No criminal charges over British woman shot in US during a holiday
No criminal charges over British woman shot in US during a holiday
Lucy Harrison was visiting her father during a holiday in Texas when she was fatally wounded.
You're viewing a single thread.
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.)
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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
"A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich."
The prosecutor, very much, can influence a grand jury's decision on whether to indict.
What part of my comment said otherwise?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.