It is never an accident when you pick up a gun in a political argument.
If you pick up a gun and don’t clear it. You are negligent.
If you point a gun at someone. You are negligent.
If you are not taking any safety precautions when handling a firearm. You are negligent.
I find it baffling when I go through a chain of comments with people complaining that the source is missing which provides context, but they don’t link the source.
“Don’t trust what people say happened if they don’t have a source. You can trust what I say happened without a source.”
Sorry I saw there was a link added but I didn’t see that it’s not the same one I originally read. The posted one has a lot more writer bias in it but also seems to have a firmer timeline of events.
I can’t believe there are such fucked up people. People who kill their daughters and people who defend murderers. Fuck them, fuck the grand jury and fuck you, scum.
Kid and dad fight in the morning. Kid plans to leave the next day to end trip. They are no longer actively fighting. Dad asks kid if they want to see a gun, kid says sure. They disappear and you hear a single gunshot then dad yells for help.
This sounds just the same if it’s an accident or if it’s done with intent and you CANT know the intent. You can speculate based on character and history, That is insufficient for the legal system.
If there is an active domestic disturbance going on based on witness testimony it’s a horse of a different color.
Dad asks kid if they want to see a gun, kid says sure
From an article another user posted:
She said Lucy was “categorically anti-gun” and was worried about there being a firearm in the house with her two younger half-sisters.
“I’m very anti-gun and cutting my trip short due to a fight we had, but sure, I’d love to go into another room with you to look at your loaded gun with the safety off. Could you point out right at me so I can get a good look at it?”
If you’re in your basement, and someone gets stabbed in your kitchen, you somehow know the stabber’s intent?
Go back and read the original fucking article. If you’re really curious, go scrounge up the actual facts of the case presented to the grand jury.
“Okay, but what if I’m skeptical? What if I’m double skeptical? What if I’m fully incredulous? Then can I believe her father killed her in cold blood?” Sure. Believe whatever fairy tale you want to tell yourself.
So your point is that, believing only the murderer, after a heated discussion about Trump and guns, he took his daughter to a room where he was displaying the safety features of a loaded gun and accidentally shot and killed her daughter… and in this scenario, there is ZERO criminal liability?
You are arguing with me, a random asshole on the internet, when you should be arguing with the DA and the grand jury, which did not find the evidence in the case gathered by a professional investigation team compelling enough to indict on.
as far as I can tell, the only misquote is the date (which explains why it’s been posted so much this week)… if you have any official source that contradicts the many articles posted on this I am happy to read through but I have not found any so far
this is america - don’t think because they refused to press that there was no nonsense at foot. heck, even an accidental discharge should result in time. mind you, with guns, there is no such thing as an accident.
Guy should get in trouble for what happened. But it’s not reasonable to frame this like “we know he intentionally shot his daughter because of her views on Trump.” And don’t get me wrong, fuck trump and fuck maga.
don’t think because they refused to press that there was no nonsense at foot
The argument presented by the Tweet varies enormously from the facts of the case. They didn’t even get the fucking date right. She was shot in January of 2025, not 2026.
You’re getting the internet gossip fifth hand while dismissing the legal decisions of this woman’s friends and neighbors because… America bad?
I agree that including a link to credible news sources is crucial. It’s also important to cite the facts as presented, then be clear when posting your own opinion or inserting misdirection such as “there were witnesses”.
Facts:
There was a heated argument prior to the shooting.
The shooter had implied, earlier in the day, that he would not care if the victim was assaulted because “I have other daughters”.
The victim disliked guns and had not asked to see the gun, despite the shooter’s claim to the contrary.
The victim was shot in the chest at medium range 15 seconds after she was pulled into a room with no witnesses.
There was a heated argument prior to the shooting.
Is false right out of the gate.
Sam Littler, Lucy’s boyfriend, who was with her on the trip, told the inquest she had become upset earlier that day after having “quite a big argument” with her father about Trump, who was due to be inaugurated as president later that month.
Lucy had asked her father: “How would you feel if I was the girl in that situation and I’d been sexually assaulted?”
He responded that it would not upset him that much.
She was upset. He was cavalier.
He said his girlfriend’s father had spoken in the past about taking the gun out of the box and walking around with it “like James Bond”.
He treated his gun like a toy and his daughter paid for his childish attitude with her life. There’s a story here, but nobody on Lemmy seems to want to read it. They want to believe this house became some kind of war zone. The biter truth is that he fucked up because he didn’t take gun ownership seriously.
There were no other witnesses. There were people in the house but the father took the daughter by the hand and led her to his room were the gun was located. She was very anti-gun… why would she want to see it? He shot her directly in the chest. No one else was in the room.
Edit: also earlier she asked if it was her that had been sexual assaulted(referring to something about Trump) he said he would not be that upset about it.
The GJ refused to indict based on the evidence provided by the prosecutor. The prosecutor, if they want, can get an indictment out of a GJ. The outcome is entirely dependent on decisions made by the prosecutor around what evidence to present and the manner in which it is presented.
The prosecutor, if they want, can get an indictment out of a GJ.
The prosecutor can present evidence to the GJ selectively. They can’t just demand the GJ issue an indictment. If there’s not enough selectively revealed evidence to convince a GJ, the case is almost certainly too weak to survive trial.
The killer said it was an accident and there are no living witnesses.
It is never an accident when you pick up a gun in a political argument.
If you pick up a gun and don’t clear it. You are negligent.
If you point a gun at someone. You are negligent.
If you are not taking any safety precautions when handling a firearm. You are negligent.
100% this here. If you’re negligent with a firearm you’re responsible.
Not in Texas apparently.
Reminds me of back in the 1950’s and before when getting black out drunk and running over someone was an “accident”.
Back when drunk driving was just boys will be boys.
Glad those times are gone
I phrased is like this as I know that in some situations it might be needed to pick up a gun to defend yourself from harm.
However, no political argument should ever devolve into the need for guns.
Yeah but it’s not an accident
Suddenly the right will be very pro second amendment watch.
Oh of course, it’s one of their guys with the gun this time.
You’re right.
Luckily there’s no article supplied so you can’t see that the argument and the gunshot are non-contemporaneous.
I find it baffling when I go through a chain of comments with people complaining that the source is missing which provides context, but they don’t link the source.
“Don’t trust what people say happened if they don’t have a source. You can trust what I say happened without a source.”
Sorry I saw there was a link added but I didn’t see that it’s not the same one I originally read. The posted one has a lot more writer bias in it but also seems to have a firmer timeline of events.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyk917xy8no
I know for sure the best time to clean my pistol is during a heated argument.
The grand jury refused to indict based on the evidence presented in the case.
The victim’s entire family was in the house at the time of the killing. There were numerous witnesses.
I can’t believe there are such fucked up people. People who kill their daughters and people who defend murderers. Fuck them, fuck the grand jury and fuck you, scum.
I don’t understand the logic here. If you’re in your basement, and someone gets stabbed in your kitchen, you somehow know the stabber’s intent?
Is this a normal psychic power? I don’t think I have it.
There were no witnesses. Unless you count the killer.
Kid and dad fight in the morning. Kid plans to leave the next day to end trip. They are no longer actively fighting. Dad asks kid if they want to see a gun, kid says sure. They disappear and you hear a single gunshot then dad yells for help.
This sounds just the same if it’s an accident or if it’s done with intent and you CANT know the intent. You can speculate based on character and history, That is insufficient for the legal system.
If there is an active domestic disturbance going on based on witness testimony it’s a horse of a different color.
Even if it was an accident, he should have been charged with manslaughter.
From an article another user posted:
“I’m very anti-gun and cutting my trip short due to a fight we had, but sure, I’d love to go into another room with you to look at your loaded gun with the safety off. Could you point out right at me so I can get a good look at it?”
Go back and read the original fucking article. If you’re really curious, go scrounge up the actual facts of the case presented to the grand jury.
“Okay, but what if I’m skeptical? What if I’m double skeptical? What if I’m fully incredulous? Then can I believe her father killed her in cold blood?” Sure. Believe whatever fairy tale you want to tell yourself.
So your point is that, believing only the murderer, after a heated discussion about Trump and guns, he took his daughter to a room where he was displaying the safety features of a loaded gun and accidentally shot and killed her daughter… and in this scenario, there is ZERO criminal liability?
You are arguing with me, a random asshole on the internet, when you should be arguing with the DA and the grand jury, which did not find the evidence in the case gathered by a professional investigation team compelling enough to indict on.
yes, I come to Lemmy to find DAs and argue a year old case in a country I do not live in…
This is the USA, and Texas to boot… there is no professional anything when it comes to guns or law… it’s basically a banana republic at this point
This is British tabloid news and people misquoting articles on social media.
as far as I can tell, the only misquote is the date (which explains why it’s been posted so much this week)… if you have any official source that contradicts the many articles posted on this I am happy to read through but I have not found any so far
What facts in the original article or the case are you referring to?
this is america - don’t think because they refused to press that there was no nonsense at foot. heck, even an accidental discharge should result in time. mind you, with guns, there is no such thing as an accident.
“with guns, there is no such thing as an accident”? Negligent discharges happen all the time. It’s a reasonably big part of gun injury statistics: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7250a1.htm
Guy should get in trouble for what happened. But it’s not reasonable to frame this like “we know he intentionally shot his daughter because of her views on Trump.” And don’t get me wrong, fuck trump and fuck maga.
i am not considering negligence an accident, that’s my point.
The argument presented by the Tweet varies enormously from the facts of the case. They didn’t even get the fucking date right. She was shot in January of 2025, not 2026.
You’re getting the internet gossip fifth hand while dismissing the legal decisions of this woman’s friends and neighbors because… America bad?
I agree that including a link to credible news sources is crucial. It’s also important to cite the facts as presented, then be clear when posting your own opinion or inserting misdirection such as “there were witnesses”.
Facts:
Sources:
Is false right out of the gate.
She was upset. He was cavalier.
He treated his gun like a toy and his daughter paid for his childish attitude with her life. There’s a story here, but nobody on Lemmy seems to want to read it. They want to believe this house became some kind of war zone. The biter truth is that he fucked up because he didn’t take gun ownership seriously.
That’s not manslaughter?
Not according to the grand jury.
And we aren’t allowed to question if the grand jury made a mistake? If so everything else being discussed is pointless.
Do you think the situation you are describing sounds like it might be manslaughter? Enough that it is worth while to have a trial and find out?
The tweet is wrong, yes, but there are dozens of articles coming out in the past 3 days that correctly date the killing.
There are dozens of articles reprinting the same events with increasingly click-bait geared headlines and takes.
Every iteration gets farther and farther away from the facts of the case.
There were no other witnesses. There were people in the house but the father took the daughter by the hand and led her to his room were the gun was located. She was very anti-gun… why would she want to see it? He shot her directly in the chest. No one else was in the room.
Edit: also earlier she asked if it was her that had been sexual assaulted(referring to something about Trump) he said he would not be that upset about it.
They refused to bring manslaughter charges. I’m not a lawyer, but I cannot understand how even his version of events isn’t at least manslaughter.
I blame the prosecutor here.
Nobody was in the room where the father killed his daughter… he took her there aside from the rest of the fam
Someone died. No one gets punished for that? You must be American
The GJ refused to indict based on the evidence provided by the prosecutor. The prosecutor, if they want, can get an indictment out of a GJ. The outcome is entirely dependent on decisions made by the prosecutor around what evidence to present and the manner in which it is presented.
The prosecutor can present evidence to the GJ selectively. They can’t just demand the GJ issue an indictment. If there’s not enough selectively revealed evidence to convince a GJ, the case is almost certainly too weak to survive trial.
Yup
You’re so close to seeing the issue here.