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

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

An Alabama woman who was shot in the stomach, resulting in the death of her five-month-old fetus, was indicted on a manslaughter charge by a grand jury. The reason? She started the dispute that led to her getting shot.

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 investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,'' Pleasant Grove police Lt. Danny Reid said at the time of the shooting. "It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby."

Alabama recently passed a near-total ban on abortion, and it's not unheard of for a woman to face jail time for miscarrying. While shocking, this case clearly delineates in the most gruesome terms what we already know: That women's lives are not valued.

https://jezebel.com/alabama-woman-indicted-after-someone-else-shoots-her-in-1835892341

The world we live in, people.

Oh good, I was going to make a thread about this. I understand nothing. This makes no sense

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/alabama-woman-indicted-over-the-shooting-death-of-unborn-baby/11258240

For fuck sake...I guess they are saying the shooting was self defence so the woman who was shot is to blame? I mean I could see if it was genuine self defence not charging the shooter, but really?

Also, facing jail time for miscarrying? What in the ever loving shit is that? I guess they have to prove it wasn't somehow deliberate? i.e. backstreet/DIY abortion attempt etc? [EDIT: Ok, read the article that referred to, guess that wasn't it]

...God, I hate people.

Yeah I saw this story the other day and I still don't know how to process it. "You murdered your unborn child because you made that person shoot you" is comically stupid. I don't really know what else to say. I mean, this is also the same state that's allowing a mega-church to have it's own police force, so I guess it's to be expected? If anything, expect more of this and worse. Fuckin' hell.

Zykon TheLich:
For fuck sake...I guess they are saying the shooting was self defence so the woman who was shot is to blame? I mean I could see if it was genuine self defence not charging the shooter, but really?

The legal principle is that the perpetrator of a crime is responsible for all the foreseeable consequences of the crime even if they were unintended. eg. I rob a bank and a customer has a fatal heart attack as a result, I am guilty of murder.

In this case the legal argument is that the woman started a violent fight where a foreseeable outcome was that a bystander would be hurt or killed. The other woman was deemed to shoot in self defense which was also deemed foreseeable. If the shooting was justified self defense then all foreseeable consequences of it fall on the aggressor.

The big move here is that the third party that was shot was the woman's unborn fetus so all of this is overlapped with abortion laws and rights.

Nielas:
The legal principle is that the perpetrator of a crime is responsible for all the foreseeable *snip*

Ah, I see, thought it might be something like that. Thanks for the explanation.

Nielas:
The legal principle is that the perpetrator of a crime is responsible for all the foreseeable consequences of the crime even if they were unintended.

#

Yep.

And the end result of these laws added together is this astonishingly fucking stupid charge. But ultimately, it's WAD, innit?

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?

So they blamed the pregnant woman not just for provoking someone else into shooting her, but for it resulting in the dead of the baby she was carrying?

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU, AMERICA!!!

Reid added that the fight began over the unborn baby's father, and that the investigation found that Jamison was defending herself.

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.

There isn't any information in the article provided as to whether Jones had a weapon or something that caused Jamison to actually need lethal force to defend herself, and without that information any speculation is moot, but my gut feeling says there should always be an alternative to shooting a pregnant woman and at the moment I'm having trouble buying the self-defense angle with the info provided.

Dirty Hipsters:

Reid added that the fight began over the unborn baby?s father, and that the investigation found that Jamison was defending herself.

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.

There isn't any information in the article provided as to whether Jones had a weapon or something that caused Jamison to actually need lethal force to defend herself, and without that information any speculation is moot, but my gut feeling says there should always be an alternative to shooting a pregnant woman and at the moment I'm having trouble buying the self-defense angle with the info provided.

I remember a case last year when a guy was abusing a kid, the dad came out and pushed the guy over for the abuse and the guy shot him while on the ground. It was deemed self defence becuase of the push. There were no other weapons involved, the victim didn't carry anything.

I keep getting told wanting gun laws in America is crazy. I find these situations crazier.

Welcome to the theocracy of America. Separation of church and state HAH!

Smithnikov:
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.

Well, you see, as we all know, woman are emotional creatures who are barely capable of even carrying a child, so we need strong men to make sure the are completely subservient to the unborn fetus, as is the proper way. A womans body is not her own, it is owed to the man who is with her or the baby she carries, unless its a girl but only if its born.

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.

Red Sentinel:
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

trunkage:

Red Sentinel:
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.

Red Sentinel:
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.

Guess someone has to get the target painted on them. Hold my beer.

Nielas:

The legal principle is that the perpetrator of a crime is responsible for all the foreseeable consequences of the crime even if they were unintended. eg. I rob a bank and a customer has a fatal heart attack as a result, I am guilty of murder.

This is the rub. As far as I can tell, Abortion law has absolutely nothing to do with this case, at least directly. The reasoning actually makes a degree of sense, with the woman involved being seen as having forcefully brought a third party into the matter which resulted in their death.

Dirty Hipsters:

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.

There isn't any information in the article provided as to whether Jones had a weapon or something that caused Jamison to actually need lethal force to defend herself, and without that information any speculation is moot, but my gut feeling says there should always be an alternative to shooting a pregnant woman and at the moment I'm having trouble buying the self-defense angle with the info provided.

This is the biggest issue. There is so much missing information here, it's hard to make any kind of call. I've looked for anything resembling a proper police report regarding the incident, but I haven't found jack. All we have is an extremely lacking bit of information from quick news reports, and a lot of opinions with not enough fact.

trunkage:
I remember a case last year when a guy was abusing a kid, the dad came out and pushed the guy over for the abuse and the guy shot him while on the ground. It was deemed self defence becuase of the push. There were no other weapons involved, the victim didn't carry anything.

I keep getting told wanting gun laws in America is crazy. I find these situations crazier.

And this just sounds like bullshit on part of law enforcement because committing a crime typically negates self-defense claims. Something is wrong there.

trunkage:

Dirty Hipsters:

Reid added that the fight began over the unborn baby?s father, and that the investigation found that Jamison was defending herself.

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.

There isn't any information in the article provided as to whether Jones had a weapon or something that caused Jamison to actually need lethal force to defend herself, and without that information any speculation is moot, but my gut feeling says there should always be an alternative to shooting a pregnant woman and at the moment I'm having trouble buying the self-defense angle with the info provided.

I remember a case last year when a guy was abusing a kid, the dad came out and pushed the guy over for the abuse and the guy shot him while on the ground. It was deemed self defence becuase of the push. There were no other weapons involved, the victim didn't carry anything.

I keep getting told wanting gun laws in America is crazy. I find these situations crazier.

What counts as assault and battery is pretty surprising to me, if you touch an object a person is holding, not even the person, then you can be considered guilty of assault and battery, then they get to defend themselves with a gun and theres no place you can really shoot a person reliably where they arent at risk of bleeding to death. Too bad people can't just punch each other when theres a dispute like they used to.

Now think of all the times during normal human interactions you could be considered guilty of assault and battery and killed with a pistol in America....

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?

Fieldy409:

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.

Abomination:

trunkage:

Red Sentinel:
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

trunkage:

Abomination:

trunkage:
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.

Abomination:

Smithnikov:
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.

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.

Abomination:
Nothing more republican than a phallic object in your hands.

How about replacing the penis with a gun? Does that make one more or less republican?

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.

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.

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?

trunkage:
This makes no sense

alabama

I mean, it pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?

KingsGambit:
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?

CaitSeith:

KingsGambit:
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.

Eacaraxe:

trunkage:
This makes no sense

alabama

I mean, it pretty much speaks for itself, doesn't it?

That is exactly what I was thinking...

It isn't like this is the first time we have read Alabama and "seriously messed up shat".

CaitSeith:

KingsGambit:
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.

CaitSeith:

KingsGambit:
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.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here