TALLAHASSEE, Florida - A recent shooting at Florida State University (FSU) has reignited discussions about parental responsibility in gun-related incidents. On Thursday, a 20-year-old FSU student, the son of a Leon County sheriff's deputy, allegedly used his mother's handgun to kill two people and wound five others on campus [1][2][3].

This tragic event comes just over a year after a landmark case in Oxford, Michigan, where parents were held criminally responsible for a mass school shooting committed by their child. James and Jennifer Crumbley were each sentenced to 10 to 15 years in prison for their role in the 2021 incident that left four students dead [1][2][3].

The Michigan case set a precedent by using a novel legal theory to bring manslaughter charges against the parents. Prosecutors accused the Crumbleys of disregarding risks when they purchased a gun for their son, despite his mental health struggles and violent tendencies [1][2][3].

Legal experts are now questioning whether similar charges could be brought against the mother of the FSU shooting suspect. The key factors in determining potential charges are likely to be "what was known and when," according to sources familiar with such cases [1].

The FSU incident has further expanded the ongoing debate about the extent of parental responsibility in mass shootings. It raises complex questions about gun ownership, storage practices, and the legal obligations of parents when their children show signs of mental distress or violent behavior.

As the investigation unfolds, authorities will be scrutinizing the circumstances surrounding the suspect's access to his mother's firearm and any potential warning signs that may have been overlooked. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for future legal approaches to gun violence prevention and parental accountability.