Alabama woman indicted in shooting death of her unborn baby, charges against shooter dismissed on grounds of self defense

[anamika]

In Alabama, legally speaking, an unborn fetus does in fact have those rights. The concept is called fetal personhood and there's been a very long incremental legal process towards outcomes like this, with the ultimate aim of banning abortion. Part of that push is the general concept of fetal homicide, which is recognized at the federal level and in 38 states, so unfortunately not just Alabama and Mississippi. It's a rather clever tactic, really, though obviously being used towards incredibly shitty ends.

Click to shrink...

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not law everywhere in the US and not just Alabama? Folks who have killed their pregnant wives like Scott Peterson and Chris watts were also charged with the murder of their unborn foetus and the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

What makes it completely different, though? You can't revoke someone's personhood just because their death is being used by a prosecutor with shitty motives. If you treat fetuses as morally and legally equivalent to born people in cases where their death is caused by a third party, you have inescapably set a precedent that other people will use to push for more.

I think you're right that few people take issue with fetal homicide laws in general, but that's part of the problem--and what makes it such a clever tactic. Nobody wants to be in the position of arguing "against" innocent mothers and dead children. It's not like I'm enjoying it right now, but that discomfort has allowed the anti-abortion side to make huge strides in recent decades.

Click to shrink...

It makes it different because of the mother's state of mind and decision in the process. An outside attacker takes the decision away from the mother.

At this rate the state can deem any action the mother makes that isn't desirable to the fetus as a crime.

 

[Eldy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not law everywhere in the US and not just Alabama? Folks who have killed their pregnant wives like Scott Peterson and Chris watts were also charged with the murder of their unborn foetus and the unlawful termination of a pregnancy.

Click to shrink...

As noted above, fetal homicide laws are on the books federally and in 38 states.

It makes it different because of the mother's state of mind and decision in the process. An outside attacker takes the decision away from the mother.

At this rate the state can deem any action the mother makes that isn't desirable to the fetus as a crime.

Click to shrink...

I agree that there is a moral difference here because I don't think fetuses have the rights of people. If I believed that fetuses are the same as born people and can be murdered, that line of thinking breaks down.

 

[Evan]

Wonder how many people will actually read the article.

The shooter was acting in self defense. Stupid, but it isn't as crazy as the title seems.

 

[Fiction]

"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.

Click to shrink...

I just....hate everything right now.

 

[Steel]

Wow. That's fucked up.

 

[Subpar Scrub]

If you read the article it is pretty clear.

The shooter was originally arrested. It came out that the shooter was acting in self defense.

If you commit a crime that results in the death of another, you can often be charged with the death, even if you were not the direct cause.

In short, the prosecutor is saying that this woman attacked the other to the point where she feared for her life. That other woman shot the attacker in self defense. The in utero baby died, and since the shot was defense, not aggression, the mom is responsible.

That is the legal theory being used.

Click to shrink...

Yes, and unfortunately allowing a foetus to be considered a human being with rights is what allows for the manslaughter charge. Typical Alabama, legislating such a thing.

 

[Cat Party]

Self defense shooting against an unarmed pregnant woman? Give me a fucking break.

 

[rhindle]

This seems like another vector to attack Roe v Wade, whether intentionally or not.

If this results in a conviction and that's challenged on constitutional grounds, it's hard to see how Roe holds up and this doesn't. If a woman taking actions that unintentionally result in the 'death of her unborn baby' is manslaughter, how would taking action to deliberately 'kill' her fetus not be criminal?

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

I can see the mother getting charged with causing death by negligence or something?

Click to shrink...

I have no idea how law applies here, but I would have thought it would be something like "reckless endangerment" or something, like reckless driving with a child in the vehicle.

 

[19thCenturyFox]

That is some backwards ass logic, also how does shooting an unarmed pregnant woman in the stomach count as self-defense even if she is attacking someone?

As someone else wrote earlier, this is something you'd expect from Al Quaeda or ISIS.

 

[Cat Party]

This seems like another vector to attack Roe v Wade, whether intentionally or not.

Click to shrink...

Oh, it is extremely intentional. They want to be able to charge doctors with murder if they perform abortions.

 

[ChippyTurtle]

That is some backwards ass logic, also how does shooting an unarmed pregnant woman in the stomach count as self-defense even if she is attacking someone?

As someone else wrote earlier, this is something you'd expect from Al Quaeda or ISIS.

Click to shrink...

She probably did not have enough time to aim before shooting. We need more details on what led the grand jury to dismiss the charges against the shooter.

 

[Sean C.]

No it doesn't. The shooter has the right to defend themselves with lethal Force only against the assailant. They don't have a license to Kill.
If the fetus is a person then the right to deploy lethal force against it is contingent on it presenting a clear and present threat to the would-be deployer.

You can't argue simultaneously that the shooter had the right to shoot the fetus and the fetus maintained the right to not be shot. That's an inconsistent framework edit: ... if you want to assign to it personhood and the same rights as you would a real person.

Click to shrink...

If it's impossible to take effective self-defense against your attacker without causing injury to the other person, and you aren't the one who made it so, then no, it's not inconsistent.

I already cited the equivalent scenario — where the police got into a firefight with a suspect who was using a human shield, and the human shield was killed in the exchange by police gunfire. The suspect was convicted of murder for having caused the person's death.

If you begin from the premise that the fetus has personhood, then, at least theoretically, this result follows consistently. It's the notion of fetal personhood that is dubious in its implications for criminal law and civil rights.

She probably did not have enough time to aim before shooting. We need more details on what led the grand jury to dismiss the charges against the shooter.

Click to shrink...

Grand juries are famously easy to secure indictments from, as a general rule (in non-police-related offenses), so if they failed to indict in this case, I would imagine the case for self-defense was extremely strong.

 

[HamCormier]

Here's the thing: the shooter knew the woman was pregnant. Under Alabama law, it seems the fetus has rights. Doesn't that extend to the right to not have lethal force used against it, unless it, specifically, was being defended against?

In an active shooter situation I don't have the right to set off plastic explosives killing the shooter and anyone in the vicinity

No it doesn't. The shooter has the right to defend themselves with lethal Force only against the assailant. They don't have a license to Kill.
If the fetus is a person then the right to deploy lethal force against it is contingent on it presenting a clear and present threat to the would-be deployer.

You can't argue simultaneously that the shooter had the right to shoot the fetus and the fetus maintained the right to not be shot. That's an inconsistent framework edit: ... if you want to assign to it personhood and the same rights as you would a real person.

Click to shrink...

Life Hack in your ethical world -- attack anyone while pregnant, you're above the law! It's like having glasses I guess? ;)

 

[Voytek]

This is really fucking dumb.

 

[Jarmel]

This makes sense. Woman was playing stupid games and won a stupid prize.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

I love how there's people in this thread saying 'well, to be fair, the pregnant woman was shot in self-defence.'

Your country is fucking insane, Jesus Christ.

 

[nihilence]

Reading into the article, it goes back to abortion. Basically, a mother is legally bound to deliver a live baby in the state of Alabama, or else it's fetal negligence.

Because she started a fight, she failed due diligence.

 

[Bushido]

I love how there's people in this thread saying 'well, to be fair, the pregnant woman was shot in self-defence.'

Your country is fucking insane, Jesus Christ.

Click to shrink...

Thought the same thing. Shooting someone in self-defense sounds completely nuts on its own, a pregnant woman at that plus right in the stomach? Ooookay...

 

[Vitet]

I love how there's people in this thread saying 'well, to be fair, the pregnant woman was shot in self-defence.'

Your country is fucking insane, Jesus Christ.

Click to shrink...

I'm amazed at this too. Shooting someone unarmed can't be self-defense in my eyes.

 

[pochi]

 

[Camwi]

Man, fuck that state.

 

[aerie]

This story has been going around to some sensation. But given the current unclear details of the story, and the fact the victim seemingly initiated the violent altercation with the other women, we are going to close this thread until information regarding the situation emerges. We expect more details of the situation will become apparent soon.