@glennlab the title of the article says "accident". she should have acted differently sure. nowhere in the article did it say they were hunting the , it says they were riding bikes down the street as a family

@Smurfing101 They were neighbors in a subdivision, in north Houiston, she came out with the apparent intention of killing the dog, The fact that she was charged, and the doorbell camera footage show that the dog presented no threat to either her or anyone else at the time she started blindly shooting endagering every family in the neighborhood. She had no business . Hunting was a generous term vesus delibertate atempted destruction of private p[roperty . She is lucky, under Texas law she could have been charged with multiple felonies.

@glennlab the dog was running around unleashed around children. she did the wrong thing yes. but you said it was no accident when in fact it was. the child was even struck by a ricochet

@Smurfing101It does not meet the definition of an accident. She intended to fire the gun. Obviously did not have the proper target aquistion. Fired wildly ( missed her target with all three shot). Failed to determine her sourroundings, viol;ated numerous atate laws. The police determined that the dog was no threat to her based on the video evidence. Under Texas law if you cause a firearm to discharge you are responsible for all the actions that result from it whether intentional or not. Intent does not make the stiuking of her son an accident it make it an unintended consequence. She could have been charged with attempt capitol murder as others have when they did not intend to harm the person hit by ricochets.

I am sorry that she shot her son, but she had no leagal right to discharge her weapon, so none of the reprecussions are accidents and it was a poor choice of words by the headline writer. The police and DA do not believe it was an accident, so I'm going to side with them.