488
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2026
488 points (97.3% liked)
Today I Learned
31310 readers
849 users here now
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Literally sharia law honor killings.
We have lost texas
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.