There is no point in even saying it in certain cases where a crime has been committed in such a way that there is no doubt. Trials are all about establishing doubt, but where is that point where there is none? It becomes a charade at some point where the defense attorneys sound like raving r****ds for even maintaining innocence by trying to create doubt. All it seems to do is confuse simple minded jurors to where a jury is hung by one biased or sympathetic person.

This teenaged school k**ler, he isn't innocent until proven guilty, he is guilty, and the only issues for a court to decide are going to be technicalities such as being tried as an adult and going for the death penalty if it's legal...

Now his parents will be going through some things, that is for a jury to decide whether they share any blame for enabling their son, who was of questionable mental stability, to use the gun they bought for him.

There is plenty of room for bias to become a factor in the matter of their guilt, it seems the right has a solid and endless supply of people that reject any form of coming down on gun responsibility..."it's not their fault their son was a psycho, it's the kid's fault"

There is no point in even saying it in certain cases where a crime has been committed in such a way that there is no doubt. Trials are all about establishing doubt, but where is that point where there is none? It becomes a charade at some point where the defense attorneys sound like raving r****ds for even maintaining innocence by trying to create doubt. All it seems to do is confuse simple minded jurors to where a jury is hung by one biased or sympathetic person.

This teenaged school k**ler, he isn't innocent until proven guilty, he is guilty, and the only issues for a court to decide are going to be technicalities such as being tried as an adult and going for the death penalty if it's legal...

Now his parents will be going through some things, that is for a jury to decide whether they share any blame for enabling their son, who was of questionable mental stability, to use the gun they bought for him.

There is plenty of room for bias to become a factor in the matter of their guilt, it seems the right has a solid and endless supply of people that reject any form of coming down on gun responsibility..."it's not their fault their son was a psycho, it's the kid's fault"

There are valid remarks in your post "their son, who was of questionable mental stability" and 'psycho'. this may mean that this person needs to be evaluated to see if he is fit to stand trial. Mental illnesses may or may not be recognized in a court of law. Expert opinion must be provided with a diagnosis of the accused’s condition. Common mental illnesses suffered by the criminally accused are bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. If proven, then he will receive treatment and reevaluation in the future to determine if they are a danger to society. Indeed, this could render the parents culpable and they serve, if convicted, the penalty for their son's action.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 et seq.,) provides that either the defense attorney or the federal prosecutor may file a motion with the court to determine the competency of the accused to stand trial.

From the statute, he cannot be tried for any crime if: “… there is reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.”