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?
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.
“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 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!
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…”
That is the crux of Christianity and the crutch of Christian morality.
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.
-
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.
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.
While true, lead exposure is strongly correlated with age.
