Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/74936251
cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/55961168
WTF
The thing I find somewhat odd of the story, is if the facts are accurate, what's even the point of the trump arguement. It feels like the article is flooded with basically details not directly related to the shooting. The "relapsed alchoholic that had 2 glasses of wine", the topic of the arguements (and even the specific things said in them).
Actual relevant facts of the shooting.
Dad had an arguement with the daughter.
Several hours later they had an arguement on guns, Dad brought out gun to show her... then claims he accidentally shot her.
Point is the arguement doesn't really hold relevance, Dad either horribly mishandled the firearm, in which case the situations up to it were irrelevant.
Or dad murdered his daughter in a fit of rage.
I think "Gun owner plays with his guns after drinking" is relevant to the big picture.
I also think "Man in resentment cult has views challenged, so decides to play with guns" is relevant to the big picture.
There is no exactly-right amount of background and context. If the story had just been "Man kills daughter, jury declines to indict," you'd have questions.
I think the point us that the title may as well gave no context given that it's more absurd given context. Like, what question did this actually answer? Obviously relevant but still
Yeah, this is criminal levels of negligence in the most charitable take to the dad.
Either way he shot and killed his daughter. I kinda feel he should be in jail regardless.
Wasn't even close to saying he shouldn't be in jail, just saying the story puts so much emphasis on facts that literally have zero relevance to what actually happened. At bare minimum that should be manslaughter, assuming 100% of his story as true and the gun went off accidentally.
Honestly based on the heated arguements before, I'd be skeptical and lean towards murder.
Oh I know and I agree the focus of that article was just weird.
So no worries…
If you wanted to give it a charitable view, the argument could be motive for murder.
"How would you feel if I was the girl in that situation and I'd been sexually assaulted?" Lucy reportedly asked. Kris allegedly answered that he would not be that upset because he had two other daughters living with him. Lucy reportedly left the room "quite upset."
Later that same day, Kris allegedly took Lucy by the hand while she was in the kitchen and took him [her, presumably] to his bedroom. Lucy's boyfriend said that after about 15 seconds he heard a loud bang and Kris screaming for his wife.
One of the last things you tell your daughter is I don't care if you get raped, i got two more of you, then you drag her to your room and "accidentally" shoot her.
Texas grand jury: "Nothing to see here."
You don’t accidentally squeeze a trigger hard enough to fire. Even revolvers with the hammer back STILL need your finger to squeeze the trigger.
He murdered his own daughter over a felon.
Murder as a charge requires malicious intent for it to stick, as in deliberate intent to kill or maim.
Different guns have different trigger pull weights, some only requiring a slight brush to go off (sometimes called feather-weight). That said, firearms training always emphasizes never flagging anything that isn't the ground or a target, to always keep one's finger off the trigger until ready to fire, and to store firearms unloaded(this rule is broken all the time, though). so at minimum this guy was blatantly negligent with a firearm and is a shoe-in for manslaughter.
I mean yes actually, trigger discipline is a thing for a reason. It’s very possible to pull a trigger without meaning to.
Not to defend this guy as to even be in a position to unintentionally shoot someone requires severe negligence and lapses in just about every rule in gun safety.
It's about general safety. People having misconceptions that a gun always requires a significant pull to fire can be dangerous in the wrong circumstances. Yes, a gun with a light trigger is a thing, and people should be aware a gun doesn't always need a significant pull to fire.
Also, to get there it had to be loaded, cocked, and pointed recklessly before we even get to the trigger pull. This is why in any country with any sense at all, you need to be trained properly before you can even think about owning your own firearms. Your right to self-defence does not mean your right to be a threat to the health and well-being of everyone in line of sight.
This entire situation if true was a failure of the father to practice good gun safety and handling who then should face manslaughter charges. As for trigger pull, I've played lightgun games in arcades that had a heavier trigger pulls than many firearms. The trigger isn't made to be difficult to pull, it's made to be easy for you to use the firearm for its tended purpose.
Absolutely, it takes an insane amount of negligence for this to happen unintentionally.
And that’s just assuming he’s telling the truth.
You don’t accidentally squeeze a trigger hard enough to fire.
Yes you do. What do you suppose trigger discipline is for?
It's trivially easy to accidentally discharge a firearm. People kill their loved ones like this all the time. Guns are dangerous and their presence is a mortal threat to everyone around them. Responsible gun ownership is an oxymoron.
It's not accidental, it's negligent. They're not the same.
Yeah, there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. Only negligence. Unless the weapon can fire without the trigger being pulled (some old guns can, but basically every modern firearm has mechanisms to prevent that) there is no such thing as an “accident”. You were negligent in handling the firearm, and your negligence caused it to fire.
And if you hit someone with that negligent discharge, your negligence caused them to be shot because you were negligently aiming it at them. It wasn’t an “accident” that they got shot, because it wasn’t fully preventable and you should have prevented it. The only reason the “accident” occurred is because your negligence directly allowed the chain of events that led to the gun being fired, and led to the person being shot.
We should treat “accidental” discharges as if the person intentionally ignored the safety guidelines that they undoubtedly knew to follow. And if you’re intentionally ignoring safety procedures, then you’re causing a dangerous situation due to willful negligence. And willful negligence can be a criminal act when it involves injuries and death.
Even in cases of a child getting a gun and playing with it, it’s not an accident when the child discharges the firearm. Maybe it was an accident on the child’s part, but it was the parents’ negligence that allowed the child to access the firearm in the first place.
There have been many gun defects that cause the guns to go off accidentally. Modern and old
Some Taurus pistols, the Sig Sauer P320 as well come to mind. Older firearms as well also wear down and so the safety systems will as well.
If they're stored properly (locked in a safe, with the ammunition locked up separately somewhere else) then they're not particularly dangerous.
I don't have any guns in my house, but if I did and they were properly stored I'd be far more concerned about someone grabbing a hammer or other tool from my workshop room and killing me with that instead.
Ah, over a pedophile felon...
He loved a child rapist more than his own child.
over a RAPIST felon
It’s possible, especially for target pistols, many can have a very light trigger pull.
That said, I don’t think this was.
Competition guns have softer triggers. Everyone is buying Gucci guns these days.
As someone who has almost shot their own foot off with a semi auto shotgun 😂 being a young dumb kid it’s definitely possible lol that’s why you don’t point guns at your family lol
Or, and maybe this is crazy, "young dumb kids" should never have a gun in their hands in the first place. Maybe this take is crazy too, but you shouldn't be pointing guns at anybody you aren't intending to kill. They're not toys. They're not a rite of passage. They're not even tools as others (my past self included) would claim. They're killing machines. They wound, they maim, they kill. That is their function.
If a person cannot sit through boring classes and pass written tests and practical tests, then that person should not have a gun available to them. Anybody's misunderstanding of the second amendment is invalid here as that clearly points to being in support of a well-regulated militia, i.e. state national guard, so my argument is actually quite charitable in allowing ordinary private citizens access to guns at all.
And yes, I own a few guns myself. I took classes and trained with them. I store them responsibly. Because that's the bare fucking minimum.
Sorry bro idk why you came for me obviously I shouldn’t have had access to the firearm and obviously you don’t point them at anyone? (But especially your children right? Cause we’re talking about the guy who shot his daughter here)
None the less dumb kid did accidentally discharge a firearm not arguing that it was okay lol it was incredibly stupid and dangerous
Cool story about owning guns and following the law - I support this lol
Why is it not common sense to say "You point a gun at someone = You intend to kill them". Pointing a gun at someone in itself should not be treated as something trivial.
It is common sense but that's a high bar to clear for some. Part of the standard rules of firearm safety:
Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.
Never point a firearm at anything you aren't willing to shoot.
Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire.
Some amplify rule 2 with "know your target and what lies beyond it" which is good advice too. Follow all the rules at all times and your risk of negligent injury to yourself or others is massively reduced.
Setting aside the possibility that this was an intentional and malicious act (which I wouldn't rule out), the killer broke all four rules. Says he had two cups of wine too but that's also the typical answer you hear from somebody on a DUI stop before they blow a .26 on the breathalyzer.
Why is it not common sense to say
i think that it is quite common sense and it is taught at any firearm handling course. why are you suggesting otherwise?
Because, as this lawsuit shows, it doesn't translate to legal liability.
i think that has more to do with the absurd judicial system of the united states, where outcome of the legal proceeding depends on personal bias of uneducated moron in the jury.
So not very common sense after all?
not what i said
I’m ashamed to be the same species as these execrable fiends.
"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."
This is Merica.
I remember hearing a story like this years ago. This the same one or did it happen again?
