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

[Agema]

I don't see how one would need a gun to defend themselves from a pregnant woman. They don't tend to be very fast or strong, and guns should be the last option for self-defense, used only when there isn't an alternative.

Don't underestimate them: I've seen a pregnant woman start a fight in a restaurant, and she was strong enough to pick up a chair and swing it at her adversary (although she missed). She also punched a man who tried to separate them. I couldn't help but note that although the pregnant women was quite happy to take pops at the other woman, she was awful quick to protest that she was pregnant when the woman she was assailing fought back...

Nevertheless, any self-defence law should incorporate an element of proportionate force.

 

[bluegate]

I don't see how one would need a gun to defend themselves from a pregnant woman. They don't tend to be very fast or strong, and guns should be the last option for self-defense, used only when there isn't an alternative.

Don't underestimate them: I've seen a pregnant woman start a fight in a restaurant, and she was strong enough to pick up a chair and swing it at her adversary (although she missed). She also punched a man who tried to separate them. I couldn't help but note that although the pregnant women was quite happy to take pops at the other woman, she was awful quick to protest that she was pregnant when the woman she was assailing fought back...

Nevertheless, any self-defence law should incorporate an element of proportionate force.

That sad moment when you realize that that person is now raising a child.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

No. If the shooter's response was less disproportionate, she is less to blame, which makes a difference in how we view her. Doesn't change things for the victim (that being the pregnant woman, which I shouldn't need to specify, but do).

 

[Schadrach]

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).

Most pro-life folks still believe in charging someone with some flavor of homicide if they harm a pregnant woman and in so doing cause her to miscarry outside of the specific case of an abortion. The only real difference here is that she intentionally caused the situation leading to her miscarriage, and the shooter was acting in self defense. The woman was wholly responsible for the fallout of her actions, including the death of her fetus.

No. If the shooter's response was less disproportionate, she is less to blame, which makes a difference in how we view her. Doesn't change things for the victim (that being the pregnant woman, which I shouldn't need to specify, but do).

So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions? Next thing you know, you'll tell me that the father of the fetus is the one *really* responsible, since he was the topic of the dispute.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Doesn't change things for the victim (that being the pregnant woman, which I shouldn't need to specify, but do).

It seems the entire issue is predicated on the fact that, based on the article, she specifically is *not* the victim. She was the aggressor, hence she's the one being charged.

 

[Asita]

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).

Most pro-life folks still believe in charging someone with some flavor of homicide if they harm a pregnant woman and in so doing cause her to miscarry outside of the specific case of an abortion. The only real difference here is that she intentionally caused the situation leading to her miscarriage, and the shooter was acting in self defense. The woman was wholly responsible for the fallout of her actions, including the death of her fetus.

Based on the available information, that's bullshit. While we are unaware of the details of the confrontation itself and how it may have escalated, police indicate that Jones being shot was the first use of a weapon in the altercation. We can also infer - if the story circulating is accurate - that Jemison was not immediately fearful of her life, as supposedly she had not intended to hit anyone but instead fired a warning shot that only hit Jones due to ricochet. Put that together real quick. The first indication that a weapon was involved was when Jemison fired a warning shot which actually hit the person that she was trying to warn off. While I can see the argument that the charges against Jemison be dropped even with pro-life logic, to turn it around and say that Jones was guilty of manslaughter is insipid. By all indications this was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome, so why do we persist in treating it as if it were?

 

[Silvanus]

So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions?

She's to blame for her own actions, yes; that nobody disputes. She's not to blame for the actions of other people.

As bizarre as it seems, lethal force is very rarely a proportionate, reasonable, or foreseeable reaction. Certainly not in a verbal exchange.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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).

Most pro-life folks still believe in charging someone with some flavor of homicide if they harm a pregnant woman and in so doing cause her to miscarry outside of the specific case of an abortion. The only real difference here is that she intentionally caused the situation leading to her miscarriage, and the shooter was acting in self defense. The woman was wholly responsible for the fallout of her actions, including the death of her fetus.

Based on the available information, that's bullshit. While we are unaware of the details of the confrontation itself and how it may have escalated, police indicate that Jones being shot was the first use of a weapon in the altercation. We can also infer - if the story circulating is accurate - that Jemison was not immediately fearful of her life, as supposedly she had not intended to hit anyone but instead fired a warning shot that only hit Jones due to ricochet. Put that together real quick. The first indication that a weapon was involved was when Jemison fired a warning shot which actually hit the person that she was trying to warn off. While I can see the argument that the charges against Jemison be dropped even with pro-life logic, to turn it around and say that Jones was guilty of manslaughter is insipid. By all indications this was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome, so why do we persist in treating it as if it were?

Yeah, I gotta agree with this.

The moment Jemison said that she fired a warning shot it completely negated her self-defense claim in my mind. Every responsible gun owner knows that you DON'T FIRE WARNING SHOTS. If you fire a warning shot it might go somewhere you don't expect and hit someone you didn't expect to hit, which is exactly what happened here. Also, if you felt that you should fire a warning shot rather than actually shooting your attacker then you clearly weren't in mortal danger which would require you to fire the gun.

We still don't know what the actual actual confrontation was and what the attack on Jemison was. A few people in this thread have said that it was just verbal, which I haven't read anywhere and I would like for them to provide a source on that. Either way, the information that the shot that hit Jones was fired as a "warning shot" is clear evidence to me that it was a disproportionate use of force and should negate the self-defense claim at least partially.

Owning a gun is a right, but if you own and carry a gun it is your responsibility to use it only when appropriate and have the maximum amount of self-restraint, and if you don't you should absolutely face all consequences of that.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

If they determined that the shooting was warranted, that explains everything now doesn't it. If you go on to do something that has a shooting as a natural response to it you're endangering your baby. If the argument is that a fetus is the same as a baby and this is the status quo we're under then this is literally the same as entering a brawl with your baby strapped to your chest. Of course you'd be liable for endangering the baby if you did that.

The real question is when did Alabama become a state of wonderland and not of America to have all these realities be the norm over there. Was the judge who decided that the pregnant woman's empty hands were lethal weapons and shooting is a proportional response to her fists of fury a cat by any chance? Was there proof of her mastery of the five step fist at least? Or is she not a traditional Kung fu practitioner? Is her style called the pregnant fist? Are they rivals with the Drunken Fist school for obvious reasons?

Yeah I can only make jokes at this point.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Pretty sure the intuition that this is gross is because people quite reasonably think of unborn children as basically the chattel of their mothers. If their mothers are in some sense responsible for their death, so what?

What are the intuitions if, instead of the mother getting shot, she was missed and the bullet landed in a friend of hers? Should she be prosecuted for that? That's a more interesting question in my view.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions?

Seriously?

What are the intuitions if, instead of the mother getting shot, she was missed and the bullet landed in a friend of hers? Should she be prosecuted for that? That's a more interesting question in my view.

You fire a gun, you are responsible for where the bullet goes. Now, things like the shooter thinking they were in immediate danger makes a big difference to how they should be judged, but (IMHO), I don't think I'd go so far as to blame the person they were shooting at for the shooting. If that person was putting someone in immediate danger, that's another crime right there, though.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

and the shooter was acting in self defense.

That's the disputed part. Exactly what warranted employing lethal force? Noone has said yet if the pregnant woman pulled a weapon herself or went to try and physically assault the shooter.

 

[Trunkage]

So if you're pregnant and assault someone, you aren't to blame for your actions?

Seriously?

What are the intuitions if, instead of the mother getting shot, she was missed and the bullet landed in a friend of hers? Should she be prosecuted for that? That's a more interesting question in my view.

You fire a gun, you are responsible for where the bullet goes. Now, things like the shooter thinking they were in immediate danger makes a big difference to how they should be judged, but (IMHO), I don't think I'd go so far as to blame the person they were shooting at for the shooting. If that person was putting someone in immediate danger, that's another crime right there, though.

I think you might be using an Aussie mentality. The US has plenty of laws where if you make a mistake, someone else pays for it. Bankruptcy, for example. Our bankruptcy laws means that you can be chased for business mistakes you made. In the US, everyone else pays for it, including tax payers

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

That's the disputed part. Exactly what warranted employing lethal force? Noone has said yet if the pregnant woman pulled a weapon herself or went to try and physically assault the shooter.

That part isn't disputed. The article specifically says:

Initially, police charged 23-year-old Ebony Jemison for shooting 27-year-old Marshae Jones in December of 2018 outside a Dollar General in Birmingham. But according to AL.com, a police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting-it was Jones, for starting it:

"The police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting."

 

[Trunkage]

That's the disputed part. Exactly what warranted employing lethal force? Noone has said yet if the pregnant woman pulled a weapon herself or went to try and physically assault the shooter.

That part isn't disputed. The article specifically says:

Initially, police charged 23-year-old Ebony Jemison for shooting 27-year-old Marshae Jones in December of 2018 outside a Dollar General in Birmingham. But according to AL.com, a police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting-it was Jones, for starting it:

"The police investigation determined that it wasn't Jemison who was to blame for the shooting."

Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.

Let's take another example. Is it okay to punch Nazis for spouting hatred? (I say no.) But, as per my understanding of this incident, if Nazis started spouting hatred first, everyone should have free reign to punch as them as many times as they want.

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.

Let's take another example. Is it okay to punch Nazis for spouting hatred? (I say no.) But, as per my understanding of this incident, if Nazis started spouting hatred first, everyone should have free reign to punch as them as many times as they want.

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

Here's the problem; Alabama is a stand-your-ground state [https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2014/08/what_alabama_law_says_about_us.html].

Alabama's 2006 Stand Your Ground law:

A person still must have a justifiable reason for using physical force and can't be the original aggressor. But there is no longer a duty to retreat.

Physical force is not justified if the person is engaged in an unlawful activity or the person they are using the defensive force against is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duty.

So when is it justified?

A person is justified in using deadly physical force if they believe the other person is:

-About to use unlawful deadly physical force.
-A burglar about to use physical force.
-Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.
-Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)
-Breaking into a nuclear power plant.

It's the same bullshit position that allows Police to get away with anything. I can assume that you're going to be mean to me, so your life is over.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

So in Alabama: Gun Rights > Unborn Children > Actual Real Children > Women (these last two may be switchable)

Seems the more intangible you are, the more lovable Alabama finds you

 

[Trunkage]

Okay, you seem to have not got this yet. This doesn't make sense. A verbal altercation lead to a shooting. There is a bunch of context that is missing for me to understand why this is okay.

Let's take another example. Is it okay to punch Nazis for spouting hatred? (I say no.) But, as per my understanding of this incident, if Nazis started spouting hatred first, everyone should have free reign to punch as them as many times as they want.

Saying the police blames Jones gives no context why this is true. Maybe if Jones pushed Jamison, or was approaching threateningly. Or particular hurtful words

Here's the problem; Alabama is a stand-your-ground state [https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2014/08/what_alabama_law_says_about_us.html].

Alabama's 2006 Stand Your Ground law:

A person still must have a justifiable reason for using physical force and can't be the original aggressor. But there is no longer a duty to retreat.

Physical force is not justified if the person is engaged in an unlawful activity or the person they are using the defensive force against is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duty.

So when is it justified?

A person is justified in using deadly physical force if they believe the other person is:

-About to use unlawful deadly physical force.
-A burglar about to use physical force.
-Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape.
-Unlawfully and forcefully entering a home or car, or attempting to remove a person against their will. (There are exceptions for people who used to live there and are under no injunctions or domestic protection orders.)
-Breaking into a nuclear power plant.

It's the same bullshit position that allows Police to get away with anything. I can assume that you're going to be mean to me, so your life is over.

I don't see where, in any news articles, it meets the requirement for justified use of deadly force. Most say they got into a verbal argument. That does not seem to meet these requirements

 

[Schadrach]

It's the same bullshit position that allows Police to get away with anything. I can assume that you're going to be mean to me, so your life is over.

Of course, in this case "-Engaged in kidnapping, assault, robbery, or rape" would be the relevant line. You're right, Alabama's SYG law makes it legal to shoot someone who assaults you.

The situation in this case is essentially "A assaults B, knowing that assaulting B will necessarily put an innocent (C) at risk of harm. B shoots A in self defense, and in doing so also kills C. Is A responsible for killing C?" Without the innate sympathy for women and the obvious abortion comparisons it becomes a lot harder to call the person who was shot for assaulting someone and also held responsible for the death of another that occurred as a result of that same shot the "real" victim of the situation.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I don't see where, in any news articles, it meets the requirement for justified use of deadly force. Most say they got into a verbal argument. That does not seem to meet these requirements

Let's not get into the nitty gritty about stand-your-ground laws until we recognize the de facto state of the laws in the South: a self-defense claim only stands on its own merit if the corpse has darker skin than the person who pulled the trigger.