The 20-year-old gunman who reportedly opened fire on Donald Trump took the rifle from his father on the day of the assassination attempt. Thomas Matthew Crooks allegedly used the AR-15-style rifle at the gun range multiple times before the rally shooting. Crooks’ father, Matthew Crooks, owned the firearm and let his son use it occasionally. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down whether Crooks’ dad will face charges similar to the Oxford school shooter’s parents.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00I asked Corey's wife if it would be okay for me to share that we spoke.
00:06She said yes.
00:08She also asked that I share with all of you that Corey died a hero, that Corey dove on
00:16his family to protect them last night at this rally.
00:22Corey was the very best of us.
00:24May his memory be a blessing.
00:26After the horrific attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania that
00:31left one person dead and three people injured, including the former president, we ask, could
00:36the shooter's parents face any legal liability?
00:39And before we jump to any conclusion, we break this down with attorney and legal analyst
00:46Charlie Lankton.
00:47Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime, I'm Jesse Weber.
00:53As we continue to cover the latest in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, a
00:58horrifying shooting that led to multiple injuries and one death, I'm not including the shooter
01:03who was killed by the Secret Service sniper team, there is something that we have to ask.
01:09Do the shooter's parents in any way face legal liability?
01:14And I'm going to explain.
01:15So authorities have identified 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks as the shooter, the
01:19man who opened fire on that pro-Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania from an adjacent roof
01:25about 130 to 150 yards away, resulted in injuries to former President Donald Trump, two other
01:30individuals, 57-year-old David Dutch, 74-year-old James Copenhaver.
01:36And tragically, it also led to the death of 50-year-old Corey Comptor, who lost his life
01:41while trying to protect his family that day.
01:45And as the FBI leads the investigation into the shooter and the lapses in security protocol
01:50that allowed this shooting to happen, and we've covered this a lot more thoroughly on
01:53previous sidebars, I want to focus on the parents of Matthew Thomas Crooks.
01:58So we have Mary Elizabeth Crooks and we have Matthew Brian Crooks of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania,
02:04licensed professional counselors.
02:06A neighbor has described them as nice people, that this came out of nowhere, that no one
02:10expected this.
02:12Another neighbor came out and told Crooks' parents, please don't blame yourself.
02:16It was not your fault.
02:18Reporting indicates that these parents have been cooperating with law enforcement.
02:22In fact, Matthew Crooks apparently told CNN that he was trying to figure out, quote, what
02:27the hell is going on, and that he would, quote, wait until he talks to law enforcement before
02:32speaking publicly about his son.
02:34So it does become a question, though, of how much they knew about what was going on with
02:39their son.
02:40We reported that it doesn't seem, based on his cell phone and computer data, there are
02:46any outward political ideologies or religious motivations or clues that he was going to
02:51do this.
02:52In other words, there were no outward points or clues that he was wanting or planning to
02:57commit this killing, which makes it just so more eerie.
03:02And it seems Crooks was a nursing home worker, no criminal history.
03:06His employer, Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehab Center, said his background check
03:10was clean.
03:11They were shocked by what this, by what happened.
03:14Crooks was living with his parents in the suburban neighborhood in Bethel Park.
03:17It's about 50 miles away from the shooting.
03:20But here is where it gets interesting.
03:23Authorities have indicated that Crooks used an AR-15 style rifle to commit this shooting
03:29using 5.56 ammunition and that this gun and ammo was purchased legally by Crooks' father,
03:36Matthew.
03:37There's some reporting that the purchase was possibly six months ago.
03:40I've seen other reporting indicating it was further back, a few years back.
03:43But the gun was registered to his father.
03:46That's what the reporting indicates.
03:47In fact, it was one of 20 guns registered with the shooter's father.
03:51That's what's been reported as well.
03:53And apparently this was all kept in the home.
03:56Now, according to the Washington Post, this type of weapon is very popular.
04:00About one in 20 adults own this type of firearm in the United States.
04:04And it's our understanding in Pennsylvania, background checks are required for long guns
04:08that are purchased from a firearm dealer, but they're not required from a private seller.
04:12And you don't need a permit or registration in Pennsylvania.
04:16And also Pennsylvania allows young people to openly carry rifles in emergencies.
04:20And my understanding also is that in Pennsylvania, they don't require gun owners to store their
04:25weapons safely.
04:26And it's also being reported that Thomas Crooks and his father, they were members of a local
04:30shooting club called the Clareton Sportsman's Club.
04:34So with all of that in mind, are the parents legally responsible?
04:39Can they be criminally charged in any way?
04:42And why do I say that?
04:43Because Jennifer and James Crumbly, remember them?
04:45We covered that case out in Michigan, the parents of the Oxford High School shooter.
04:49They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter for their purchase of the weapon that was
04:53used in that mass shooting and for their failure to properly store the weapon and keep it out
04:58of their son's hands.
04:59The jury said in that case it was foreseeable that that could happen.
05:02Now there were some very egregious facts in that case.
05:05The idea that on the day of the shooting, they were called into the school because of
05:08alarming drawings from their son, but they didn't take him out of school.
05:12They didn't use a cable lock on the gun.
05:14They didn't tell the school about the gun, that the shooter had apparently told his family
05:18he had heard voices, that this shooter had asked his father, James, for help and to take
05:23him to the doctor.
05:24But James apparently told him to just suck it up.
05:27So you had some really, really bad facts to establish that it was foreseeable that their
05:30son would do this.
05:32But what about in this case?
05:33Are we talking about the same thing or is it different?
05:35Well, for that, I want to bring on a very special guest, Charlie Langton, attorney,
05:41legal analyst, anchor for Fox 2 Detroit and also a WWJ News radio.
05:48And I'm here with Charlie.
05:49So Charlie, by the way, what's the call sign for WWJ News?
05:52I should know this.
05:53I went to University of Michigan.
05:54Yeah, I know.
05:55That's great.
05:57It's 950.
05:58AM 950 on the dial.
05:59It's been around for over 100 years.
06:02But it was the Crumley case is an amazing case and you're a lawyer.
06:06I'm a lawyer.
06:07So I went to the Detroit College of Law, which unfortunately now affiliated years after I
06:13graduated with Michigan State.
06:15So there may be a little rivalry.
06:17That's OK.
06:18Well, we'll allow, we'll allow it.
06:20We'll allow it here.
06:21It's fine.
06:22It's all fine.
06:23No.
06:24And look, Charlie, I'm so glad to have you on.
06:25It's great to meet you.
06:27But to be clear, and I want to be very, very clear about this.
06:30There is no indication at this point that the parents are in any way responsible for
06:36what happened.
06:37I can't be more clear about that.
06:38But having said that, if the gun was purchased by the father, we do have to ask some questions.
06:42So I ask this question of potential legal liability for the parents.
06:46What are you thinking about?
06:47I'll give you the short answer is no.
06:49And I looked at the very same thing because it struck me.
06:52The first thing that struck me was that the father in the Crumley case bought the gun
06:57for Ethan Crumley, the shooter.
06:59And then the father in this case bought the gun for his son, the Trump shooter.
07:03But there's a big difference here.
07:05Ethan Crumley, the shooter at the Oxford High School, was 15 years old.
07:09This guy was 20 years old.
07:12And under Michigan law, and the only way that the prosecutor brought this case was because
07:17that the parents have a legal duty to take care of their minor son.
07:23And if they breach that duty in a reckless way, then a jury could find involuntary manslaughter.
07:29And there were a number of jury instructions on that, and a number of instructions to the
07:33jury in both the James and Jennifer Crumley trial about the duty on a parent to protect
07:41the child.
07:42And as you said just a minute ago, if you don't store your guns the right way, and if
07:47you are reckless in giving a 15-year-old a gun, et cetera, and not taking the kid out
07:52of school when you knew or should have known that the child had some mental illness and
07:57could have posed a danger, you breach the duty as a parent.
08:01That's Crumley.
08:02But that's not the case here.
08:04He was 20 years old, an adult, who under, as I understand Pennsylvania law, I don't
08:09practice there, but it's similar to Michigan, is that there's no duty on the part of a parent
08:16to take care of an otherwise healthy 20-year-old.
08:46The reason I ask you if it's different is because apparently he was living with them.
09:11And so let's just think about that for one second.
09:13I'm going to read you what the involuntary manslaughter is for Pennsylvania.
09:18And it says, a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the
09:22doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, or the doing of
09:28a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner, he causes the death of another person.
09:33In my understanding, it's a very serious crime in Pennsylvania because it can carry up to
09:37five years in prison, although it is labeled as a misdemeanor, which I thought was interesting.
09:41But anyway, so when you look at that language, you don't believe, even though he was living
09:47with them, right, that the parents have any kind of responsibility for storing the gun
09:53or for what happens with that gun, right?
09:55No, because there's a superseding cause here is that the kid, the 20-year-old is an adult.
10:00The 20-year-old took the gun and shot at Trump and killed other people.
10:07So again, you still need a causation element.
10:10That may be the definition.
10:12And let's assume for the moment that the father was grossly negligent, although I don't know
10:17how having 20 legal guns purchased legally, presumably stored legally, although I don't
10:23know that, but assuming all that was, I don't even know how you're going to get over the
10:27first prong of recklessness or certainly gross negligence.
10:32But even if you do get somehow, a jury would say that's all grossly negligent, the cause
10:39of the deaths and the injuries would be this adult.
10:46And there's no legal duty imposed, unlike Crumbly.
10:50See Crumbly, you've got to go the extra way.
10:52When you've got a minor, the parents have a duty.
10:56And if you breach that duty, then yes, you cause the injury.
10:58It is foreseeable, as you just said, that a minor might get a hold of an illegally stored
11:04gun, especially a minor with some mental illness, and then go out and kill someone.
11:09This is not the case here.
11:10And I don't read that into the jury instruction that you've got in Pennsylvania.
11:14So I don't even think they can bring a charge in this case.
11:17Let me ask you an interesting legal question when it comes to the idea of responsibility
11:21and duty and foreseeability.
11:23You know, in the Crumbly case, you was very clear, at least to me and clear to the jury,
11:29that it was foreseeable that not only he could gain access to the gun, but he would commit
11:33a school shooting in that neighborhood.
11:36Isn't there something for the legal analysis to say this happened 50 miles away?
11:41So when you talk about the location of the crime, doesn't that ever come into a factor
11:45that this wasn't somebody who took out a weapon and used it at a school, but the allegation
11:51was that he took the weapon and then traveled 50 miles to a political rally, an open fire
11:57on the former president of the United States.
12:00Would you say that matters in the foreseeability analysis?
12:05Yeah, but it helps.
12:07It helps.
12:08It helps.
12:09The parents are going to be my defense.
12:10Sure.
12:11Yeah, no, absolutely.
12:12How's the parents going to know what he goes to be better if he shot in the neighborhood?
12:16Perhaps, perhaps.
12:17But yeah, the fact that he went 50 miles, how can you possibly foresee that he's going
12:23to travel 50 miles to find a Trump rally?
12:27I guess my question is, does it matter in general if somebody let's say, for example,
12:31he was 15 years old.
12:33Let's say he was 13 years old.
12:34I don't know.
12:35Let's 15 years old.
12:36And he takes the weapon and he uses it to commit a crime in another state, or he uses
12:39it to commit a crime 50 miles away in a further part of the state.
12:42Does that temporally, does that matter in the analysis or will a court or a prosecutor
12:47say, hey, listen, it was foreseeable he could have used this gun for violence.
12:51That's the end of the discussion.
12:52No, I think that's a good point.
12:53And I would argue if I was representing the minor shooter that, yes, it would not be foreseeable
12:59that he would take the gun.
13:01It's a very good point.
13:02Yes.
13:03In the Crumbly case, we had the additional argument that there was a piece of paper that
13:08was shown to the Crumbly parents, it was an hour before the shooting, where he drew pictures
13:15of, I'm going to kill people, blood everywhere, and the parents said, ah, send him back to
13:19school.
13:20Well, that did not happen as I understand the facts in this case, in the Trump shooting.
13:26So I think there are a very significant difference.
13:28But your principal is right.
13:29You still have to have, let's change the facts, let's change the facts even a little bit more.
13:35I know that Pennsylvania, as I read anyway, does not have a red flag law.
13:39So we have red flag laws, which are basically extreme risk protection orders, meaning that
13:44if, and again, I want to emphasize if, because I don't know the facts well enough of this
13:49Mr. Crook's case, the 20-year-old shooter, but if he had mental illness, if, and he lived
13:55with his parents, and then they had, parents had 20 guns, ammunition, maybe even explosives
14:03in the house.
14:04And the father and mother presumably knew that the shooter had mental illness.
14:10Does that pose a duty on the parents to red flag, call the police and say, you know what?
14:16We have an arsenal here, and I have a son who is not mentally uptight, who is mentally
14:23ill, remove the guns.
14:25So that does, after the Crumbly, the Oxford shooting, our legislature did pass a red flag
14:32law.
14:33Sure.
14:34Didn't apply in the Crumbly case, but it could apply now in Pennsylvania.
14:36I will bet you that the legislature in Pennsylvania will look to tighten up at least the red flag
14:42laws.
14:43And again, I don't know if it's a person had mental illness, but.
14:46But let's do the extremes here.
14:47Putting the red flag law aside, one of the things that strikes me in this case is reporting
14:52that authorities had found explosive materials in the shooter's car that he had a detonator
14:57on him.
14:59If there were bomb making materials that were found in the home and he was living with his
15:02parents and you do a work, let's say, let's do a hypothetical here.
15:06This is still early, but again, there's no evidence to suggest this.
15:10But if they did have knowledge that he was building explosives, if they did have knowledge
15:14that he could gain access to the gun, if they even knew what he was planning to do but didn't
15:19do anything, could then this be a different kind of case?
15:23Yes, I think it could be a different case.
15:26And the facts that we're changing because we're speculating now, if the dad or mother
15:30knew that this guy was building up bombs or acquiring weapons and acquiring ammunition,
15:38and maybe I need a little more facts here, but maybe he suggested he didn't like Trump.
15:44He didn't like politicians or something like that.
15:47I could see a better case being made for the prosecution of the government in this
15:52case, better, because then there is a link.
15:57There's that connection between the illegal activity.
16:00I'm assuming making bombs is illegal in Pennsylvania.
16:04And if the father knew that his son, I don't care what age at this point in time, were
16:08making bombs and maybe the father bought some bombs, maybe some of these guns or ammunition
16:12are used in the bomb making process.
16:14I don't know.
16:15But even if it was, now there's a better connection between the parents and the alleged illegal
16:21activity and then the connection with ultimately the shooting in the Trump situation.
16:26That's a better case.
16:27Let's say a great case.
16:28Sure.
16:29Certainly a better case.
16:30And again, we're not saying that's the facts.
16:31We're not saying that.
16:32We're just speculating here about what might, again, we're playing different scenarios here.
16:37And by the way, I will also say, you know, it's come out a lot that Mr. Crooks was a
16:41loner, that he was made fun of in high school.
16:44He didn't make the rifle team because he wasn't a good shot.
16:47He was shy.
16:49On itself, all kids have issues.
16:53And you can't hold a parent responsible because their child is going through a hardship.
16:58You can't say, oh, well, you know, he was bullied, then you should have known he was
17:03going to do that.
17:04Right.
17:05The Crumbly case was more of an extreme example.
17:06But I think it's important to make that distinction as well, despite what he might have been going
17:10through and even having a tough time.
17:12And if he's bullied, if he does commit an act of violence or a child commits or she
17:16commits an act of violence, that doesn't necessarily mean the parents are responsible.
17:20True.
17:21Interestingly, you mentioned that, though, Jesse, I actually found a lot of similarities
17:26in the person and the personality between the Oxford shooter and the Trump shooter.
17:32They were both quiet.
17:34They were both above average in intellect.
17:37They were both loners.
17:38They didn't have many friends.
17:40They both lived with parents.
17:42They both grew up in a fairly well to do middle America city.
17:48So there are similarities in the makeup here.
17:52Doesn't mean they're criminal, but it does.
17:55Well, actually, it could be criminals, but it doesn't mean that there's going to be a
17:59connection to the parents.
18:00But I do see a lot of similarities.
18:02And even the dads bought the guns in both cases as well.
18:05And look, I think it's worth looking at.
18:07I will also say in a lot of mass shootings, that profile seems to be somewhat consistent.
18:14I'm not generalizing across the board, but we do see that.
18:18Let me ask you outside of the criminal context, from a civil context, do the parents have
18:22to be concerned about anything at this point?
18:25Well, you know, civil is a different standard, as you know.
18:29I highly doubt that any insurance company, if they're going to try to get homeowners
18:32coverage, is going to cover the act of their murderous criminal son.
18:38So as a practical matter, I would say there's not going to be any kind of insurance coverage
18:43here.
18:44So if the families want to sue the shooter's parents, I mean, I guess there may be some
18:51academic exercise here.
18:54Generally speaking, and I did a lot of civil work for many years before I did anything
18:57on television or radio, is that we do look for insurance, unfortunately.
19:01And if the people, and I don't know how well to do these parents are, I haven't looked
19:04at them.
19:05I would say they're, you know, they're modest of means here.
19:08So probably not.
19:09Although technically, if we can prove that the parents were negligent, just negligent,
19:14and what is negligence in this case?
19:17Could it be that there were many, many shooters?
19:19Could there be warning signs?
19:20Again, we don't know.
19:21I understand that the authorities, FBI, looking at the shooter's phone records, maybe there's
19:26a connection between dad and the shooter.
19:29I don't know that, assuming there would be.
19:33Dad may have known, maybe.
19:35That might be negligence.
19:37Again, we still have to go through the causation elements.
19:40One of them, as you mentioned, shooting took place 50 miles from the house.
19:44It's still not probably foreseeable.
19:45So bottom line here, even on a civil case, I don't think legally it's good, and practically
19:51it's even worse.
19:52Yeah.
19:53And look, we're still in the early stages, but every piece of evidence that's come out
19:57so far, and every indication, even from people who knew the family, said this is all a shock,
20:01came out of nowhere.
20:03No one expected this, and even one neighbor said to the parents, do not blame yourself
20:08for what happened.
20:09The parents fully cooperating.
20:10So again, no indication that the parents are in any way responsible for what happened here.
20:16But I thought it was important to discuss, because I know people are wondering about
20:20it and wondering about how we got access.
20:22But listen, Charlie Langton, you can check him out.
20:25Fox 2 Detroit, WWJ 950.
20:28Great legal analyst, great attorney, and what a great voice.
20:32I can hear you on the radio already.
20:33My gosh, it's fantastic.
20:34But thanks so much for coming on, Charlie.
20:35I appreciate it.
20:36Thank you, Jesse.
20:37I appreciate it.
20:38All the best.
20:40And that was a great conversation with Charlie.
20:42But right after we recorded, something came out that I need to address.
20:46According to Fox News, Crook's parents were looking for him before the shooting.
20:53Yeah, they apparently called police, were reportedly concerned about him.
20:58We don't know the details.
20:59We don't know the context of what they were worried about, whether it had anything to
21:03do with the shooting.
21:04And by the way, I should tell you, if they did discover something on that day about him
21:10potentially going to be killing the former president of the United States or doing something
21:13in Butler, Pennsylvania, if they discovered it at that time, at that moment, and immediately
21:19called police, that is very different from a legal point of view than if they had advanced
21:24knowledge of what was going on with him, as I discussed with Charlie.
21:27And look, it is being reported also that authorities, they searched the home.
21:32They found a bulletproof vest, possible explosive materials, a 3D printer that he apparently
21:37had been receiving multiple packages over the last few months, possibly containing hazardous
21:43materials.
21:44So this, again, goes to the question of the parents' knowledge.
21:49What was maybe kept secret from them?
21:51What should they have known?
21:52How much were they asking questions?
21:54How much was this foreseeable?
21:56And it's our understanding that the parents are cooperating with law enforcement.
22:01So we shall see what happens.
22:03But again, had to mention this development.
22:06And if true, they might have had knowledge about something.
22:09But it does become a question of what that was and when they found out.
22:14That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.
22:16Everybody, thank you so much for joining us.
22:18And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts.
22:22I'm Jesse Weber.
22:23Speak to you next time.