Law&Crime Sidebar - Dad of Donald Trump's Shooter in Spotlight as AR-15 Traced Back to Him

Episode Date: July 17, 2024

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.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. I asked Corey's wife that it would be okay for me to share that we spoke. She said yes. She also asked that I share with all of you that Corey died. a hero, that Corey dove on his family to protect them last night at this rally. Corey was the very best of us. May his memory be a blessing.

After the horrific attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania that left one person dead and three people injured, including the former president, we ask, could the shooter's parents face any legal liability? And before we jump to any conclusion, Any conclusion, we break this down with attorney and legal analyst Charlie Lankton. Welcome to Sidebar.

Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. As we continue to cover the latest in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, a horrifying shooting that led to multiple injuries and one death, I'm not including the shooter who was killed by the Secret Service sniper team, there is something that we have to ask. Do the shooter's parents in any way face legal liability? And I'm going to explain. So authorities have identified 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks as the shooter,

the man who opened fire on that pro-Trump rally in Butler, Pennsylvania from an adjacent roof about 130 to 150 yards away, resulted in injuries to former President Donald Trump, two other individuals, 57-year-old David Dutch, 74-year-old James Copenhaver, and tragically, it also led to the death of 50-year-old Corey Compertor, who lost his life while trying to protect his family that day. And as the FBI leads the investigation into the shooter and the lapses in security protocol that allowed this shooting to happen, and we've covered this a lot more thoroughly on previous sidebars, I want to focus on the parents of Matthew Thomas Crooks. So we have Mary Elizabeth Crooks, and we have Matthew Bryan Crooks of Bethel

Park, Pennsylvania, licensed professional counselors. A neighbor has described. them as nice people, that this came out of nowhere, that no one expected this. Another neighbor came out and told Crook's parents, please don't blame yourself, it was not your fault. Reporting indicates that these parents have been cooperating with law enforcement. In fact, Matthew Crooks apparently told CNN that he was trying to figure out, quote, what the hell is going on, and that he would, quote, wait until he talks to law enforcement before speaking publicly about his son. So it does become a question, though, of how much they knew about what was going on with their son, although we reported that it doesn't seem,

based on his cell phone and computer data, there are any outward political ideologies or religious motivations or clues that he was going to do this. In other words, there were no outward points or clues that he was wanting or planning to commit this killing, which makes it just so more eerie. And it seems Crooks was a nursing home worker, no criminal history, his employer, Bethel Park, skilled nursing and rehab center, said his background check was clean. They were shocked by what happened. Crooks was living with his parents in the suburban neighborhood in Bethel Park. It's about 50 miles away from the shooting.

But here is where it gets interesting. Authorities have indicated that Crooks used an AR-15-style rifle to commit this shooting using 5.56 ammunition and that this gun and ammo was purchased legally by Crook's father Matthew. And I've seen some reporting that the purchase was possibly six months ago. I've seen other reporting indicating it was further back, a few years back. But the gun was registered to his father. That's what the reporting indicates. In fact, it was one of 20 guns registered with the shooter's father. That's what's been reported as well. And apparently, this was all kept in the home. Now, according to the Washington Post,

this type of weapon is very popular. About 1 in 20 adults own this type of firearm in the United States. And it's our understanding in Pennsylvania, background checks are required for long guns that are purchased from a firearm dealer, but they're not required from a private seller. And you don't need a permit or registration in Pennsylvania. And also Pennsylvania allows young people to openly carry rifles in emergencies. And my understanding also is that in Pennsylvania, they don't require gun owners to store their weapons safely. And it's also being reported that Thomas Crooks and his father, they were members of a local shooting club called the Clarton Sportsman's club. So with all of that in mind, are the parents legally responsible? Can they be criminally

charged in any way? And why do I say that? Because Jennifer and James Crumbly, remember then? We covered that case out in Michigan, the parents of the Oxford High School shooter. They were convicted of involuntary manslaughter for their purchase of the weapon that was used in that mass shooting and for their failure to properly store the weapon and keep it out of their son's hands. The jury said in that case, it was foreseeable that that could happen. Now, there was some very egregious facts in that case, the idea that on the day of the shooting, they were called into the school because of alarming drawings from their son, but they didn't take him out of school. They didn't use a cable lock on the gun.

They didn't tell the school about the gun that the shooter had apparently told his family he had heard voices, that this shooter had asked his father, James, for help and to take him to the doctor, but James apparently told him to just suck it up. So you had some really, really bad facts to establish that it was foreseeable that their son would do this. But what about in this case? Are we talking about the same thing or is it different? Well, for that, I want to bring on a very special guest, Charlie Langton, attorney, legal analyst, anchor for Fox 2, Detroit, and also WWJ News radio.

And I'm here with Charlie. So, by the way, what's the call sign for WWJ News? I should know this. I went to University of Michigan. Yeah, I know. That's great. It's 950, AM 950 on the dial. It's been around for over 100 years.

But it was, the crumbly case is an amazing case. And you're a lawyer. I'm a lawyer. So I went to the Detroit College of Law, which unfortunately now affiliated years after I graduated with Michigan State. So there may be a little rivalry. That's okay. We'll allow it.

We'll allow it here. It's fine. It's all fine. No, and look, Charlie, I'm so glad to have you on. First of all, it's great to meet you. But to be clear, and I want to be very, very clear about this, there is no indication. at this point that the parents are in any way responsible for what happened. I can't be more clear about that.

But having said that, if the gun was purchased by the father, we do have to ask some questions. So I ask this question of potential legal liability for the parents, what are you thinking about? I'll give you the short answer is no. And I looked at the very same thing because it struck me. The first thing that struck me was that the father in the Crumley case bought the gun for Ethan Crumley, the shooter. And then the father in this case bought the gun for. or his son, the Trump shooter. But there's a big difference here.

Ethan Crumley, the shooter at the Oxford High School, was 15 years old. This guy was 20 years old. And under Michigan law, and the only way that the prosecutor brought this case was because the parents have a legal duty to take care of their minor son. And if they breached that duty in a reckless way,

that a jury could find involuntary manslaughter. And there were a number of jury instructions on that. And a number of instructions to the jury in both the James and Jennifer Crumley trial about the duty on a parent to protect the child. And as you said, just a minute ago, if you don't store your guns the right way, and if you are reckless and giving a 15-year-old a gun, et cetera, and not taking the kid out of school when you knew or should have known that the child had some mental illness and could have posed a danger, you breach the duty as a parent. that's crumbling. But that's not the case here. He was 20 years old. An adult who under, as I understand Pennsylvania law, I don't practice there, but it's similar to Michigan, is that there's no duty on the on the part of a parent to take care of an otherwise healthy 20 year old. Hey guys, I want to thank you for coming to us as we break down this Trump shooting coverage.

And look, one of the reasons we're able to bring you episodes like this is because of the support we get from our incredible sponsors. And I want to call one out. Morgan and Morgan, America's largest injury law firm. Love talking about them because if you should find yourself in that position where you're hurt and you need legal representation, Morgan and Morgan may be who you want in your corner because they're specialists in this area. They have secured verdicts and settlements and the multi-millions across this country. They also make it so easy for their clients because from starting your claim to uploading documents, talking to your legal team, it can all be done from your smartphone. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at 4,000.

the people.com slash lc sidebar. The reason I ask you if it's different is because he apparently he was living with them. And I just will, and so let's just think about that for one second. I'm going to read you what the involuntary manslaughter is for Pennsylvania. And it says a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of the doing of an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner or the doing of a lawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner. He causes the death of another person. In my understanding, it's a very serious crime in Pennsylvania because it can carry up to five years in prison,

although it is labeled as a misdemeanor, which I thought was interesting. But anyway, so when you look at that language, you don't believe, even though he was living with them, right, that the parents have any kind of responsibility for storing the gun or for what happens with that gun, right? No, because there's a superseding cause here is that the kid, the kid, the 20-year-old, as an adult, the 20-year-old took the gun and shot at Trump and killed other people. So, again, you still need a causation element. That may be the definition. And let's assume for the moment that the father was grossly negligent, although I don't know how having 20 legal guns purchased legally, presumably stored legally, although I don't know that.

But assuming all that was, I don't even know how you're going to get over the first prong of recklessness or certainly gross negligence. But even if you do get somehow, a jury would say that's all grossly negligent, the cause of the deaths and the injuries would be, would be this adult. And there's no legal duty imposed, unlike crumbly. See, crumbly, you've got to go the extra way. When you've got a minor, the parents have a duty. And if you breach that duty, then yes, you cause the injury. It is foreseeable, as you just said, that a minor might get a hold of an illegally stored gun, especially a minor with some mental illness, and then go out and kill someone.

This is not the case here. And I don't read that into the jury instruction that you've got in Pennsylvania. So I don't even think they can bring a charge in this case. Let me ask you an interesting legal question when it comes to the idea of responsibility and duty and foreseeability. You know, in the Crumbly case, you was very clear, at least to me and clear to the jury, that it was foreseeable that not only he could gain access to the gun, but he would commit a school shooting in that neighborhood. Isn't there something for the legal analysis to say this happened 50 miles away? So when you talk about the location of the crime, does that ever come into

a factor that this wasn't somebody who took out a weapon and used it at a school? But the allegation was, is that he took the weapon and then traveled 50 miles to a political rally and open fire on the former president of United States. Would you say that matters in the foreseeability analysis? Yeah, but it helps the, it helps the parents. I mean, my defense. Sure. Yeah, no, absolutely. How's the parents going to know he goes, it'd be better if he shot in the neighborhood, perhaps, perhaps. But yeah, the fact that he went 50 miles, how can you buy him? possibly foresee that he's going to travel 50 miles to find a Trump rally. Well, I guess my question is, does it matter in general?

Let's say, for example, he was 15 years old. Let's say he was 13 years old. I don't know, 15 years old. And he takes the weapon and he uses it to commit a crime in another state or he uses it to commit a crime 50 miles away in a further part of the state. Does that temporally, does that matter in the analysis? Or will a court or a prosecutor say, listen, it was foreseeable he could have used this gun for violence, that's the end of the discussion.

No, I think that's a good point. And I would argue if I was representing the minor shooter, that yes, it would not be foreseeable that he would take the gun. It's a very good point. Yes, in the Crumbly case, we had the additional argument that there was a piece of paper that was shown to the crumbly parents. It was an hour before the shooting where he drew pictures of, I'm going to kill people, blood everywhere.

And the parents said, ah, send him back to school. Well, that did not happen, as I understand the facts in this, in this case, in the Trump shooting. So I think there are a very significant difference. But your principal is right. You still have to have, it still have to have a proceed. But let's change the fact. Let's change the vaccine a little bit more. I know that Pennsylvania, as I read anyway, does not have a red flag law.

Right. So we have red flag laws, which are basically extreme risk protection orders, meaning that if, and again, I want to emphasize if, because I don't know the facts well enough of this, Mr. Crook's case, the 20-year-old shooter. But if he had mental illness, if, and he lived with his parents, and then they had, parents had 20 guns, ammunition, maybe even explosives in the house, and the father and mother presumably knew that the shooter had mental illness, does that pose a duty on the parents to red flag, call the police, and say, you know what? we have an arsenal here and I have a son who is not mentally uptire, it was mentally ill,

remove the guns. So that does, after the Crumley, the Oxford shooting, our legislature did pass a red flag law. Sure. But it could apply in the Crumbly case, but it could apply now in Pennsylvania. I will bet you that the legislature in Pennsylvania will look to tighten up at least the red flag laws. So I don't know if it's a mental illness. But let's do the extremes here. Putting the red flag law aside, one of the things that strikes me in this case is reporting

that authorities had found explosive materials in the shooter's car that he had a detonator on him. If there were bomb making materials that were found in the home and he was living with his parents and you do a work, let's say let's do a hypothetical here. This is still early. But again, there's no evidence to suggest this. But if they did have knowledge that he was building explosives, if they did have knowledge that he could gain access to the gun. If they even knew what he was planning to do but didn't do anything,

could then this be a different kind of case? Yes, I think it could be a different case. And the facts that were changing, because we're speculating now, if the dad or mother knew that this guy was building up bombs or acquiring weapons and acquiring ammunition, and maybe, I need a little more facts here, but maybe he suggested he didn't like Trump. He didn't like politicians or something like that. I could see a better case being made for the prosecution of the government in this case, better, because then there is a link. There's that connection between the illegal activity. I'm assuming making bombs is illegal in Pennsylvania. And if the father knew that his son, I don't care what age at this point in time, we're making

bombs, and maybe the father bought some of these guns or ammunition are used in the bomb-making process. I don't know. But even if it was, now there's a better connection between the parents and the alleged illegal activity and then the connection with ultimately the shooting in the Trump situation. That's a better case. I'm saying a great case. Sure. And again, we're not saying that's the fact that we're just speculating here about what might again, we're playing different scenarios here. And by the way, I will also say, you know, it's come out a lot that Mr. Crooks was a loner that he was made fun of in high school. He didn't make the rifle team because he wasn't a good shot. He was shy. On it itself, all kids have issues. And you can't hold a parent responsible

because their child is going through a hardship. You can't say, oh, well, you know, he was bullied. Then you should have known he was going to do that, right? The crumbly case was more of an extreme example. But I think it's important to make that distinction as well, despite what he might have been going through and even having a tough time and if he's bullied, if he does commit an act of violence or a child commits or she commits an act of violence, that doesn't necessarily mean the parents are responsible. True. Interestingly, you mentioned that, though, Jesse, I actually found a lot of similarities in the person and the personality between the Oxford shooter and the Trump shooter. They were both quiet. They were both above average and intellect. They were both loners. They didn't have many

friends. They both live with a parents. They both grew up in a fairly well-to-do middle America city. So there are similarities in the makeup here. Doesn't mean they're criminal. But it does, well, actually, it may it could be criminals. But it doesn't mean that there's going to be a connection to the parents. But I do see a lot of similarities. And even the dads bought the guns in both cases as well. And look, I think it's worth looking at. I will also say, in a lot of mass shootings, that profile seems to be somewhat consistent. I'm not generalizing across the board, but we do see that. Let me ask you outside of the criminal context, from a civil context, do the parents have to be concerned about anything at this point?

Well, you know, civil is a different standard, as you know, I highly doubt that any insurance company, if they're going to try to get homeowners coverage, is going to cover the act of their of their murderous criminal son. So as a practical, matter, I would say there's not going to be any kind of insurance coverage here. So if the families want to sue the shooter's parents, I mean, I guess there may be some academic exercise here, generally speaking, and I did a lot of civil work for many years before I did anything on television or radio, is that we do look for insurance, unfortunately. And if the people, and I don't know how well to do these parents are, I haven't looked at them.

I would say they're modest means here. So probably not, although technically, if we can prove that the parents were negligent, just negligent. And what is negligence in this case? Could it be that there were many, many shooters? Could there be warning signs? Again, we don't know. I understand that the authorities, FBI, looking at the shooter's phone records, maybe there's a connection between dad and the shooter. I don't know that.

Assuming there would be, dad may have known, maybe that might be negligence. again, we still have to go through the causation elements. One of them, as you mentioned, shooting took place 50 miles from the house. It's still not probably foreseeable. So bottom line here, even on a civil case, I don't think legally it's good and practically it's even worse. Yeah, and look, we're still in the early stages, but every piece of evidence that's come out so far and every indication, even from people who knew the family said this is all a shock

came out of nowhere. No one expected this. And even one neighbor said to the parents, do not blame yourself. for what happened. The parents fully cooperating. So again, no indication that the parents are in any way responsible for what happened here. But I thought it was important to discuss because I know people are wondering about it and wondering about how we got access. But listen, Charlie Langton, you can check them out. Fox 2, Detroit, WWJ 950, great legal analyst, great attorney. And what a great voice. I can hear you on the radio already. My gosh, it's

fantastic. But thanks so much for coming on, Charlie. Appreciate it. you, Jesse, I appreciate it. All the best. Thank you. And that was a great conversation with Charlie, but right after we recorded, something came out that I need to address. According to Fox News, Crook's parents were looking for him before the shooting. Yeah, they apparently called police, were reportedly concerned about him. We don't know the details. We don't know the context of what they were worried about, whether it had anything to do with the shooting. And by the way, I should tell you, if they did discover something on that day about him potentially going to be killing the former

president of United States or doing something in Butler, Pennsylvania. If they discovered it at that time, at that moment, and immediately called police, that is very different from a legal point of view than if they had advanced knowledge of what was going on with him. As I discussed with Charlie, and look, it is being reported also that authorities, they searched the home, they found a bulletproof vest, possible explosive materials, a 3D printer that apparently had been receiving multiple packages over the last few months, possibly containing hazardous materials. So this again goes to the question of the parents' knowledge. What was

maybe kept secret from them? What should they have known? How much were they asking questions? How much was this foreseeable? And it's our understanding that the parents are cooperating with law enforcement. So we shall see what happens. But again, had to mention this development. And if true, they might have had knowledge about something, but it does become a question of what that was and when they found out. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. of this long crime series, ad-free right now on Wondery Plus.

Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.