Oscar Pistorius was charged and convicted.
This case exposes USA as a bigger shit-hole than fucking South Africa. That is really saying something!
Is the father even a citizen?
Hello ICE, I think I found one of those illegals 😏
A dangerous criminal too, the kind they promised they’d go after
“As I lifted the gun to show her I suddenly heard a loud bang,” Kris allegedly said. “I did not understand what had happened. Lucy immediately fell.” WTF!!! It proves he pointed the gun at his daughter, which is a big fucking NO NO! Worse yet, the damn thing was locked and loaded. Fuck him, charge him with murder.
Where I live, in Europe, you CAN own firearms. Long guns pretty easily, as they are considered hunting/sporting guns, including semi-auto assault rifles, albeit, with 3 round magazines. Buying or even 3D printing larger ones is trivial, but it’s a felony to have one near the gun (same range/car/house…).
Long gun licenses require a medical, which includes a basic psych eval.
Handguns require a stricter medical, with a more detailed psych eval, and a course which includes gun safety, and legislation, among other things.
Except for some rare exceptions (jewelers, judges, and other people that can objectively be considered a target for assault or retaliation) you cannot carry, open or otherwise, except to go to a range, or hunting ground, and the gun and munitions must be separated; guns in a case in the trunk, with the magazine and munitions in the front of the car.
I don’t get why there isn’t a reasonable license for guns in the US. There is for cars, no?
Because freedumb
There’s no excuse for it to not be murder, but the fact its not even manslaughter is a message.
This is just an excuse, dude murdered his daughter and is trying to blame it on the gun. Guns don’t load themselves, and they don’t magically go off…
Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people
And sadly, the highest percentage is within a family.
Exactly this. I was taught not to point a gun at anything I don’t intend to destroy, even if I believe it not to be loaded.
Anything less than that is negligent manslaughter at the least if the gun ‘goes off’ ‘by accident’, because you should never be in that situation.
Texas is a shithole.
Lawless shithole country.
Okay, but, even ruled an accident, why is this guy not up for manslaughter charges? Do I grossly misunderstand what manslaughter is?
This is definitely some smoking gun tier bullshit, but even given every benefit of the doubt in the world, the negligence has to be criminal.
It’s a small town. He’s probably buddies with all the cops and DAs. That shit is super common.
Lots of countries have small towns, where that doesn’t mean it’s fine to shoot a daughter. It’s an international scandal now, so it’s not like they managed to keep it quiet. Everyone, everywhere, can see the disfunction.
they really don’t care, man. talk to some boomers sometimes they desperately need to be forced into retirement and group homes.
Get your ageist nonsense out of here. Old people make good and bad decisions, just like everyone does.
Well, at least all the Texan children of MAGAts know they can “accidentally” kill their piece of shit Trumpanzee parents without going to prison now there is a precedent.
That would only hold if the law were consistent. This very obviously only goes this single direction.
*president
/s
Two wrongs don’t make a right one.
Enough wrongs erase the people who care, and trust me, the fascists are stacking wrongs as fast as they can.
They didn’t suggest killing innocent people
I’m so angry right now, getting even is absolutely fair play in my moral compass now
Supposedly an accidental shooting according to the article.
But sounds fishy to me, and yes, he should be in prison whether it was accidental or not. It was either a death due to deadly negligence or he’s lying and murdered her, both of which should merit jail time.
Unfortunately guns are extra-legal here. The law or the people in most US cities doesn’t care if the shooting was supposedly accidental.
No, no, you don’t get it - he’s admitted that he was under the influence of alcohol while handling the weapon (which he was showing off to his famously anti-gun daughter in the basement into which she was not allowed prior), so it means he’s off the hook, it was basically an act of God! After all, how can we expect to punish people for what they’re doing while drunk, right?
At this point, it’s a suicide really.
/J
Guns have more rights than women in this country.
I’ve been rewatching Bojack Horseman, and there’s an episode where Diane convinces the state to pass common-sense gun legislation by making it “in” for women to carry guns. The eventually leads to the line, “I can’t believe this country hates women more than it loves guns,” to which the character with her replies, “really?”
I think that moment is, unfortunately, rather poignant.
Basically Reagan (when he was governor of California) vs the black Panthers
Almost, she becomes a fan of guns after trying one and then women across the country all get guns to protect themselves from men. Men freak out and ban all guns in the US. But still one of my favorite lines.
Seems like women should be identifying with AR/15 as their pronouns
guns don’t kill people, women kill people.
she killed herself by arguing with a man.
/s
#choosethebear
#LowHangingFruitRageBait
#IfThisMakesSomeoneMadTheyShouldn’tBeHere
I didn’t kill her, the bullet and impact did.
Guess it’s time for another accidental shooting, huh.
Luigi should try this defense.
“I just wanted to show him my cool gun, but then it went off, all on its own. Complete accident!”
Ahhh, so “Honor killings” are now acceptable in the US.
Then he ought to be put down, for his daughter’s honor.
Always have been
What’s another one?
Most lynching victims
werehave been (apparently people in the US are still lynching) accused of either murder or rape. So have a look at this NSFL Wikipedia article and look at the accusations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lynching_victims_in_the_United_StatesIn some cases, especially closer to the present, lynchers have been prosecuted and sentenced, but it a lot of situations this wasn’t the case.
Research done by anti-lynching groups of that time period found that the majority of lynching victimes were owed money by white folks, usually as sharecroppers, and expected to be paid said money.
This reads like it never even went to trial. The article says a jury “failed to indict” and the man was “never charged”.
I’m assuming it was a grand jury and somehow a bare majority or jurors couldn’t find cause to charge the man (who—at minimum—pointed a gun at his daughter’s chest and pulled the trigger) with any crime whatsoever.
Not a single charge or trial?
How?
Texas
Also she was Anti-Trump. And a woman. So it’s okay.
They don’t consider it a crime if they don’t believe the victim is a person.
Unironically a foundational tenant of the entire country.
Some of us have just done a better job of moving past it. (Dems enabled Gaza genocide so I’m not talking about Dems, at least not the politicians. I mean some individuals.)
Yes. Totally on her. /s If she had not been born yet, then things would have been a lot different. ‘dad’ had been on death-row before midnight
Grand jury. What little I’ve read keeps saying they tried for manslaughter. Also from what I’ve read, based on the dad’s own statements he’s clearly guilty of a number of crimes that aren’t manslaughter. So it’s possible there’s some nazi-esque camaraderie here and the prosecutor intentionally flopped to get no charges. I’m not exactly sure how grand juries work on that front. Could they have tried for a lower level charge, then once the rest of the investigation uncovers things they just bump the charge up to the appropriate level of would they need to reconvene a grand jury? Could the grand jury have considered multiple levels of charges?
Grand juries are different than trial juries in Texas. They’re nominated “respectable” members of society that serve terms for multiple months. It’s remnants of Jim Crow that are alive and well, where rich white guys decide who gets prosecuted for what.
And Texas made it even worse a few years back. In 2008, a white guy called 911 because police his neighbor’s house was being robbed. He indicated that the neighbor’s were not home, and also that he was gonna shoot the burglars. The dispatch told him over a dozen times not to interfere, and he repeatedly said he would shoot them. As plainclothes police were arriving on scene, dispatch told him they were arriving, but he went ahead and shot the 2 unarmed burglars in the back while.they were fleeing, killing both. They happened to be unarmed.
The grand jury refused to indict him for a crime, but the familes sued the murderer in civil court and won.
So Texas made a law that if someone is not convicted of a felony for a gun crime they can’t be sued in civil court over it.
So Texas made a law that if someone is not found convicted of a felony for a gun crime they can’t be sued in civil court over it.
This is how you get vigilantes.
That’s the idea.
They openly allowed armed civilian militias like the “Minutemen” and “United Constitutional Patriots” to detain and hold migrants at gunpoint until CBP arrived.
Hell - in the 80s a militia group calling itself the “Civiliian Military Assistant” was actually making border raids into Mexico to shoot on migrants before they crossed the border.
You know, these folks keep worrying about the cartels and the Black Panthers. And the more I read, the more I wish that what they feared most actually came to pass, and Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación actually rolled a few APCs into their neighborhoods and started a scorched earth campaign or three.
How much do we want to bet that the law wouldn’t apply if the shooter was black?
I knew that the US justice system was bad, but I at least hoped that some crimes would have to be trialed in court.
Thanks for the explanation.
Grand jury indictments are required for felony charges to make it to trial, including felonies like murder/involuntary manslaughter.
Indictments are a very low bar (probable cause). In this case, it seems clear to me from everyone’s accounts that, at minimum, this was a reckless homicide where the mishandling of a firearm resulted in someone’s death, and therefore probable cause existed to indict, so this is very clearly a poor decision on the jury’s part if the charge was manslaughter. I’m not sure if they tried to seek an indictment for involuntary manslaughter or murder though. Murder is a higher bar.
However this isn’t necessarily a done deal. Double jeopardy does not apply to grand juries’ “no bill” (i.e. the decision not to indict), so the prosecutor can gather more evidence or plan a different approach and try again. If, for example, they attempted to get an indictment for murder and failed, they could try again for manslaughter. This is really only news if the prosecution decides to stop trying to indict.
It could also be a case of a prosecutor who agrees with the shooter. (A right-wing extremist prosecutor, who has ever heard of such a thing?)
In that case, the prosecutor might feel pressured to bring the case before a grand jury, just to make it look like he’s doing his job. But he could deliberately throw the case, neglect to mention important evidence, etc, etc, and fail to get an indictment. That way, he gets to shut down the prosecution without making it look like it was his choice. Since grand jury proceedings are sealed, nobody would be able to know he deliberately sandbagged and failed on purpose. Then he gets to make a public statement about how he tried, but the grand jury said no, so his hands are tied.
So it could be a way for a malicious prosecutor to kill/bury the case without looking like he’s deliberately letting a murderer go free.
“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,” the coroner said. “I find these actions to be reckless.”
Mmhmm.
“If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
I don’t think the district attorney tried to do more than the bare minimum for the indictment. I wonder if they purposely threw the case.
“Justice for Mama Cass!”
Some states do require a grand jury indictment if its a crime that carries capital punishment. Like murder.
Could be a case where they went for a specific murder charge, but weren’t able to support it.
Or the prosecutor was implicit
Complicit
Hey look how about some sympathy for the gun owner here? He accidentally pointed a loaded weapon at a loved one while having a heated argument, and the gun felt scared and accidentally went off! By accident!
Really, that poor gun owner might be scared to point a loaded weapon at a loved one again! Don’t victim blame the poor owner!
Yep, sounds like the US to me.
Whoa, did he shoot her at a school!?!!?
In Texas shooting is ok as long as you can at least see a school from your front yard.
If he did, at least we know he’s not a cop. They don’t do anything involving school shootings.
They don’t do anything involving school shootings.
Not true. They’ll stand around and blockade the entrance to prevent parents from going in to rescue their children.
We call that a whoopsie here.
“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,” the coroner said. “I find these actions to be reckless.”
Whoopsies! I usually make sure not to pull the trigger when casually pointing a loaded gun at a family member’s chest. But that’s just me being overly cautious.
I am baffled at how this doesn’t constitute premeditated murder. They had some argument and then guy’s like “know what? I know what I’m gonna do.” And did it. What freaking horror.
You missed the part where the guy said he didn’t mean to do that and he’s sorry.
“Jesus says to forgive…”
I just accidentally beat my daughter to death. The bat just went off on it’s own. I was just showing her the bat then all of a sudden she was bludgeoned to death. I have no idea what happened!
not your fault. she was probably just too observant
Well glocks don’t have safeties and require you to pull the trigger to disassemble. Negligent discharges when trying to show them off to people absolutely do happen, and with how you have to hold the gun to take it apart the “don’t point at anything you don’t wish to shoot” rule gets overlooked a lot.
They’re the default “modern” handgun but I’ve always said they are a terrible design.
Finally, a fellow Glock hater!
Two things that should be completely unacceptable in a modern firearm:
-
Having no safety mechanism whatsoever. (Trigger dingus doesn’t count.)
-
Requiring a trigger pull (or even putting your finger inside the trigger guard) for any other reason than intending to fire a shot.
And there are so many excellent modern pistols out there that don’t break these two rules. Pistols that do everything a Glock can do, but without these glaring safety issues. So why is the Glock still the ‘default’ choice? It’s especially egregious to see it as a recommendation to novice shooters. Dealing with these safety issues should require an expert. Putting a gun with these issues into the hands of a new shooter is just asking for trouble.
A safety exists to prevent human error. Not touching the trigger doesn’t solve this.
The primary argument of “you might forget to disengage it in the heat of the moment” is complete bullshit. If you can’t reliably disengage a safety you can’t reliably not pull the trigger during a draw, shooting yourself in the femoral artery or hand. Either you practice your draw until it’s muscle memory or you don’t, removing safety features to simplify the process doesn’t make you safer.
-
