569
Father faces no charges for fatally shooting daughter after fight about Donald Trump
(myfox28columbus.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
569 points (99.1% liked)
World News
53749 readers
3487 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This reads like it never even went to trial. The article says a jury “failed to indict” and the man was “never charged”.
I’m assuming it was a grand jury and somehow a bare majority or jurors couldn’t find cause to charge the man (who—at minimum—pointed a gun at his daughter’s chest and pulled the trigger) with any crime whatsoever.
Not a single charge or trial?
How?
Texas
Also she was Anti-Trump. And a woman. So it's okay.
They don't consider it a crime if they don't believe the victim is a person.
Unironically a foundational tenant of the entire country.
Some of us have just done a better job of moving past it. (Dems enabled Gaza genocide so I'm not talking about Dems, at least not the politicians. I mean some individuals.)
Yes. Totally on her. /s If she had not been born yet, then things would have been a lot different. 'dad' had been on death-row before midnight
Mmhmm.
Grand jury indictments are required for felony charges to make it to trial, including felonies like murder/involuntary manslaughter.
Indictments are a very low bar (probable cause). In this case, it seems clear to me from everyone's accounts that, at minimum, this was a reckless homicide where the mishandling of a firearm resulted in someone's death, and therefore probable cause existed to indict, so this is very clearly a poor decision on the jury's part if the charge was manslaughter. I'm not sure if they tried to seek an indictment for involuntary manslaughter or murder though. Murder is a higher bar.
However this isn't necessarily a done deal. Double jeopardy does not apply to grand juries' "no bill" (i.e. the decision not to indict), so the prosecutor can gather more evidence or plan a different approach and try again. If, for example, they attempted to get an indictment for murder and failed, they could try again for manslaughter. This is really only news if the prosecution decides to stop trying to indict.
It could also be a case of a prosecutor who agrees with the shooter. (A right-wing extremist prosecutor, who has ever heard of such a thing?)
In that case, the prosecutor might feel pressured to bring the case before a grand jury, just to make it look like he's doing his job. But he could deliberately throw the case, neglect to mention important evidence, etc, etc, and fail to get an indictment. That way, he gets to shut down the prosecution without making it look like it was his choice. Since grand jury proceedings are sealed, nobody would be able to know he deliberately sandbagged and failed on purpose. Then he gets to make a public statement about how he tried, but the grand jury said no, so his hands are tied.
So it could be a way for a malicious prosecutor to kill/bury the case without looking like he's deliberately letting a murderer go free.
Grand jury. What little I've read keeps saying they tried for manslaughter. Also from what I've read, based on the dad's own statements he's clearly guilty of a number of crimes that aren't manslaughter. So it's possible there's some nazi-esque camaraderie here and the prosecutor intentionally flopped to get no charges. I'm not exactly sure how grand juries work on that front. Could they have tried for a lower level charge, then once the rest of the investigation uncovers things they just bump the charge up to the appropriate level of would they need to reconvene a grand jury? Could the grand jury have considered multiple levels of charges?
Grand juries are different than trial juries in Texas. They're nominated "respectable" members of society that serve terms for multiple months. It's remnants of Jim Crow that are alive and well, where rich white guys decide who gets prosecuted for what.
And Texas made it even worse a few years back. In 2008, a white guy called 911 because police his neighbor's house was being robbed. He indicated that the neighbor's were not home, and also that he was gonna shoot the burglars. The dispatch told him over a dozen times not to interfere, and he repeatedly said he would shoot them. As plainclothes police were arriving on scene, dispatch told him they were arriving, but he went ahead and shot the 2 unarmed burglars in the back while.they were fleeing, killing both. They happened to be unarmed.
The grand jury refused to indict him for a crime, but the familes sued the murderer in civil court and won.
So Texas made a law that if someone is not convicted of a felony for a gun crime they can't be sued in civil court over it.
This is how you get vigilantes.
That's the idea.
They openly allowed armed civilian militias like the "Minutemen" and "United Constitutional Patriots" to detain and hold migrants at gunpoint until CBP arrived.
Hell - in the 80s a militia group calling itself the "Civiliian Military Assistant" was actually making border raids into Mexico to shoot on migrants before they crossed the border.
You know, these folks keep worrying about the cartels and the Black Panthers. And the more I read, the more I wish that what they feared most actually came to pass, and Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación actually rolled a few APCs into their neighborhoods and started a scorched earth campaign or three.
How much do we want to bet that the law wouldn’t apply if the shooter was black?
I knew that the US justice system was bad, but I at least hoped that some crimes would have to be trialed in court.
Thanks for the explanation.
"If a district attorney wanted, a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich."
I don't think the district attorney tried to do more than the bare minimum for the indictment. I wonder if they purposely threw the case.
“Justice for Mama Cass!”
Some states do require a grand jury indictment if its a crime that carries capital punishment. Like murder.
Could be a case where they went for a specific murder charge, but weren't able to support it.
Or the prosecutor was implicit
Complicit
Hey look how about some sympathy for the gun owner here? He accidentally pointed a loaded weapon at a loved one while having a heated argument, and the gun felt scared and accidentally went off! By accident!
Really, that poor gun owner might be scared to point a loaded weapon at a loved one again! Don't victim blame the poor owner!