The Teenage Sniper

In the case of The Teenage Sniper, I read how schizophrenia played a major role in the deaths of three individuals. In this case a mental exam wasn’t able to be held; the suspect killed himself at the scene. 16-year-old Michael Clark was believed to be a schizophrenic, or at least that’s what the victim’s attorney said. A lawsuit against Michaels’s parents the Clarks was filed but not upheld by the judge. The Reidas, parents of one of the slain victims appealed. In a similar case Jaime Gough lost his life as well. In 2004, Jaime Gough was stabbed to death in the bathroom of Southwood Middle School, where he attended. Michael Hernandez, the 18-year-old suspect lawyer claimed he suffered from schizophrenia as well. However, in this case the judgment came in favor of the Goughs, in the form of 1million dollars. The similarities in both of these cases are the dangerous mental disease schizophrenia, and lives lost. However, the differences are one suspect was able to stand trail and the other lost his life by his own hand. More differences in these horrific cases are that one ruling went in favor of the victim’s family, and one did not. Now why did this happen? Is it because that Michael Clark lost his life as well and was unable to stand trail for his crime, or a case of divine justice. I believe these cases went in different direction because Michael Hernandez didn't take his life, he was able to stand trail for his crime. I think the verdict went in favor of the Clarks because they had already lost their son, what’s more punishment than that. Now as for the other the other case with Michel Hernandez, I believe the judgment went in favor of the Gouhs, because they had lost their son, Michael Hernandez was mentally ill and really couldn’t be held totally responsible for his crime.



Last edited by joseph,church on Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

Ok, but you need to do more than just state that one verdict went one way, and the other went the other way. You need to provide some thoughts about WHY that happened, or to put it another way, what were the differences in the circumstances that led to a difference in the verdicts? We're assuming that verdicts are not handed down randomly. So help us understand why the family was able to win in one case and not the other. You did start to do this in your last sentence, but you need more emphasis on that "why did this happen?" question.

Michael Clark, son of Joyce (a housewife/school teacher) and Forest Clark (an established businessman out of Long Beach), was a seemingly normal 16-year old boy. Michael left one night in his parent’s car, with out their permission. In the back, he had a rifle in which, early the next morning, he used to ‘pick off’ automobiles driving down the 101 in Santa Maria. Three victims of this shooting brought this case to the courts, complaining that Forest and Joyce Clark were negligent in two counts: “failure of the Clarks to train, control, and supervise Michael” and also, “failure of Forest Clark to keep the rifle out of Michael’s hands. The rifle that Michael used was stored in a locked cabinet in the garage, not in an easily accessible place. He taught Michael how to shoot a care for a gun while at a shooting range and also on a hunting trip, in safe settings. The Clarks relationship with their son was completely normal; they had seen no signs of any aggressive or emotionally erratic behavior. The consistency of Michael’s attitude had shown no signs of schizophrenia, paranoia, or social problems. His father, Forest Clark, was a “veteran of two wars” and “an active member of his church”. Michael got along well with his brother and sister, went to church pretty regularly on Sundays, was a boy scout, a member of sea scouts, enjoyed music and playing the saxophone, and was active with sports. Michael was fairly ‘straight-edge’, not a user of drugs or alcohol. Joyce had stated that “she could not explain why he had acted the way he had”; that “He never intentionally injured any living thing”. Not only did they lose their son, Joyce and Forest were being charged for not caring enough about their son’s well-being. How could you possibly blame parents for their son’s sporadic and irrational actions when the parents only offered their child a positive and well rounded life? Michael received his justice and although Michael Clark was guilty for homicide, his parents are not.

Under the law on the duty of a parent to control and conduct a child, it states that it is the parent's duty to reasonably care for the minor so to control him to prevent it from intentionally harming others if the parent knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control the child and knows the necessity and oppportunity to exercise such control. In the case of the "Teenage Sniper," Michael lead a normal life, he was a boy scout, he liked dances, music, sports, he got along with others which includes his family, and he went to church with his family. He did not use drugs or alcohol, or show emotional instability or aggresive behavior. For these reasons, it was unpredictable that Michael would take his father's rifle to go hurt others. The parents did not have knowledge of him harming or wanting to harm others. Therefore, according to the law on parent control and conduct, the parents should not be charged for what their son did because they had no reason to control or prevent their son from a situation that was unknown.

In the case of the teenage sniper, I do blame Michael’s parents even though Michael was a schizophrenic. Michael’s father should have kept the Mauser rifle locked up and not have Michael know where the key is. Forest Clark is very negligent by training his schizophrenic son on how to use a rifle with a telescope on it. The keys for the rifle locker and the automobile should have been way out of the reach of a sixteen year old schizophrenic. He failed in keeping a deadly rifle securely locked up. When one of the keys became missing, he should have replaced the lock, and have hid both keys in a location where only he knows where it is at. Joyce Clark who was a school teacher should have been aware of her son’s illness and should have tended to it. I do not believe that the judgment should have gone in favor of the Clarks. They should have had the common sense of knowing that their son is capable of such a violent act which took innocent people’s lives. To any normal parents, the common sense would have been to never even have such a deadly firearm in the same house of a schizophrenic child.

Jonathan,

I totally agree with you. Michael's parents were negligent for two reasons. (1) Teaching him how to use a lethal weapon and failure to supervise him and or the weapon and (2) for not realizing the symptoms of unusual behavior, such as schizophrenia. If anyone knew Michael better was his own parents and I believe they knew their son was disturbed. The mother stated Michael was "congenial, nonaggressive and without emotional problems" (Behrens and Rosen, 824). A defense thats hard to believe, because according to about.com: Mental Health, "Schizophrenia often appears earlier in men, usually in their late teens or early twenties" (about.com). Michael was sixteen when he decided to fatally shoot innocent people on the freeway, killing three. His symptoms should have been "confusing, shocking changes in behavior, social isolation or withdrawal"(about.com). To go out and kill random people for no reason proves he was psychologically affected in some way. The Clarks may have not known he had schizophrenia, but they knew their son did not have the experience or responsibility to use a gun. For goodness sakes, the kid was sixteen, barely legal to drive. The gun should have been locked up and most importantly, Michael should have never known there was a gun in the house. I think it's absurd his father would teach him how to use a gun, let alone allow Michael to know where the keys to the lock were. Not to mention, he shouldn't have had access to the vehicle either! The keys should have been in the parents room or in a place Michael didn't know about. Not only did he kill people with the gun, but he could have damaged property and injured other drivers with the car. The people that were killed at the hands of Michael Clark were mothers, fathers and parents. Someone was dependent on them and now that the people are dead, those family members need compensation. Obviously, that can't get justice from Michael, because he killed himself, however they need monetary relief for the parents negligence. Such as burial expenses, basic necessities and the inconvenience and heartache the families went through, because they did not expect their loved one to be killed by a teenage sniper at the time. The law states, "(1) Where the parent permits the child to have access to an instrument which, because of it's nature, use the purpose is so dangerous as to constitute, in the hands of a child, an unreasonable risk to others (Firearms, dynamite, etc.)" (Behrens and Rosen, 818). This clearly means, if a parent allows their child to have access to a lethal weapon, which can be anything fatal, the parent will be responsible for all the damages committed with the weapon.

Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard J. Rosen. The Teenage Sniper. 10th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008.
"About Schizophrenia." About Schizophrenia. 29 May 2006. 18 July 2009
<http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/schizophrenia/a/sz1.htm>.

Issue: Is a defendant who parented their child to the best of their ability guilty of negligence in not paying attention to the actions, emotions, and control of their son?

The case of Reida v Lund describes the parents of their sixteen year old son, Michael Clark, being charged with negligence in not paying attention to the actions, emotions, and control of their son, as well as allowing their son to have access to a rifle (where Michael knew where the key(s) to the rifle’s cabinet was located). On the morning of April 25th, 1965, Michael Clark began a shooting rampage at passing cars with his father’s 6.5 x 55 millimeter rifle near a hill in Santa Maria, which overlooked Highway 101. Here, Michael Clark killed three innocent civilians and injured many others, which also resulted in him putting the rifle to his head and taking his own life when the police later arrived. As a result, William, Lucille, and Kim Reida, who were victims of the shooting, sued Forest and Joyce Clark (Michael’s parents) for “personal injuries and wrongful death”, (824). Taking his case to court, Mr. and Mrs. Clark testified that they didn’t see the shooting from their son coming. According to Michael’s parents, Michael has no signs of emotional instability; he didn’t drink or do drugs and never got in trouble with school or the police. Michael also did well academically. Since Michael was such a well-behaved child, his parents didn’t have a reason to suspect anything wrong with their son. However, as parents, one would think that they should have been more aware of any possible danger Michael may or may not inflict. But in reality, we all know that many teenagers hide secrets from their parents continuously. Parents often become naive in only believing what they are told, rather than seeing the bigger picture. Sometimes teenagers are too uncomfortable to share their feeling with their parents because they think their parents will judge them or think of them differently. Many parents disapprove of their teenagers acting up, which cause most teenagers to rebel and hide things from their parents. Not to mention, once a child has reached an age of maturity, he or she will begin to develop his or her own mindset. At a ripe age, a child already knows right from wrong. This may have been a similar with Michael. Like the newspapers and a psychologist said “…Michael suffered from schizophrenia, paranoid type…”(825). The Clarks may not have known of this because Michael could have concealed the signs and symptoms from his parents, not wanting his parents to know something was seriously wrong with him. Michael was probably well aware of his actions at the time but who are we to put the blame on his parents?
The California Civil Code 1714.3 states, civil liability for any injury to the person or property of another proximately caused by the discharge of a firearm by a minor under the age of 18 years shall be imputed to a parent…and such parent or guardian shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for any damages resulting from such act, if such parent or guardian either permitted the minor to have the firearm or left the firearm in a place accessible to the minor” (818). However, in 1965, the United States was at a different point than we are today. I’m not old enough to know, but I’m sure firearms were more accepted than they are now. Do we know if Michael and his father were hunters? Maybe he was taught at a tender age to shoot a firearm with his father and was trusted with knowing where the keys to the gun case were. Why should a parent be blamed for trusting their son with knowing where a gun is in case of an emergency? Especially if Michael didn’t show signs of being emotionally distressed.
Luckily, the court found that Mr. and Mrs. Clark were NOT negligent towards Michael’s actions.

Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard J. Rosen. The Teenage Sniper. 10th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008