He had to watch his daughter die right in front of him, because he fumbled a weapon that was supposed to keep them safe. Idk how anyone can see that as inconsequential.
The state isn’t pursuing criminal penalties for his gross negligence. But that’s wildly different from how the story is being pitched - a guy gunning down his daughter in cold blood and escaping a criminal verdict because MAGA voters are above the law.
He had to watch his daughter die right in front of him, because he fumbled a weapon that was supposed to keep them safe. Idk how anyone can see that as inconsequential.
Because if he wanted to kill her then that’s not a consequence, it’s a reward. If only there was some sort of trial in which evidence could be presented to an impartial judge…
As a firearms owner I can unequivocally say that guns don’t shoot themselves. “Accidental” firearm deaths are all preventable. Idiots, like the person in this article that should be in jail awaiting trial for murder, should not own guns.
I don’t believe this death was unpreventable. Whether he only intended to brandish the gun and his finger slipped or if he intentionally murdered her is immaterial in the face that there’s no charges, not even manslaughter is appalling.
Agreed with all of that. Im not making any statement about how warranted or unwarranted his criminal charge, or lack of charge was.
Im just especially interested in the notion that pointing a gun at someone means there is intent to kill, regardless of circumstances. That seems weird. It seems like it would logically follow that all gun deaths have intent.
Edit: after doing some research, it appears intent to kill and criminal intent is the distinction. Legally, pointing a gun means there is criminal intent. However, pointing a gun alone does not imply intent to kill, at least not legally. I may have muddled the waters by not asking OP to clarify what type of intent they meant. I assumed intent to kill.
If I bring out a knife and kill you with it but only because I tripped while holding it at your throat, did I intend to kill you or not? Does it matter?
Does the jury use it’s psychic empathy to determine what was in my heart at the time the knife perforated your larynx or do they use the circumstances leading up to the murder to determine if I had intent to kill you or not?
If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they’d hoped they’d either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn’t intend to kill them?
You pull out a knife and brandish it threateningly: That sets up intent. We do not know the mind nor will we ever; therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent. We have to rely on actions which could be reasonably interpreted as intent.
therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent.
Am I misunderstanding or is this completely wrong?
Because these concepts involve what was in the defendant’s mind, they are often established through indirect evidence. Some common ways prosecutors try to prove intent and premeditation include:
The nature and manner of the killing (e.g., >multiple stab wounds might suggest >planning)
Possession of weapons or tools before the >act
Statements or confessions indicating >planning or desire to kill
Actions taken before or after the crime to >conceal evidence
Witness testimony about the defendant’s >behavior or threats
Defense attorneys challenge this evidence by offering alternative explanations. They might argue that the defendant acted impulsively, under extreme emotion, or in self-defense.
If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they’d hoped they’d either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn’t intend to kill them?
Maybe show off the gun with no ammunition in it and the safety on. Not loaded with the safety off.
I’m not going to show off new kitchen knives to a friend by swinging them wildly around the house.
He should 100% be charged with criminal negligence causing death. He should 100% spend time in prison. Whether the tweet is a lie or not, and your claim is true, he killed his daughter because he was a negligent fucking moron.
No. Homicide at the least. You can’t argue to me that pointing a gun does not infer intent, or at least, I’d be willing to make that argument. If I were a prosecutor I’d find out what gun safety classes this guy had gone through and I can almost guarantee, if they’d been through any, the first thing they were taught was to not fire a gun at anything you do not intend to kill.
Pointing a gun at someone or something shows intent. It’s not like he had it reasonably secured in. A holster and it misfired.
Sitting next to her holding the gun on your lap and it goes off? I still haven’t seen anything about deliberately pointing it.
Absolutely not trying to defend anything thus guy did. He killed his daughter. He did so because of his own negligence. But like I said before I haven’t seen anything about deliberation pointing it at her.
Elsewhere in this post someone mentions that the Glock the father was using does not come with a safety, surprisingly this is not apparently mandated by law on firearms.
It’s just not consequential enough to avoid jail time imo. There’s also the fact that anyone could shoot someone and claim it as an accident if no witnesses are present.
I agree that the picture doesn’t tell the whole story though.
Sam Littler, Lucy’s boyfriend, described the couple’s final hours in the house as suffocating. The tension wasn’t just the usual vacation stress; it was specific and angry, fueled by a subject that can split families apart even when they’re sitting at the same breakfast table: Donald Trump.
What happened next is difficult to square with the violence that followed. About half an hour before they needed to leave—suitcases likely by the door—Harrison didn’t shout or storm off. He took his daughter’s hand. He led her into his ground-floor bedroom. It looked like a dad trying to make peace, perhaps stealing a quiet minute to apologize before she flew back to England—after yet another argument sparked by Donald Trump.
Fifteen seconds. That’s how long it took before the bang went off.
They weren’t in the room but It honestly makes him look even more guilty.
His story is a bit silly. “Just had a huge fight with my daughter, she’s about to leave. :( . Guess I’ll show her my gun”
He had to watch his daughter die right in front of him, because he fumbled a weapon that was supposed to keep them safe. Idk how anyone can see that as inconsequential.
The state isn’t pursuing criminal penalties for his gross negligence. But that’s wildly different from how the story is being pitched - a guy gunning down his daughter in cold blood and escaping a criminal verdict because MAGA voters are above the law.
Because if he wanted to kill her then that’s not a consequence, it’s a reward. If only there was some sort of trial in which evidence could be presented to an impartial judge…
You don’t point a gun at something you don’t intend to kill. That’s firearms safety lesson one.
Pointing a gun alone is intent.
Do you believe in accidental deaths via firearms? Or are all firearm deaths intentional?
Edit: this is not snark but an honest question.
As a firearms owner I can unequivocally say that guns don’t shoot themselves. “Accidental” firearm deaths are all preventable. Idiots, like the person in this article that should be in jail awaiting trial for murder, should not own guns.
I don’t believe this death was unpreventable. Whether he only intended to brandish the gun and his finger slipped or if he intentionally murdered her is immaterial in the face that there’s no charges, not even manslaughter is appalling.
Agreed with all of that. Im not making any statement about how warranted or unwarranted his criminal charge, or lack of charge was.
Im just especially interested in the notion that pointing a gun at someone means there is intent to kill, regardless of circumstances. That seems weird. It seems like it would logically follow that all gun deaths have intent.
Edit: after doing some research, it appears intent to kill and criminal intent is the distinction. Legally, pointing a gun means there is criminal intent. However, pointing a gun alone does not imply intent to kill, at least not legally. I may have muddled the waters by not asking OP to clarify what type of intent they meant. I assumed intent to kill.
If I bring out a knife and kill you with it but only because I tripped while holding it at your throat, did I intend to kill you or not? Does it matter?
Yes, that absolutely matters as the jury decides whether it is murder or manslaughter.
Does the jury use it’s psychic empathy to determine what was in my heart at the time the knife perforated your larynx or do they use the circumstances leading up to the murder to determine if I had intent to kill you or not?
Weirdly gruesome. Disengage.
Ideally, yes. In this case there was no trial for the jury to make such a determination.
No. It doesn’t.
If someone pulled out a gun, points it at someone, pulls the trigger and shoots; could they argue that they’d hoped they’d either not hit them or not hit something vital? and so they didn’t intend to kill them?
You pull out a knife and brandish it threateningly: That sets up intent. We do not know the mind nor will we ever; therefore we can not use the basis of the mind for the inference of intent. We have to rely on actions which could be reasonably interpreted as intent.
Am I misunderstanding or is this completely wrong?
https://www.vbrownleelaw.com/the-role-of-intent-and-premeditation-in-homicide-cases/
Yes, and it has been done successfully.
https://www.studicata.com/summaries/superior-court-of-pennsylvania/commonwealth-v-predmore-2018-so9l74/
Pointing a real firearm at a person should always be treated as if the holder wants to kill a person. There are exceptions, none of them apply here.
Agreed, that’s a good rule to stay safe, but that’s not what the law says.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-it-a-crime-to-point-a-gun-at-someone/
Im sure I’d agree if i read it, but I’m ignorant to the details of this story. I am solely interested in the claim that pointing a gun means intent.
Pretty sure they don’t have laws in Texas at this point.
Maybe show off the gun with no ammunition in it and the safety on. Not loaded with the safety off.
I’m not going to show off new kitchen knives to a friend by swinging them wildly around the house.
He should 100% be charged with criminal negligence causing death. He should 100% spend time in prison. Whether the tweet is a lie or not, and your claim is true, he killed his daughter because he was a negligent fucking moron.
No. Homicide at the least. You can’t argue to me that pointing a gun does not infer intent, or at least, I’d be willing to make that argument. If I were a prosecutor I’d find out what gun safety classes this guy had gone through and I can almost guarantee, if they’d been through any, the first thing they were taught was to not fire a gun at anything you do not intend to kill.
Pointing a gun at someone or something shows intent. It’s not like he had it reasonably secured in. A holster and it misfired.
He picked up the gun, he pointed the gun.
Now we have intent.
Whatever happens after that is his fault.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I just haven’t seen anything that says he deliberately pointed it at her.
Is there a way to accidentally pick up a gun and point it at someone? Just playing the part of prosecutor.
Sitting next to her holding the gun on your lap and it goes off? I still haven’t seen anything about deliberately pointing it.
Absolutely not trying to defend anything thus guy did. He killed his daughter. He did so because of his own negligence. But like I said before I haven’t seen anything about deliberation pointing it at her.
Elsewhere in this post someone mentions that the Glock the father was using does not come with a safety, surprisingly this is not apparently mandated by law on firearms.
It’s just not consequential enough to avoid jail time imo. There’s also the fact that anyone could shoot someone and claim it as an accident if no witnesses are present.
I agree that the picture doesn’t tell the whole story though.
Her husband was in the house when it happened, along with the rest of her immediate family.
They weren’t in the room but It honestly makes him look even more guilty.
His story is a bit silly. “Just had a huge fight with my daughter, she’s about to leave. :( . Guess I’ll show her my gun”