Pregnant Alabama Woman who was shot charged with Manslaughter of her unborn baby

[Little lunch]

Whoops, haha, there goes that argument. :-)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Whoops, haha, there goes that argument. :-)

No, no, no. A man was still to blame.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Whoops, haha, there goes that argument. :-)

No, no, no. A man was still to blame.  

Which man and why?

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, no, no. A man was still to blame.  

Which man and why?

Boru

Doesn't matter at all.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Which man and why?

Boru

Doesn't matter at all.  

It matters a great deal.  You seem to think blame is automatically assigned to men, even in a shooting where a man wasn't involved.  Pretty sexist of you.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Doesn't matter at all.  

It matters a great deal.  You seem to think blame is automatically assigned to men, even in a shooting where a man wasn't involved.  Pretty sexist of you.

Boru

LOL. I was pointing out that the most common assumption was the shooter was a man. (We're not the only ones discussing this right now.)

[Aoi Magi]

From what I heard, the fight was regarding who was the fetus' sperm provider, a.k.a would-be-daddy, which apparently is the shooter's present boyfriend, and the very-dangerous-5months-pregnant-lady's ex. The issue here isn't gender or skin-tone bias, it's the fact that somehow starting an argument as a pregnant woman is being treated as a crime, for endangering the fetus. At this point, the fetus seems to have more rights than the woman.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

From what I heard, the fight was regarding who was the fetus' sperm provider, a.k.a would-be-daddy, which apparently is the shooter's present boyfriend, and the very-dangerous-5months-pregnant-lady's ex. The issue here isn't gender or skin-tone bias, it's the fact that somehow starting an argument as a pregnant woman is being treated as a crime, for endangering the fetus. At this point, the fetus seems to have more rights than the woman.

If the lady had brought a toddler into a situation she should have reasonably expected was going to escalate would things be different?

A trial will determine whether she is culpable for endangering the third person* here.




*"person" based on state laws there.

[Aoi Magi]

From what I heard, the fight was regarding who was the fetus' sperm provider, a.k.a would-be-daddy, which apparently is the shooter's present boyfriend, and the very-dangerous-5months-pregnant-lady's ex. The issue here isn't gender or skin-tone bias, it's the fact that somehow starting an argument as a pregnant woman is being treated as a crime, for endangering the fetus. At this point, the fetus seems to have more rights than the woman.

If the lady had brought a toddler into a situation she should have reasonably expected was going to escalate would things be different?

A trial will determine whether she is culpable for endangering the third person* here.




*"person" based on state laws there.

Yes, in that situation I'd expect charges for negligence, not manslaughter when they are not the ones doing the slaughtering

[tackattack]

Please do enlighten me under the circumstances in which this woman should be charged with manslaughter. Because I cannot imagine one.

Because somebody had to be? Granted, I don't know why they aren't both in jail. It sounds weird, and desperately needs some elaboration. I would think, if they just wanted to stick it to the blackie, they could get a twofer by nailing her husband. This is likely related to the new law they're passing/have passed, where women can get penalized for abortions, but getting yourself shot in order to abort is a bit extreme.

Why wouldn't the person who shot her point blank in the stomach be held responsible for the unborn baby's death?

Because, in majority of states, and most circumstances there is a felony murder law where

The felony murder rule is a rule that allows a defendant to be charged with first-degree murder for a killing that occurs during a dangerous felony, even if the defendant is not the killer. The felony murder rule applies only to those crimes that are considered “inherently dangerous,” as the rationale underlying the felony murder rule is that certain crimes are so dangerous that society wants to deter individuals from engaging in them altogether. Thus, when a person participates in an inherently dangerous crime, he or she may be held responsible for the fatal consequences of that crime, even if someone else caused the actual death.

While there may be qualms as to the definition of "inherently dangerous" and whether the resultant death was merged with the original cause, basically the rule should be "don't start no shit, won't be no shit". It's called the unintentional death is a felony and doesn't require intent or malice when not in the first degree.