all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 112 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The exact circumstances of how Ms Harrison was shot have not been publicly revealed. A heavily redacted police report previously said a suspect had been identified by officers, along with five witnesses, at her father's property.

Has she been murdered by the police?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    My thought as well, though this is in texas so why would they be bothering to cover it up? It's not like they'd be convicted anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The only situation I could imagine in which this decision could possibly be justified is if a small child got hold of a gun (because Texas) and shot her in play, and they're trying not to ruin the kid's life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wealthy or poor kid? If it was a poor kid, they would have arrested the parents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Stop going to the usa on holiday. Its not worth it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

    It's extremely strange that no details have been released in this case. I kinda doubt it's actual full-bore corruption, that's still fairly rare here, but man for a case involving a foreign citizen it's sure suspicious they're so quiet about it. And even in texas there's so few situations where a fatal shooting doesn't merit charges. It seems a little far fetched for her to have, say, been mugging someone who then shot her in self-defense. Was she shot by some kind of trained combat armadillo? A senile centenarian who passed away during the investigation? A very small child? (actually those last two are feasible, though in both cases the owner of the firearm they got ahold of would probably have been charged, though it's texas so that isn't 100%). Those are the only sort of examples where this might be justified, but lets be honest it was probably the cops.

    Just fucking weird. Her poor family.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah, my first thought was the cops, too. That's usually when the authorities hush up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Even then it must have been really abnormal, normally they just don't release the officer's name and give them a month of paid time off. What the hell....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago

    Why won't they reveal the details? Who are they protecting, besides the shooter? I'm guessing some rich mofo's are involved in this.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    My best guess is the shooter is either her father or a kid, you know dad goes native and answers the door with a gun now and whoops finger slipped. Or maybe the toddler next door got a hold of daddies pistol and pointed it at the woman in the neighbors lawn.

    It seems like if it were the cops they'd just invoke qualified immunity, put the shooter on paid administrative leave and have the states budget pay off the coming lawsuit.

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Shooting forigners is sport in texas

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Only the brown ones, if they're white it's technically poaching unless they're in-season.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    My guess is that someone completely screwed up some kind of gun safety step and the shooting was unintentional. Although that should result in some kind of negligence charges, I can see Texas giving a moron with a gun a free pass as long as 'they didn't mean too' or something other bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Highly unlikely. Even in bumpus old corners of Texas, the state is absolutely obsessed with doing anything to take away any citizen's gun rights and will do so by nailing them with some kind of felony, and a negligent discharge scenario that results in somebody getting killed in normal circumstances would definitely qualify.

    People in Texas may love their guns, but the cops in Texas are the same as cops everywhere and if they had their way nobody would have the guns except them.

    This points to me that someone involved in law enforcement, someone involved with the government, or someone with very high level connections and/or a lot of money was the one responsible for this and that's why it was swept under the carpet. If it were just a regular Joe there's no way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Remember that there are a lot of circumstances that could makenit 'unavoidable' or shift part of the blame to the victim. A misfire and ricochet would still be called a shooting. If she was somewhere down range and a bullet missed a backstop to hit her it would still be a shooting. Maybe a child was shooting the gun in either scenario.

    There are plenty of situations where a grand jury would see something as an 'unavoidable accident' or not want to punish whoever had control of the weapon.

    Until we know more, there is always the possibility the grand jury doesn't want to follow through based on some misguided emotional criteria instead of holding someone accountable for negligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    That's remotely possible, and I would be inclined to agree if the circumstances around this weren't so fishy to begin with.

    E.g. why is the police report heavily redacted? Why has the suspect not been named? This is highly unusual, and suggests there's something more going on. I'd doubt very highly the grand jury were given the full picture.

    It's pretty much a done deal that we'll never know more. Someone is making an effort to bury this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    I note there is no information or statement from her father. Which is unusual, because it's his house where she was shot.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Did Elon Musk shoot her while on a K binge?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
    47 comments in c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk view that post
    [–] 58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well, don't visit the US. This is just one of the many reasons to avoid that place.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    YSK that Americans will liberally (!) provide, carry and use their weapons for everything except the second amendment intended purpose.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Forming a militia to protect from foreign invasion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago*

    I should withdraw my original comment. I spent a while re-researching the original intent, the Heller case and some of the subsequent cases to its current interpretation.

    I believe it was originally intended to prevent federal overreach. Except that when there was a belief by some people that that had happened and there was an invasion of the capital. That confused me. I don't know what the rights and wrongs were - apparently the alleged overreach wasn't adjudged to be severe by anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    In a different universe, in a different timeline, maybe we wouldn't be stuck so far up America's arse and do something sensible like putting the damn country on a travel ban list.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    There are already travel warnings issued for the US.

    And unfortunately, the UK cannot go about starting international spats and trade wars with the US. That's a one way ticket to heavy recession and mass poverty.

    The most we can realistically do is travel warnings and publishing stories like this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    The UK Tends to warn not ban travel.

    We have levels of warning that equate to. You are all on your own if shit happens.

    Down to the be very careful to follow rules level the US is currently under.

    But proscription of travel only happens in a open we are at war setting. And rarely even then,

    The US on the other hand will do it for political disagreements. Like Cuba.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    The UK should expell US diplomats over this, or at least cease all US trade talks.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    We didn't even expel them when one of them killed somebody in the UK...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    anne sorkin was on the wrong side oncoming traffic and fatally struck a brit, and she fled to embassy for protection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Anne Sacoolas, not Sorkin.

    Anna Sorkin was the woman who pretended to be rich and then a load of US banks just gave her a load of free money. And apparently it's illegal when poor people do that, so she went to prison.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Which she wasn't entitled to. Diplomatic immunity doesn't cover spouses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (27 children)

    For Brits, while there's many possible worse interpretations, the usual reason for US law to function this way is if the weapon was fired by a very young child.

    And yes, we have a "usual" regarding children getting their hands on firearms. That sucks in it's own special way.

    US law seals many records in cases for child offenders.

    If the weapon was fired by a child too young to understand firearms, that could result in no charges - although it's more usual to see a charge against the caretakers in such cases.

    Disclaimer: Since tone doesn't convey in text - I want to clarify I'm not trying to advocate for the US system. I just want to share that there are explanations - in addition - to our usual ones.

    None of what I've shared is meant to attempt to address the concerns that must come with having a gun culture.

    Everything still sucks in this situation, and everyone has a right to how they feel about it.

    Whatever else we feel, we can all agree we need to find ways to do better than this. Nothing is okay about this.

    (And yes, I know I'm saying that in one country where this kind of thing still routinely happens.)

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    Even if she was shot by a young child, shouldn't charges be brought against the parents or anyone responsible for letting that child have access to a lethal weapon ?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    That would be negligence charges, yes, which is what went to the grand jury. The grand jury, for the record here, is a bunch of randomly selected people - not the cops, or a prosecutor, or anything like that. Its a jury. And what this jury decides is not guilt, but whether or not there is enough evidence that supports the charges to bring it to a trial.

    And that grand jury decided there was not.

    I'm not aware of (and was unable to find) any specifics around what actually happened, so there may be a very good reason why this was the case.

    I'm not defending the decision here, just explaining the situation. It was investigated, the police brought someone and evidence to a prosecutor, a prosecutor brought it to court, and a jury decided the charges didn't fit the evidence to bring forward to a criminal trial. That is all we really know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    All I know about grand jury was my sibling was on it, a cop tried to convince them that having a machete in the car should be an extra crime (carrying a weapon, maybe) and they were all like "no bro you absolutely need a machete here occasionally, some of us garden and stuff" and the cop seemed shocked they didn't just nod along and do what he said.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yep, thats how its supposed to work.

    Which is why there may be a perfectly reasonable issue as to why it didnt go any further.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Or a batshit one. It could just as easily be something like "well of course you need a couch gun. What if someone breaks in while you're watching TV? Child proof safes take too long to open"

    I hate that I've been places I can see this happening. And they'd all call themselves responsible gun owners because they tell their kid where the gun is and not to touch it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    "A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich."

    The prosecutor, very much, can influence a grand jury's decision on whether to indict.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    What part of my comment said otherwise?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    The grand jury, for the record here, is a bunch of randomly selected people - not the cops, or a prosecutor, or anything like that. Its a jury. And what this jury decides is not guilt, but whether or not there is enough evidence that supports the charges to bring it to a trial.

    No part explicitly but this whole paragraph ignores the fact that the prosecutor presents their case and influences the juries opinion. No defense or alternative argument is made.

    The expression "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich" is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Yes, a prosecutor presents evidence to convince a jury to go to trial. They have to influence the jury to agree.

    Defense's part comes at the trial.

    The expression "a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich" is a nod to the fact that, often, a grand jury votes in the direction the prosecutor wants them to.

    Because they usually bring sufficient evidence, and the jury is only deciding if there is sufficient evidence to move forward. This doesnt decide guilt.

    There are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to the US "justice" system. Grand jury decisions aren't remotely the problematic part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    That's not true at all.

    Opening paragraph:

    Within weeks of each other in 2014, a grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, and another in Staten Island, New York, both declined to indict police officers in the deaths of unarmed black men: Ferguson’s eighteen-year-old Michael Brown and New York’s forty-three-year-old Eric Garner.Nationwide protests involving thousands erupted in the wake of the grand juries’ decisions. The protests fostered widespread criticism of the institution of the grand jury, prompting calls for its abolition as part of broader criminal justice reform. But federal and state grand juries have long been the subject of immense criticism from scholars, defense attorneys, and activists.The recent controversies merely drew public attention to flaws in the grand jury system that had been there all along.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    I'd personally say cops, prosecutors going for the easy win, the structure around plea bargains, judges made by selection, judges elected with no knowledge or experience required, etc, play far bigger roles in the problems with the system of justice, but sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Grand jury decisions aren't remotely the problematic part.

    This is wrong and it's what I responded to.

    A grand jury refusing to indict might mean the evidence wasn't sufficient or it might mean the prosecutor didn't really want an indictment.

    I'd personally say cops, prosecutors going for the easy win, the structure around plea bargains, judges made by selection, judges elected with no knowledge or experience required, etc, play far bigger roles in the problems with the system of justice, but sure.

    Personally I'd say the issue with the US justice system is that it's a system full of problems and Americans seem to think ranking them is more important than addressing all of them.

    None of these problems has a "bigger role" than the others because if you fix one the system is still broken. This is just one representation of the endemic issues within the US system of government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    "Don't fix anything because so much is broken" and "All problems are of the same importance" are not, and will never be, philosophies I subscribe to.

    You do you bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    I didn't say "don't fix anything because so much is broken" so it seems like you do subscribe to it since you brought it up.

    I'm just trying to keep up with you moving the goalposts. First it was "grand juries aren't remotely the problematic part" to "they're not the biggest problem".

    You asked why I commented originally, I explained, then refuted you with a source. Don't get mad at me for your own spurious claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)

    By comparison to the other issues they arent remotely problematic.

    Nothing i said is contradictory, so you can cut that crap now.

    Edit:

    Annnnddd....

    Americans seem to think ranking them is more important than addressing all of them.

    None of these problems has a "bigger role" than the others because if you fix one the system is still broken.

    Yeah you did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No I didn't. If you fix one the system is still broken, meaning one cannot have a "bigger role" as they all cause a failure in the US justice system. You have to fix all of the issues. Of course you have to start somewhere but that starting point is subjective.

    Nothing i said is contradictory, so you can cut that crap now.

    Contradictory by definition means inconsistent and going from "not remotely" to "not as big a role" is inconsistent. "Not remotely" means not at all and "not as big a role" is inconsistent with "not at all".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)

    You have to fix all of the issues.

    Yeah, dont bother fixing it at all unless you can fix everything. So... Exactly what I said you said?

    "Not remotely" means not at all and "not as big a role"

    Depends on the scale.

    And considering things can be brought back in front of a grand jury because its not a criminal trial, yeah, its basically nothing by comparison as a problem.

    Say more bullshit about moving goalposts and I'll just go ahead and block.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Go ahead and block me. You're clearly twisting my words to fit what you want to think.

    Why crop out the second sentence?

    You have to fix all of the issues. Of course you have to start somewhere but that starting point is subjective.

    Not even remotely

    Definition of not even remotely - Reverso English Dictionary

    adverb

    not in the slightest degree

    The two situations are not even remotely similar. Her explanation was not even remotely believable. The two events are not even remotely connected.

    Say more bullshit about moving goalposts and I'll just go ahead and block.

    If you get so upset over someone calling out your contradictory statements perhaps you should take an internet break.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I don't know what happened here exactly, but there can be cases where a parent did take appropriate measures (by definition), but the child got through them anyway. For example, a child watches a safe being locked/unlocked and gets the password, or guesses the password (maybe it's the same as mum's phone password), etc. Or broke a glass case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Sounds like those weren't appropriate measures if someone can get round them so easily.

    When I had a shotgun license, my shotgun was in a locked gun cabinet inside a locked room. The cartridges were in a separate locked case out of sight in another room, and I had the only keys for all 3 locks, all of which were on my keychain which was on my person at all times.

    When I didn't have them on me, they'd be in the hidden space behind the hinged piece of skirting board behind my bed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    However, when it comes to criminal charges, they do have to draw a line where "accidents happen"

    You may also need to have a gun be reasonably accessible for self defence in an emergency.

    I'm not picking sides by the way, but I'm just sort of reckoning how something like this could happen with no charges.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    When I didn't have them on me, they'd be in the hidden space behind the hinged piece of skirting board behind my bed.

    So even you here admit to losing positive confirmation of the location of the keys to your gun / ammo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Hardly. I'd be asleep and they'd be in the hidden space behind the bed that I was lying in. The location was exactly where I left them and no one could get them without moving me, moving the bed, and knowing about my hiding place.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    A lot of jumping to conclusions with very little evidence in this thread.

  • source