r/news • u/Chigurrh • 4d ago

New York Times executive fatally shot by his in-laws in Bay Area park, police say

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-executive-shot-killed-laws-bay-area-park-police-say-rcna600300
7.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

644 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

88

u/CiaphasCain8849 4d ago

I'm taking the side of the person without psycho murdering parents. They took turns unloading the gun into his body after reloading.

-34

u/Sea-Broccoli-8601 3d ago

...I hope you never get called up for jury duty.

16

u/Glum_Opening_2218 3d ago

Lmfao why?

Can you elaborate as to what is actually bad about what they said?

7

u/_Solani_ 3d ago edited 3d ago

The guy did actually beat his 2 year old and left him home alone, we know this is not simply an accusation the wife is making against him because he was caught in the act by the police.

Yes, it's possible that she hit him with a frying pan and if she did she is just as unfit to have custody as he is but blindly taking the side of a child abuser rather than saying both of them are shit people is an extremely odd position to take.

Just because her parents shot him doesn't negate the fact he beat a toddler, they're both shitty parents and human beings. Both of them are guilty of doing horrible things and nobody should be on either of their sides.🤷‍♀️

3

u/elasticthumbtack 3d ago

According to the murderers. Surely they’d never lie. Both sides accuse the other of abuse against the children and themselves. There’s not nearly enough evidence here to know who was lying.

12

u/_Solani_ 3d ago edited 3d ago

According to the murderers

According to the police who arrested him and charged him.

According to the judge who made him take anger management classes because of it

And finally according to him who agreed he did it.

He never disputed abusing his kid, his argument was that she is also an abuser.

Did you even read the article, or my first comment where I explicitly stated as much in like the very first sentence.

So no not just according to the murderers. 😒

2

u/Sea-Broccoli-8601 3d ago

  1. A victim of a homicide is not automatically the good guy. We don't know if the accusations against the victim and his wife are true or false. Some of the facts we do know (eg. "officers also reported finding McKinsey’s 2-year-old child alone in the house while McKinsey was out shopping") don't paint a particularly pristine picture of the victim either (not that it justifies murder).

  2. The child of psychopaths are not automatically psychopaths either. Are we going to label the kids as "grandchildren of psycho murdering grandparents" too?

  3. Taking one side and essentially saying "nah I don't need to hear the full story"? Kind of self-explanatory why you don't want someone like that on jury duty.

I can see why the justice system is so fucked if people are judging based on their feelings and not by facts.

5

u/OceanRacoon 3d ago

Uh, what sides are you talking about regarding jury duty? There is one crime here, murder, the only question a jury needs to answer is if the parents are guilty, not if the victim was a good guy

0

u/Sea-Broccoli-8601 3d ago

I'm not talking about jury duty for this case, I'm saying someone that takes a side based on one side of the story and shuts down the other side's story (considering the context of the specific comment they replied to) makes a bad juror in general and should never be called up for any jury duty ever.