A lot of jumping to conclusions with very little evidence in this thread.
this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2025
135 points (99.3% liked)
United Kingdom
5016 readers
262 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
jfc DO NOT COME TO THE UNITED STATES
YSK that Americans will liberally (!) provide, carry and use their weapons for everything except the second amendment intended purpose.
Forming a militia to protect from foreign invasion?
I should withdraw my original comment. I spent a while re-researching the original intent, the Heller case and some of the subsequent cases to its current interpretation.
I believe it was originally intended to prevent federal overreach. Except that when there was a belief by some people that that had happened and there was an invasion of the capital. That confused me. I don't know what the rights and wrongs were - apparently the alleged overreach wasn't adjudged to be severe by anyone.
Well, don't visit the US. This is just one of the many reasons to avoid that place.
What's madness to me is that people in my country have a holiday to the US booked... and are still going.
My safety is worth more than a few sunk thousand
probably dint want to waste thousands of euros, or some people are sitll ignorant of politics.
The UK should expell US diplomats over this, or at least cease all US trade talks.
We didn't even expel them when one of them killed somebody in the UK...
anne sorkin was on the wrong side oncoming traffic and fatally struck a brit, and she fled to embassy for protection.
Anne Sacoolas, not Sorkin.
Anna Sorkin was the woman who pretended to be rich and then a load of US banks just gave her a load of free money. And apparently it's illegal when poor people do that, so she went to prison.
Which she wasn't entitled to. Diplomatic immunity doesn't cover spouses.
I don't think it even covers CIA spooks, does it? I thought it was just for embassy staff.
Potato potato
In a different universe, in a different timeline, maybe we wouldn't be stuck so far up America's arse and do something sensible like putting the damn country on a travel ban list.
There are already travel warnings issued for the US.
And unfortunately, the UK cannot go about starting international spats and trade wars with the US. That's a one way ticket to heavy recession and mass poverty.
The most we can realistically do is travel warnings and publishing stories like this.
Weren't there travel warnings issued recently? Although this event doesn't seem related to those concerns. In the US getting shot is kinda like getting struck by lightning - statistically very unlikely, but still happens all the time.
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.
"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.
"Don't fix anything because so much is broken" and "All problems are of the same importance" are not, and will never be, philosophies I subscribe to.
You do you bud.
I didn't say "don't fix anything because so much is broken" so it seems like you do subscribe to it since you brought it up.
I'm just trying to keep up with you moving the goalposts. First it was "grand juries aren't remotely the problematic part" to "they're not the biggest problem".
You asked why I commented originally, I explained, then refuted you with a source. Don't get mad at me for your own spurious claim.
By comparison to the other issues they arent remotely problematic.
Nothing i said is contradictory, so you can cut that crap now.
Edit:
Annnnddd....
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.
Yeah you did.
No I didn't. If you fix one the system is still broken, meaning one cannot have a "bigger role" as they all cause a failure in the US justice system. You have to fix all of the issues. Of course you have to start somewhere but that starting point is subjective.
Nothing i said is contradictory, so you can cut that crap now.
Contradictory by definition means inconsistent and going from "not remotely" to "not as big a role" is inconsistent. "Not remotely" means not at all and "not as big a role" is inconsistent with "not at all".
You have to fix all of the issues.
Yeah, dont bother fixing it at all unless you can fix everything. So... Exactly what I said you said?
"Not remotely" means not at all and "not as big a role"
Depends on the scale.
And considering things can be brought back in front of a grand jury because its not a criminal trial, yeah, its basically nothing by comparison as a problem.
Say more bullshit about moving goalposts and I'll just go ahead and block.
Go ahead and block me. You're clearly twisting my words to fit what you want to think.
Why crop out the second sentence?
You have to fix all of the issues. Of course you have to start somewhere but that starting point is subjective.
Definition of not even remotely - Reverso English Dictionary
adverb
not in the slightest degree
The two situations are not even remotely similar. Her explanation was not even remotely believable. The two events are not even remotely connected.
Say more bullshit about moving goalposts and I'll just go ahead and block.
If you get so upset over someone calling out your contradictory statements perhaps you should take an internet break.
No interest in your bs. Goodbye.
Ok, though it's not bs because I actually sourced my statement and didn't contradict myself.
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
We should speculate for sure
I don't know what happened here exactly, but there can be cases where a parent did take appropriate measures (by definition), but the child got through them anyway. For example, a child watches a safe being locked/unlocked and gets the password, or guesses the password (maybe it's the same as mum's phone password), etc. Or broke a glass case.
Sounds like those weren't appropriate measures if someone can get round them so easily.
When I had a shotgun license, my shotgun was in a locked gun cabinet inside a locked room. The cartridges were in a separate locked case out of sight in another room, and I had the only keys for all 3 locks, all of which were on my keychain which was on my person at all times.
When I didn't have them on me, they'd be in the hidden space behind the hinged piece of skirting board behind my bed.
As someone who likes to break into things (legally, with permission, blah blah blah) I can assure you that no amount of locks will keep a determined individual from something, especially if they know the schedule of the people they're concerned about and if they have an effectively unlimited time with the thing they're breaking into.
Locks will deter, not prevent, theft or unwanted handling. If there's a way to access it, it is accessible to anyone with time and intent.
I like picking locks and even if I don't have the skill for a certain lock, I've opened them by accident just by trying over and over. I just needed time.
A gun safe by itself is not enough.
A locked door is not enough.
I know someone who used to take the firing pins out of every firearm, which would then be in a locked box in a floor safe under his bed. Guns in a locked safe, with a locked closet and locked room door. That was when he had nieces and nephews that came over a few times a month. Once he had his kids, the guns went to storage at his dad's house. His reasoning? He used to steal alcohol from his parents cabinet as a teen and they tried many many times to make it harder but he always managed to get to it. "I always found a way, so could my daughter"
My own firearms have cable locks through the chambers, they're locked in a keyed safe, and the safe is in a locked closet. The only copy of the safe key that isn't either on me or my wife is in a hollowed out 2x4 that looks like it's part of the ceiling in my attic just in case I ever lose my key but need into it.
I don't have kids so I'm not concerned with someone who has a lot of time on their hands, but never underestimate how determined someone can be when they're told "you aren't allowed in there"
All of this is basically to say "the only way you're keeping someone permanently away from the guns in your house is to NOT HAVE GUNS IN YOUR HOUSE"
Unrelated,
which was in my person at all times.
Sorry the phrasing just gave me a giggle.
When I didn't have them on me, they'd be in the hidden space behind the hinged piece of skirting board behind my bed.
So even you here admit to losing positive confirmation of the location of the keys to your gun / ammo.
Hardly. I'd be asleep and they'd be in the hidden space behind the bed that I was lying in. The location was exactly where I left them and no one could get them without moving me, moving the bed, and knowing about my hiding place.
However, when it comes to criminal charges, they do have to draw a line where "accidents happen"
You may also need to have a gun be reasonably accessible for self defence in an emergency.
I'm not picking sides by the way, but I'm just sort of reckoning how something like this could happen with no charges.
Amazing how this shit happens so often here or at least it seems that way.
Americans like to pretend as if we are the only country with a gun culture... We are not... We are the only country where your mean gun owner is a mouth breather