Texas is a shithole.
Jesus H. Christ, hot damn.
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.
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.
I’m so angry right now, getting even is absolutely fair play in my moral compass now
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.
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?
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
guns don’t kill people, women kill people.
she killed herself by arguing with a man.
/s
#choosethebear
#LowHangingFruitRageBait
The people that were on that jury are human fecal matter.
Yep, sounds like the US to me.
Whoa, did he shoot her at a school!?!!?
If he did, at least we know he’s not a cop. They don’t do anything involving school shootings.
We call that a whoopsie here.
Abort a dead baby? “That’s a life sentence, you filthy murdering bitch!”
Shoot daughter for Donvict Drumpf? “There’s not enough evidence to prove it was murder. We are just going to let him get away with it!”
That’s because MURDER is PRO LIFE!
Different circumstances obviously, but parallels to Renée Good; women who talk back get shot.
Well, if somebody threatens you, you should probably do something about that. As Megan and Kelly of The Devil Said Jump sings in “make me buy a gun” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VEVk4I_htWE
[Chorus]
These motherfuckers are gonna make me buy a gun
I’m done with stressin’
Get my Smith and Wesson, on God[Verse 1]
They come for my rights
‘Cause they can’t take my light
And they hate me for shining so bright
They come with their anger
But darlin’, they ain’t never met mine[Verse 2]
They’re sorely mistaken if they thought
I’d lay down and die
Damn cowards had better come right for
The fight of their lives[Chorus]
‘Cause these motherfuckers are gonna make me buy a gun
Sore losers restarted a fight
That we’ve already wonAlex Pretti bought a gun. They disarmed him and then killed him.
Yes, I once bought a vehicle from a little old lady who never used it. What’s the point in buying something for then to never use it?
Pretti had the background to expect lawful and reasonable behavior from the authorities. What Pretti then experienced was all but that. Now people should know better.
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.
My hope is that he will feel tremendous guilt for the rest of his life, and that his rationalizations might fool others, but never him.
He had told her he wouldn’t mind if she was raped, because he had two other daughters.
So no, he’ll feel no guilt for murdering his daughter.
he wouldn’t mind if she was raped
that I don’t get at all! As soon as I know someone even thinks of raping mine, I know which of my axes will be in my hand
Charming fellow
Cool. My hope is the boyfriend disagrees with this outcome.
He’s literally a remorseless psychopath.
Well he’s an alcoholic so his life was probably already full of regrets and numbing the pain.
“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!
not your fault. she was probably just too observant
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…”
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.
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 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.
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!
“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!”
Texas
Also she was Anti-Trump. And a woman. So it’s okay.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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
