy that keeps it from getting better
(02:58):
or is it more more like they can't they're having
trouble recruiting enough cops, they don't have enough people, Like is.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
An explicit policy. I know it was explicit policy under
de Blasio, but what about right now?
Speaker 4 (03:14):
It's the same because the mayor led the way with
build a Blasia the previous mayor. But all this stuff
was conquatized under the current mayor with the city council.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
And even if this.
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Mayor really wanted to, which I don't believe he does
because he's never really pushed it, the city council and
the state legislature have just locked in place. They've institutionalized
all of the changes that I'm alluding to, and so
you're not gonna be able to fix it without them.
And it really it's very easy to date it. When
we lost the balance in the state legislature, they lost
(03:53):
a couple of Republican seats, and once there was no counterbalance,
when the legislature had a suit or majority that could
even overrule the governor, you had a slate of criminal
justice reforms that were put in that to police defied
belief and they were not done with the input of
(04:14):
any cops or any prosecutor. Is nobody from the law
enforcement side, nobody from corrections. A lot of them are
corrections reforms, and it was done realistically by the defense Bar.
It was the wish list of the defense Bar, and
you really can date it from there. Once that happened,
it's really just been downhill from there. You could fix
this with some strong policy realistically probably take about six months,
(04:36):
but their will and the personnel are just not there.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
And you'd also have to strengthen the southern border.
Speaker 4 (04:43):
And because now as an overlaid all of that, you've
got the migrant explosion here, and that's just not going
away anytime soon either.
Speaker 1 (04:50):
Right, In a way, I feel like we in the
Denver metro area are suffering a smaller version of that. Actually,
on a percentage basis, there's no city in the country
that has received more illegal immigrants as a percentage of
our population due to Biden's open border, Biden Harris's open border,
than Denver. We've got more than anybody as a percentage
(05:12):
of population, and crime's gone up and all kinds of
stuff has gone up. And so anyway, all right, enough
of that, So I invited you on the show to
talk about another school shooting. As you know, we have
more than our share of him here in Colorado. This
one was in Georgia yesterday, and when I asked you on,
I figured something would come up that I really needed
(05:33):
you to talk about. And there's a lot to talk
about here. But I got two questions, the short, short question. First,
were you surprised that the name of the shooter was
made public given that the shooter is only fourteen years old?
Speaker 2 (05:47):
I was not.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
First of all, these things always leak out anyway, but
as you know, he's going to be charged as an adult.
They went with that, and so consequently I guess they
felt that they could release his name.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
He will be charged with murder.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
Now, he's not eligible for the death penalty, which Georgia
has because nationwide, you can't be charged with the you
can't have the death penalty on the table as a
sentence unless you're eighteen or older.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
But essentially the law.
Speaker 4 (06:13):
Is going to treat him as an adult, and so
I think they made that calculus, looked at Georgia law
and said, yeah, we can release it, and so they did.
Speaker 2 (06:22):
What's your opinion on charging him as an adult.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
The right move?
Speaker 4 (06:30):
You know, look, you'd like to say, hey, we are
going to make allowances for the fact that he's only fourteen,
et cetera. But you know, when you look into the
fact that he was visited by law enforcement at thirteen,
apparently unrepentant, apparently just had this thing fixed in his head.
(06:51):
I'm sorry, and it does seem, you know, like a
sort of draconian, but you killed four people, and the
law under our system allows for the fact that if
you do something that egregious, we are going to be
able to charge you as an adult. Jogia law is
thirteen enough for murder, and so that is the law
(07:16):
and if that's the case, then he's going to get
the full extent of the law, minus the fact that
the law in Georgia does recognize the law nationwide recognizes
that below eighteen, you don't have capacity enough to form
the intent that would get you the death penalty. I
know it sounds like a distinction without a difference, but
(07:36):
that's the law that we have. And as a result,
you know, I don't really have a quarrel with it
because this was just so egregious. You really, you really
have to go pretty far to get charged as an
adult at fourteen years old, but he did.
Speaker 1 (07:50):
Yeah, and again I'm going to ask this question without
intending any sympathy at all this for this killer.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
This is a case that you might, if it.
Speaker 1 (08:03):
Didn't exist, you might make it up in a law
school class to spur a discussion about the role the
balances of the roles within the criminal justice system between
retribution and rehabilitation.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Yeah, I suppose you could.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
And you know, I guess the supposition would be, Okay,
he is fourteen, there's a good chance he will get
out at some point, and you'd hope that he'd be rehabilitated,
because even if he did thirty years, you know, he
would get out as a relatively young man. So I
don't know what Georgia state law contemplates as its theory
(08:50):
of incarceration. The various states will sometimes explicate, you know,
we think rehabilitation is the way to go. To New York,
I think still operates under theory of rehabilitation, although I
don't see too many people being rehabilitated, but that's a
different discussion. But yeah, I mean, I think in his case,
I guess the theory would be, because he's only fourteen,
(09:13):
if and when he does get out, because even if
he's given life, there's a good chance that he will get.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Out at some point.
Speaker 4 (09:19):
You know, the theory would be, well, he's older, wiser,
learned his lesson, and we can let him out. And
you know, all you can say is you hope that's
the case. But then there's also the issue of the
vicarious liability, which we saw in the Ethan Crumbly case
in Michigan.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
And I don't know that this is.
Speaker 4 (09:34):
Going to be possible under Georgia law, but they stretched
in Michigan, and I think the interesting question becomes, is
there any criminal liability that could attach to the parents
because apparently, according to the reporting the parents, the father
specifically assured law enforcement that the son would have no
access to guns, despite the fact that he seemed to
(09:56):
have formed this idea of doing a school shooting last year.
Obviously he got the on, Obviously he shouldn't have had
the gun, and he did what he did. So at
the very least, they're looking at major civil liability. But
as happened in the Crumbly case, the parents were held
liable or involuntary manslaughter. And I'm wondering if we're going
to see something like that in Georgia because it's very
(10:17):
fact specific and these things really have to be egregious,
but Crumbly felt like a threshold. Doves had some issues
with it because Crumbly, what Crumbly did was just as
Betty killed four people, but it was so bad that
they went forward with it, and I'm wondering if we'll
see something similar.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
We're talking with Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
He's an attorney as well.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Website is opsdesk dot org opsdesk dot Org. I think,
if I'm going to be loyally about it, I think
a slight difference in the Crumbly case in Michigan where
the parents got convicted for crimes committee by their son
in addition to the son. Of course, is going away
is that they bought their son the gun and they
(11:01):
gave they gave their son the gun. And in this
case that doesn't appear to have happened. And if I
were just going to play lawyer here, I think that
could be a significant difference. But I think the main
thing will be and you're the lawyer, so you tell me.
I think the main thing relating the question you was
raised is the actual difference is between Michigan law and
Georgia law. And I think Georgia law is probably going
(11:21):
to be making a lot more difficult to pin something
on the father here.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
From what I've seen. Yeah, I think that's that's accurate.
Speaker 4 (11:30):
Georgia law does have a curious liability that could shade
into criminal from what I've seen, but it comes off
of a crop of cars, you know. So let's say
a different scenario. The parents let the kid get drunk
at fourteen and gave me the keys to the car
and said, you cat, you can go and drive, and
he runs somebody over. It looks like that is very
common civil statute, common law rather on that, and I
(11:56):
don't know that it's going to be possible, you know,
in Georgia, as you say, and again as we both
say that it is very very fact specific. One thing
that is a little bit disturbing here, more than a
little bit that you didn't have in the Crumbly case,
is that law enforcement did visit and got a reassurance
from this father. On the other hand, as you say,
(12:18):
the Crumbly situation.
Speaker 3 (12:20):
They gave him the gun.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
And in fact, when they were called to the school
to have the parent teach a conference, he was sitting
there with the disturbing drawing that brought them up to
the school to begin with, and he had his backpack
with him and the gun was in the backpack, and
that was one of the things that was I think
so salient in that case and led the jury to
convict so quickly in both cases because the parents would
try separately.
Speaker 3 (12:41):
So look, well, I have to see how.
Speaker 4 (12:42):
It plays out. I think obviously the parents are in
for a mile of hard road here. And if you're
following the story, some of the relatives have come out
very vociferously in defense of the kid and are saying
things like, you have no idea what this kid's been
dealing with, etc.
Speaker 2 (12:57):
Etc.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
So I don't know if they're going to come up
with some sort of an abuse case if he was
picked on at school. The school year just started and
given his age, he's only a freshman. But maybe there's
going to be some sort of a argument that he
was bullied at school and that led to this, which
maybe they hope he's going to mitigate it. I don't know,
(13:17):
but it's interesting to me that not the parents, but
is an aunt who's speaking out for the family, and
she's being quite aggressive.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Sounds like almost try to drift in the direction of
an insanity defense.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
There's something something in that direction.
Speaker 1 (13:30):
So I want to just follow up with you on
You've mentioned this a couple of times now, and to me,
it was a remarkable piece of information that a little
over a year ago, the FBI got anonymous tips about
online threats about a school shooting.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Although the school.
Speaker 1 (13:46):
Wasn't named and it wasn't sort of an immediate I'm
going to do it tomorrow, but still they got multiple tips.
They figured out it was from Georgia. They contacted law
enforcement in Georgia, who figured out it came from or
they yeah, I'll just say they figured out it came
from this kid.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Even though the kid denied it. So pick it up
from there.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
So Georgia law enforcement determines that maybe based on an
IP address or something, I don't know, that this kid
is posting these kinds of threats.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Then what happens.
Speaker 4 (14:16):
So apparently then they visit and the statement from law
enforcement is kind of confusing because one of the things
they say in the statement from the FBI, they give
the sort of choreography of what occurred. The FBI gets
the tip, they give it to local law enforcement, a
sheriff's office, not the one that is involved in this case.
(14:39):
So apparently they were living that is, the Gray family
was living elsewhere in a different COUNTI a different sheriff's
office went and then, you know, as we said, the
father assured them that the kid had no access to
the guns. But the statement says that there was not
enough probable cause to arrest him. And then the fact
(15:00):
that the father and the kid apparently denied that the
kid had done it, and that doesn't hold water. Probable
cause should not be the issue. The real issue was
that the kid is thirteen, and at thirteen in Georgia,
the kid would not be arrestable or a threat, let's say,
because the list of crimes for which a thirteen year
old can be prosecuted in Georgia, they're all very violent
(15:26):
and serious felonies. So I don't know why they would
try to use that as an out, because, as you mentioned,
what you would do in that case is you would
just do the digital forensic work and you would bring
it back to the fact that it goes to that computer,
which you can demonstrate digitally, and then you have probable
(15:46):
cause right there, and then it's realistically, if the probable
cause was the issue, you say, look, kid, it comes
back to your computer and your social media account. In
this case is apparently a gaming site comes back to you.
You're under arrest of burden of proof is on him,
because yeah, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Speaker 3 (16:04):
But you're over the threshold where you could arrest.
Speaker 4 (16:06):
I don't know that that was properly lawyered, and I
find that to be somewhat confusing, and it's led to
some confusion in the media. I've seen people trying to,
you know, pull apart what this means, and I actually
don't know why they went with that route. They should
have just said he was thirteen, he was not arrestable.
As a result, we had assurances from the father. I
think they were doing everything they can to kind of
(16:28):
shade any culpability on their part. But because obviously nobody
followed up, because you know, there's no reporting of that.
So yeah, I find that to be quite confusing, because
you would be able to link it to the kid
with enough detail, especially with the fact that it's a
gaming site that goes to him, you'd have PC So
(16:50):
very confusing.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
There's gonna be a lot of wood could have should
have here? Give me one quick answer on the last question.
Then I got to go, h, do you think there
will be room here for an argument the school district? Well,
first of all, do we know if they knew about
these threats? And if they did know, should they have
diverted him into some other schools so we wouldn't have
access to this big high school and come do all
this stuff?
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Do you think the school district may have a problem here?
Speaker 4 (17:16):
From what I understand, No, I've seen no adition that
the school district had any knowledge of that, And I
don't know what Georgia law would be relative to what
you would do with a.
Speaker 3 (17:27):
Kid who had an accusation like that.
Speaker 4 (17:30):
I don't think they'd have the ability really to keep
them out of the school, because it's a right to
go to school. And legally speaking, as you and I
just covered, the law decided maybe he didn't do it.
You know, they seem to have gone their route that okay,
you know, sorry for bothering you, and then left, so
legally it seems to have been treated as either it
didn't happen, or we got the wrong person, or well,
(17:52):
we really can't prove it anyway. And that certainly would
not be enough for the school to say, hey kid,
you can't come to the high.
Speaker 3 (17:58):
School for which you're qualified. Very very tough situation.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
But I would really like to know why they went
with that probable cause route, because that's the only thing
in this thing that I have to say. I smell
a little bit of a rat and I'm hoping we
get some clarity in regard.
Speaker 1 (18:14):
Paul Morrow is retired NYPD inspector. He's an attorney. His
website is opsdesk dot org. Psdesk dot org. Also a
Fox News contributor. Thanks as always for your time in wisdom, Paul, appreciate.
Speaker 3 (18:26):
It anytime, buddy, love it.
Speaker 2 (18:29):
Take care of us, okay, you too,
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.