Just traitor Texas things.
I’m of a split mind about this one. On one hand it seems like an accidental thing, on the other Trump makes such a big deal out of meaningless bullshit on a regular basis that I’m persuaded to be temporarily braindead and say keep the rabbles rousing.
Nah, even if it was an accident he:
- handled a gun after drinking
- violated multiple fundamental rules of gun safety
- don’t point at anything you aren’t willing to destroy
- finger off the trigger until intending to shoot
That’s bare minimum reckless endangerment and manslaughter.
Anyone who would do a single one of these things, let alone all of them, isn’t responsible enough to own firearms.
Even if accidental any gun owner should know better than to get a gun out after drinking.
He doesn’t even have any remorse for this you can tell by his statement.
“Unlawfully killed” … Can someone clarify what would a “lawful killing” entail? Maybe euthanasia? In this context this just seems like stupid wordplay.
Self defense, basically.
Of course, that isn’t really within the purview of a coroner to decide, that’s what the court case is (supposed) to be for, if the DA decides to bring and pursue charges because it’s up to them to do that (and they for sure should have here).
A soldier killing an enemy soldier during a war is a “lawful killing”. Capital punishment is “lawful killing”. There’s probably a bunch of ways that police kill people that is “lawful”. And maybe there are different accidental deaths that are considered “not unlawful killings”? But I’m no law doctor.
Self-defense-type killings involving “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws are probably also considered lawful.
Ok that’s fair. It just seems in the context of the article to be kinda weirdly put. But maybe it’s just me.
Literally sharia law honor killings.
We have lost texas
They don’t see sharia law as evil or unjust, they see it as competition to their own authoritarianism. Right idea, wrong religion (barely lol)
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. This is also just as well the end result of doublespeak.
You give them way too much credit. Most of them don’t know what Sharia Law actually is.
“Unlawfully killed”
“Shot dead”
“Possible manslaughter”
It’s MURDER.
“Unlawfully killed” is some backbreaking doublespeak.
Imagine a headline that reads “Health insurance company CEO unlawfully killed by a nearby armed pedestrian.”
How much did you actually read about the case?
Enough to know he pointed a loaded gun at his daughter with the safety off and pulled the trigger, incidentally just after having an argument with her about trump; and that the maga fascist jury of peers in bumfuck texas decided to acquit him without a trial because “it was an accident” is apparently a reasonable explanation to them…
The killer claims it accidentally went off.
Even so, this is the kind of thing you need a proper trial to determine culpability. “He said it was an accident” after they had gotten in a heated argument and he lead her away to the gun room. His testimony absolutely not be taken for truth. And even if it was an accident theres definitely a case there for reckless endangerment/manslaughter. So I think the outrage at this news is justified
You can’t just load and chamber and fire a gun by fucking accident. Oh whoops the slide pulled back by accident, and I accidentally had my finger on the trigger, then I accidentally pulled all the way past the resistance of the firing pin. Nope. You murdered her.
You assume he didn’t leave his weapons loaded. And that he hadn’t modified them with a hair trigger, etc.
This is the type of person that has an entire gun room, not just a safe or two, an entire room dedicated to guns.
And even if you could somehow accidentally fire a gun, that’s the definition of manslaughter anyway, so the guy is still guilty either way.
Very bold assumption that this isn’t the type of guy to keep several loaded and chambered guns lying around ready to fire. Almost certainly is
Accidentally picking up, pointing and firing however seems less than believable
Accidentally picking up, pointing and firing however seems less than believable
He didn’t accidentally pick it up. He said so himself (according to the BBC article linked in the OP).
He was drinking, and it’s a Glock.
Glocks have a “passive” safety. There’s no manual safety, just this little extra thing in the trigger, which does not require an extra step to fire.
(source)Negligent discharge is much easier with guns like these, in my opinion (because apparently there’s significant debate on this, somehow).
A drunk guy accidentally pointing a gun is plausible (I’ve had it happen to me before, probably more than once). Add the negligence of a drunken idiot and possible shitty trigger discipline, and I could easily imagine a negligent discharge here.
There’s also the possibility that it wasn’t even his finger that pulled the trigger. He could have snagged the trigger on something, being a fumbling idiot. Some people have accidentally shot themselves when trying to holster guns like these. This condition is commonly known as “Glock leg”.
Still, regardless of intent, the gun was pointed at his daughter, the trigger was pulled, and she’s dead — a sum of his own decisions, accident or not. It is WILD that he gets to walk free.
Yes I’m familiar with firearms.
You do not accidental raise a gun, point it at someone, and pull the trigger. Total bullshit to say otherwise.
Also get out of there with that trigger nonsense. It takes a conscious amount of force to pull back a trigger. They’re designed that way to prevent accidents. They don’t go off because someone has their finger on it ( which is intent to fire anyway)
He may have been very drunk and in an altered state. He probably did something his sober self never would. But he still chose to do it.
The only thing you said that’s even plausible is it could have snagged on something. Which of course he still chose to do a lot of illegal actions leading up to that
Reckless endangerment / manslaughter is a bare minimum. You’d have to violate multiple basic safety rules for this to happen even following his story
Literally a drunk and completely incompetent gun owner. He should be punished and made an example of. Your statement makes this sound completely intentional. The court appears to believe the claim that her death was accidental. I don’t doubt that he had no intentions of killing his daughter.
This should be a textbook example for gun licensing and requirements of safe storage. This man’s negligence cost him his daughter and the court decided this was enough. I don’t think the court went far enough and I think this should be the basis for further legislation, but let’s not turn this case into a bogeyman about honor killings.
The court appears to believe the claim that her death was accidental. I don’t doubt that he had no intentions of killing his daughter.
If you don’t have inside knowledge on the case, “not having doubt” on either intentions or no intentions is an incredibly moronic take.
Also, the job of a court of law is to establish innocence or guilt (and the degree thereof). This grand jury failing to indict is that grand jury refusing to do its duty to the people. While Germany is also going to shits, I am kinda glad that for now, our country is civilised enough to not have juries. Although we have the next worst thing, which is laypeople judges, for some cases.
He wasn’t indicted. The Texas jury didn’t care about the murder enough to punish him whatsoever, that’s the problem.
That’s a problem, yes. That’s the main reason why this man wasn’t given any sort of punishment in this specific case.
This isn’t the first time someone has shot a family member without the intent to kill, and it won’t be the last. Something needs to be done about it at a fundamental level. I realize that isn’t going to happen, especially in Texas. But that doesn’t change the fact that we need common sense gun laws in this country. This is a fucking travesty and a miscarriage of justice. It’s doing nothing to deal with this specific scenario nor the larger problem that too many idiots have too much access to deadly weapons.
Worth noting that indictments are laughably easy to get, because there is no defense lawyer. An indictment isn’t a conviction, it’s just the prosecution going “yeah we probably have enough evidence to bother with a trial.” The old joke is that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich for murder if the prosecutor wants them to. The prosecutor has full control over what evidence the grand jury sees, and the rules around evidence are a LOT more relaxed than they are in court. The prosecutor could basically scribble out a “yeah I did it lol” note on a napkin and present it to the grand jury as evidence. It wouldn’t stand up in court, but it doesn’t need to if the prosecutor just wants the indictment.
The grand jury is just an arm of the prosecutor, and is used as a political tool whenever a trial would be politically inconvenient. Because the district attorney is typically elected, which means they need to pander for votes. So if it would be politically inconvenient to prosecute someone, they can simply refuse to bring any evidence to the grand jury. Because (again) they have full control over what evidence the grand jury sees.
For example, let’s say a cop murders someone in the street. It’s on video. The public is out for blood. But the prosecutor has to work with the police to do their job, and the police union is threatening to stop collecting any evidence at crime scenes if they prosecute this cop. Prosecutor is between a rock and a hard place, because they’d be torching future trials just to appease the public. So instead, they simply don’t bring any evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury is a faceless shadowy organization that can’t defend itself. It’s the perfect scapegoat. So when the grand jury refuses to indict (because they weren’t presented with any evidence) the district attorney can jump in front of the news cameras and go “I tried to prosecute them, but that big mean grand jury refused to indict. But remember, I did my best! Vote for me!” Cops are happy because the prosecutor didn’t indict, the public is placated because the prosecutor “tried” to indict them, and the cogs of the legal system keep grinding away as intended.
Thank you for sharing this information.
Hey, always glad to see the MECFS guy in the wild. My wife is suffering from major chronic fatigue, (it’s seriously life-altering), so I wanted to let you know that your posts don’t go unnoticed.
And yeah, the whole “jury vs grand jury” and “indicted vs convicted” thing is a pet peeve of mine. Because authorities prey on the public’s lack of knowledge about the legal process, to shift blame away from themselves. Once you know the difference (and understand the relationship between a prosecutor and the grand jury) you’ll consistently see news stories of prosecutors hiding behind grand juries to shift blame away from themselves. But it’s always framed by the news as “the prosecutor brought the case to the grand jury, who refused to indict” because the news is complicit in keeping the cogs grinding.
:)
Honor killing is not part of Sharia. It belongs to tribalistic culture and societies.
Yeah. I remember discussing this with non-Arab Muslims.
They talked about how annoying Arab cultural dominance can be, how they export Arab values and culture, while pretending it’s all Islam inspired rather than simply Arab traditions.
But I suppose that’s not a stunning insight. Don’t even need to leave the middle-east, to find Muslims who don’t agree with other Muslims on what it means to be a Muslim.
Honor killing was prohibited by Islam. Read about female infanticide prohibition in Islam, for example.
Arabs are also incredibly diverse. It’s not a single culture or ethnicity.
Removed by mod
Ya when people say Dems have a chance of winning Texas. Call that person a moron and go on with your day
Political scientists estimate there are about 8 million consistently-Democratic voters in Texas and 6 million consistently-Republican voters. Out of a population of 30 million where everyone else flip flops and/or doesn’t vote.
The only reason the Republicans ever win in Texas is due to voter suppression/gerrymandering.
This is consistent with national estimates that there are roughly 1.5x as many Democrats as Republicans in the USA.
The only reason the Republicans ever win anywhere is due to voter suppression/gerrymandering.
If we had 100% voting population Republicans would never win again anywhere, especially in texas. That is why Republicans are so eager to disenfranchise voters. They’re trying to take away voting rights of women by making voters who change their name ineligible. They love the apathetic idiots who never vote.
Right now trump seems to have killed mail in voting for this year. Unless something changes the new usps system is sure to disenfranchise millions.
It’s a perfect storm for Dems this year in Texas. They have a good candidate for that state - a likable, charismatic young man who talks about his Christian faith a lot. The Republicans are fielding a particularly bad candidate - a corrupt attorney general who was nearly impeached by his own party for fraud, whose wife recently divorced him for cheating, and who narrowly won a closely contested primary. Beto came within 2.5 points of Cruz in 2018, and Cruz was/is popular in Texas, and Republicans in general weren’t as reviled back then. It’s still no better than a coin flip, but Talarico could win this year.
I HATE all this Christian bullshit. Why the fuck does xianity have ANYTHING to do with the document? I hate it here
Like nearly all the US, the cities are heavily blue and the rural parts are heavily red. The only difference between blue states and red states is which side of the halfway line it’s tipped towards. And nearly every state is close to the halfway mark—including Texas.
The only difference between blue states and red states is which side of the halfway line it’s tipped towards.
not for any longer. trump has won the right to throw out any mail-in ballot he wants.
Texas has more dem voters than some states have people.
We have loads of left-leaning people who are eligible to vote. If more of them would actually vote, we’d get somewhere. Fortunately, the primary turnout numbers this year look good. More Democratic voters than Republican in the Senate race, and pretty close to even for the Governor. Compare to 2024 when over 2/3 of primary ballots cast were Republican. Polling looks better than 2018 with Beto v Cruz.
And yet not once have they even been close to winning
You aren’t even close to being right about that
Nah, pretty close.
Beto came pretty close against Cruz. But that was basically it in the last 30 or so years. Every other time has been a route basically. The Texas Democratic party is beyond incompetent.
Manslaughter in front of a grand jury didn’t even stick. It’s like the prosecutor had vacation plans didn’t want to to reschedule.
The awful thing is that if the family is behind the alcoholic trump father since he is still alive, there is no one left to bring justice in her name. Is she just to be forgotten and swept under the Texas rug?
Seems like it, but these rural Texans won’t give a shit because she’s a woman. Stepped outside the kitchen and talked back to her pa so basically asked for it.
In fairness, the girl’s mother is a British citizen living in the UK and fought for justice for her daughter.
Ah, a “traitor” then. Yeah, they probably give less of a shit because of this.
I think the father is the breadwinner for his new family (2nd wife and children with her), and his income is more immediately needed than safety from his drunken shooting sprees. The fact that his younger children weren’t removed from the home by the state is also shocking.
I think about her so she won’t be forgotten
the boyfriend says the the daughter and father always argued when he brought up him owning guns and the father claims they never discussed it before once and he accidently shot her when he was just showing her his gun. while he was drunk, the boyfriend also says the father pulled her into the father’s room before he heard the shot go off. it sounds like the judge, and prosecution in TX don’t really care if you kill your kids as long as you say ‘oops’ well enough.
Trump country is different. I was driving through a rural township and saw these signs “justice for some guy” and searched for the name. Nearby towns news article said he had multiple accounts of SA on kids and when the cops arrived with a warrant, he drove drunk into a bunch of stuff before getting rolled into a ditch. And now half the locals are mad that he’s in jail presumably without bail. WTF.
So there’s just no one in that town who owns a gun and has a sense of justice? Really?
And these people were talking about Trump derangement syndrome like it only affects libtards and woke lefties.
Making the case for gun control whilst trying to protect the 2nd amendment, the irony is overwhelming
As I say, the love they have for even their own children is entirely conditional. They will make you the enemy and kill you at a moment’s notice. If you have MAGA in your family, kick them out of what they can come to. Ostracization from family and society is the only nice thing we can do against them.
I’m here about the title.
The local jury
Grand jury.
He was immediately released
Yes, that’s how this works.
Now, bear in mind, I’m only here about the part of this from the title that I quoted. For anyone outraged by that part, no.
The way this works:
-
A matter is put before a grand jury. Only evidence submitted is by the prosecutor. Nothing from the defense. The standard of evidence is “probable cause”, which is a very very low standard. Basically, unless someone screwed something up massively, there will almost always be sufficient probable cause for a case to go forward.
-
If probable cause is indeed found, the case will proceed. It may eventually have a trial by jury, where both sides present their case and a jury decides - for civil matters the standard is preponderance of the evidence (i.e. majority of evidence seems guilty or not), for criminal it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning it seems pretty clear and any evidence that is against seems unlikely.
So speaking generally, when indictment in front of a grand jury fails, it means one of something like these happened:
- Fundamental evidence failed “probable cause”. For example, say it resulted from a traffic stop, but it was found that the traffic stop had no legal justification. Because of “fruit of the forbidden tree”, it might be entirely thrown out
- Perhaps the prosecutors failed to get their shit together on evidence
- Perhaps, as is theorized by some in this case, the prosecutor felt they had to present the case, but threw it on purpose, sort of like a prosecutorial nullification, if you will
So again, not talking about the case (I’ve discussed/debated in other threads - this is not a new story), just the parts of the title that make it clear OP doesn’t understand the difference between a jury and a grand jury. :)
Originating in England during the Middle Ages, modern examples include grand juries in the United States, and to a lesser extent, Liberia. wp
Sounds like a modern and reasonable institution.
Would you prefer the case go to trial before it’s established if there’s sufficient probable cause? Or if only the state gets to make that determination?
Yes
Ok bootlicker
Almost every other jurisdiction in functional democracies do not have grand juries and don’t plan to implement such a mechanism, nor are they implored to do so, are they all bootlickers?
Yes. Yes they are. Anyone who wants more government control of the justice system, and less accountability to the people, is a bootlicker. People in those countries are expected to trust that the state did it’s due diligence before putting someone on trial, and as the right sweeps these countries they’re going to learn why that’s a mistake.
one of the faces of American exceptionalism
Given that grand jury indictment rates are like >90%, what’s actually being achieved here?
That’s probably a pretty good rate considering probable cause is the bar.
Also given there’s no defence, I should hope they could almost always win a completely uncontested review of evidence.
+/-10% of cases with bullshit evidence aren’t going to trial
I’m guessing the prosecutor didn’t really try.
do also note, that if the prosecution doesn’t like the results of the grand jury he can just keep doing it over until he gets the answer he wants… unless he is actually not trying for a conviction.
-
It’s been reposted dozens of times on here
Fascism is alive and well in Texass.
Coroners don’t determine whether a death is lawful or not…
This kind of thing tends to work completely differently depending upon municipality, county, and state.
And in Texas the coroner doesn’t. They determine cause of death.
A DA or jury determines lawfulness.
Okay so what point are you making? The coroner didn’t determine lawfulness, the court did. He just offered his opinion, as coroners do, about the actions that killed the woman.
My point is that the coroner’s opinion isn’t an official determination of whether the death was lawful.
The opinion here was basically that the wounds didn’t match the defendant’s story. That’s not determining the lawfulness of the death, although it’s likely good evidence towards that determination.
I think the fact that she is dead prove the unlawfullness of her death. Unless you can tell me a story where an unarmed person could be lawfully shot in the chest. The unlawfulness description isn’t why most people are upset about this story.
In Texas it’s legal to shoot a thief in the back as they’re fleeing.
And I wasn’t speaking to what most people were upset about; I was nitpicking because 2/3 of OP’s excerpts were about the coroner.
Family members were in tears during the hearing at Cheshire Coroner’s Court as Coroner Jacqueline Devonish announced that she found Lucy Harrison died due to unlawful killing on the grounds of gross negligence manslaughter.
The coroner said: "To shoot her through the chest whilst she was standing would have required him to have been pointing the gun at his daughter, without checking for bullets, and pulling the trigger.
“I find these actions to be reckless.”
Yeah, still. Coroner determines cause of death and manner of death. Not what the charges are.
This is a statement from a court case though.
When called to court to testify coroners do absolutely give their opinion about the deaths.
Also reminds me of Gary Webb’s coronor saying there is a “distinct possibility” that someone could shoot themselves twice in the head. And he wasn’t even in court
An opinion is not the same as an official determination.
deleted by creator
They kinda do. There are five possible causes of death: homicide, suicide, accidental, natural causes, and unknown. All deaths not determined to be accidental or natural require a police investigation.
That still isn’t a determination of lawfulness. Homicide just means a person killed a person.
The DA or jury determines lawfulness.
Words mean different things in different contexts. A legal finding is different than a coroner’s findings and a corpnor’s opinion is different than a judges legal opinion. A coroner saying something is unlawful is different than a judge saying something is unlawful.
I hope they were immediately released if you can’t get an indictment. The reason they couldn’t get an indictment is because the prosecutor didn’t really want one. Grand juries only really hear what the prosecutor wants to tell them. That’s why it’s said you can get an indictment on a ham sandwich.
This is important to remember. Grand juries are simple majority. No defense is present. If they don’t get an indictment it’s because they didn’t want it.
Remember that every time a right wing darling (like a cop or maga drunk) gets away without an indictment.
