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

[ObsidianJones_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

Personally, I agree with you. That's why I say it's a Bullshit law. But in such phrasing as this [https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23.html] muddies everything up.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.  A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

Like, you literally don't have to believe it. You can just say "I was afraid this person was going to hurt me", and then it's justified. There's no way to prove that person is lying unless they say straight forward and it was caught on tape "I'm going to kill you now, and I'm going to get away with it because I'm just going to invoke Stand Your Ground. I'm not afraid of you, but I can say that I am to get away with your murder".

In Short, Jemison can simply state she was afraid violence was imminent and be Lawfully Justified in shooting and killing Jones' child.

As a Gun Owner, I hate Stand Your Ground. I always will.

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.

If you have the proof that there was any assault on record that everyone agrees to, then you might be right. However, article to article, it shifts from "verbal confrontation" to the nebulously defined "'fight'" that focusing on the term Assault is meaningless until we can prove there was a physical altercation or one that Jones was pressing forward.

Until that is placed in front of us, all we have is Jemison's psychic powers.

 

[Trunkage]

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

Personally, I agree with you. That's why I say it's a Bullshit law. But in such phrasing as this [https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-3-23.html] muddies everything up.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.  A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

Like, you literally don't have to believe it. You can just say "I was afraid this person was going to hurt me", and then it's justified. There's no way to prove that person is lying unless they say straight forward and it was caught on tape "I'm going to kill you now, and I'm going to get away with it because I'm just going to invoke Stand Your Ground. I'm not afraid of you, but I can say that I am to get away with your murder".

In Short, Jemison can simply state she was afraid violence was imminent and be Lawfully Justified in shooting and killing Jones' child.

As a Gun Owner, I hate Stand Your Ground. I always will.

Imagine if rape law had such lax requirements. "He looked at me, clearly he was going to rape" would send people to jail. The way higher standard of just believing the victim with clear evidence would also lead to convictions (which doesnt happen today.)

 

[KingsGambit_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.
...

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

Evidently I don't get it. Is the point that you don't believe the conclusion from the police investigation? Because that's an entirely different discussion and I don't know what that is being based on. Are you saying the police are wrong? The the pregnant woman didn't start the fight? That it wasn't self-defence? I'm quite sure I'm missing your point. 🤔

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Imagine if rape law had such lax requirements. "He looked at me, clearly he was going to rape" would send people to jail. The way higher standard of just believing the victim with clear evidence would also lead to convictions (which doesnt happen today.)

If you listen to #MeToo detractors, we're already there.

But we live in this sad reality.

This is the very reason why every Cop comes on record, acting scared as if they seen a ghost when they are involved in another shooting.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes. This man was going to kill me. He was going to hurt me. I know it. I know it. I had to do it!!"

Yet they suit up and do the job again and again. You can't be completely scared all the time yet do the job without any issues. People quit things they are truly scared of.

 

[Abomination]

This is the very reason why every Cop comes on record, acting scared as if they seen a ghost when they are involved in another shooting.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes. This man was going to kill me. He was going to hurt me. I know it. I know it. I had to do it!!"

Yet they suit up and do the job again and again. You can't be completely scared all the time yet do the job without any issues. People quit things they are truly scared of.

Be fair, not every police officer is like this.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Be fair, not every police officer is like this.

Why is it on me to Be Fair when they get to shoot civilians, change the story, and when video evidence comes out that it didn't go down the way they reported, they are STILL given the benefit of the doubt?

More over, why should I be fair when they aren't fair to me?

Not every police officer is like this.

Not every Black Person is a Criminal.

Not every illegal immigrant is a rapist or a drug dealer.

Not every game journalist is a click-bait headline making shill.

But in three out of these four, the actions of the few still dictate how the vast majority sees said groups. I have to hear about Chicago any time we talk about how minorities are stigmatized. Any utterance of MS-13 brings about louder calls for the wall. And we're on a gaming website. Hell, the backlash over Cyberpunk can sum up the Game journalist faction.

But when we have police's "mistakes" that actually causes the loss of lives of others, they deserve fairness? Really?

 

[Abomination]

Be fair, not every police officer is like this.

Why is it on me to Be Fair when they get to shoot civilians, change the story, and when video evidence comes out that it didn't go down the way they reported, they are STILL given the benefit of the doubt?

More over, why should I be fair when they aren't fair to me?

Not every police officer is like this.

Not every Black Person is a Criminal.

Not every illegal immigrant is a rapist or a drug dealer.

Not every game journalist is a click-bait headline making shill.

But in three out of these four, the actions of the few still dictate how the vast majority sees said groups. I have to hear about Chicago any time we talk about how minorities are stigmatized. Any utterance of MS-13 brings about louder calls for the wall. And we're on a gaming website. Hell, the backlash over Cyberpunk can sum up the Game journalist faction.

But when we have police's "mistakes" that actually causes the loss of lives of others, they deserve fairness? Really?

You are unfairly applying the same stigma to others due another being unfairly applied to your demographic.

Don't complain about unfairness then also embrace such practices.

As you said, not all X are Y.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

You are unfairly applying the same stigma to others due another being unfairly applied to your demographic.

Don't complain about unfairness then also embrace such practices.

As you said, not all X are Y.

Actually, I stated every cop after a shooting stating a very specific dogma. About being afraid of their lives and what have you. And then being able to do it again like nothing is wrong. Those cops, I do not believe.

I've seen cops who were completely scared for their lives and had to fire. I've seen them quit and relinquish their firearms. I believe them when they say they are scared for their lives.

I've seen cops who had to do it, and had to take time off with counseling. I believe them.

I'm specifically calling out people who spout BS to get away it. I'm not calling out Jeronimo Yanez, because you can see the visible fear when he drew his weapon. He was wrong. But he was legitimately afraid for his life. Brian T. Encinia, the arresting officer for Sandra Bland, originally said that Bland was combative from the beginning and her mannerisms caused him to fear for his life.

As her own video [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/sandra-bland-video-brian-encinia.html] from her phone shows, He was combative because Bland wasn't subservient. Then made up the fearing for his life comment to justify his actions. I have no problem calling out Cops who do this. All of them who do are amoral, weak people who want all the power to themselves. They deserve no fairness because they seek no fairness.

Talk about all the good cops you want to. I support them. As I support everyone who upholds the law truthfully. But we're talking about these 'cops' who abuse common trust in the word of the Police Officer to abuse power. There are no two ways about that.

 

[Smithnikov_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.
...

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

Evidently I don't get it. Is the point that you don't believe the conclusion from the police investigation? Because that's an entirely different discussion and I don't know what that is being based on. Are you saying the police are wrong? The the pregnant woman didn't start the fight? That it wasn't self-defence? I'm quite sure I'm missing your point. 🤔

Again, what the hell did the pregnant woman do to WARRANT LETHAL FORCE?! Is Alabama's laws so fucked that you can literally employ lethal force on someone for saying something mean? I want this detail, dammit!

 

[Abomination]

Actually, I stated every cop after a shooting stating a very specific dogma.

You said EVERY cop on record after a shooting behaves in a certain manner. Your words, not mine.

I do not believe that every police officer that has to discharge their weapon in order to subdue a hostile suspect does so because they're on a power trip. I am certain a significant number of police officers do indeed believe in the mantra "Protect and Serve".

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Imagine if rape law had such lax requirements. "He looked at me, clearly he was going to rape" would send people to jail. The way higher standard of just believing the victim with clear evidence would also lead to convictions (which doesnt happen today.)

If you listen to #MeToo detractors, we're already there.

But we live in this sad reality.

This is the very reason why every Cop comes on record, acting scared as if they seen a ghost when they are involved in another shooting.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes. This man was going to kill me. He was going to hurt me. I know it. I know it. I had to do it!!"

Yet they suit up and do the job again and again. You can't be completely scared all the time yet do the job without any issues. People quit things they are truly scared of.

????? Dude. Really? You're usually very reasonable but talking like this is rather ignorant and spiteful. The cops that can't take the heat of the job DO in fact leave, the ones that can stick with it because it's their job and they need to pay their bills for themselves or their families. If a prerequisite for having a dangerous job was having no fear then we'd have no one doing those jobs.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Be fair, not every police officer is like this.

Every police officer is trained to investigate, interrogate, and build cases for prosecuting attorneys, which means their default state is "guilty until proven innocent".


Moreover, that any encounter no matter how innocuous, could turn lethally violent at a moment's notice and that officers should plan for the worst-case scenario at every point. Couple that with substandard, if any, training on de-escalation tactics and proportionality in use of force. The kind of training they do receive, and the environment in which they're trained?


Rather speaks for itself, doesn't it. And in an environment of pervasive militarization of law enforcement in the post-9/11 world, it's a toxic, explosive combination. Sure, "not every" cop is a violence-for-pleasure-seeking, racist, psychopath...they just happen to be taught every encounter is potentially lethal, that escalation is not only acceptable but necessary under overwhelming force doctrine, that paperwork and internal review are customary evils they don't really have to worry about as a protected class of state worker, and golly gosh durnit, some demographics are (by the numbers, of course) more guilty and dangerous than others.

So when someone like Jeromino Yanez rolls up to a routine traffic stop for a busted tail light, his head's so chock full of bullshit "warrior cop" propaganda that when Philando Castile calmly and politely informed the police he was armed, Yanez goes straight into fight-or-flight mode and unloads half his goddamn clip at point blank range with zero provocation.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Imagine if rape law had such lax requirements. "He looked at me, clearly he was going to rape" would send people to jail. The way higher standard of just believing the victim with clear evidence would also lead to convictions (which doesnt happen today.)

If you listen to #MeToo detractors, we're already there.

But we live in this sad reality.

This is the very reason why every Cop comes on record, acting scared as if they seen a ghost when they are involved in another shooting.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes. This man was going to kill me. He was going to hurt me. I know it. I know it. I had to do it!!"

Yet they suit up and do the job again and again. You can't be completely scared all the time yet do the job without any issues. People quit things they are truly scared of.

????? Dude. Really? You're usually very reasonable but talking like this is rather ignorant and spiteful. The cops that can't take the heat of the job DO in fact leave, the ones that can stick with it because it's their job and they need to pay their bills for themselves or their families. If a prerequisite for having a dangerous job was having no fear then we'd have no one doing those jobs.

And this phrasing doesn't particularly doesn't help communication, but I already saw that I didn't make myself clear at the first time, so I will not edit what I said. However, I've addressed this.

You are unfairly applying the same stigma to others due another being unfairly applied to your demographic.

Don't complain about unfairness then also embrace such practices.

As you said, not all X are Y.

Actually, I stated every cop after a shooting stating a very specific dogma. About being afraid of their lives and what have you. And then being able to do it again like nothing is wrong. Those cops, I do not believe.

I've seen cops who were completely scared for their lives and had to fire. I've seen them quit and relinquish their firearms. I believe them when they say they are scared for their lives.

I've seen cops who had to do it, and had to take time off with counseling. I believe them.

I'm specifically calling out people who spout BS to get away it. I'm not calling out Jeronimo Yanez, because you can see the visible fear when he drew his weapon. He was wrong. But he was legitimately afraid for his life. Brian T. Encinia, the arresting officer for Sandra Bland, originally said that Bland was combative from the beginning and her mannerisms caused him to fear for his life.

As her own video [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/us/sandra-bland-video-brian-encinia.html] from her phone shows, He was combative because Bland wasn't subservient. Then made up the fearing for his life comment to justify his actions. I have no problem calling out Cops who do this. All of them who do are amoral, weak people who want all the power to themselves. They deserve no fairness because they seek no fairness.

Talk about all the good cops you want to. I support them. As I support everyone who upholds the law truthfully. But we're talking about these 'cops' who abuse common trust in the word of the Police Officer to abuse power. There are no two ways about that.

Actually, I stated every cop after a shooting stating a very specific dogma.

You said EVERY cop on record after a shooting behaves in a certain manner. Your words, not mine.

I do not believe that every police officer that has to discharge their weapon in order to subdue a hostile suspect does so because they're on a power trip. I am certain a significant number of police officers do indeed believe in the mantra "Protect and Serve".

You can quibble with the words if you like, but I made myself clear. I can see where you got that meaning from, and I can edit it if you like.

But now you see my meaning. Do you want to still argue what was a mistaken phrasing, or do you want to address the meaning I've made clear?

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Imagine if rape law had such lax requirements. "He looked at me, clearly he was going to rape" would send people to jail. The way higher standard of just believing the victim with clear evidence would also lead to convictions (which doesnt happen today.)

If you listen to #MeToo detractors, we're already there.

But we live in this sad reality.

This is the very reason why every Cop comes on record, acting scared as if they seen a ghost when they are involved in another shooting.

"I saw my life flash before my eyes. This man was going to kill me. He was going to hurt me. I know it. I know it. I had to do it!!"

Yet they suit up and do the job again and again. You can't be completely scared all the time yet do the job without any issues. People quit things they are truly scared of.

Crazy part is, the cops in America have it better than their soldiers. If soldiers shot foreign citizens the way cops shoot their own citizens there would be so much outrage.

Soldiers get found guilty of warcrimes, cops get a paid holiday.

 

[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.
...

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

Evidently I don't get it. Is the point that you don't believe the conclusion from the police investigation? Because that's an entirely different discussion and I don't know what that is being based on. Are you saying the police are wrong? The the pregnant woman didn't start the fight? That it wasn't self-defence? I'm quite sure I'm missing your point. 🤔

That, somehow, a verbal fight is threatening.

Like, threathening at all, let alone enough to justify a shooting. Speech, by itself, cant do that.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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.
...

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

Evidently I don't get it. Is the point that you don't believe the conclusion from the police investigation? Because that's an entirely different discussion and I don't know what that is being based on. Are you saying the police are wrong? The the pregnant woman didn't start the fight? That it wasn't self-defence? I'm quite sure I'm missing your point. 🤔

That, somehow, a verbal fight is threatening.

Like, threathening at all, let alone enough to justify a shooting. Speech, by itself, cant do that.

You keep saying that the altercation was verbal, but I haven't actually seen a single article that says it was the entire extent of the "assault."

I've seen articles that say it was an altercation that started verbally as an issue over the baby-daddy or something, but then most article say that a fight/assault occurred. I haven't seen a single article that actually says what the fight was. If you have any information that specifically says that Jamison wasn't physically attacked and fired her gun in response to a verbal altercation then please provide it.

 

[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.
...

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

Evidently I don't get it. Is the point that you don't believe the conclusion from the police investigation? Because that's an entirely different discussion and I don't know what that is being based on. Are you saying the police are wrong? The the pregnant woman didn't start the fight? That it wasn't self-defence? I'm quite sure I'm missing your point. 🤔

That, somehow, a verbal fight is threatening.

Like, threathening at all, let alone enough to justify a shooting. Speech, by itself, cant do that.

You keep saying that the altercation was verbal, but I haven't actually seen a single article that says it was the entire extent of the "assault."

I've seen articles that say it was an altercation that started verbally as an issue over the baby-daddy or something, but then most article say that a fight/assault occurred. I haven't seen a single article that actually says what the fight was. If you have any information that specifically says that Jamison wasn't physically attacked and fired her gun in response to a verbal altercation then please provide it.

I have no idea what actually happened. THAT'S WHY I KEEP ASKING

If it escalated, that's the justification for getting shot. Hence me asking the question over abd over again. As far as I've seen, there hasn't been anything stated other it being a verbal altercation.

Why would you automatically think it went physical when no one had said this?

 

[Kwak]

Crazy part is, the cops in America have it better than their soldiers. If soldiers shot foreign citizens the way cops shoot their own citizens there would be so much outrage.

Soldiers get found guilty of warcrimes, cops get a paid holiday.

Errrm...

President Donald Trump said Friday that he has been considering pardons for several American military members accused of war crimes, including headline-grabbing cases of shooting unarmed civilians and killing an enemy captive.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Again, what the hell did the pregnant woman do to WARRANT LETHAL FORCE?! Is Alabama's laws so fucked that you can literally employ lethal force on someone for saying something mean? I want this detail, dammit!

I'm not sure that's relevant to the discussion at hand. It might be a different subject entirely (when is using a gun justified), but that isn't what the story is about.

The story here is that she's charged with killing her unborn baby, not whether a gun should or should not have been used. You're disputing something entirely different and without a basis. Is the fact that the police held her responsible not enough for you? A jury of 12 people found her guilty. I don't see what your argument has to do with the story.

 

[Abomination]

Again, what the hell did the pregnant woman do to WARRANT LETHAL FORCE?! Is Alabama's laws so fucked that you can literally employ lethal force on someone for saying something mean? I want this detail, dammit!

I'm not sure that's relevant to the discussion at hand. It might be a different subject entirely (when is using a gun justified), but that isn't what the story is about.

The story here is that she's charged with killing her unborn baby, not whether a gun should or should not have been used. You're disputing something entirely different and without a basis. Is the fact that the police held her responsible not enough for you? A jury of 12 people found her guilty. I don't see what your argument has to do with the story.

What?

It has everything to do with the case. What, exactly, did a pregnant woman do that warranted a lethal force response?

Because, if she did not do something that warranted a lethal force response, then the case is turned on its head and the shooter is guilty of killing her unborn child. Nobody is disputing that she was shot, nobody is disputing that her actions could have led her to being responsible for the death of her child, the question is what did she do that made it so that shooting her was an acceptable course of action?

It's a VERY important part of this scenario. It sheds the light of context on the entire situation. What were the actions that led to the shooting? That the "police held her responsible" is NOT enough. The police should not get to decide that when it comes to a court case, that should be up to the jury that the woman was responsible for the action - that is exactly how guilt is determined, not by police!