A woman His daughter.
But that’s murder! If there’s one crime I thought could always rely on to be punished, it’s murder
You should look more to who runs the justice department rather than the nature of the crime. We are not all the same.
But that’s murder!
Guy was showing off his Glock during a family get together and the gun discharged because he didn’t know how to handle it properly.
GJ chose not to indict on the charges the DA tried to bring.
USA failed state
Let’s see if I got this right. He gets into an argument with his daughter where he says he doesn’t care if Donald Trump were to rape her because he has two more daughters. There is obviously no coming back from thinking let alone saying such a thing.
The next day he downs a bottle of wine and invites his daughter to his room right before she leaves back to England. In the room he claims she says she wants to see his handgun. As he pulls it out of the drawer it just happens to go off and also just happens to be aimed right at her.
Yeah, dude couldn’t let her live after what he had told her, it is pretty obvious. He tricks her to coming into his room where there is no witness and silences her forever.
As he pulls it out of the drawer and it just happens to go off and also just happens to be aimed right at her.
Also worth noting that he shot her with a Glock. Glocks have a safety built directly into the trigger, which needs to be pressed before the trigger will move. It’s the blue part of the trigger in this image:
In terms of “just happened to go off”, a Glock is just about as safe as you can get. The dude 1000% pulled the trigger, because that sprung lever needs to be pressed before the trigger will even begin to move.
Mhm, an accident. You don’t accidentally:
- load a gun
- pick the gun up
- disengage the safety
- point the gun at a person
- put the finger on the trigger
The trigger can be very sensitive and you can accidentally shoot a gun. After all other safety precautions have been purposefully violated
The justice system in the US is quite unjust.
what makes this worse is he was shooting a Glock. They have a different “safety” altogether. Designed specifically to prevent accidental discharge. He didn’t drop the gun or something. He had to put his finger on the trigger.
I’m surprised they didn’t return on “negligence causing death” or so. The bar is lower.
But he was a red-stater, so maybe that’s …okay, now?
Could someone please explain to me how the fuck do you kill someone, even if it’s manslaughter, and not get tried over it?
Grand jury, not regular jury, which likely consists of rich white men that’s a holdover from Jim crow. Prosecutors who agree with the defendent and intentionally try for charges they know won’t stay. Texas.
Because it’s okay, he still has 2 more daughters 👍
To be fair you only really need one.
No, I’m serious, please eli5… Where I’m from, murder + suspect = a trial…
The grand jury is an extension of the district attorney’s office. When a crime is suspected of being committed, the district attorney brings the evidence to a grand jury. Then the grand jury decides if the case can proceed to trial. It’s basically step 0 in the judicial process.
The prosecutor has a lot of discretion in what evidence the grand jury sees. They can do things like include evidence that they know won’t stand up in court, or intentionally exclude exculpatory evidence (that would prove the suspect’s innocence). Additionally, there is no defense attorney at the grand jury. Nobody has been charged with a crime yet, so the suspect can’t even defend themselves. The old joke among defense attorneys is that the grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for murder if the DA wanted them to.
The point of the grand jury is for the prosecutor to go “do I have enough evidence to go to trial?” They’re not deciding guilt. They’re just deciding if it’s even worth trying to prosecute a suspect. So the threshold for evidence is very low. On paper, the grand jury is meant to prevent frivolous charges and protect clearly innocent suspects. If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence to go to trial, then the suspect is officially charged with a crime and the entire arrest+trial part of the prosecution kicks off.
But in reality, it is often just used as a scapegoat by the district attorney. The grand jury is anonymous, which makes them very convenient as a scapegoat. As far as the public is concerned, the grand jury is just a sort of massless, faceless blob. The DA is typically an elected position, which means they need to keep the public’s wants in mind. And this can come into conflict with the job, when they have a politically inconvenient case.
For example, let’s say a cop kills someone in broad daylight, surrounded by bystander recordings. The public is out for blood. But the police union has privately told the DA that if charges get pressed, the cops will collectively stop cooperating as witnesses and won’t collect evidence at crime scenes. Functionally making the DA’s job impossible.
So the DA uses the grand jury as a scapegoat. They refuse to bring any evidence (because again, they can choose to exclude evidence), and then the grand jury refuses to indict because they were given no evidence. Then the DA jumps in front of the news cameras and goes “I tried my best, and I brought the case to the grand jury! But the big mean grand jury refused to indict! Remember that I’m fighting for you. Vote for me!” And the grand jury (as a faceless blob) can’t defend themselves and go “hey uhh, we would have indicted that cop if the DA brought any evidence…”
Thanks for that effort, appreciated.
Again today I’m thankful I don’t live there.
Thank you.
the lightest charge, wrongful death, is civil. not criminal
What is that title? “Man who shot British woman”?? Isn’t it a lot more interesting to say “Man who shot his own daughter”? Their relationship seems far more interesting and relevant to the situation than her country of origin, wtf is this journalism? Or am I missing something?
Because a) It’s now an international incident, and b) the source is BBC.
deleted by creator
Ah, I see part of the issue. OP is a butt for removing the familial link in their title. The BBC headline is more accurate.
Oh my bad, I assumed that the title matched the article, as that is a common rule in a lot of news communities.
they gotta soften it SOMEHOW!
Yeah Texas is full of trumpers top to bottom. Those of us with actual brains have to fly low or risk decapitation by the jihadi emulators behind the badges
That guy’s neighbours need to chip-in for a billboard. Just with her face.
Okay. Maybe a “no justice no peace” in small print.
Have they at least taken his guns away since he’s clearly not responsible enough to own them? Oh wait, I forgot it was Texas for a second.
You couldn’t make this shit up
Why did that British women go there in the first place ? Its like going to Syria and complaining about getting bombed. Anyways RIP.
Remember folks, it only takes 3 clicks to block in Lemmy.
