this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
195 points (98.0% liked)
politics
31034 readers
1784 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS.
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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
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
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.