[Politics] "Pregnant Woman Indicted For Baby's Death After Being Shot"

Leg End

Romans 12:18
May 2, 2020
2,909
35
53
Country
United States
Fieldy409 said:
What counts as assault and battery over there is pretty surprising, if you touch an object a person is holding, not even the person you can be considered guilty of assault and battery, then they get to defend themselves with a gun
Two things. One, the object can be seen as the extension of the person and an act upon them, and two, laws vary wildly between states and there is such a thing as reasonable force and reasonable use of said force.
and theres no place you can really shoot a person reliably where they arent at risk of bleeding to death.
Which is a major part of why warning shots are effectively illegal basically everywhere. Because you're intentionally using lethal force and sending a shot flying where it can just as easily hit someone else, and it is seen as evidence that lethal force was not actually required for the situation. Laws are strange.
Too bad people can't just punch each other when theres a dispute like they used to.
You can, but only in a handful of areas. It's sad, because people being able to just beat the shit out of each other in a more moderated fashion can really solve a lot of the crap caused by letting shit just build up. Give two people some gloves and let them beat the shit out of each other.

This case in particular, also she was 5 months pregnant which makes me wonder, did they really need to shoot her to defend theirselves, or could they just have jogged away at a light pace?
To what I can gather, the other person was actually in a car. The problem with this entire case is that there is so little actual fact as to what happened, and too much opinion regarding the aftermath.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,225
2,036
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Abomination said:
trunkage said:
Red Sentinel said:
Everyone here seems to be on the same page over this. If Lunatic was still here I bet he'd be in support of the charges. Seems like his style.
There are no men involved. There is no clear person in the right
There's a person with a gun, which can be substituted for a man.

And since there's a dead baby it can't be the person with a gun's fault so it needs to be the person who was shot's fault.
So the order of operations is penis>phallic object>no penis. I can get behind that
 

Abomination

New member
Dec 17, 2012
2,939
0
0
trunkage said:
Abomination said:
trunkage said:
Red Sentinel said:
Everyone here seems to be on the same page over this. If Lunatic was still here I bet he'd be in support of the charges. Seems like his style.
There are no men involved. There is no clear person in the right
There's a person with a gun, which can be substituted for a man.

And since there's a dead baby it can't be the person with a gun's fault so it needs to be the person who was shot's fault.
So the order of operations is penis>phallic object>no penis. I can get behind that
Nothing more republican than a phallic object in your hands.
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
Abomination said:
Smithnikov said:
Hold the damn phone here! What exactly was it that supposedly she did that made employing lethal force justifiable? Did Jones pull a weapon first?
She made the wielder of the firearm fearful (for their life) and thus Patriotism (bang-bang-pew-pew) was not only justified, but mandatory.
When I got my CC, one thing that was drilled into our heads for the application prep class was this; Words and anything verbal are NEVER a legal justification for pulling your weapon.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I just read that. It's an absurd story, and while the whole thing is ridiculous, I can see the argument from the prosecutions point of view. Strictly on the basis of who was to blame for the fight breaking out in the first place, this lady was the instigator. But for her actions, the person she attacked would not have shot her. The case of the pregnancy is the unique twist here, as another life was lost as a result.

This one is messed up whichever way it lands. She is an idiot for starting a fight, for starting a fight while pregnant, for starting a fight with someone with a weapon. I guess that's why it's manslaughter and not something else, since it was indirect. What a bizarre case.
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,953
6
13
Evangelical obsession with unborn fetuses is increasingly despicable. Or more accurately, perhaps, the pretense of it, as a traditional cover for control over female bodily autonomy along with all the other unsavoury motives. If it were honest, it wouldn't be much more acceptable, but I would hate them slightly less for it.
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,948
540
118
Marshae? She sounds black. Can't be black and a woman in Shit Hole 'Murca? and expect not to be blamed for getting shot, no sirree.

If only she were a white girl named Marcy or something getting shot by a black guy.
 

Nielas

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2011
253
0
21
It appears that the woman was only indicted by a grand jury. The District Attorney has not decided yet if she will actually be prosecuted for manslaughter. It does look like a whole bunch political grandstanding so far.

While there are sound legal principles behind the charges, actually prosecuting them should be really hard. There are multiple possibilities for reasonable doubt within the chain of events eg. was the shooter really acting in self defense?
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,231
239
68
KingsGambit said:
I can see the argument from the prosecutions point of view.
Good for you, because I just simply can't. Their argument is basically the "if you poke the bear, don't blame the bear for getting mauled"; but that would mean that it was expected that one side would pull out a gun and shoot the other during the fight. Is Alabama a third-world country or the Wild West?
 

Nielas

Senior Member
Dec 5, 2011
253
0
21
CaitSeith said:
KingsGambit said:
I can see the argument from the prosecutions point of view.
Good for you, because I just simply can't. Their argument is basically the "if you poke the bear, don't blame the bear for getting mauled"; but that would mean that it was expected that one side would pull out a gun and shoot the other during the fight. Is Alabama a third-world country or the Wild West?
That's part of the burden of proof for the prosecution. They would have to establish that the level of violence from the accused warranted the use of deadly force in self defense.

A simpler scenario would be if you try to rob a bank with a gun and a bank guard shoots you and the pulled passes through you and kills a bystander. In this case it is reasonable to consider the guard's actions to be self defense.

In this case things are not as clear cut and we lack the facts to determine for ourselves if the shooting for justified or not.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
CaitSeith said:
KingsGambit said:
I can see the argument from the prosecutions point of view.
Good for you, because I just simply can't. Their argument is basically the "if you poke the bear, don't blame the bear for getting mauled"; but that would mean that it was expected that one side would pull out a gun and shoot the other during the fight. Is Alabama a third-world country or the Wild West?
Not saying I agree, I am saying I understand the argument. It makes sense from a point of view. If you take the baby out of the picture completely for a moment and conclude that the lady started the fight and was shot in self-defence, then she is liable for her own injury and any sustained by the shooter. That isn't a difficult argument to accept.

Now add the baby back in...if one concludes that its loss of its life is a crime, then the blame would extend to her too. I can only say I'm glad I don't have to decide on something this messed up because it's just off-the-charts crazy.

The poke the bear thing isn't a bad analogy and it's true. I'd further liken it to someone refusing to stop after a warning from an armed officer, or breaking into an army base. One has to know that their life could be forfeit. I don't think the issue in this case is that of who started the fight, but of holding the woman accountable for the death of an unborn baby. It's so surreal, I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
CaitSeith said:
KingsGambit said:
I can see the argument from the prosecutions point of view.
Good for you, because I just simply can't. Their argument is basically the "if you poke the bear, don't blame the bear for getting mauled"; but that would mean that it was expected that one side would pull out a gun and shoot the other during the fight. Is Alabama a third-world country or the Wild West?
It can be expected that if you attack someone, they'll do everything in their power to make you stop. Using a gun is a perfectly fair reaction to that situation.

The whole manslaughter charge for a fetus though is highly ridiculous to me personally.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
So I'm curious. If the other woman had instead punched the pregnant woman in the stomach, and the pregnancy was thus miscarried due to a punch instead of a gunshot, would that make their prosecution acceptable? Because right now we have a semantic argument that the other woman is still to blame because she had a disproportionate response to the assault, which implies that, if she had just punched or otherwise hit the pregnant woman, people here would find the prosecution of her to be more acceptable.
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
KingsGambit said:
If you take the baby out of the picture completely for a moment and conclude that the lady started the fight and was shot in self-defence, then she is liable for her own injury and any sustained by the shooter. That isn't a difficult argument to accept.
That's still a leap to make; what did the pregnant woman to do to WARRANT lethal force? Maybe things are different outside of Virginia, but as a gun owner, it's emphasized that verbal exchanges are never a legal defense for pulling your gun.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,930
643
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
irishda said:
So I'm curious. If the other woman had instead punched the pregnant woman in the stomach, and the pregnancy was thus miscarried due to a punch instead of a gunshot, would that make their prosecution acceptable? Because right now we have a semantic argument that the other woman is still to blame because she had a disproportionate response to the assault, which implies that, if she had just punched or otherwise hit the pregnant woman, people here would find the prosecution of her to be more acceptable.
I wouldn't be ok with it, no. Point of fact, the charge of manslaughter over a miscarriage is frighteningly reminiscent of what I've claimed to be the logical conclusion of the "abortion is murder" rhetoric for years now (ie, that if we accept that premise, miscarriages would also - by necessity - be at least investigated as manslaughter or negligent homicide). Point of fact, if we look at the grand jury's indictment, it's almost a dead ringer for it. "A grand jury indicted Marshae Jones, 27, on a count of felony manslaughter in May after deciding the expectant mother 'intentionally caused the death of another person, to-wit: UNBORN BABY JONES by INITIATING A FIGHT KNOWING SHE WAS FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT.'" (emphasis as seen here).
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Smithnikov said:
KingsGambit said:
If you take the baby out of the picture completely for a moment and conclude that the lady started the fight and was shot in self-defence, then she is liable for her own injury and any sustained by the shooter. That isn't a difficult argument to accept.
That's still a leap to make; what did the pregnant woman to do to WARRANT lethal force? Maybe things are different outside of Virginia, but as a gun owner, it's emphasized that verbal exchanges are never a legal defense for pulling your gun.
I took my concealed carry classes in south Carolina. We were taught that the criteria for use of self defense is that a person has to reasonably believe their life to be in danger. So this can in theory extend to a person verbally claiming they're about to retrieve a firearm, which may in fact not exist.

We're still waiting on details of what exactly went down but yeah. That will be interesting to see.