count one, terrorism causing death. the defendant shall serve life without the possibility of parole, credit for eight days served. counts two through five. homicide first degree, premeditated murder, juvenile defendant. the defendant shall serve the rest of his life without the possibility of parole with the michigan department of corrections, credit for eight days served. on counts 6 through 12, assault with intent to murder on each of the counts. defendant is sentenced to 18 years and nine months to 80 years with the michigan department of corrections, credit for eight days served. on counts 13 through 24 being felony firearm, the defendant is sentenced two years with the department of michigan with credit for 737 days served. counts 1 through 12 are concurrent to each other and counts 13 through 24 are concurrent to each other. count one is consecutive to count 13. count two is consecutive to count 14. count three is consecutive to count 15. count 4 is consecutive to count 16. count 5 is consecutive to count 17. count 6 is consecutive to count 18. count 7 is consecutive to count 19. count 8 is consecutive to count 20. count 9 is consecutive to count 21. count 10 is consecutive to count 22. count 11 is consecutive to count 23. and count 12 is consecutive to count 24. all of those consecutive counts are by reason of the felony firearms statute. is there a restitution here? >> there is not. >> restitution will be set in the amount of $20,781. state cost will be set in the amount of $1,632. we are not to have any contact with oxford high school or enter any, excuse me, enter oxford high school. you are not to have any contact whatsoever with the families, tate meyer, hannah, and justin. also you are not to have any contact with the following victims or their families. that being b.b. arthur, john acido, molly darnell, riley france, elijah mueller, kylie, aidan watson, and keegan gregory. and i will note that restitution is payable to the crime victims right compensation program. with that michigan department of corrections, did i miss anything? [ inaudible ] >> thank you. cost of $60,000. and $130, and did i miss anything else? >> dna testing is hereby ordered. thank you. with that, you're entitled to the application for appeal. if you are unable to retain the lawyer, the court will through appeal. the request must be filed 42 days after sentencing. your attorney is going to be handing you an appellate right's form. do you acknowledge you receive the appellate right's form? >> i have tendered that to my client. >> all right, thank you. >> all right, breaking news, where ethan crumbley, the teenager who killed four fellow students and wounded six others two years ago was just sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. this after a dramatic day in court where dozens of people delivered emotional victim impact statements. outside the courthouse in pontiac, michigan. gina, an incredibly emotional day in that courtroom? >> reporter: it really was and i do want to say once again, he was just sentenced, the defendant in this case to life in prison without any possibility of parole. and jay, legal history was just made in this case. according to the legal documents, this is a case of first impression in regard to sentencing. this defendant is the first one since the supreme court ruled in 2012, that for a juvenile, life in prison without parole is an extraordinary sentence only for the worst juvenile offender. this, ethan crumbley, is the first defendanigally sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. there were many that had been resentenced that early on that got life in prison without the possibility of parole. but this is the first time since 2012 that someone has been originally sentenced and received life without the possibility of parole. now saying that, today it was all about the victims. it is all about what they have gone through. they have stood silent for two years now. i've been there, and i've been to the hearings. as they said in a closing argument that they didn't understand in the sentence of all the due process rights for the defendants came out. but who cared about them? today, the caring was for them, and we heard the stories. i think we may have some sounds that we could show you the audience exactly what these family members of those that died, living, surviving victims that were shot, and family members, what they had to say. >> all right, thank you so much. the four innocent victims, they were all teenagers, madison baldwin, 17, tate, 16, justin chilling, 17, and hannah st. guilliana, 14 years old. joining us now a trial attorney. your reaction to the sentence? >> reporter: you know, jake, i'm not surprised. i spent the day watching all the victims in this case, the family members, those in the school on that day. they testified and they would read their victim impact statements to judge and understanding the impact of ethan crumbley's actions on this community, on the victim's families was truly gut wrenching. but more so than what the victims set forth in that courthouse today. we had already seen much of what was going to be the basis for the judge's decision on sentencing, back during the summer, during what is called a miller hearing. the miller hearing is the prerequisite for life in prison without the possibility of parole to be on the table. and so what the judge focused on in his ultimate decision and justification as they say is historic because of ethan crumbley's age, 15 at the time of the crime and 17 with the premeditation, the planning. there was a journal. he planned this. and he executed every single piece of his plan. that was largely where that judge had the focus in this sentencing today. and another thing that i do find, you know, to be something that we didn't know was going to happen. he spoke to the court, and he said no one could have stopped me, and he said i want to -- i want the sentence that all the victims are asking for. so again, the judge used that in his ultimate determination as we heard that from the bench. this will be life in prison without the possibility of parole. >> what do you think is going to happen with the case against ethan crumbley's parents, in their roles for allowing him to have guns, concerning their son and more? >> that is an excellent question because we know that case is coming up right around the corner and it is coming up in january. his parents are being charged with involuntary manslaughter. saying that not only did they see omissions that he had mental health issues, that they did not address and that they actually had an active role because they purchased the gun that ethan crumbley ultimately used in killing these four individuals and terrorizing the school on that day. so that is the piece of it that will be decided. and in general, an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for the active third person even when it is a parent. so usually these types of cases are child abuse and failure to lock up the firearm as we have seen those legal theories. and so this is different involving manslaughter, watching them from the bench. ethan himself said nothing could have stopped him. so how could they find this? that be a part of the parcel on the argument. but how the case turns out will be really something to watch because it is a novel legal theory. >> all right, thank you so much. turning to the national lead today and the united states struggling at the most basic levels to be condemned today near how they are searching for the suspect who beat and robbed a jewish man last night on the first night of hanukkah. the victim was wearing traditional religious garb when he stole their cell phone and called them an early jew. earlier today a suspect shot a gun in albany. he yelled free palestine before he was arrested. the violence also hit the muslim and arab communities in the u.s. this week. we saw video of them leaving the hospital in vermont. he is one of three palestinian students so tragically shot in vermont while speaking and wearing. he is now paralyzed from the chest down. it's awful. but we have to note, this has been a week of real attention to anti-semitism in america. this morning, they disassociated themselves from the leading organization and the islamic relations or care after the presiden care was discovered to have said this about the hamas attacks on october 7. >> the people of gaza only decided to break the siege. the roles of the concentration camp on october 7. and yes, i was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land and walk into their lands that they were not allowed to walk in. >> reporter: in a statement after his remarks became public, the president said he condemned violence against all civilians and claimed that the comments were taken out of context. and then you have the three presidents of the well respected, leaving the universities, now facing multiple calls of resign. the leaders of m.i.t., the university of pennsylvania, and harvard struggling to answer what seems like a fairly simple question from republican congresswoman elise stefanik of new york. >> doctor, at m.i.t., does calling for the genocide of jews violate the code of conduct? yes or not? >> you targeted individuals not making public statements. >> and now it does seem like yes would be the easy answer. yes as in it would be harassment if you were calling for the genocide of blanks or latinos or muslims or the community or immigrants or any other group one would hope. >> it's a decision, congresswoman. >> and does calling for the genocide of jews violate their rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no? >> it can be depending on the context. >> what is the context? >> targeted as an individual. targeted as an individual. >> the answer for most of us is obviously yes, calling for the genocide of any group would qualify as harassment on the college campus. now there are several reasons that i heard as to why the university president seems to struggle to answer that question. one is that language calling for the death of jews, especially in israel, has become normalized on far too many american campuses, just a few months ago, for example, and that featured several speakers. the other issue might have been the definition of genocide. a premise that was not included in many of the viral clips. >> and you understand that the use of the term in that context of the conflict is, indeed, a call for violent armed resistance against the state of israel including violence against civilians in the genocide of jews. are you aware of that? >> and now as that matter, he was providing one definition. it is a prevalent one, but was not providing the only definition, certainly providing one that when they hear calls to globalize and for that matter, one that a lot of haters use, and it is not the only definition. it's a word that means shaking off like the dog might shake off water. and in that world it means uprising, rebellion, revolution. three years ago on al jazeera's website, an essay was written called globalize it and it said across the globe from the u.s. to the middle east, rising out to reform to remove the militarized racist governments. now that said, there are contexts to these things. awaiting the article on the website is different than shutting down the dining hall. and chanting while you're trying to enjoy your lunch on the deadly attacks. both of which were protests of the west bank as they quickly turned violent and bloody. against palestinians and including acts of terrorism against israeli civilians in israeli buses and restaurants. so when students chant globalize, is every one of them wanting to bring violence and slaughters to jews around the world? i cannot imagine that to be the case. does it let them off the hook for using that term? and do they know how others take it? what about from that river to the sea? it will be free. and oh, you want to destroy israel. and is that what they mean? and they could actually name both the river and the sea. it hits the jordan river in that sea, by the way. maybe more time reading, less time. and standing on the do i think halls. it is not difficult to see why many jews who hear these terms would think that globalizing it means. especially after october. and while that might not be even chanting these terms means, it certainly is what a lot of folks hear. and that number one muslim american group in america celebrating on october 7. let's just say that doesn't help. and let's bring in the u.s. special, the monitor to combat anti-semitism around the world. and we really appreciate it. >> any place you go around the world, you'll hear from jews and they're worried about coming here to the united states. particularly to college campuses i would think these days. and canada or wherever that we hear about this university and i hear that they are taking them down. and is it worse now than before? >> it is worse now and more extensive and more prevasive. i heard it that i have been in rome and paris and the headquarters, i have been in germany. and i just got back from canada this morning and i heard from students and the people in the universities, in many different places throughout the world. it's a similar story. in canada, one young man told me he was on campus, and it was suppose to be a demonstration. and his jewish friends, they called them and said is it safe to come to campus? and in montreal on the outside. it's a little container, and contained the word of the watch word of judaism, god the lord is one. and it came in the way of identifying jews, jewish homes, and many students put it up on their doorway and to their office, etc., and certainly their homes. >> what do you tell people? is it safe? >> i can tell them that i'm sad and my heart is broken. i don't tell them yes or no and something that they only started to wear recently. and i don't want to go underground. but i've got security, i've got people that are watching out for me. and i don't know what to tell you. i had an interchange with the parents and friends who said to me i took my child out of the public schools because he was being harassed by the other students, some of them muslim and not of them not. you're a jew, etc. then i put them in the jewish school. and then hamas called for a global day of terror against the institution and i was afraid to send them to the jewish school. what should i do when i couldn't answer her because it is her child and not mine. >> and you see the anti-semitism as just not a threat to jews. which by the way, if that is all it was, it's bad enough. >> that's right. >> there shouldn't be a threat to anybody or to muslims or jews or the la tee knees, etc. but you'll see it as not just a threat, but the threat to democracy? >> i see it as a threat and i have been saying that since day one when i entered office. and anybody who buys into that myth, which is at the heart of anti-semitism has brought in to the motions that they control the world and the government and the jews, giving up on democracy. so that is one reason, i mean to be a matter of great concern. and i began to feel over the past month and that it is even more than just that. it is a threat to international and the national stability security. bad actors, bad countries, bad individuals, and the go's, people with different agendas. they have figured out that anti-semitism was a way of stirring up the pot of society. the welfare in democratic countries and western countries, european countries, other parts of the world. if we want to create a chaos and people against each other, that is a good tool. and so if you worry about it and that welfare of jews, worry about anti-semitism. if you worry about the welfare of democracy, worry about anti-semitism. if you're worried about the national security and the national ability of your country as this goes for not just the united states, but for france, for germany, for so many countries, from belgium, worry about that rise. >> and so whether it is the presidents having a difficult time, we explain the whole thing, but she was just asking about condemning genocide. i think the next followup might have been the tricky ones, but she framed that genocide thing pretty simply. or the difficulty that the world has had condemning all that by hamas, etc. what's going on? >> and it is a relative look and it is a justification. when it comes to those rates, when it comes to the mutilation of women and children and of families burning them alive that there is no but. there is no justification. it means that i'm going to justify it. it's bad and let's think of the other thing and that should be said in your position on the middle east crisis. you can take a variety of positions, but there should be no difficulty in condemning rapes, or children from parents, burning homes with people alive or condemning genocide. >> it's great to have you here. thank you so much. happy hanukkah to you with all those celebrating. >> when should colleges and universities step in when it comes to rhetoric on campuses crossing some sort of line? we are going to go more into that debate next. we're back with the discussion about the alarming rise of anti-semitism across the country and calls for university presidents to do more to reign in hateful speech. it's not an easy topic, that's the truth. let's bring in an expert at georgetown university and former president to brandice university. and also nico from rights and expressions, advocating for free speech. and so let me start with you, mr. lawrence, as a former university president. how do you see how the university presidents handled this? it seems it would be an easy question. calls for genocide and jews violate harassment policies? >> that one was an easy question. and by not getting that one right, they never got to the questions that really were about context. so just because i can't tell when it is dusk and dawn, it doesn't know when i know it's midnight. genocide is a midnight question. can you advocate for genocide on the campus? the answer to that has got to be no. that's a violation of your rules. had they said that, then they could have gotten into other questions. >> like the river of the sea. >> a lot of what's happening on campuses is really more about at best and ignorance at the worst. the way you solve ignorance is with education. >> you disagree? you think the genocide question they were right on? >> well, president magill said in her statement the next day that the university of pennsylvania's policies reflect constitutional and legal standards. there is no first amendment exception for an abstract call for genocide. i'll give you an example, drexel university, in 2018, we had a professor who calls for the genocide of all white people. >> he was joking, i remember this. >> he said all i want for christmas is a white genocide. >> he was making fun of the conservatives that think white genocide is a real thing? >> white nationalists who have a theory about white replacement, right? context does matter though. he was a white professor. this wasn't a target at anyone, and it was a joke, right? >> a bad joke, but yeah. >> so the question is what are your policies on genocide, right? on calling on genocide? the presidents were right. context does matter. now that's not to say that sometimes that calls for genocide won't meet the standards with lawless action, that they won't meet the standard for discriminatory action, by the way we have a legal standard for from a 1999 supreme court case from peer-on-peer harassment. but just abawi tract exception to the first amendment for the calls for genocide would on its face loop in that professor in philadelphia who tweeted out all i want for christmas is white genocide. >> the problem is you never get to that c