Littler said on the morning of 10 January his partner had asked her father during the Trump row: “How would you feel if I was the girl in that situation and I’d been sexually assaulted?”
Kris Harrison had replied that he had two other daughters who lived with him so it would not upset him that much.
Littler said Lucy became “quite upset” and ran upstairs.
That sure as hell primes any biases…
The framing and title of the BBC article I read was curious. But even knowing the facts, the story sounds very much like he killed her and said it was an accident - tho that’s nothing more than common speculation. A lot of things don’t make sense, which lead people to suspect murder; but reality is messy and irrational. We can only hope a thorough investigation was done.
But the amount of divisive social media pushes using this story in one way or another is concerning. The OP is from X which let’s users monetize their posts, so a good chunk is probably just intentional engagement bait, just as the article was borderline click bait.
Guns only fire when you pull the trigger. They only hit what they are pointed at.
Whatever else you want to believe, he pointed the gun at her chest and he pulled the trigger. Whatever narrative you arrive at has to fit the established facts first.
She stands to his side, he handles the gun on its side over the bed (like one would when examining it), he’s a dipshit and pulls the trigger to mess with it not looking where it’s pointed, bang, oh shit, here we are.
Until an investigation actually comes out, there’s no knowing what happened exactly, and even then it’s if the investigation goes well. But I’d like to err on the side of hope and assume a man wouldn’t intentionally blast his own daughter in the chest in their own home over politics.
Why would you assume a looney tunes chain of events when parents killing their kids is like the most normal fucking thing in history? Sorry to bum you out, but parents murder their kids every single day, its a hell of a lot more common than some rube goldberg chain of bullshit like you are describing.
It seems that the only conclusions that really fit the facts are either it was a complete accident (a tragically common occurrence) or the man planned to murder his own child, which seems unthinkable.
The argument then comes down to whether a grand jury, who presumably heard exhaustive facts about the case, concluded that he should not be prosecuted based on their own biases and desires rather than the letter or intent of the law.
He accidentally pointed the gun directly at his daughter’s chest, he accidentally put his finger in the trigger, and he accidentally pulled the trigger.
It’s an unfortunately common occurrence, which he is clearly responsible for regardless of his intent, but the argument seems incidental, especially in light of the fact that it was already being treated as a homicide.
The police and DA were pushing for manslaughter but the randomly selected people on the grand jury decided there wasn’t enough evidence even for that reduced charge.
Or are you suggesting they all happened to be trump supporters and conspired to protect this guy because they found out he was “one of the good ones”?
I don’t know, maybe I am stupid, but that sounds far fetched.
He accidentally pointed the gun directly at his daughter’s chest, he accidentally put his finger in the trigger, and he accidentally pulled the trigger.
after arguing with her, telling her that it would not upset him much is she had been raped by Trump, bringing her by the hand to his room where he proceeded to shoot her…
Yep, but…
That sure as hell primes any biases…
The framing and title of the BBC article I read was curious. But even knowing the facts, the story sounds very much like he killed her and said it was an accident - tho that’s nothing more than common speculation. A lot of things don’t make sense, which lead people to suspect murder; but reality is messy and irrational. We can only hope a thorough investigation was done.
But the amount of divisive social media pushes using this story in one way or another is concerning. The OP is from X which let’s users monetize their posts, so a good chunk is probably just intentional engagement bait, just as the article was borderline click bait.
Guns only fire when you pull the trigger. They only hit what they are pointed at.
Whatever else you want to believe, he pointed the gun at her chest and he pulled the trigger. Whatever narrative you arrive at has to fit the established facts first.
Now tell us how he didn’t murder his daughter.
She stands to his side, he handles the gun on its side over the bed (like one would when examining it), he’s a dipshit and pulls the trigger to mess with it not looking where it’s pointed, bang, oh shit, here we are.
Until an investigation actually comes out, there’s no knowing what happened exactly, and even then it’s if the investigation goes well. But I’d like to err on the side of hope and assume a man wouldn’t intentionally blast his own daughter in the chest in their own home over politics.
Why would you assume a looney tunes chain of events when parents killing their kids is like the most normal fucking thing in history? Sorry to bum you out, but parents murder their kids every single day, its a hell of a lot more common than some rube goldberg chain of bullshit like you are describing.
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/07/health/filicide-parents-killing-kids-stats-trnd
It seems that the only conclusions that really fit the facts are either it was a complete accident (a tragically common occurrence) or the man planned to murder his own child, which seems unthinkable.
The argument then comes down to whether a grand jury, who presumably heard exhaustive facts about the case, concluded that he should not be prosecuted based on their own biases and desires rather than the letter or intent of the law.
It feels a little far fetched to me.
It definitely is thinkable
He accidentally pointed the gun directly at his daughter’s chest, he accidentally put his finger in the trigger, and he accidentally pulled the trigger.
That is what you believe?
Are you stupid?
It’s an unfortunately common occurrence, which he is clearly responsible for regardless of his intent, but the argument seems incidental, especially in light of the fact that it was already being treated as a homicide.
The police and DA were pushing for manslaughter but the randomly selected people on the grand jury decided there wasn’t enough evidence even for that reduced charge.
Or are you suggesting they all happened to be trump supporters and conspired to protect this guy because they found out he was “one of the good ones”?
I don’t know, maybe I am stupid, but that sounds far fetched.
after arguing with her, telling her that it would not upset him much is she had been raped by Trump, bringing her by the hand to his room where he proceeded to shoot her…
To be fair, it happens all the fucking time in America. It’s only everything surrounding it that makes that suspicious.