Poll of the Day > Alabama woman who was shot while pregnant is now being charged in fetus's death.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/pregnant-woman-shot-marshae-jones.html

How absolutely backwards is Alabama?
---

The only way I could see that charge sticking is if the woman who shot her did so in self defense which the article suggests.

What part of abortion is illegal did she not understand
---

wow fuck thats dumb

Alabama - where its okay to fuck, impregnate, and marry your cousin, but not okay for your cousin to kill the fetus.

i feel bad for laughing.
---

America
---

If they're going with that logic, then negligent homicide seems more appropriate.

WastelandCowboy posted...

Alabama - where its okay to f***, impregnate, and marry your cousin,

That's actually legal in more states than it isn't.

what did you expect from a shithole?
---

Assuming the situation happened as it was put forth in the article, and a grand jury has already agreed that it likely did, Id say it warrants a fair next.

The mother started a fight with another woman who pulled out a gun and shot to defend herself. The unborn child died as a result. Who was at fault? Since self defense is usually seen as reasonable everywhere except California the onus is on the one who started the fight, the formally pregnant mother.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

The mother started a fight with another woman who pulled out a gun and shot to defend herself. The unborn child died as a result. Who was at fault? Since self defense is usually seen as reasonable everywhere except California the onus is on the one who started the fight, the formally pregnant mother.

Cant it be a situation where there is no fault? Otherwise, doesnt this set a precedent where any incident were the pregnant mother is at fault can make her guilty of murder, such as even a car accident?
---

This tragedy could have been avoided if the child was armed
---

GameLord113 posted...

The only way I could see that charge sticking is if the woman who shot her did so in self defense which the article suggests.

That kinda makes sense, especially considering that you had that other parent who was charged when an officer returned fire and killed the man's daughter in the crossfire. And a lot of the other circumstances where this is applied also pertain to when older children are killed due to parental negligence.
---

The Popo posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

The mother started a fight with another woman who pulled out a gun and shot to defend herself. The unborn child died as a result. Who was at fault? Since self defense is usually seen as reasonable everywhere except California the onus is on the one who started the fight, the formally pregnant mother.

Cant it be a situation where there is no fault? Otherwise, doesnt this set a precedent where any incident were the pregnant mother is at fault can make her guilty of murder, such as even a car accident?

Did the mother cause the car accident...?

Youre conflating issues here. In this case, a case of violence, two people got into a fight that escalated into a death. Either one or both parties are at fault, but decriminalizing violence is societally suicidal.
---

This is charging a woman for allowing herself to be shot. That is by definition victim blaming.

What an ass state. I wonder if this would even happen to a white girl. They probably just went, "oh, two crazy black women going at it again"
---

Yellow posted...

This is charging a woman for allowing herself to be shot. That is by definition victim blaming.

What an ass state. I wonder if this would even happen to a white girl. They probably just went, "oh, two crazy black women going at it again"

So if someone comes up to you and starts attacking you you should stand there and take it and not fight back!?

If you dont already live here you should move to California. Here self defense is a crime. Youd like it here.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Yellow posted...

This is charging a woman for allowing herself to be shot. That is by definition victim blaming.

What an ass state. I wonder if this would even happen to a white girl. They probably just went, "oh, two crazy black women going at it again"

So if someone comes up to you and starts attacking you you should stand there and take it and not fight back!?

If you dont already live here you should move to California. Here self defense is a crime. Youd like it here.

Are you trying to make some kind of argument?
---

Yellow posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Yellow posted...

This is charging a woman for allowing herself to be shot. That is by definition victim blaming.

What an ass state. I wonder if this would even happen to a white girl. They probably just went, "oh, two crazy black women going at it again"

So if someone comes up to you and starts attacking you you should stand there and take it and not fight back!?

If you dont already live here you should move to California. Here self defense is a crime. Youd like it here.

Are you trying to make some kind of point?

Let me explain it in your terms.

Charging the shooter would be like charging a woman for allowing herself to be attacked.

Capiche?
---

No, you're high or something.
---

Yellow posted...

No, you're high or something.

Stop looking in the mirror.
---

Can we just get rid of Alabama?

Mead posted...

This tragedy could have been avoided if the child was armed

Also, this...
---

I'd prefer to know what kind of attack the pregnant woman was apparently doing to warrent her being shot with a gun.

Seems a bit excessive unless said pregnant woman was attacking with a weapon.
---

I believe its called Stand Your Ground laws but it might not even be related to this.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Let me explain it in your terms.

Charging the shooter would be like charging a woman for allowing herself to be attacked.

Capiche?

No, it would be charging her for responding to a situation with deadly force when she was not in danger of serious bodily harm. You can't go around shooting everyone because you're "afraid," or at least you're not supposed to be able to.
---

Lirishae posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Let me explain it in your terms.

Charging the shooter would be like charging a woman for allowing herself to be attacked.

Capiche?

No, it would be charging her for responding to a situation with deadly force when she was not in danger of serious bodily harm. You can't go around shooting everyone because you're "afraid," or at least you're not supposed to be able to.

Depends on the State laws and the specific situation. The article doesnt specify what happened but does state that the mother instigated the fight, and that the shooter was charged initially but those charges were dropped by a grand jury. These series of events suggest that whatever specifically happened suggested that lethal force may have been warranted for adequate self defense.
---

Honestly, treating the fetus as a person and charging her for its death is no less fucking stupid than charging someone who kills a pregnant woman w/ two counts of homicide, which many/most states seem to do. Either the fetus is a person or it isn't, you can't have it both ways. At least Alabama is being consistent, unlike most states....even if I completely disagree with them on it.

And overall the case is no different than any "felony murder" case where a victims kills one of the criminals in self defense (or accidentally kills a bystander while trying to do that) and the other criminal(s) are charged for "killing" that person because them committing the crime lead to it.
I find such cases stupid and repugnant, but MANY states use such laws, and if she instigated the fight, then ultimately this is no different than any of those other cases. Beyond that, the only other unique consideration is whether legally the fetus is a person or not, covered above.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/09/24/a-person-can-be-charged-with-murder-even-if-they-haven-t-killed-anyone

In 2012, four teenagers and their 21-year-old friend decided to burgle a house in their hometown of Elkhart County, Ind. No one in the group had any weapons, and they picked a house they thought was unoccupied. The homeowner was actually asleep upstairs and armed. When the five kicked down the back door, Rodney Scott came downstairs and fired his gun, killing 21-year-old Danzele Johnson and hitting another in the leg.

The surviving members of the group, who came to be known as the Elkhart Four, were soon facing up to 55 years in prison for a murder they didnt plan, intend, or commit. The sentences were the result of a complicated and controversial statute called felony murder. Most states have some version of a felony murder law in their criminal code. Such statutes allow for defendants to be convicted of murder and in some cases face execution if a death occurs because of a felony they commit, even if they were not the direct killer.

Holy fuck I just defended Alabama...

streamofthesky posted...

Honestly, treating the fetus as a person and charging her for its death is no less fucking stupid than charging someone who kills a pregnant woman w/ two counts of homicide, which many/most states seem to do. Either the fetus is a person or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Agreed.

Even if this happened as stipulated, it still sets terrible precedent. If a mother can be charged for what happens to her fetus, how far does that logic carry? Can we charge her with assault if she has a drink while pregnant? Reckless endangerment if she goes partying in a rough area of town? Is she looking at a murder or manslaughter charge if she fails to get adequate medical attention for pregnancy complications and miscarries as a result?

I don't like where this road leads. A fetus is part of the mother's body; until it can live independent of her, we should not be treating it as a separate entity.
---

streamofthesky posted...

And overall the case is no different than any "felony murder" case where a victims kills one of the criminals in self defense (or accidentally kills a bystander while trying to do that) and the other criminal(s) are charged for "killing" that person because them committing the crime lead to it.

Felony murder laws are fucking dumb.

You're taking someone who was committing a low-level, sometimes non-violent crime for which they were looking at a few years in prison tops and charging them with one of the most serious crimes we have laws for, guaranteeing that they will spend decades behind bars despite the fact that these people are prime candidates for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It's the same as the "three-strikes" laws that see people get put away for decades for three drug possession charges, or something similar, and we're now finally starting to recognize that those are really stupid.

To highlight how dumb these laws are, I always like to point to that case where four burglars were shot and killed by a homeowner and their getaway driver, who wasn't even in the house, got charged with four counts of first-degree murder. I find it a bizarre twist of logic that someone whose role in a crime was a non-confrontational accessory to what was intended to be a non-violent robbery was facing more serious charges than she would have if she had been driving her four accomplices to the house for the express purpose of murdering the occupant.
---

Lirishae posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Let me explain it in your terms.

Charging the shooter would be like charging a woman for allowing herself to be attacked.

Capiche?

No, it would be charging her for responding to a situation with deadly force when she was not in danger of serious bodily harm. You can't go around shooting everyone because you're "afraid," or at least you're not supposed to be able to.

exactly. it's like if you farted at me, and i responded by nuking you.

you're at fault since you farted at me.
---

Literally do anything to screw over a black person. Gotta love America
---

I'm not sure if most of the people in this topic are trolls or what. If the fight happens like the article suggests it's 100% on the (formerly) pregnant woman. Seriously are you guys so dense you think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves? treating a fetus like a person though is a bit silly the woman needs to be charged for a lesser crime.

Bulbasaur posted...

Lirishae posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Let me explain it in your terms.

Charging the shooter would be like charging a woman for allowing herself to be attacked.

Capiche?

No, it would be charging her for responding to a situation with deadly force when she was not in danger of serious bodily harm. You can't go around shooting everyone because you're "afraid," or at least you're not supposed to be able to.

exactly. it's like if you farted at me, and i responded by nuking you.

you're at fault since you farted at me.

Some farts really are deadly...
---

Ferron posted...

I'm not sure if most of the people in this topic are trolls or what. If the fight happens like the article suggests it's 100% on the (formerly) pregnant woman. Seriously are you guys so dense you think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves? treating a fetus like a person though is a bit silly the woman needs to be charged for a lesser crime.

Im pretty sure theyre just Californians.
---

darkknight109 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

And overall the case is no different than any "felony murder" case where a victims kills one of the criminals in self defense (or accidentally kills a bystander while trying to do that) and the other criminal(s) are charged for "killing" that person because them committing the crime lead to it.

Felony murder laws are fucking dumb.

You're taking someone who was committing a low-level, sometimes non-violent crime for which they were looking at a few years in prison tops and charging them with one of the most serious crimes we have laws for, guaranteeing that they will spend decades behind bars despite the fact that these people are prime candidates for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. It's the same as the "three-strikes" laws that see people get put away for decades for three drug possession charges, or something similar, and we're now finally starting to recognize that those are really stupid.

To highlight how dumb these laws are, I always like to point to that case where four burglars were shot and killed by a homeowner and their getaway driver, who wasn't even in the house, got charged with four counts of first-degree murder. I find it a bizarre twist of logic that someone whose role in a crime was a non-confrontational accessory to what was intended to be a non-violent robbery was facing more serious charges than she would have if she had been driving her four accomplices to the house for the express purpose of murdering the occupant.

I completely agree with you.
A fetus is not a person, and felony murder charges are a complete disgrace of our justice system.

I'm just saying, for all the people getting on Alabama's back about the case the TC linked... at least Alabama is applying its laws consistently. It's consistently stupid, but still consistently.
While as many other states would not charge this woman because she's a "pregnant woman who lost her baby" and thus a more sympathetic victim than say...a young black man who was committing a robbery, the latter of whom they'd throw the fucking book at using the same logic they discarded for this woman.
I honestly kind of respect Alabama committing 100% to their stupidity more than I do all the hypocritical states that pick and choose who their similarly vile fucked up laws apply to.

darkknight109 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Honestly, treating the fetus as a person and charging her for its death is no less fucking stupid than charging someone who kills a pregnant woman w/ two counts of homicide, which many/most states seem to do. Either the fetus is a person or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Agreed.

Even if this happened as stipulated, it still sets terrible precedent. If a mother can be charged for what happens to her fetus, how far does that logic carry? Can we charge her with assault if she has a drink while pregnant? Reckless endangerment if she goes partying in a rough area of town? Is she looking at a murder or manslaughter charge if she fails to get adequate medical attention for pregnancy complications and miscarries as a result?

I don't like where this road leads. A fetus is part of the mother's body; until it can live independent of her, we should not be treating it as a separate entity.

Pretty much. This is exactly where Alabama's new abortion laws lead: holding the mother criminally responsible for the death of her fetus if it's deemed she endangered it. This case seems straightforward enough, and not necessarily objectionable on its own, but it sets a very, very dangerous precedent. As mentioned above, this exact logic can be used to charge a pregnant woman with manslaughter if she's found at fault in a car accident that causes a miscarriage. Heck, depending on where they decide to draw the line for "endangerment," she could be charged for even taking the risk of getting into the car in the first place instead of staying safe at home for the entire pregnancy.

If this case is considered felony murder, then it means that literally every miscarriage has to be investigated as a wrongful death, with the potential for manslaughter or murder charges to be applied to the mother. This is the price of criminalizing abortions.

_AdjI_ posted...

darkknight109 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Honestly, treating the fetus as a person and charging her for its death is no less fucking stupid than charging someone who kills a pregnant woman w/ two counts of homicide, which many/most states seem to do. Either the fetus is a person or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.

Agreed.

Even if this happened as stipulated, it still sets terrible precedent. If a mother can be charged for what happens to her fetus, how far does that logic carry? Can we charge her with assault if she has a drink while pregnant? Reckless endangerment if she goes partying in a rough area of town? Is she looking at a murder or manslaughter charge if she fails to get adequate medical attention for pregnancy complications and miscarries as a result?

I don't like where this road leads. A fetus is part of the mother's body; until it can live independent of her, we should not be treating it as a separate entity.

Pretty much. This is exactly where Alabama's new abortion laws lead: holding the mother criminally responsible for the death of her fetus if it's deemed she endangered it. This case seems straightforward enough, and not necessarily objectionable on its own, but it sets a very, very dangerous precedent. As mentioned above, this exact logic can be used to charge a pregnant woman with manslaughter if she's found at fault in a car accident that causes a miscarriage. Heck, depending on where they decide to draw the line for "endangerment," she could be charged for even taking the risk of getting into the car in the first place instead of staying safe at home for the entire pregnancy.

If this case is considered felony murder, then it means that literally every miscarriage has to be investigated as a wrongful death, with the potential for manslaughter or murder charges to be applied to the mother. This is the price of criminalizing abortions.

Well, I said it was the same logic as, and similar to, felony murder.

The premise of felony murder is that it's applied when someone dies during the attempt/execution of some felony offense, even if it's nothing on the level of murder/homicide.

I don't know if the assault/battery charge she's facing is considered a felony or not. So it may not be a literal case of felony murder. Just saying, regardless if it is or not, it functions on the same reasoning and is wrong for the same reasons.

aDirtyShisno posted...

Depends on the State laws and the specific situation. The article doesnt specify what happened but does state that the mother instigated the fight, and that the shooter was charged initially but those charges were dropped by a grand jury. These series of events suggest that whatever specifically happened suggested that lethal force may have been warranted for adequate self defense.

Unless the pregnant woman was armed, it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which lethal force would be justified. I have no proof, but I feel quite certain she shot at her stomach on purpose. But even if the shooter's claim of self-defense holds up, that doesn't make it right for the now-former mother to be charged. If that's the law, the law should be changed.
---

Lirishae posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Depends on the State laws and the specific situation. The article doesnt specify what happened but does state that the mother instigated the fight, and that the shooter was charged initially but those charges were dropped by a grand jury. These series of events suggest that whatever specifically happened suggested that lethal force may have been warranted for adequate self defense.

Unless the pregnant woman was armed, it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which lethal force would be justified. I have no proof, but I feel quite certain she shot at her stomach on purpose. But even if the shooter's claim of self-defense holds up, that doesn't make it right for the now-former mother to be charged. If that's the law, the law should be changed.

A single punch to the head can be lethal. And you always aim for center mass when you discharge a firearm.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

A single punch to the head can be lethal. And you always aim for center mass when you discharge a firearm.

Possibly, but very unlikely. You're playing up the danger an unarmed person represents to an armed person to justify your stance. If that's really the standard, we live in a country where any application of lethal force can be justified simply because the shooter felt "afraid," no matter how misplaced that fear actually was.
---

It's manslaughter which doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me. If she had been holding a baby instead of being pregnant, nobody would be concerned. Given alabama views the life of a fetus as a child, it seems pretty reasonable for their own laws.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Ferron posted...

I'm not sure if most of the people in this topic are trolls or what. If the fight happens like the article suggests it's 100% on the (formerly) pregnant woman. Seriously are you guys so dense you think people shouldn't be able to defend themselves? treating a fetus like a person though is a bit silly the woman needs to be charged for a lesser crime.

Im pretty sure theyre just Californians.

I think the difference is one simple thing really

I see where both side are coming from and the solution really is to do nothing.

On one hand someone asks, why should i be charged with the death of my child because I was shot?
The other side says, you were belligerent and got into a fight which caused your childs death.

The solution really is neither, the punishment should be losing your child, unless it was done on purpose.

Lirishae posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

A single punch to the head can be lethal. And you always aim for center mass when you discharge a firearm.

Possibly, but very unlikely. You're playing up the danger an unarmed person represents to an armed person to justify your stance. If that's really the standard, we live in a country where any application of lethal force can be justified simply because the shooter felt "afraid," no matter how misplaced that fear actually was.

Depending on the State that actually is the law. Once again Ill remind you that we only got the cliffs notes version of what happened. We dont know how aggressive the woman was when she approached nor how violent the initial attack actually was. A video of the encounter would be very helpful but without one we can only go on the information that we have, which is how the investigation currently is proceeding. And that investigation led to a grand jury that declared that the victim likely, based on Alabama law, was justified in shooting her attacker even though it resulted in the death of the attackers unborn child.
---

I feel like people are overlooking a very important third option in deciding whether the shooter or the mother is criminally responsible for the fetus' death: Maybe nobody has to be criminally responsible, and this can be treated as a miscarriage (albeit one that resulted from risky behaviour on the mother's part).

The Popo posted...

Cant it be a situation where there is no fault? Otherwise, doesnt this set a precedent where any incident were the pregnant mother is at fault can make her guilty of murder, such as even a car accident?

I only skimmed the article but I think it said someone in Alabama was charged after an auto accident.
---