Alabama woman loses unborn child after being shot, gets arrested; shooter goes free
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...dismissed.html
Printable View
Alabama woman loses unborn child after being shot, gets arrested; shooter goes free
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...dismissed.html
It's never murder if someone in uniform pulls the trigger. Some life doesn't matter.
WTAF?
Hazir was it someone in uniform who pulled the trigger? Details are scant but the shooter was aged 23 and someone the Alabama woman was fighting with allegedly.
Read the story. The pregnant woman started the fight. The other woman shot her in self-defense. Of course the other woman won't be charged. I'm guessing the pregnant woman is getting charged under the same theory where you're responsible for any harm committed during your commission of a crime.
Yeah, if the self defense was justified this outcome makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Oh I fully understand the warped reasoning behind it, I just also find it dumb and dangerous.
If someone shot her and killed the 5-month fetus during the commission of a crime, you don't think that person should be charged with manslaughter?
That person would be directly culpable. This woman's culpability for the death of her unborn child is at best indirect—it was, after all, the shooter who did the killing. I understand the US has Ideas about felony murder, but you're taking the argument beyond that. By that standard of general indirect culpability, we should jail tens of thousands of mothers, fathers and politicians for endangering or harming unborn children in various ways. And if the US really believed in this standard, George Zimmerman would be in jail for both murder and for assault on himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The article said she 'started a fight', what does that mean, exactly? Like, was she waving a weapon around?
In most (sane) jurisdictions you're not allowed immediately escalate to deadly force just because someone is getting shirty.
It's that moronic "Stand your ground" doctrine which is one of the most idiotic notions ever conceived.
Anyone even considering defending that nullheaded bastardry of law should be subjected to a heated argument whereupon he is immediately shot because he was acting in a "threatening" manner or somesuch shit.
It's not the same logic as employed in felony-murder (which is itself ridiculously overdone). There's no precipitating felony here. She's not being charged with any other crime that I can see.
I do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Then that makes this even more absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It would have been absurd either way, but even more so now.
I have no idea what the details of the fight are, but it's telling that a grand jury which will indict almost anyone refused to indict the shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
You don't think there should be legal consequences for someone killing another person's viable fetus (beyond being charged with assault, I suppose)?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I'd probably be ok with treating it as an aggravating circumstance on the assault charge. But beyond that, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That appears to be an excessive and unnecessary pro-choice position. What Loki appears to want could be achieved by other means than imposing the idea that life starts at conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The simple fact that the choice element lacked on the side of the mother would be for example relevant.
Also do I doubt that US law doesn't protect the rights of unborn children at all in cases where the presumption of them potentially being born would protect them from losing rights they would have if born. Like inherit from a pre-deceased parent.
PS. I didn't really read the article and filled in the background of the shooter. That was wrong.
“The state of Alabama has proven yet again that the moment a person becomes pregnant their sole responsibility is to produce a live, healthy baby and that it considers any action a pregnant person takes that might impede in that live birth to be a criminal act,’’ Executive Director Amanda Reyes said in the statement.“
“Today, Marshae Jones is being charged with manslaughter for being pregnant and getting shot while engaging in an altercation with a person who had a gun. Tomorrow, it will be another black woman, maybe for having a drink while pregnant. And after that, another, for not obtaining adequate prenatal care,” Reyes said.
Ah, Sweet Home Alabama. :rolleyes: 'Stand Your Ground' self-defense -- and gun laws -- run up against their efforts to criminalize abortion. This puts the "Pro-Life" activists in a pickle, since they want to give full rights of "Personhood" to embryos. Fetal viability doesn't really matter if life begins at conception, see....
This woman should be charged with inciting violence, or aggravated assault, or any number of crimes, but not manslaughter. Just as someone who attempted suicide wouldn't be charged with attempted homicide.
I can't tell if these prosecutors are massive ideologues poorly looking for a test case, or massive ideologues who are just idiots without context.
My question is...why did the pregnant woman who got shot in the stomach go to a convenience store afterwards? :bulb:
Maybe she was in shock, and the first person she called for help didn't realize she'd been shot...until they were in a convenience store parking lot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You implied that reporting crimes might be an irrelevant or immeasurable data point in the "hoax" thread. But now you wonder why? tsk tsk :rolleyes:
A couple of things here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
1. Zimmerman likely did not start the physical confrontation via violence. Yes he followed Martin but from the court case it appeared that Martin assaulted him first and logically this would make sense, otherwise Zimmerman wouldn't have any wounds on him he would have led with a gunshot.
2. Someone can be factually guilty of murder but not be convicted if the jury feels there is reasonable doubt.
3. The entire situation hinges on the idea of the unborn child having rights. If you believe the unborn child has rights than the charges make sense, if you don't believe the unborn child has rights the charges won't make sense. It is as simple as that and that's the part that the abortion debate always becomes a fruitless shouting match.
It's not a 'fruitless shouting match' when women demand recognition of their own bodily control. :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The whole pro-life movement is a contradictory exercise in "equal rights", where zygotes can make women prisoner-hosts of their own body.
Nah, when it comes to abortion, there's a whole class of sperm donors that came to see themselves as the "real" victims....because that's the narrative they were fed by religious groups. That same "church thought" ignored adultery, incest, and hid pedophilia for decades, generations. How dare women suppress the male seed legacy, even when it's forced upon them! :rolleyes: