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

[tackattack]

Thanks for the links Athene. I'm sure some might feel the urge to support or contribute and that's helpful.

That's why I used the example of instead of a fetus, it was a child bystander. So I'll ask it plainly again Can you honestly say that the victim of an accidental death in a drive-by shouldn't have the shooter punished?

So if we had an argument and you tried to hit me, and I shoot your child, I should go scot-free, and you should be charged with manslaughter?

If I instigated the fight and could reasonably forsee the danger to my child, and if you shot my child without intention then yes.
And despite your opinion, in Alabama, a fetus is a baby.

Its weird like that magi... It is twisted the love of guns. Sure if the woman was shooting a gun, I would find perfectly reasonable to use a gun to bring her down, but she was unarmed and pregnant. I don't think of pregnant women as masters of krav maga, so it is easy to dodge any blow, while making a call to the cops.

Excessive use of force is the legal lango here. Even cops have to abide by that.

I don't know anyone who knows me to say that I love guns. I'm actually very anti-gun. YOU may successfully dodge the lady, but the article I read was the gun was pulled after she had taken blows and was backed against a car taking a continued beating. She obviously couldn't defend against it. I don't normally defend gun owners but in this case I believe the grand jury was correct to dismiss the charges.

That's why I used the example of instead of a fetus, it was a child bystander. So I'll ask it plainly again Can you honestly say that the victim of an accidental death in a drive-by shouldn't have the shooter punished?

According to you, if it was in 'self defense', then the answer is 'no' apparently.

If someone shoots someone, the person doing the shooting should be the one charged.  This woman didn't take her gun out, shoot at someone then accidentally hit herself in the stomach.

But you'll pivot back to 'self defense' laws, ignoring that by these same laws a father who leaves his gun out and his son gets a hold of it and kills his daughter with it, doesn't get charged.  After which you'll pivot back to what YOUR opinion on the matter is, rather than what the law is.

The shooter was charged. The charges were dismissed by a jury. Listen, you can straw man all day, but here's my honest opinion. I don't think Ms. Jones needs to go to jail for 20 years for instigating someone to accidentally shoot her child. I believe she should be punished for reckless endangerment involving the death of a child. I believe irresponsible gun owners should also be punished. I do not believe the gun owner in this case was irresponsible or reckless, one shot center mass is pretty below standard (usually it's two).

The law is pretty clear. The shooter is not always to blame for the death of a shooting. Sometimes it's accidental, sometimes it's self defense. Often an escalation of force matrix is applied for those that are trained. For the average Joe Blow Schmoe though, if you're pulling out your gun to shoot someone, someone should be in danger. You are conflating which laws apply to which cases and when. There are many states with child access prevention laws, Alabama isn't one (https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/...revention/). There are parent charged and convicted for leaving guns available for kids. This isn't the case here.

It was felony battery while endangering the welfare of a child that ended in self defense and an accidental death. The grand jury charged her but it might still be dismissed as it's not a popular thing. What I hear from the opposite side is the intimation that Ms. Jones is the victim. She's not, she's the aggressor and the reason for her situation, I'm 95% of the time for personal accountability.

If you disagree with Ms. Jones being charged:
1. Do you believe she was primarily responsible for the situation?
2. Do you believe she should be punished?

[Cecelia]

Really a comparison situation  isn't necessary. It's simple enough to say, don't chase people and engage in a fight with them while you're pregnant. The baby you're caring for might get hurt.

This might have escaped you, but a man holding a baby can in fact set the baby down.  A woman who is pregnant with a baby cannot.  This is treating women as nothing but incubators.

[LastPoet]

I don't know anyone who knows me to say that I love guns. I'm actually very anti-gun. YOU may successfully dodge the lady, but the article I read was the gun was pulled after she had taken blows and was backed against a car taking a continued beating. She obviously couldn't defend against it. I don't normally defend gun owners but in this case I believe the grand jury was correct to dismiss the charges.

I still don't see a reason to use a gun. And I just stay in awe with this. Who used deadly "force", if anyone can say firing a gun requires the easieast of strenght? I urge you to give me a reason why a gun could ever be used in that situation. And I am not even considering the human side of it, as the actions that led to such consequences, but it is easy to see that girl goes for boy, girl gets pregnant, boy runs to another gurl and shit hits the fan.

I still don't see any way for the law to charge, but then, its another place.

[Athene]

Prosecutor Will Drop Charges Against Marshae Jones

An Alabama prosecutor announced on Wednesday that she will not pursue  against a woman who lost her pregnancy after she got into a fight and was shot in the stomach.

Outrage over the case against Marshae Jones, 27, had sparked protests and a national debate over whether Alabama's law that life begins at conception, a constitutional amendment , is prompting unjust punishment against women.

Good thing. A fuck-ton of protesters were prepared to SWARM Birmingham.

[tackattack]

@LastPoet
OK so if male A is beating male B against a car after crossing a parking lot to start an argument, and male B has a gun you see no reason why male B should use the gun. I personally agree because I believe we are both pacifists. It doesn't matter whether it's male A or female B or pregnant female A or child B. Firing a gun does require a very small amount of skill and force to use, which makes it extremely easy to misuse. I believe properly firing a gun requires moral strength and integrity.

Here's a question. Do you:
A. Allow someone beat you unconscious against a car in a public parking lot?
B. Use whatever means you have available to best defend yourself?

The law can charge her, but doesn't have to. It's fairly simple so I'm not sure why you can't see it.
1. Female A intentionally commits felony assault
2. Female B fires a gun in self defense
3. Assault is stopped and a life is ended.

Can't you see from that chain of events (with a stand your ground law and child personhood rights) that when most states have Death in the commission of a felony laws (A death that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of any felony constitutes murder) law that Female A can be charged.

I'm glad she's not being charged with felony murder, because she's been through a lot, but because of the media reaction she'll probably not get charged with child endangerment as well.