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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

ObsidianJones:

trunkage:
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.

Abomination:
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.

Specter Von Baren:

ObsidianJones:

trunkage:
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.

ObsidianJones:

Abomination:
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 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.

Abomination:

ObsidianJones:
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?

ObsidianJones:

trunkage:
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.

KingsGambit:

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.

trunkage:

KingsGambit:

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.

Dirty Hipsters:

trunkage:

KingsGambit:
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?

Fieldy409:

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.

Smithnikov:
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.

KingsGambit:

Smithnikov:
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!

Abomination:
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!

Alabama woman Marshae Jones has been indicted by a grand jury over the death of her unborn baby after she was shot in the stomach when she was five months pregnant.

I don't understand why you're focusing on an irrelevant part of the case. It wouldn't be noteworthy if an attacker were shot in self-defence. The remarkable part of this is the attacker being charged with manslaughter for the death of the baby she was carrying. That's the crazy part that isn't being discussed.

Based on the different articles, blame for the incident and the firing of the gun isn't in dispute. By every account, there's no dispute over who started the fight, whether the other lady had the right to defend herself or her right to use a gun to do so. (Guns are completely legal in the US, and presumably Alabama permits the use of such to defend oneself.) The main crux of the issue stems from the fact that she was the aggressor, and thus to blame for the following events.

Anyway, this story doesn't warrant this much discussion, least of all when the actual issue isn't even being discussed. It would be interesting to talk about a pregnant woman's obligation to her baby, if she can be said to have one, whether a manslaughter charge is appropriate, but instead something irrelevant keeps getting repeated. 😪

KingsGambit:
I don't understand why you're focusing on an irrelevant part of the case. It wouldn't be noteworthy if an attacker were shot in self-defence.

Well, obviously, because then it would be an entirely different case in almost every respect.

The remarkable part of this is the attacker being charged with manslaughter for the death of the baby she was carrying. That's the crazy part that isn't being discussed.

How do you propose to discuss that without discussing how it happened?

The main crux of the issue stems from the fact that she was the aggressor, and thus to blame for the following events.

Being the aggressor only renders someone responsible for direct outcomes or reasonably foreseeable consequences.

And that is very much in dispute. Only in exceptionally rare circumstances would the use of lethal force by another party be a "reasonably foreseeable" consequence (and never in a verbal exchange). So, we need to actually know what those circumstances are.

It's not enough to merely trust a police force with an exceptionally shoddy track record to make that judgement.

KingsGambit:

Smithnikov:
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.

In this case I think its mostly bafflement. We're having trouble parsing out why and how a verbal argument escalated to the use of deadly force. I mean this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer and personally I'm expecting something like "The accused produced a knife" or some similar, straight forward explanation.

Then we can debate the utterly inane, or perhaps that should be insane, notion of this court case.

KingsGambit:

Abomination:
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!

Alabama woman Marshae Jones has been indicted by a grand jury over the death of her unborn baby after she was shot in the stomach when she was five months pregnant.

I don't understand why you're focusing on an irrelevant part of the case. It wouldn't be noteworthy if an attacker were shot in self-defence. The remarkable part of this is the attacker being charged with manslaughter for the death of the baby she was carrying. That's the crazy part that isn't being discussed.

Based on the different articles, blame for the incident and the firing of the gun isn't in dispute. By every account, there's no dispute over who started the fight, whether the other lady had the right to defend herself or her right to use a gun to do so. (Guns are completely legal in the US, and presumably Alabama permits the use of such to defend oneself.) The main crux of the issue stems from the fact that she was the aggressor, and thus to blame for the following events.

Anyway, this story doesn't warrant this much discussion, least of all when the actual issue isn't even being discussed. It would be interesting to talk about a pregnant woman's obligation to her baby, if she can be said to have one, whether a manslaughter charge is appropriate, but instead something irrelevant keeps getting repeated. 😪

Why would you consider that irrelevant? If the case actually makes to court, I would imagine the woman's lawyer will argue that shooting was unjustified and thus the accused cannot be guilty of manslaughter.

These charges are based on a legal principle that can only apply if:

a) the shooting was justified in response to the accused's actions
b) the fetus has rights that would make its death a manslaughter

If the shooting was unjustified then the culpability for the death of the fetus shifts to the shooter.

Just because you want to focus on the abortion angle, you cannot ignore the other legal issues at work here.

Silvanus:
It's not enough to merely trust a police force with an exceptionally shoddy track record to make that judgement.

In this instance, it is the District Attorney making the judgement. The charges were not filed by the police but by a grand jury on the DA's insistence. That same DA also decided that the shooter would not be charged.

Nielas:

In this instance, it is the District Attorney making the judgement. The charges were not filed by the police but by a grand jury on the DA's insistence. That same DA also decided that the shooter would not be charged.

I was referring to the investigation rather than the charge, actually, though I perhaps should have widened the point to cover both.

Well, there's been an update in this sad state of affairs: They've decided to drop the charges against her.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849040

In regards to the question of whether or not the use of a firearms was justified . . . . well, a little more information is here but details are still somewhat sparse. As stated in the article:

The altercation on 4 December happened outside a Dollar General store where both Ms Jones and the shooter, Ebony Jemison, worked.

Police ruled that Ms Jones had started the fight and hit Ms Jemison, then pinned her against a car.

They said Ms Jemison had then reached for a gun and fired point-blank into Ms Jones's stomach.

An unnamed police source told the New York Times that the feud had started over a man with whom they both worked.

Well, there you go. If true, that seems like more than enough justification. Though thankfully they dropped the asinine charge.

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

Where's a like button when you need it?

I agree that the behaviour of cops (or indeed, any profession) is often highly explainable in terms of their training and the existing institutional attitude of the organisation they join.

* * *

At any rate, case dropped. I think someone knew how painfully awful that charge would play out - I even suspect a jury would simply refuse to convict even if by the letter of the law she was guilty. At worst, of course, it was dropped because it brouhgt the fetal homicide law into disrepute, and they want to keep it for punishing women in other ways.

davidmc1158:
Well, there's been an update in this sad state of affairs: They've decided to drop the charges against her.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48849040

In regards to the question of whether or not the use of a firearms was justified . . . . well, a little more information is here but details are still somewhat sparse. As stated in the article:

The altercation on 4 December happened outside a Dollar General store where both Ms Jones and the shooter, Ebony Jemison, worked.

Police ruled that Ms Jones had started the fight and hit Ms Jemison, then pinned her against a car.

They said Ms Jemison had then reached for a gun and fired point-blank into Ms Jones's stomach.

An unnamed police source told the New York Times that the feud had started over a man with whom they both worked.

That makes the shooting make more sense.

Shadowstar38:
Well, there you go. If true, that seems like more than enough justification. Though thankfully they dropped the asinine charge.

Really?
"Police ruled that Ms Jones had started the fight and hit Ms Jemison, then pinned her against a car.

They said Ms Jemison had then reached for a gun and fired point-blank into Ms Jones's stomach."
What is she had knifed her in the gut instead? Just as justified?

Kwak:

Shadowstar38:
Well, there you go. If true, that seems like more than enough justification. Though thankfully they dropped the asinine charge.

Really?
"Police ruled that Ms Jones had started the fight and hit Ms Jemison, then pinned her against a car.

They said Ms Jemison had then reached for a gun and fired point-blank into Ms Jones's stomach."
What is she had knifed her in the gut instead? Just as justified?

Yes? What are you disagreeing with?

... Ok, as a gun owner, the fact that the police's depiction (although I rarely believe those any more without video tape) is what it is and people are ok with the shooting makes me horrified.

Literally, do any of you have any idea how many people are punched per day? Pushed? And if everyone was 'justified' with fighting back with a bullet, we would be losing literally millions of people every day.

Kwak:

Shadowstar38:
Well, there you go. If true, that seems like more than enough justification. Though thankfully they dropped the asinine charge.

Really?
"Police ruled that Ms Jones had started the fight and hit Ms Jemison, then pinned her against a car.

They said Ms Jemison had then reached for a gun and fired point-blank into Ms Jones's stomach."
What is she had knifed her in the gut instead? Just as justified?

"Pinned" is so vague. It can be as minor as "got too close to me" or as serious "she was suffocating me and I could not breathe". If someone is on me and I cannot breathe as a result, I could justify shooting or knifing them since that is life-or-death.

Shadowstar38:
Well, there you go. If true, that seems like more than enough justification. Though thankfully they dropped the asinine charge.

Is that truly enough justification... Self defence is supposed to be proportional, no? Being hit and pinned against a car isn't necessarily a life threatening situation and hence using deadly force wouldn't necessarily be warranted. How badly was she hit? What do they mean with "pinned"? You seem quite quick to judge the use of deadly force was warranted...

How well could a five-month pregnant woman really pin someone to anything? I mean, not well enough to stop the other one reaching a gun clearly

generals3:

Is that truly enough justification... Self defence is supposed to be proportional, no? Being hit and pinned against a car isn't necessarily a life threatening situation and hence using deadly force wouldn't necessarily be warranted. How badly was she hit? What do they mean with "pinned"? You seem quite quick to judge the use of deadly force was warranted...

Is it really up to the person getting assaulted to take all these variables into consideration while in the middle of a flight or fight scenario? Seems like the primary thing that would be going through someone's head is stopping the conflict quickly and with the least amount of additional personal injury feasible.

You pose a lot of fair questions. But my whole thing is, can we be civil and not physically assault people at all? That would put a stop to questions of proportional response right there.

Shadowstar38:

generals3:

Is that truly enough justification... Self defence is supposed to be proportional, no? Being hit and pinned against a car isn't necessarily a life threatening situation and hence using deadly force wouldn't necessarily be warranted. How badly was she hit? What do they mean with "pinned"? You seem quite quick to judge the use of deadly force was warranted...

Is it really up to the person getting assaulted to take all these variables into consideration while in the middle of a flight or fight scenario? Seems like the primary thing that would be going through someone's head is stopping the conflict quickly and with the least amount of additional personal injury feasible.

Using lethal force for that goal is going too far (as the consequences here show why).

Shadowstar38:

Is it really up to the person getting assaulted to take all these variables into consideration while in the middle of a flight or fight scenario? Seems like the primary thing that would be going through someone's head is stopping the conflict quickly and with the least amount of additional personal injury feasible.

Even mid-fight, any rational person has some gauge of whether it's a threat to their life or not.

To take any physical altercation involving punches or "pinning" as grounds for lethal force is impossibly ridiculous. It would turn every single day into a global bloodbath.

Shadowstar38:

generals3:

Is that truly enough justification... Self defence is supposed to be proportional, no? Being hit and pinned against a car isn't necessarily a life threatening situation and hence using deadly force wouldn't necessarily be warranted. How badly was she hit? What do they mean with "pinned"? You seem quite quick to judge the use of deadly force was warranted...

Is it really up to the person getting assaulted to take all these variables into consideration while in the middle of a flight or fight scenario? Seems like the primary thing that would be going through someone's head is stopping the conflict quickly and with the least amount of additional personal injury feasible.

You pose a lot of fair questions. But my whole thing is, can we be civil and not physically assault people at all? That would put a stop to questions of proportional response right there.

"Be civil or we'll put a cap in your ass, motherfucker!"

*BLAT-BLAT-BLAT!*

Happy 4th of July!

ObsidianJones:
... Ok, as a gun owner, the fact that the police's depiction (although I rarely believe those any more without video tape) is what it is and people are ok with the shooting makes me horrified.

Literally, do any of you have any idea how many people are punched per day? Pushed? And if everyone was 'justified' with fighting back with a bullet, we would be losing literally millions of people every day.

Of course we have no way of knowing other impacting factors, for example, did the woman have an underlying medical condition that could make such a struggle life threatening? There is a huge difference between a person with a heart condition, COPD or Asthma being pinned, for example, than a healthy athlete. The reality is though people really should not be pushing or hitting anyone, as people can be accidentally killed even if they are in the prime of their health. A guy who went to my school went to prison for punching another guy I went to school with just once outside of a pub because the guy he hit then hit his head on the curb and died from his injury. Both were athletic and 19 at the time, that is sadly the reality of getting into such fights. You don't know what will happen. I have been attacked by multiple men much larger than me, and yea I very well would use lethal force to get free as I have learned from previous experience what happens if I don't get free. All it can take is for someone to fall during a struggle for it to turn lethal quickly, or hell look at Eric Garners case. There is no way of knowing how this can turn out.

While I don't think everyone should be running around with guns planning on using them, I also think we have to address the violence leading to people thinking they need to protect themselves due to lack of protection by law enforcement. Why did this woman feel so threatened and afraid that she thought she needed to have a firearm to protect herself in the first place? We have to address the threats in order to reduce the people responding to the threats as well. There is no victim protection and no one to save you if someone wants to kill you and that is part of the problem fueling this. was this woman already threatening to kill her? Was the woman pinning her down trying to rip her eyes out of their sockets? These are all things that actually do happen when women are fighting...

Silvanus:

Shadowstar38:

Is it really up to the person getting assaulted to take all these variables into consideration while in the middle of a flight or fight scenario? Seems like the primary thing that would be going through someone's head is stopping the conflict quickly and with the least amount of additional personal injury feasible.

Even mid-fight, any rational person has some gauge of whether it's a threat to their life or not.

To take any physical altercation involving punches or "pinning" as grounds for lethal force is impossibly ridiculous. It would turn every single day into a global bloodbath.

This would be entirely on context, of course, but as a blanket statement, I have to disagree.

Rationality has no part in a physical assault, nor should the victim be forced to decide whether their life is in jeopardy when the attacker waives such considerations by launching the assault with intent to harm in the first place. People can be disabled or killed by a punch. By the time the victim can gauge that degree of violence, it might be too late. Not everyone attacking someone is going to be a martial artist capable of fully controlling the situation and minimizing long-lasting harm- if they choose- and even then, there are no guarantees.

Yeah, not all fights. But again, I don't want to find out if the violent attacker who jumped me and broke my nose and ribs was 'content' to leave it at that, when I could stop it before it gets any farther.

In the context of this incident? Uh... I think we need to know more. the definition of pinned and hit in this case would be appreciable (as in, was she being crushed/choked in the pin, and how hard was she struck). And as to how strong/dangerous a pregnant woman can be, well again, it would come down to this person in particular.

Lil devils x:

ObsidianJones:
... Ok, as a gun owner, the fact that the police's depiction (although I rarely believe those any more without video tape) is what it is and people are ok with the shooting makes me horrified.

Literally, do any of you have any idea how many people are punched per day? Pushed? And if everyone was 'justified' with fighting back with a bullet, we would be losing literally millions of people every day.

Of course we have no way of knowing other impacting factors, for example, did the woman have an underlying medical condition that could make such a struggle life threatening? There is a huge difference between a person with a heart condition, COPD or Asthma being pinned, for example, than a healthy athlete. The reality is though people really should not be pushing or hitting anyone, as people can be accidentally killed even if they are in the prime of their health. A guy who went to my school went to prison for punching another guy I went to school with just once outside of a pub because the guy he hit then hit his head on the curb and died from his injury. Both were athletic and 19 at the time, that is sadly the reality of getting into such fights. You don't know what will happen. I have been attacked by multiple men much larger than me, and yea I very well would use lethal force to get free as I have learned from previous experience what happens if I don't get free. All it can take is for someone to fall during a struggle for it to turn lethal quickly, or hell look at Eric Garners case. There is no way of knowing how this can turn out.

While I don't think everyone should be running around with guns planning on using them, I also think we have to address the violence leading to people thinking they need to protect themselves due to lack of protection by law enforcement. Why did this woman feel so threatened and afraid that she thought she needed to have a firearm to protect herself in the first place? He have to address the threats in order to reduce the people responding to the threats as well. There is no victim protection and no one to save you if someone wants to kill you and that is part of the problem fueling this.

But that's the issue. We're just going to go down the road to conjecture and Jones' story against Jemison's. I will not rule out a righteous shoot with actual evidence. But feelings are not evidence. They aren't even provable. We can't prove Jemison felt threatened for real. For all we know, she could have just felt vengeful. But she took the classes to get the license so she knows what to say she felt to justify anything she did.

It's actually an assumption of us all that she felt threatened. You know who else used 'My life was threatened' as an excuse?

George Zimmerman.

Michael Drejka. Yousef Hafza. Jason John. David Taylor. The Taylor Case is Special, because it shows the dangers of the law as Taylor threatened to shoot the victims before the altercation. So those who were shot at should have been able to have shoot him, as justified in the Uber Driver Robert Westlake (which is actually the only Stand Your Ground Case I've ever seen that seems justified.

And funnily enough, from the articles I've seen, Westlake was the only one who didn't say he feared for his life, even though video evidence showed he has absolute reason to.

The problem here is that you're a supremely decent human being. And you saw a scenario much akin to one's you faced when you were younger. And you can understand that. But we just need to look at the George Zimmerman's of the world and realize that people who 'know' the stand your ground law can literally get away with Murder if you just say the proper spell like this was Harry Potter.

"S/He Threatened my Life. I had no choice".

That's why I hate the 'Stand your Ground' law.

I think it's ludicrous that people are suggesting that being pinned to a car justifies shooting someone in the guts. You guys need your guns taken away or your manners improving or something.

Baffle2:
I think it's ludicrous that people are suggesting that being pinned to a car justifies shooting someone in the guts. You guys need your guns taken away or your manners improving or something.

I wasn't saying that. But I'm not going to say that you can know how a fight is going to go because you're rational, either.

 Pages PREV 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