In a landmark case, his mother Jennifer Crumbley, 45, was found guilty of four counts of manslaughter - one for each victim - in February this year.
After prosecutors argued Ethan's father also bore responsibility because he and his wife gave their son the gun and ignored signs of violence, James Crumbley, 47, was convicted on Thursday.
The Crumbleys were the first parents to be charged with manslaughter in a child's school shooting in a country where such incidents are relatively common.
Gun safety experts hope the Crumbley trials serve as a wake-up call for parents to secure weapons in their homes, with 75% of school shooters getting guns from home, according to government research.
"This is a very egregious and rare, rare set of facts," prosecutor Karen McDonald told the jury on Wednesday.
Image:Jennifer and James Crumbley in court. Pic: AP
Ms McDonald said James Crumbley repeatedly ignored warning signs his son was deeply disturbed, did not get him help, and did not do enough to safely store the firearm in the family home.
"He did nothing over and over and over again," she added.
Advertisement
Ms McDonald also presented texts Ethan sent to a friend and journal entries in the months before the shooting, in which he talked about wanting medical help and hearing voices, but he was worried his parent would be "pissed".
On one occasion, according to a text message to a friend, Ms McDonald said Ethan had asked James Crumbley to take him to the doctor, but his dad "gave me some pills and told me to suck it up".
Image:Jennifer Crumbley. Pic: Detroit News via AP
Defence lawyer Mariell Lehman argued James Crumbley could not have possibly foreseen his son would carry out a mass shooting.
"James had no idea that his son was having a hard time," Ms Lehman told jurors, saying no evidence had been presented that James knew the contents of his son's text messages or journal.
'The thoughts won't stop - help me'
According to prosecutors, James Crumbley bought the gun used in the attack four days before the shootings.
Image:Ethan Crumbley. Pic Reuters
On the morning of the shootings, on 30 November, a teacher found drawings by Ethan showing a handgun, a bullet and a bleeding figure next to the words "blood everywhere", "my life is useless", and "the thoughts won't stop - help me".
Summoned to the school that same morning, the Crumbleys were told Ethan needed counselling and they needed to take him home, according to prosecutors.
But the couple wouldn't take their son, prosecutors said, and did not search his rucksack or ask him about the gun.
Both of the Crumbleys challenged that account in their trials, saying teachers in the meeting mutually agreed Ethan could remain in school that day and at no point did they think he posed a danger.
Ethan was returned to class and later walked out of a bathroom with the gun and began firing, according to prosecutors, killing 14-year-old Hana St Juliana, 16-year-old Tate Myre, 17-year-old Madisyn Baldwin, and 17-year-old Justin Shilling and injuring seven other people.
Jennifer Crumbley is set to be sentenced on 9 April.
Gaza’s health ministry says at least 20 people were killed and 155 wounded by Israeli shelling as they waited for aid on Thursday, as desperate Palestinians increasingly face deadly violence in their search for food.
Israel’s military has denied being behind the attack and said it was assessing the incident.
The death toll is expected to rise as casualties are still being transferred to the hospital, according to Mohammad Ghrab, a doctor at the emergency unit at Al Shifa Hospital. Earlier, a witness on the scene said dozens of people had died.
Graphic footage from the immediate aftermath of the scene filed by an eyewitness showed multiple bodies with traumatic injuries as well as pools of blood on a street strewn with rubble and dust.
The health ministry said the incident was “a result of the Israeli occupation forces targeting a gathering of citizens waiting for humanitarian aid to satisfy their thirst at the Kuwaiti roundabout in Gaza.”
“Medical teams are unable to deal with the volume and type of injuries reaching hospitals in northern Gaza due to weak medical and human capabilities,” the ministry said.
The attack took place amid a backdrop of extreme hunger and poverty in the besieged enclave due to Israel’s severe restrictions on aid entering Gaza, where more than a half a million people are on the brink of famine, according to UN agencies.
The Kuwaiti Roundabout in Gaza City has become known as an area where aid trucks distribute food, attracting crowds of people desperate for supplies.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) denied it was responsible for the attack, in a short statement to CNN on Friday.
“The reports that the IDF attacked dozens of Gazans at an aid distribution point are false,” the statement said.
The Israeli military said it was assessing “the incident with the thoroughness that it deserves.”
Eyewitnesses said the area was struck by what they said sounded like tank or artillery fire.
Gaza Civil Defense Spokesman Mahmoud Basal accused Israel of being behind the attack in a statement late Thursday.
“The Israeli occupation forces are still practicing the policy of killing innocent citizens waiting for relief aid as a result of the famine occurring in the northern Gaza Strip,” Basal said in a statement.
Israel has for months limited the flow of aid into Gaza, however, some trucks have been allowed into the northern part of the strip where hunger is most acute. Amid a collapse of public authority in Gaza, the arrival of aid trucks has sparked chaos and disorder that often leaves thousands at risk of harm during the distribution.
Video Ad Feedback
'We have nothing': Children face starvation in Gaza as supplies run out
The incident at the Kuwaiti Roundabout followed earlier violence at the same site on Wednesday, where large crowds were waiting for a food distribution.
At least seven people were killed and 86 others injured after Israeli troops opened fire, according to health official and eyewitness.
Fathi Obaid, a doctor at Al Shifa’s emergency department said that many of the people who were transferred to Al Shifa after the incident suffered bullet wounds and the hospital was struggling to treat all the patients because of a shortage in medicine and medical equipment.
Nimr Abu Atta, a patient at Al Shifa who was shot in the abdomen, said he had been hit with “gunfire from an Israeli tank.”
Abu Atta said he went to the Kuwait Roundabout to pick up some flour for his children when he was hit. “My wife was killed two months ago in the war, and I am caring for my seven children,” he said.
The IDF has not yet responded to a CNN query about the earlier incident. Israeli soldiers are routinely stationed near the landmark.
Several deadly attacks by Israeli soldiers on crowds of civilians lining up for aid have been reported in recent weeks.
The Gaza-based Government Media Office said Tuesday at least 400 people have been killed in several similar incident since the beginning of the war.
“The targeting of those who are searching for aid to help satisfy their children’s hunger has intensified, especially in northern Gaza,” head of the media office, Salameh Maarouf said in a statement.
CNN cannot independently confirm the Gaza government’s numbers due to the lack of international media access to the strip.
The United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance (OCHA) said Monday it had documented 14 such incidents at two entrances of Gaza City between mid-January and the end of February, and at least 11 additional incidents between 1 and 8 March, during which at least 28 Palestinians were reported killed.
Last month, more than 100 people were killed in one of the worst single tragedies to occur during Israel’s war with Hamas. Israeli troops opened fire near civilians gathering around food aid trucks in northern Gaza, and many of the victims were fatally run over by trucks in the ensuing panic, in what has become known locally as the “Flour Massacre.”
Extreme hunger
More than 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, and the remaining population has been forced from their homes as Israel’s war against Hamas stretches into a sixth month.
The latest conflict in Gaza was triggered by attacks on southern Israel by Hamas gunmen in which more than 1,200 people, mostly civilians, were killed and more than 200 people taken hostage.
Gaza’s entire population of roughly 2.2 million people are facing “crisis or worse levels of acute food insecurity,” according to the World Food Programme, which recently warned child malnutrition in the enclave is “higher than anywhere in the world.”
Food shortages are reportedly the worst in northern Gaza, where Israel concentrated its military offensive in the early days of the war. Child malnutrition in the region is about three times higher than in southern Gaza, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Displaced Palestinians told CNN they are struggling to feed their children. Starving mothers are unable to produce enough milk to breastfeed their babies, doctors say. And parents arrive at overwhelmed health facilities begging for infant formula.
Israel insists there is “no limit” on the amount of aid that can enter Gaza, but its inspection regime on aid trucks has meant that only a tiny fraction of the amount of food and other supplies that used to enter Gaza daily before the war is getting in now.
Jamie McGoldrick, a UN humanitarian coordinator who returned from a two-day trip to Gaza, warned Wednesday that hunger there has reached “catastrophic levels.” Adele Khodr, regional director of the UNICEF office in the Middle East and North Africa, said “people are hungry, exhausted and traumatized. Many are clinging to life.”
This is a developing and will be updated.
CNN’s Celine Alkhaldi and journalist Khader Al-Za’anoun of Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency, contributed reporting.
As I walk around Borovsk, two things strike me about this town 60 miles (100km) from Moscow.
First, there is almost no sign of the presidential election coming up this weekend.
I see few election banners or billboards and no political flyers being handed out.
Not surprising, really. The absence of election preparations mirrors the absence of drama surrounding a stage-managed event that will hand Vladimir Putin a fifth term in the Kremlin.
The other thing you can't help noticing in Borovsk is the street art. It's everywhere.
Much of it has been created by street artist Vladimir Ovchinnikov. All over town his work stares down from walls and buildings.
Most of his paintings are uncontroversial. Like the giant globe recounting the town's history. Or the image of a famous footballer.
Increasingly, though, when Vladimir paints a picture of today's Russia, it turns out very dark.
"I call this one Pinnacle of Ambition," the 86-year-old artist tells me. The painting he's showing me at home features a man in a martial arts uniform walking a tightrope over a mountain of human skulls.
"This is what the ambition of someone high up in power can lead to."
More dramatic still is his image of two meat grinders mincing people - one is labelled 1937 (the year of Stalin's Great Terror); the other Special Military Operation (Russia's war in Ukraine).
"We haven't learnt any lessons," concludes Vladimir.
BBC
My paintings get people thinking: are we right or are we wrong in this conflict?
After the artist graffitied similar meat grinders on a wall, he was fined for "discrediting" the Russian army. Same outcome for his street art showing missiles falling on a girl dressed in the blue and yellow of Ukraine.
Vladimir not only uses his art to comment on the present, but to shine a light on Russia's dark past - the repressions of the Stalin era. His graffiti criticising the war in Ukraine doesn't go down well with the authorities. It gets painted over fast.
"My paintings get people thinking: are we right or are we wrong in this conflict?" Vladimir tells me. "I believe this is a crime against the territorial integrity of a neighbouring state. I'd be condoning it if I stayed silent."
"Many people do keep quiet, because they're scared of repression, of losing their jobs, and of being criticised by others."
After the death in prison of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Vladimir painted Mr Navalny's portrait on a local memorial stone that honours the victims of political repression.
"The very same day someone scrubbed it out," Vladimir tells me. "But at home I'd painted a rough draft on cardboard. So later I took this and placed it by the memorial."
How does Vladimir see Russia's future?
"Some predict more repression," he says, "and that we're heading towards totalitarianism and full dictatorship."
The president's picture
Vladimir Ovchinnikov tells me he never watches television.
If he did, he'd see a very different picture of Russia on state TV.
Vladimir Putin's version.
No mountains of human skulls. No meat grinders. No mention of Alexei Navalny.
This is not a Russia aggressive abroad and repressive at home. It is a Russia with a glorious past and an equally glorious future. A Russia of heroes and patriots rallying round the flag to defend the Motherland from external aggression.
And it is a Russia that loves its current leader.
Getty Images
A few days ago Russia Channel 1's evening news bulletin showed what appeared to be adoring Putin fans greeting the president like a pop star.
"Take care of yourself," cried one woman, before kissing him.
"Long life!" shouted a man.
If you relied solely on Channel 1 for news, you'd probably conclude that Vladimir Putin is odds on for a landslide victory in the presidential election.
But, just like with paintings, context is important.
And the context here is crucial.
The Kremlin not only controls television in Russia, it manages the entire political system, elections included.
President Putin faces no serious challenge as he seeks a fifth term in office. His most vocal critics have either fled into exile or been jailed at home. Mr Navalny, his fiercest opponent, is dead.
But the Kremlin likes to boast that Russia has the "best democracy" in the world. So, along with Mr Putin on the ballot are three officially authorised challengers from Russia's Kremlin-friendly parliament.
I caught up with one of them recently. It was an odd experience.
"Why do you think you'd be a better president than Putin?" I asked Nikolai Kharitonov, the Communist Party candidate.
"It's not for me to say," Mr Kharitonov replied. "That wouldn't be right."
"But do you think your manifesto is better than Putin's?" I continued.
"That's for voters to decide."
"But what do you think?"
"It doesn't matter what I think. It's up to the voters."
Instead of talking up himself, Mr Kharitonov praised the incumbent.
"Today Vladimir Putin is trying to solve a lot of the problems of the 1990s, when Yeltsin dragged Russia into wild capitalism," said Mr Kharitonov. "He's trying to consolidate the nation for victory in all areas. And this will happen!"
Something tells me Nikolai Kharitonov's heart isn't in this race.
One politician who'd tried and failed to get on the ballot was anti-war politician Boris Nadezhdin.
BBC
It is absolutely impossible to say our presidential elections are fair and free
"It is absolutely impossible to say about our presidential elections that they are fair and free," Mr Nadezhdin tells me. He claims he was barred from running because his anti-war message had been growing too popular.
"The polls show that about 30-35 percent of people in Russia wanted to vote for a candidate, like me, who talks about peace. It is an absolutely impossible result for our government."
The picture on the street
Back in Borovsk I'm enjoying the views from the bridge over the Protva river.
From here the town itself looks like a painting: a picture of Russia I could imagine hanging in the Hermitage. Up on a hill stands a beautiful church, with quaint snow-covered houses below. Bundled up in warm coats, people are treading carefully down icy paths.
I, too, step carefully as I head into town to gauge the mood. On the streets of Borovsk, what do people think about the war, the election, and their president?
"No matter how you vote, everything's decided in advance," a young woman called Svetlana tells me. "I don't see any point in taking part."
But many here, especially older Russians, tell me they will be voting. As I talk to people it becomes clear that the Russia as seen on TV has many supporters.
"I hope Vladimir Putin will win the election and that it will end the war," Lyudmila tells me. "So many young men have been killed. When there's peace many countries will finally understand that Russia is unbeatable."
"Why do you want Mr Putin to win?" I ask. "After all, he's the man who started the Special Military Operation."
"There are many opinions," Lyudmila concedes. "Some say this war should never have been started. Some say he was right. I won't judge him now. We don't know all the political ins and outs."
"Mr Putin's been in power nearly a quarter of a century," I point out. "In a country of 145 million people, is there no one else who could do his job?"
"Oh no, we have many talented leaders who could, in an emergency, run the country," replies Lyudmila.
Nikolai will also be voting for the current president, apparently unfazed by two-and-a-half decades of Putin in power.
"So what? We've had tsars who've ruled a long time," says Nikolai. "There were good tsars and bad ones. We had Stalin and Brezhnev. You can change a leader, but it makes little difference to our lives."
The EU’s proposed AI act was endorsed by the European parliament on Wednesday, and is a milestone in regulating the technology. The vote is an important step towards introducing the legislation, which now requires the formal approval of ministers from EU member states.
Consumers will not notice an immediate difference, given that the act will be implemented over a period of three years, but it will answer some concerns over the technology.
“Users will be able to trust that the AI tools they have access to have been carefully vetted and are safe to use,” said Guillaume Couneson, partner at law firm Linklaters. “This is similar to users of banking apps being able to trust that the bank has taken stringent security measures to enable them to use the apps safely.”
The bill matters outside the EU because Brussels is an influential tech regulator, as shown by GDPR’s impact on the management of people’s data. The AI act could do the same.
“Many other countries will be watching what happens in the EU following the adoption of the AI Act. The EU approach will likely only be copied if it is shown to work,” Couneson added.
How does the bill define AI?
A basic definition of AI is a computer system that carries out tasks you would normally associate with human levels of intelligence, such as writing an essay or drawing a picture.
The act itself has a more detailed take, describing the AI technology it regulates as a “machine-based system designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy”, which obviously covers tools like ChatGPT.
This system may show “adaptiveness after deployment” – ie it learns on the job – and infers from the inputs it receives “how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments”. This definition covers chatbots, but also AI tools that, for instance, sift through job applications.
As detailed below, the legislation bans systems that pose an “unacceptable risk”, but it exempts AI tools designed for military, defence or national security use, issues that alarm many tech safety advocates. It also does not apply to systems designed for use in scientific research and innovation.
“We fear that the exemptions for national security in the AI Act provide member states with a carte blanche to bypass crucial AI regulations and create a high risk of abuse,” said Kilian Vieth-Ditlmann, deputy head of policy at German non-profit organisation Algorithmwatch, which campaigns for responsible AI use.
How does the bill tackle the risks posed by AI?
Certain systems will be prohibited. These include systems that seek to manipulate people to cause harm; “social scoring” systems that classify people based on social behaviour or personality, like the one in Rongcheng, China, where the city rated aspects of residents’ behaviour; Minority Report-style attempts at predictive policing; monitoring people’s emotions at work or in schools; “biometric categorisation” systems that sift people based on their biometric data (retina scans, facial recognition, fingerprints) to infer things such as race, sexual orientation, political opinions or religious beliefs; and compiling facial recognition databases through scraping facial images from the internet or CCTV.
Exemptions for law enforcement
Facial recognition has been a contentious factor in the legislation. The use of real-time biometric identification systems – which covers facial recognition technology on live crowds – is banned, but allowed for law enforcement in a number of circumstances. Law enforcement can use such technology to find a missing person or prevent a terror attack, but they will need approval from authorities – although in exceptional circumstances it can be deployed without prior approval.
What about systems that are risky but not banned?
The act has a special category for “high risk” systems that will be legal but closely observed. Included are systems used in critical infrastructure, like water, gas and electricity, or those deployed in areas like education, employment, healthcare and banking. Certain law enforcement, justice and border control systems will also be covered. For instance, a system used in deciding whether someone is admitted to an educational institution, or whether they get a job, will be deemed high-risk.
The act requires these tools to be accurate, subject to risk assessments, have human oversight, and also have their usage logged. EU citizens can also ask for explanations about decisions made by these AI systems that have affected them.
What about generative AI?
Generative AI – the term for systems that produce plausible text, image, video and audio from simple prompts – is covered by provisions for what the act calls “general-purpose” AI systems.
There will be a two-tiered approach. Under the first tier, all model developers will need to comply with EU copyright law and provide detailed summaries of the content used to train the model. It is unclear how already-trained models will be able to comply, and some are already under legal pressure. The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Getty Images is suing StabilityAI, alleging copyright infringement. Open-source models, which are freely available to the public, unlike “closed” models like ChatGPT’s GPT-4, will be exempt from the copyright requirement.
A tougher tier is reserved for models that pose a “systemic risk” – based on an assessment of their more human-like “intelligence” – and is expected to include chatbots and image generators. The measures for this tier include reporting serious incidents caused by the models, such as death or breach of fundamental rights, and conducting “adversarial testing”, where experts attempt to bypass a model’s safeguards.
What does it mean for deepfakes?
People, companies or public bodies that issue deepfakes have to disclose whether the content has been artificially generated or manipulated. If it is done for “evidently” artistic, creative or satirical work, it still needs to be flagged, but in an “appropriate manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work”.
Text produced by chatbots that informs the public “on matters of public interest” needs to be flagged as AI-made, but not where it has undergone a process of human review or editorial control – which exempts content that has had human oversight. Developers of AI systems also need to ensure that their output can be detected as AI-made, by watermarking or otherwise flagging the material.
What do AI and tech companies think?
The bill has received a mixed response. The largest tech companies are publicly supportive of the legislation in principle, while wary of the specifics. Amazon said it was committed to collaborating with the EU “to support the safe, secure and responsible development of AI technology”, but Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta warned against overregulation. “It is critical we don’t lose sight of AI’s huge potential to foster European innovation and enable competition, and openness is key here,” the company’s head of EU affairs said.
In private, responses have been more critical. One senior figure at a US company warned that the EU had set a limit for the computing power used to train AI models that is much lower than similar proposals in the US. Models trained with more power than 10 to the power of 25 “flops”, a measure of computing power, will be hit with burdensome requirements to prove they don’t create system risks. This could prompt European companies to simply up stakes and move west to avoid EU restrictions.
What are the punishments under the act?
Fines will range from €7.5m or 1.5% of a company’s total worldwide turnover – whichever is higher – for giving incorrect information to regulators, to €15m or 3% of worldwide turnover for breaching certain provisions of the act, such as transparency obligations, to €35m, or 7% of turnover, for deploying or developing banned AI tools. There will be more proportionate fines for smaller companies and startups.
The obligations will come into effect after 12 months, so at some point next year, once the act becomes law, prohibition of certain categories comes into force after six months. Providers and deployers of high-risk systems have three years to comply. There will also be a new European AI office that will set standards and be the main oversight body for GPAI models.
