He claimed he had a conversation about guns with his daughter and she asked to see the gun, having never discussed his gun ownership with him before.
In the statement, Kris Harrison, who admitted drinking wine earlier in the day, said: “As I lifted the gun to show her I suddenly heard a loud bang. I did not understand what had happened. Lucy immediately fell.”
He told police who attended the scene: “We got it out to have a look and just as I picked it up it just went off.”
The inquest heard a grand jury in the US had determined there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in connection with Lucy Harrison’s death.
Well. I guess the moral of the story is do not visit the USA.
I think about this girl all the time. Her own father shot her over Trump. Trump. I just can’t wrap my head around it. Or around the jury deciding to just let him go. There’s corruption there somewhere.
To be fair, it’s hard to prove causality.
Maybe he shot his own daughter because he loves Trump.
Maybe he loves Trump, because he’s the kind of man who would shoot his own daughter.
Maybe it’s a bit of both.
Tribalism has always been a thing in human societies. We’re at the phase we’re finding out how it operates within a democracy.
Surprisingly, or not, it’s even easier than before.
Back during his first term there was a story on the Risk podcast where an Asian guy told the story of going home after some time away at college and visiting the family that adopted him when he was a baby; and how, when he said he didn’t support Trump, that family almost beat him to death right there in the living room. It was one of the most heartbreaking stories I’ve ever heard in my entire life. I think about that shit a lot.
That’s because MAGA people are rabid dogs
Grand juries exist to make sure the norms of law enforcement and prosecution don’t stray too far from the common populace.
It’s why the guy who threw the sandwich at the CPB guy about a year ago did not end up with a felony.
However, it cuts both ways. I don’t know if I believe TX is really about to flip purple because shit like this is common. Ask the protesters sentanced to life as terrorists for moving a box or leaving an ICE protest early.
That’s a funny way of saying murdered…
Ah, the original use of jury nullification.
This is grand jury, so it is more likely that the prosecutor dropped the ball.
Grand jury requires only simple majority and making sure prosecutor, police or whomever brings the charges did their due diligence.
Why tf is this guy still vertical?
“Unlawfully killed” … Can someone clarify what would a “lawful killing” entail? Maybe euthanasia? In this context this just seems like stupid wordplay.
A soldier killing an enemy soldier during a war is a “lawful killing”. Capital punishment is “lawful killing”. There’s probably a bunch of ways that police kill people that is “lawful”. And maybe there are different accidental deaths that are considered “not unlawful killings”? But I’m no law doctor.
Self-defense-type killings involving “castle doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws are probably also considered lawful.
Ok that’s fair. It just seems in the context of the article to be kinda weirdly put. But maybe it’s just me.
Self defense, basically.
Of course, that isn’t really within the purview of a coroner to decide, that’s what the court case is (supposed) to be for, if the DA decides to bring and pursue charges because it’s up to them to do that (and they for sure should have here).
And these people were talking about Trump derangement syndrome like it only affects libtards and woke lefties.
So there’s just no one in that town who owns a gun and has a sense of justice? Really?
I’m here about the title.
The local jury
Grand jury.
He was immediately released
Yes, that’s how this works.
Now, bear in mind, I’m only here about the part of this from the title that I quoted. For anyone outraged by that part, no.
The way this works:
-
A matter is put before a grand jury. Only evidence submitted is by the prosecutor. Nothing from the defense. The standard of evidence is “probable cause”, which is a very very low standard. Basically, unless someone screwed something up massively, there will almost always be sufficient probable cause for a case to go forward.
-
If probable cause is indeed found, the case will proceed. It may eventually have a trial by jury, where both sides present their case and a jury decides - for civil matters the standard is preponderance of the evidence (i.e. majority of evidence seems guilty or not), for criminal it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning it seems pretty clear and any evidence that is against seems unlikely.
So speaking generally, when indictment in front of a grand jury fails, it means one of something like these happened:
- Fundamental evidence failed “probable cause”. For example, say it resulted from a traffic stop, but it was found that the traffic stop had no legal justification. Because of “fruit of the forbidden tree”, it might be entirely thrown out
- Perhaps the prosecutors failed to get their shit together on evidence
- Perhaps, as is theorized by some in this case, the prosecutor felt they had to present the case, but threw it on purpose, sort of like a prosecutorial nullification, if you will
So again, not talking about the case (I’ve discussed/debated in other threads - this is not a new story), just the parts of the title that make it clear OP doesn’t understand the difference between a jury and a grand jury. :)
I’m guessing the prosecutor didn’t really try.
Originating in England during the Middle Ages, modern examples include grand juries in the United States, and to a lesser extent, Liberia. wp
Sounds like a modern and reasonable institution.
Would you prefer the case go to trial before it’s established if there’s sufficient probable cause? Or if only the state gets to make that determination?
Given that grand jury indictment rates are like >90%, what’s actually being achieved here?
That’s probably a pretty good rate considering probable cause is the bar.
Also given there’s no defence, I should hope they could almost always win a completely uncontested review of evidence.
do also note, that if the prosecution doesn’t like the results of the grand jury he can just keep doing it over until he gets the answer he wants… unless he is actually not trying for a conviction.
-
honor killings…
I prefer the Japanese style ones, where you know… it’s yourself.
Manslaughter in front of a grand jury didn’t even stick. It’s like the prosecutor had vacation plans didn’t want to to reschedule.
The awful thing is that if the family is behind the alcoholic trump father since he is still alive, there is no one left to bring justice in her name. Is she just to be forgotten and swept under the Texas rug?
Trump country is different. I was driving through a rural township and saw these signs “justice for some guy” and searched for the name. Nearby towns news article said he had multiple accounts of SA on kids and when the cops arrived with a warrant, he drove drunk into a bunch of stuff before getting rolled into a ditch. And now half the locals are mad that he’s in jail presumably without bail. WTF.
In fairness, the girl’s mother is a British citizen living in the UK and fought for justice for her daughter.
the boyfriend says the the daughter and father always argued when he brought up him owning guns and the father claims they never discussed it before once and he accidently shot her when he was just showing her his gun. while he was drunk, the boyfriend also says the father pulled her into the father’s room before he heard the shot go off. it sounds like the judge, and prosecution in TX don’t really care if you kill your kids as long as you say ‘oops’ well enough.
I think about her so she won’t be forgotten
Seems like it, but these rural Texans won’t give a shit because she’s a woman. Stepped outside the kitchen and talked back to her pa so basically asked for it.
“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.”
Bullshit. This means he took a loaded gun, failed to clear it, put the barrel in the direction of a person, and pulled the trigger. Guns don’t just “go off”. All while having admitted to relapsing on alcohol. I count four mistakes there, where any one of them not having been made would have prevented this incident.
It’s almost like you’d have to intend to make that series of mistakes.
Lets break it down… (mostly for the non-americans who aren’t used to guns)
- Gun was loaded. You shouldn’t be storing a loaded weapon. So he either loaded it there or is an irresponsible gun owner.
- Gun was pointed at a person. Never point a gun (loaded or not) at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
- His finger was on the trigger. No trigger discipline at all. Index finger should be planted on the frame while doing literally ANYTHING other than meaning to pull the trigger.
This is the basics… Anyone who’s taken any gun safety course would know, any responsible gun owner would know and religiously follow…
- Treat every gun like it’s loaded
- Keep your finger off the trigger
- Don’t point at anything you don’t plan to shoot
- Be aware of what’s behind your target
You forgot keep your weapon on safe until you intend to fire, but yeah the thing about weapons safety rules is you have to fail all of them in order to shoot someone. He had intent in my mind.
I don’t see where it says what kind of gun. It could have been a revolver. But at that point does it really matter anymore? So many “mistakes” were already made.
“Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.”
Apparently, he was willing. /srs
If I remember from reading about this when it happened, he’s also the only witness. The only other person that could confirm this was an accident is fucking dead. So they just believe him? The fuck?
So, fun fact: Alexander Hamilton may have killed himself.
He supplied the dueling pistols for the duel with Burr, and a few things about them.
-
He had them custom made with a larger, more deadly bore.
-
He had modified the trigger to require a much lighter pull than most pistols would have required.
-
The musical (of incredibly dubious historical value) even makes note of this, he was seen fiddling with the trigger prior to the duel, and selected his pistol first.
Accounts on Hamilton firing in to the air differ, but what is consistent are accounts of Burr seeming pretty shocked when his gun went off. Accounts also pretty universally indicate that he tried to rush to Hamilton after he’d been shot to lend aid before being escorted away.
Anyway, that’s not at all meant to refute your claim. Guns generally don’t just “go off”.
Incredibly dubious historical battle
Are you implying that the nation was not formed on the back of a rap battle my good sir?
Firstmost, curse your lady and the Americas you claim.
Westside on our steeds, come equipped with game.
Ye claim to be a player, but I rode your wife.
We disdain the English, Royalty fucked for life.Credit: The Right Honorable Tupac Shakur, Earl of the West
Yeah the only guns I know of that can just “go off” either have a hair trigger that’s worn or are of exceptionally shit build quality like say the Ross Rifle.
If you take the worst gun, modify it to have the lightest trigger possible, if you don’t have it just sitting around with a round in the chamber it won’t just “go off”. It’s wild that the simplest safety precaution save a lot of lives but nope these people need their dick extensions to always be ready to go.
And, even if it were to, it doesn’t kill someone unless you point it at them.
Oh I was just making note that there are ways for a gun to to fire by itself for one reason or another when loaded. Regardless making sure the gun is cleared is a pretty damned good way of ensuring it doesn’t do that. Or alternatively leave a Ross Rifle behind for the Germans when you leave a trench so it’s their problem.
Or they are a Sig Sauer P320… Which is of good quality but poor design.
Guns generally don’t just “go off”.
They can and do. There’s chapter and verse on gun safety - handling, cleaning, storage - to deal with the risk of accidental discharge.
If you treat a gun like a toy (and this guy’s testimony certainly sounds like he did), it’s very possible to fire it by accident.
No the fuck they don’t.
The only scenario where a gun just “goes off” would be if it were sitting somewhere untouched and and went off. If someone is holding it then they are solely responsible for what happens with it.
I think they call that negligence, not an accident.
Accidental negligence - legally referred to as inadvertent negligence - is a standard by which a crime can be adjudicated.
Right, they have to be mishandled, uncleaned, and not properly stored, so like they said, guns generally don’t just “go off”.
they have to be mishandled, uncleaned, and not properly stored
I don’t see any evidence to suggest the guy was maintaining any of his kit properly.
guns generally don’t just “go off”
They can and do when mishandled, which is why gun safety exists to begin with.
“Don’t point a gun at anything you don’t intend to shoot” is Rule 1 for a reason. And if he was playing with the gun like a toy, it’s very easy to believe he fumbled it. The stories of children setting off guns by playing with them are more numerous than you can count.
Not sure what the downvoters are thinking. I was reading through this whole argument about whether or not guns can just “go off” and kept thinking a) obviously there are cases where people fire a gun they are handling unintentionally, whether because they are idiots or the gun malfunctioned. But b) it doesn’t make a difference in whether he was negligent because he already was when he pointed it at her in the first place. That’s all that should have been needed to get a negligent manslaughter charge to stick, accidental discharge or not, it hit her because he was pointing the gun at her.
Though I don’t buy it was accidental at all, given the circumstances. Heated argument about Trump just before she’s supposed to leave but first he needs to show her his gun that just happens to accidentally fire while he was pointing it at her?
Jury nullification goes both ways and that grand jury just condoned the murder of someone who opposed Trump.
Its mostly semantics. Dude is saying guns don’t just go off because of X, Y, and Z. And people are pointing out that X, Y, and Z are the result of negligence.
People neglecting gun safety is the cause. The gun goes off because of the negligence.
I interpreted their comments as saying the guy was negligent on multiple levels. Like saying he probably was neglecting maintenance to the point where the gun can randomly fire doesn’t sound like a defense of the guy to me but more like the gun going off could have occurred because he triggered it himself directly or because he didn’t keep it in a condition to prevent it from being triggered indirectly.
Though that last paragraph is the most important part IMO, because regardless of how the gun went off, if he had been following gun safety rules, it should have just resulted in an embarrassing hole in his floor, not the death of the person he was “showing the gun to”.
Some guns are just built like shit.
Laws have been passed to shield gun manufacturers from liability for faulty products.
Still, this case sounded like premeditated murder more than anything else. And that Texas grand jury, and prosecutor, were fine with it because the daughter hated Trump.
-
Literally sharia law honor killings.
We have lost texas
Honor killing is not part of Sharia. It belongs to tribalistic culture and societies.
Yeah. I remember discussing this with non-Arab Muslims.
They talked about how annoying Arab cultural dominance can be, how they export Arab values and culture, while pretending it’s all Islam inspired rather than simply Arab traditions.
But I suppose that’s not a stunning insight. Don’t even need to leave the middle-east, to find Muslims who don’t agree with other Muslims on what it means to be a Muslim.
“Unlawfully killed”
“Shot dead”
“Possible manslaughter”
It’s MURDER.
“Unlawfully killed” is some backbreaking doublespeak.
Imagine a headline that reads “Health insurance company CEO unlawfully killed by a nearby armed pedestrian.”
How much did you actually read about the case?
The killer claims it accidentally went off.
Even so, this is the kind of thing you need a proper trial to determine culpability. “He said it was an accident” after they had gotten in a heated argument and he lead her away to the gun room. His testimony absolutely not be taken for truth. And even if it was an accident theres definitely a case there for reckless endangerment/manslaughter. So I think the outrage at this news is justified
You can’t just load and chamber and fire a gun by fucking accident. Oh whoops the slide pulled back by accident, and I accidentally had my finger on the trigger, then I accidentally pulled all the way past the resistance of the firing pin. Nope. You murdered her.
And even if you could somehow accidentally fire a gun, that’s the definition of manslaughter anyway, so the guy is still guilty either way.
You assume he didn’t leave his weapons loaded. And that he hadn’t modified them with a hair trigger, etc.
This is the type of person that has an entire gun room, not just a safe or two, an entire room dedicated to guns.
Enough to know he pointed a loaded gun at his daughter with the safety off and pulled the trigger, incidentally just after having an argument with her about trump; and that the maga fascist jury of peers in bumfuck texas decided to acquit him without a trial because “it was an accident” is apparently a reasonable explanation to them…
They don’t see sharia law as evil or unjust, they see it as competition to their own authoritarianism. Right idea, wrong religion (barely lol)
You give them way too much credit. Most of them don’t know what Sharia Law actually is.
I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. This is also just as well the end result of doublespeak.
Literally a drunk and completely incompetent gun owner. He should be punished and made an example of. Your statement makes this sound completely intentional. The court appears to believe the claim that her death was accidental. I don’t doubt that he had no intentions of killing his daughter.
This should be a textbook example for gun licensing and requirements of safe storage. This man’s negligence cost him his daughter and the court decided this was enough. I don’t think the court went far enough and I think this should be the basis for further legislation, but let’s not turn this case into a bogeyman about honor killings.
He wasn’t indicted. The Texas jury didn’t care about the murder enough to punish him whatsoever, that’s the problem.
Worth noting that indictments are laughably easy to get, because there is no defense lawyer. An indictment isn’t a conviction, it’s just the prosecution going “yeah we probably have enough evidence to bother with a trial.” The old joke is that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich for murder if the prosecutor wants them to. The prosecutor has full control over what evidence the grand jury sees, and the rules around evidence are a LOT more relaxed than they are in court. The prosecutor could basically scribble out a “yeah I did it lol” note on a napkin and present it to the grand jury as evidence. It wouldn’t stand up in court, but it doesn’t need to if the prosecutor just wants the indictment.
The grand jury is just an arm of the prosecutor, and is used as a political tool whenever a trial would be politically inconvenient. Because the district attorney is typically elected, which means they need to pander for votes. So if it would be politically inconvenient to prosecute someone, they can simply refuse to bring any evidence to the grand jury. Because (again) they have full control over what evidence the grand jury sees.
For example, let’s say a cop murders someone in the street. It’s on video. The public is out for blood. But the prosecutor has to work with the police to do their job, and the police union is threatening to stop collecting any evidence at crime scenes if they prosecute this cop. Prosecutor is between a rock and a hard place, because they’d be torching future trials just to appease the public. So instead, they simply don’t bring any evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury is a faceless shadowy organization that can’t defend itself. It’s the perfect scapegoat. So when the grand jury refuses to indict (because they weren’t presented with any evidence) the district attorney can jump in front of the news cameras and go “I tried to prosecute them, but that big mean grand jury refused to indict. But remember, I did my best! Vote for me!” Cops are happy because the prosecutor didn’t indict, the public is placated because the prosecutor “tried” to indict them, and the cogs of the legal system keep grinding away as intended.
So with all of that being said… If he wasn’t indicted, it’s because the prosecutor didn’t want to bring it to trial.
Thank you for sharing this information.
Hey, always glad to see the MECFS guy in the wild. My wife is suffering from major chronic fatigue, (it’s seriously life-altering), so I wanted to let you know that your posts don’t go unnoticed.
And yeah, the whole “jury vs grand jury” and “indicted vs convicted” thing is a pet peeve of mine. Because authorities prey on the public’s lack of knowledge about the legal process, to shift blame away from themselves. Once you know the difference (and understand the relationship between a prosecutor and the grand jury) you’ll consistently see news stories of prosecutors hiding behind grand juries to shift blame away from themselves. But it’s always framed by the news as “the prosecutor brought the case to the grand jury, who refused to indict” because the news is complicit in keeping the cogs grinding.
:)
That’s a problem, yes. That’s the main reason why this man wasn’t given any sort of punishment in this specific case.
This isn’t the first time someone has shot a family member without the intent to kill, and it won’t be the last. Something needs to be done about it at a fundamental level. I realize that isn’t going to happen, especially in Texas. But that doesn’t change the fact that we need common sense gun laws in this country. This is a fucking travesty and a miscarriage of justice. It’s doing nothing to deal with this specific scenario nor the larger problem that too many idiots have too much access to deadly weapons.
The court appears to believe the claim that her death was accidental. I don’t doubt that he had no intentions of killing his daughter.
If you don’t have inside knowledge on the case, “not having doubt” on either intentions or no intentions is an incredibly moronic take.
Also, the job of a court of law is to establish innocence or guilt (and the degree thereof). This grand jury failing to indict is that grand jury refusing to do its duty to the people. While Germany is also going to shits, I am kinda glad that for now, our country is civilised enough to not have juries. Although we have the next worst thing, which is laypeople judges, for some cases.
Ya when people say Dems have a chance of winning Texas. Call that person a moron and go on with your day
Political scientists estimate there are about 8 million consistently-Democratic voters in Texas and 6 million consistently-Republican voters. Out of a population of 30 million where everyone else flip flops and/or doesn’t vote.
The only reason the Republicans ever win in Texas is due to voter suppression/gerrymandering.
This is consistent with national estimates that there are roughly 1.5x as many Democrats as Republicans in the USA.
The only reason the Republicans ever win anywhere is due to voter suppression/gerrymandering.
Like nearly all the US, the cities are heavily blue and the rural parts are heavily red. The only difference between blue states and red states is which side of the halfway line it’s tipped towards. And nearly every state is close to the halfway mark—including Texas.
Texas has more dem voters than some states have people.
We have loads of left-leaning people who are eligible to vote. If more of them would actually vote, we’d get somewhere. Fortunately, the primary turnout numbers this year look good. More Democratic voters than Republican in the Senate race, and pretty close to even for the Governor. Compare to 2024 when over 2/3 of primary ballots cast were Republican. Polling looks better than 2018 with Beto v Cruz.
And yet not once have they even been close to winning
Beto came pretty close against Cruz. But that was basically it in the last 30 or so years. Every other time has been a route basically. The Texas Democratic party is beyond incompetent.
You aren’t even close to being right about that
Nah, pretty close.
The only difference between blue states and red states is which side of the halfway line it’s tipped towards.
not for any longer. trump has won the right to throw out any mail-in ballot he wants.
If we had 100% voting population Republicans would never win again anywhere, especially in texas. That is why Republicans are so eager to disenfranchise voters. They’re trying to take away voting rights of women by making voters who change their name ineligible. They love the apathetic idiots who never vote.
Right now trump seems to have killed mail in voting for this year. Unless something changes the new usps system is sure to disenfranchise millions.
It’s a perfect storm for Dems this year in Texas. They have a good candidate for that state - a likable, charismatic young man who talks about his Christian faith a lot. The Republicans are fielding a particularly bad candidate - a corrupt attorney general who was nearly impeached by his own party for fraud, whose wife recently divorced him for cheating, and who narrowly won a closely contested primary. Beto came within 2.5 points of Cruz in 2018, and Cruz was/is popular in Texas, and Republicans in general weren’t as reviled back then. It’s still no better than a coin flip, but Talarico could win this year.
deleted by creator
Imo, if it was your gun, unless it was literally stolen from a locked gun safe, anyone who dies by it is automatically your fault.
Doesn’t really matter what the circumstances were. If anyone is even in a position to be injured or killed by your weapon, it usually means you acted negligently in either handling or storing the weapon.
They were arguing at the time, he definitely just shot her and lied about it. Even with a sig 320, you need to abuse the fucking thing to get it to go off.
Even if he weren’t lying, it would still be negligent homicide. If you point a gun at someone, you are responsible if they get injured or killed. Doesn’t matter if you pulled the trigger, mishandled the gun or a magic fairy pixie materialised and pulled the trigger for you.
The mere fact that you pointed a loaded gun at another person already makes you responsible per se in my book.
Texas has some insane defend your land laws.
Look them up
while this is true, it has absolutely no bearing on this murder.
Look them up
How?
Imo, if it was your gun, unless it was literally stolen from a locked gun safe
I disagree, if it could be stolen from your gun safe, you didn’t secure it enough, you should still be partially at fault.
-break into someone’s house
-rob their gun safe at gunpoint
-shoot them with their own weapon
-“its their fault officer that gun wasn’t adequately secured”
Should have shot the robber with the backup that they keep in [REDACTED]!
No they had to stop storing them there after the Supreme Court went hard right. Something something Sodomy v Gomorrah or some damn thing. IDK the Republicans just make it up as they go, so it could be literally anything.
As much of a fan as I am of gun control, expecting gun owners to have a safe that is literally, physically impossible to break into is wildly unreasonable
Underwriters laboratories rates safe’s security in minutes most of the time.
That sort of safe doesn’t exist there’s a dude who pops full on bank vaults in less than an hour unless they have time locks and a time lock would make no sense.
No safe is impenetrable
That’s why you keep the guns and ammo separate.
Some of them are barely better than a paper bag. LockPickingLawyer has opened many far too easily.
Gun safes are particularly bad most of the time. Many of the big ones are super thin sheet metal on top of a sheetrock core. And the small ones just get stolen with the guns in them.
It’s actually why I keep my pistol in the cash safe in my used commercial van. The safe’s surrounded by an additional steel box on all 4 sides with the door facing up and bolted into the car body the in a way that you’d have to open the safe to get to the bolts, with the other side of the bolts located so you’d have to remove the gas tank to get to it.
The van was actually stolen once before I owned it, and the thieves never did get to the cash in the safe, so I figured it’s a more secure place for my pistol than a safe in my house.
I’m also usually pretty close to my car, whereas I’m away from my house for long stretches.
