What The Actual Fuck???

[Toni]

Haven't you heard? Women are merely vessels designed to receive the male offering and to bring forth new life. Oh, and to cook dinner and clean up and change diapers.

In Alabama many are handy with a gun too.

Many women everywhere are handy with a gun, Derec.

 

[Derec]

Many women everywhere are handy with a gun, Derec.

So the moral of the story is: don't go attacking one over a man, even if you are preggers.

 

[Toni]

Many women everywhere are handy with a gun, Derec.

So the moral of the story is: don't go attacking one over a man, even if you are preggers.

I've never found any man worth fighting over, Derec.

I was kind of hoping you might take a different message than that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If Ebony Jamison can be charged with some form of homicide in the death of the fetus had she been found responsible, why can't Marshae Jones be charged now that the grand jury thinks she is the responsible party?

Perhaps because in that case, she's responsible for abortion, which is not punishable under Roe v. Wade, etc. doctrine - unless it was a sufficiently late stage, perhaps, but I think the fact she wasn't charged makes that less probable.

At any rate, it's good that she was not charged.

 

[Arctish]

So a pregnant women loses all agency?

Of course not! A pregnant woman keeps all her agency, but with agency comes responsibility for one's actions, including criminal responsibility.

Arguing is a crime?

Many women everywhere are handy with a gun, Derec.

So the moral of the story is: don't go attacking one over a man, even if you are preggers.

I went looking for a report that Ms. Jones attacked, or that the argument turned into a physical confrontation, or that credible threats to life and safety were made, or anything of the sort, but didn't find one. The only explanation I could find for the manslaughter charge was in this article from the New York Times:

The police have said she was culpable because she started the fight that led to the shooting and failed to remove herself from harm’s way.

So she started an argument and didn't run away. That's a crime now? Or is it only a crime if you're black, female, and pregnant?

 

[Patooka]

I murdered my neighbour's dog, sold his children into slavery and burned his house down.

That motherfucker is going to prison for a loooonnng time because he tried to argue with me that Rose Tattoo is a better band than Hunters and Collectors and didn't know to walk away and just turn a blind eye to it all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any rational human understands the charges in this case are ridiculous. But once one sees it is Alabama, it is completely understandable.

Disagree. We are seeing the results of fetal homicide laws. A fetus is dead because of actions set in motion by her.

While the laws are crap simply meant to bolster the "pro-life" position they are on the books and she's guilty.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Any rational human understands the charges in this case are ridiculous. But once one sees it is Alabama, it is completely understandable.

Disagree. We are seeing the results of fetal homicide laws. A fetus is dead because of actions set in motion by her.

While the laws are crap simply meant to bolster the "pro-life" position they are on the books and she's guilty.

Guilty of killing her own fetus? Even if that's the case, that is abortion. But that is not punishable during most of the pregnancy.

 

[laughing dog]

Any rational human understands the charges in this case are ridiculous. But once one sees it is Alabama, it is completely understandable.

Disagree. We are seeing the results of fetal homicide laws. A fetus is dead because of actions set in motion by her.

While the laws are crap simply meant to bolster the "pro-life" position they are on the books and she's guilty.

Since you agree the laws are crap, why on earth are you disagreeing the charges are ridiculous, even if they are understandable? Hmmm.

BTW, she is only guilty of those crap laws if one takes the word and judgment of the police on this matter, and accepts that the shooting was a reasonable reaction to the situation. In other words, it is not obvious she is guilty of any actual crime.

 

[Toni]

Any rational human understands the charges in this case are ridiculous. But once one sees it is Alabama, it is completely understandable.

Disagree. We are seeing the results of fetal homicide laws. A fetus is dead because of actions set in motion by her.

While the laws are crap simply meant to bolster the "pro-life" position they are on the books and she's guilty.

Doesn't it depend on which woman left her home first? Because if everybody had just stayed home, none of this would have happened. But it did, so it seems reasonable that the first woman to leave her home is the murderer since that's what set things in motion. OR, really, it was the guy. If he hadn't been two timing the women, none of this would have happened. HE'S the one who set this in motion.

But I do take you point: I think this is a natural extension of the anti-abortion laws.

I will also say that I think that it matters why a fetus was killed. If the woman carrying the fetus wanted the abortion, I think it should be legal. It is actually still part of her body and dependent on her in every way for its survival. It seems as much an extension of the defending one's castle laws by which anytime a fragile little snowflake thinks someone might possibly not be happy with them, they are justified in bringing out semiautomatic weapons, especially if the 'assailant' is of darker complexion. Or female.

If anyone else deliberately or should have foreseen their actions would cause harm to the fetus, they are responsible for the harm caused.

Plus, being shot didn't just harm the fetus. It also harmed the woman carrying the fetus. Unless she was exerting deadly force against her assailant, it is hard to call shooting someone justifiable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any rational human understands the charges in this case are ridiculous. But once one sees it is Alabama, it is completely understandable.

Disagree. We are seeing the results of fetal homicide laws. A fetus is dead because of actions set in motion by her.

While the laws are crap simply meant to bolster the "pro-life" position they are on the books and she's guilty.

Since you agree the laws are crap, why on earth are you disagreeing the charges are ridiculous, even if they are understandable? Hmmm.

BTW, she is only guilty of those crap laws if one takes the word and judgment of the police on this matter, and accepts that the shooting was a reasonable reaction to the situation. In other words, it is not obvious she is guilty of any actual crime.

She's guilty of something that shouldn't be a crime but is. If I were on the jury I would not vote to convict, but I won't fault the prosecutor for bringing the charge.

 

[laughing dog]

Since you agree the laws are crap, why on earth are you disagreeing the charges are ridiculous, even if they are understandable? Hmmm.

BTW, she is only guilty of those crap laws if one takes the word and judgment of the police on this matter, and accepts that the shooting was a reasonable reaction to the situation. In other words, it is not obvious she is guilty of any actual crime.

She's guilty of something that shouldn't be a crime but is. If I were on the jury I would not vote to convict, but I won't fault the prosecutor for bringing the charge.

Why not? She is the victim of a gunshot. She was not armed. She did not endanger her fetus any more than the shooter. Yet the shooter is not charged.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since you agree the laws are crap, why on earth are you disagreeing the charges are ridiculous, even if they are understandable? Hmmm.

BTW, she is only guilty of those crap laws if one takes the word and judgment of the police on this matter, and accepts that the shooting was a reasonable reaction to the situation. In other words, it is not obvious she is guilty of any actual crime.

She's guilty of something that shouldn't be a crime but is. If I were on the jury I would not vote to convict, but I won't fault the prosecutor for bringing the charge.

Bringing a charge on a pregnant shooting victim... who lost the child? If she can't make bail, put her in jail too?

 

[ZiprHead]

Since you agree the laws are crap, why on earth are you disagreeing the charges are ridiculous, even if they are understandable? Hmmm.

BTW, she is only guilty of those crap laws if one takes the word and judgment of the police on this matter, and accepts that the shooting was a reasonable reaction to the situation. In other words, it is not obvious she is guilty of any actual crime.

She's guilty of something that shouldn't be a crime but is. If I were on the jury I would not vote to convict, but I won't fault the prosecutor for bringing the charge.

Why not? She is the victim of a gunshot. She was not armed. She did not endanger her fetus any more than the shooter. Yet the shooter is not charged.

Actually the shooter was the one originally charged so the prosecutors/police thought she was the one at fault.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since you agree the laws are crap, why on earth are you disagreeing the charges are ridiculous, even if they are understandable? Hmmm.

BTW, she is only guilty of those crap laws if one takes the word and judgment of the police on this matter, and accepts that the shooting was a reasonable reaction to the situation. In other words, it is not obvious she is guilty of any actual crime.

She's guilty of something that shouldn't be a crime but is. If I were on the jury I would not vote to convict, but I won't fault the prosecutor for bringing the charge.

Why not? She is the victim of a gunshot. She was not armed. She did not endanger her fetus any more than the shooter. Yet the shooter is not charged.

She endangered her fetus by attacking the other woman.

The other woman wasn't charged because she was acting in self defense.

 

[laughing dog]

Why not? She is the victim of a gunshot. She was not armed. She did not endanger her fetus any more than the shooter. Yet the shooter is not charged.

She endangered her fetus by attacking the other woman.

The other woman wasn't charged because she was acting in self defense.

Actually, as Ziprhead pointed out, the police did not think she was acting in self-defense. A grand jury let her off. But the fetus was not attacking her - the shooting endangered the fetus. She did not have to shoot the fetus.

Sorry, but there is no compelling reason to charge the shooting victim with a crime. She suffered more than enough by being shot and losing her fetus.

 

[Derec]

Actually, as Ziprhead pointed out, the police did not think she was acting in self-defense. A grand jury let her off. [

So the grand jury thought she was acting in self defense. Given the "ham sandwich" nature of grand juries, I am inclined to think they had good reason to rule that way.

But the fetus was not attacking her - the shooting endangered the fetus. She did not have to shoot the fetus.

How do you shoot the attacker without endangering the fetus when the fetus is basically located where the center mass of the assailant is?

Sorry, but there is no compelling reason to charge the shooting victim with a crime.

As long as feticide laws are on the books there is. If the shooter could be charged with manslaughter or murder, than so can the attacker if it is determined that her attack led to a self defense shooting and thereby the death of the fetus.

She suffered more than enough by being shot and losing her fetus.

That may be true but the law does not take "suffered more than enough" into consideration usually. If a suicide bomber somehow survives, but lost a few limbs and is in great pain, should he be let off criminally?

 

[Arctish]

Has anyone found a link that spells out exactly what "attacked" means in this case?

Are we talking about harsh language? Knocking her bonnet off? Tossing a milkshake at her? Kicks and punches?

What exactly happened that led to the shooting?

 

[laughing dog]

How do you shoot the attacker without endangering the fetus when the fetus is basically located where the center mass of the assailant is?

By not shooting or not shooting where the fetus is. Duh.

As long as feticide laws are on the books there is. If the shooter could be charged with manslaughter or murder, than so can the attacker if it is determined that her attack led to a self defense shooting and thereby the death of the fetus.

No DA is compelled to charge anyone.

That may be true but the law does not take "suffered more than enough" into consideration usually.

This is not usually.

If a suicide bomber somehow survives, but lost a few limbs and is in great pain, should he be let off criminally?

No. But it would be incredibly stupid to equate this situation with a suicide bomber, so I wonder what your real point is.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If a suicide bomber somehow survives, but lost a few limbs and is in great pain, should he be let off criminally?

No. But it would be incredibly stupid to equate this situation with a suicide bomber, so I wonder what your real point is.

Aside: IIDB's Plognark did that right?