Youth Violence - What Should Be Done?

From the SPD Blotter, Feb. 9, 2024 at 4:08 pm:

Four juveniles were arrested following an attempted robbery outside of a Northgate area school.

Shortly after 10:00 a.m., Officers were dispatched to an attempted robbery involving a firearm at Densmore Avenue North at Ingraham High School near the Helene Madison Pool.  

A male student was walking to school when a red Honda occupied by four juvenile males drove up. The four suspects exited the vehicle, one suspect produced a firearm and pointed it toward the juvenile victim. The suspects demanded the victim’s shoes and Air Pod earphones.  

The victim was able to sprint away from the suspects to a nearby house and called 911.

Ingraham High School was briefly locked down while police searched for the suspects. Officers located the suspect vehicle parked outside the school occupied by the four juveniles. All four males were positively identified and taken into custody without incident.

All parties involved were students at the high school.  

The Suspect vehicle was impounded and taken to the evidence garage to be processed for forensic evidence. The handgun involved in the incident has not been recovered. 

General Investigation Unit detectives will be leading the investigation.  

The four juveniles were arrested for robbery and transported to the Judge Patricia H. Clark Children and Family Justice Center.

A few thoughts:

- These kids thought that they could just go back to the school and park outside and no one would notice? 

- What would you tell your child to do? Very brave of the victim to run to get help but it would have been horrible if he had been shot. Maybe he knew those students and didn't believe they would shoot him? Or, thought that even if he gave up his items, they would still shoot him? 

Which brings me to another news story this week, the conviction of Jennifer Crumbley on four charges of manslaughter because she did not secure the gun that she and her husband had bought for their son which he then used in a school shooting. Each count carries a maximum punishment of up to 15 years in prison, which would run concurrently. The story from CNN.

Previous to this, a couple of other parents in different gun incidents were charged with reckless conduct or state child neglect and unlawful use of a controlled substance while possessing a firearm. 

But this is the first time that parents were directly charged with the manslaughter because of the actions that may have caused the deaths of students at their son's high school.

The parents have separated their trials because the mother now blames the father for the incident. 

“It’s not the first time that a parent has been held liable in some capacity for the acts of a child or a shooter, however, usually those charges relate to child neglect or manifest as a failure to keep a firearm locked up,” Marris said. “This is very different because it’s actually holding them responsible for the killings.”

Judge Cheryl Matthews decided to tell them yes, and referred the jury to re-read part of her instructions, which says “the prosecutor asserts two different theories to support the charges of Involuntary Manslaughter.”

The first theory is that Crumbley committed involuntary manslaughter because she failed to perform a legal duty. The second, is because she was grossly negligent. 

"Those theories are two different ways to prove the same crime. Either or both of these theories, if proven, are sufficient to establish the crime of involuntary manslaughter," the instructions explain.

That there were two ways to look at the evidence and either would convict speaks volumes about the particulars of this case. 

I hope there are more cases like this if incidents like this keep happening. Parents who are gun owners should secure every weapon in their home even if they bought as a gift for a minor living in the home. 

I now circle back to the latest incident near Ingraham and I ask the same question I always do when there is a case of a minor using a gun in the commission of a crime - where did that child get the gun? 

Which now brings me to Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat and his latest column, The 'terrifying' teen hit-and-run case shows: We still need locks.

Every time they talk about getting rid of the youth jail, real life rears up and intervenes.

The day after King County Executive Dow Constantine announced the latest plan to try to go to zero youth detention — now hoped for in 2028 — Seattle police made a couple of arrests that severely tested that concept.

Two teenagers were hauled in and charged with intentionally running down pedestrians up on Aurora Avenue. Allegedly, they stole the cars and used them as deadly weapons, hitting and seriously wounding two women in the November night, while filming it all and laughing.

What’s most alarming about the incident is how it was both random and intentional. It was like hunting, except for people.

Then there are the kids’ ages, which are difficult to process. The boy was 14, the girl 13. The girl’s voice on the video is squeaky like a small child’s — as it shouts to mow down an innocent victim.

This also wasn’t just a one-time night gone haywire. When police showed the photo around of a boy too young to get a driver’s license — he has since turned 15 — a deputy sheriff in Snohomish County instantly recognized him.

It is hard to process how these kids came this far.  

What is society to do with this?

What King County is proposing is that instead of continuing to use the 4-year-old youth jail in the Central Area, called the Patricia H. Clark Children & Family Justice Center, kids in this situation would theoretically be sent for a few days to a receiving or “respite center,” before either being returned home, or put in small group homes scattered around the county.

The premise is more on helping the kids than punishing them. But an advisory committee looking at how to close the youth jail couldn’t agree on whether any of these places would even have locks.

Countered the judges of King County Superior Court: “The Superior Court is concerned that the recommendation does not take into consideration the possibility of serious and violent cases, nor public safety for the entire community.”

Defense attorneys argued for the kids to be released — that they would get more support at home instead of in jail. This is the zero youth detention premise; that getting locked up makes whatever trauma a teen is going through worse.

He also mentioned yet another case, the Aurora car teenagers:

This was the sticking point for the judge when the Aurora car teenagers appeared in court this past week. Even the father of the boy told the court it’d be best if his son was locked up for a while.

“I know where he’s headed,” the dad told the judge. “He runs amok, all over, stealing cars, carrying a gun. … I fear for his safety. He is a threat to the community without proper supervision.”

Overall juvenile jail bookings were up 51% in 2023 versus the year before. Some months 70 teens were being checked in. Youth car theft has been rampant, and prosecutors filed serious juvenile felony charges nearly 40% more than they did pre-pandemic, in 2019. (These include armed robbery, sexual assault and shootings.)

All this is unfortunately overwhelming the new jail, with staffing shortages leading to lockdowns. School classes and other social services designed to make the place more therapeutic are frequently getting canceled.

Mr. Westneat ends this column this way:

Teens using stolen cars to hunt down people is a powerful sign that something in society is fraying — that kids out there need more help, mentorship or mental health support. But it also offers a more mundane sort of corrective: We still need locks.

That kids out there need more help, mentorship or mental health support. 

He leaves out what might be happening (or not happening) at home. Parents certainly can do their best and still some kids make very bad choices. But in these cases of young juveniles, is home detention the best thing? 

What to do?