Woman charged in shooting death of her own fetus.

[Shaul]

This could open the door to convicting women for losing a foetus after a driving accident, or any accident where the State thinks that the woman might have been careless or reckless.

But whether the State would give a hoot for that child's care, education, medicare, nourishment, warmth, security and welfare after birth is another question, I guess.

I don’t see how you imagine that could be the case. That would take quite a leap as the scenarios are qualitatively different.

 

[fantome profane]

Not that I agree with this decision in any way, but you aren't telling quite the whole story. The pregnant woman started the altercation and the police ruled that the woman was merely defending herself by shooting her, which is legal there (stand your ground state). Because of that, according to the law, the pregnant woman is responsible for whatever comes after she started the fight. It sucks for sure, but it makes a bit more sense.

The reason I didn't share that is because I believe the position the police took is complete BS. The idea that she needed to shoot a pregnant woman 5 times to defend herself is nonsense. I don’t support these “ stand your ground laws”, but this case is even more ridiculous than most.

And I think this is clearly politically motivated. They are laying the groundwork to charge any woman who gets an abortive with murder.

 

[oldbadger]

It goes to show you that the intimation that this was about racism is completely unfounded, had it been about racism the shooter would not have been released. This was a serious Jerry Springeresque situation, it started with the pregnant woman starting a fight over who the "baby daddy" is and it went downhill from there.

It shows me nothing of the kind.
It simply shows me how totally crank that State's criminal law is.

One moment you point at Europe and UK crimes, the next you point to 'intimations' about racism. Why don't you just look at how absolutely cranked that State's law is:-
A person shoots another FIVE times, claiming self defence, when all they originally needed to do was waklk away.
A Pregnant woman is shot in the womb and loses her baby and gets accused of Manslaughter.

I do wonder now, whether a pregnant woman who has a car accident and loses her unborn could get charged with manslaughter for that.

Amazing.

 

[oldbadger]

I don’t see how you imagine that could be the case. That would take quite a leap as the scenarios are qualitatively different.

I don't think so.
Loss of foetus through carelessness or negligence?

Such a sentence covers many kinds of incident.
In any event that kind of legislation (if a Court would uphold such a conviction) is shameful. Quite shameful. imo.

 

[Stanyon]

you point to 'intimations' about racism.

From article in OP:
"Ilyse Hogue, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, tweeted: “Marshae Jones was indicted for homicide when someone shot her in the stomach while she was pregnant, ending her pregnancy. They said she ‘started it.’ The shooter went free. This what 2019 looks like for a pregnant woman of colour without means in a red state. This is now.”

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death | US news | The Guardian

It seems that racism and republican politics supposedly had a role in this according to the Naral Pro-Choice America president, since there is no evidence to support this intimated claim it seems like just a cheap shot from someone who wants to exploit race and politics in a disingenuous bid to bolster their own agenda regardless of what divisiveness it may cause.

I do wonder now, whether a pregnant woman who has a car accident and loses her unborn could get charged with manslaughter for that.

In a case where she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol I think it would be appropriate especially if she caused the wreck just like anyone else should be charged if they caused a wreck that killed someone while they were under the influence.
She hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

 

[Shad]

Did you notice that the shooter shot the pregnant woman FIVE times, and that this has been treated as a reasonable defence?

A lot of stand your ground laws do not care what you or I think is reasonable but what the person being attacked does. Play stupid games get stupid prizes.

All you have to do to get away from an angry pregnant woman is to run a short distance. No need to stay there and shoot her through and through, again and again. Maybe Alabama doesn't want to make a gun-issue of such incidents?

All you are advocating is people be a victim.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death

Yes, that is correct. Strange as it sounds. A five month pregnant women got shot in the stomach. She survived, but lost the child. And she was charged with man slaughter, not the person who shot her.

This is were we have come to folks.

Well at least we know at 5 months a fetus is considered a human.

Anyways it's too bizzare sounding. I think there's a lot more to the story with a degree of journalistic Integrity lacking here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Great logic.
If you are in a crowd and an acid thrower throws acid, you may well be unharmed.
If you are in a crowd and a stabber starts stabbing, you may well be unharmed.
If you are in a crowd and a shooter with a semi-automatic starts shooting, you will probably get shot.
Think!

Try applying that reasoning with explosives like McVeigh or your local neighborhood terrorist , or gas like the subway gasser in Japan.

 

[ecco]

Or maybe not

Based on how you calculate things, I'll bet you are a real great poker player.



Yes, the above was sarcasm.

 

[ecco]

Try applying that reasoning with explosives like McVeigh or your local neighborhood terrorist , or gas like the subway gasser in Japan.

If you had been following the conversation, you would have known I was responding to Stanyon's three alternatives.

If you want to talk about bombs and gas attacks, take it up with him.

 

[Stanyon]

Based on how you calculate things, I'll bet you are a real great poker player..

I'm actually pretty good at poker, no sarcasm involved.

 

[oldbadger]

From article in OP:
"Ilyse Hogue, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, tweeted: “Marshae Jones was indicted for homicide when someone shot her in the stomach while she was pregnant, ending her pregnancy. They said she ‘started it.’ The shooter went free. This what 2019 looks like for a pregnant woman of colour without means in a red state. This is now.”

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death | US news | The Guardian

It seems that racism and republican politics supposedly had a role in this according to the Naral Pro-Choice America president, since there is no evidence to support this intimated claim it seems like just a cheap shot from someone who wants to exploit race and politics in a disingenuous bid to bolster their own agenda regardless of what divisiveness it may cause.

So you're still spinning all kinds of stuff which does appear to be some kind of 'interference' to direct attention away from the madness of that State's policies, whereby a pregnant woman can be shot five times and the shooter be classed as 'reasonable' yet the pregnant woman be accused of manslaughter.
Just separating those facts from everything else could show the world just how crazy some States are.

In a case where she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol I think it would be appropriate especially if she caused the wreck just like anyone else should be charged if they caused a wreck that killed someone while they were under the influence.

..... Which shows me that I was correct about all the side waffle and interference. This could now be extended to any kind of carelessness, from crossing the road, to falls, to a swimminmg or boating accident...... the list of sitruations where a pregnant mother could be charged for losing her child in an accident could be huge.

She hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

We know that.
But the fact that a person can shoot anybody five times in so-called self defence and be considered 'reasonable' just shows the world how officials think in Alabama.

No, the defendant has not been convicted, but the world has possibly already made its decisions about Alabama.

 

[oldbadger]

A lot of stand your ground laws do not care what you or I think is reasonable but what the person being attacked does. Play stupid games get stupid prizes.

So, basically, 'Stupid' can get shot to pieces in Alabama?
And that's OK?

All you are advocating is people be a victim.

Rubbish. The common sense of Conflict Management and Control shows sensible people that to avoid conflict is absolutely the best way to go.

Always do everything to avoid conflict is the rule here, and where a defending person has eventually needed to hurt an attacker it's very important to show that they tried to avoid the situation.

Over here that isn't 'chicken', it's 'wise owl'.

 

[Stanyon]

No, the defendant has not been convicted, but the world has possibly already made its decisions about Alabama.

Oh no, someone somewhere in the world doesn't like Alabama.

 

[Stanyon]

The common sense of Conflict Management and Control shows sensible people that to avoid conflict is absolutely the best way to go.
Always do everything to avoid conflict is the rule here, and where a defending person has eventually needed to hurt an attacker it's very important to show that they tried to avoid the situation.

Convicting a 78 year old man of murder for stabbing a person who broke into his home doesn't sound reasonable to me. What do they do with rape over there, just tell the woman to try to enjoy it?

 

[Shad]

So, basically, 'Stupid' can get shot to pieces in Alabama?

No. You can get killed when you attacked people and they defend themselves. Perhaps not attacking people is something to consider.

And that's OK?

I have little issues with self-defense.

Rubbish. The common sense of Conflict Management and Control shows sensible people that to avoid conflict is absolutely the best way to go.

The conflict already started.

Always do everything to avoid conflict is the rule here, and where a defending person has eventually needed to hurt an attacker it's very important to show that they tried to avoid the situation.

This is just advocating people be a victim using hindsight 20/20 and your armchair.

Over here that isn't 'chicken', it's 'wise owl'.

No, it's just advocating people be a victim to violence.

 

[ecco]

Perhaps Alabama is rethinking this whole thing.

Alabama pregnant woman shot in the stomach is indicted in her unborn child's death - CNN
The indictment, however, may or may not lead to prosecution, according to a statement from the Jefferson County District Attorney Bessemer Division's office.

"While the Grand Jury has had its say, our office is in the process of evaluating this case and has not yet made a determination about whether to prosecute it as a manslaughter case, reduce it to a lesser charge or not to prosecute it," Bessemer Cutoff District Attorney Lynneice Washington said.

"We will announce our decision only after all due diligence has been performed."

​

ETA: I have no idea regarding the files below. If someone knows how to get rid of it, let me know. Thanks

 

[oldbadger]

Oh no, someone somewhere in the world doesn't like Alabama.

No no... Lots of folks in Alabama are beautiful people. But maybe they're the moderate ones.......

 

[oldbadger]

Convicting a 78 year old man of murder for stabbing a person who broke into his home doesn't sound reasonable to me. What do they do with rape over there, just tell the woman to try to enjoy it?

Source please.
Let's see if this 78yr old needed to hurt anybody.

Come on....... Source?

 

[oldbadger]

No. You can get killed when you attacked people and they defend themselves. Perhaps not attacking people is something to consider.

I have little issues with self-defense.

Are you one of those folks who don't spend a penny (dime) on good security but sleep with a gun under your pillow?
If so......... Duh!

This is just advocating people be a victim using hindsight 20/20 and your armchair.

No, it's just advocating people be a victim to violence.

This kind of mindset is sad.
If you can show a court that you did everything possible to avoid, deter and reduce conflict, then you're less likely to be defending any actions in the first place, and much more likely to be seen as a reasonable defender in any second place.

You're mindset seems strange to me.