Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
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.
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
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.
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
“The article is flooded with basically details,” he writes. He’s concerned with the contents, not the title.
He wants the drinking and the arguing eliminated because, golly, what could those have to do with anything? It’s not like guns and alcohol have ever led to bad outcomes before, right?
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.