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

[GoldenEye 007]

There's definitely an argument that this sets dangerous precedent, but it also presents an interesting legal dilemma.

If a person were to shoot an obviously pregnant woman (Say 9 months) with the intention to kill the baby, do they charge the shooter with murder, attempted murder, or felony assault with a deadly weapon? If a fetus has no rights until it's actually born, then it has to be either attempted murder (of the mother) or assault with a deadly weapon. At that point, could the defense argue that the shooter had no intentions of killing the mother, only the unborn child and preempt the attempted murder charge?

Click to shrink...

I don't even think it's been a controversial decision. When an outside actor is involved, they're charged with both crimes because it's up to the mother to choose the fate of their fetus.

Shooting at the mom necessarily requires that you're injuring the mom. And gut shots are dangerously fatal.

The fetus has no rights. But the mother has total control during the pregnancy.

 

[Syriel]

This is such a lawschool hypothetical on one hand. On the other hand, it couldn't possibly be a hypothetical because it really happened. Lastly, I don't know what public policy argument to finish my essay off with because everything about this case sucks.

Click to shrink...

The public policy argument for death of a fetus is that if you don't criminalize (outside of abortions) then there is no way to hold an attacker responsible for depriving a woman of her child.

The public policy argument for indirect responsibility is that the death wouldn't have occurred if not for the original crime, so liability flows to the criminal actor. It is most often used when a group commits a crime, and one or more are killed.

Both can be debated, but you're seeing the results of them interacting here.

If this wasn't self defense, the shooter would be facing manslaughter and this likely wouldn't be news.

 

[Dice]

Modern witchunting or some shit..unreal

 

[Deleted member 11413]

The article makes it seem less absurd. A grand jury failed to indict the, also black shooter. A picture is painted like the pregnant woman really was cruisin for a bruisin and the baby paid the price.

Click to shrink...

No, it's still absurd.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The public policy argument for death of a fetus is that if you don't criminalize (outside of abortions) then there is no way to hold an attacker responsible for depriving a woman of her child.

The public policy argument for indirect responsibility is that the death wouldn't have occurred if not for the original crime, so liability flows to the criminal actor. It is most often used when a group commits a crime, and one or more are killed.

Both can be debated, but you're seeing the results of them interacting here.

If this wasn't self defense, the shooter would be facing manslaughter and this likely wouldn't be news.

Click to shrink...

Yes you can. There is plenty of precedent to this. The mother has 100% control of her body, no matter what's growing within it. An outside attacker has always been different than the choices a mother makes while pregnant.

This is new territory that Alabama is going down due 100% their obsession with regulating women pregnancies.

It's also no different than laws a state like Georgia has passed that criminalizes formal abortions, charges the doctor, and charges the mother.

 

[LilWayneSuckz]

"The real victim is the unborn child."

...Not the whole woman that was shot, right? That should let you know how they see women.

Click to shrink...

Jesus...that quote stood out just as much as the thread title.

 

[Tapiozona]

Apparently the mother started the fight, and presumably the shooting was considered to be an appropriate act of self-defense. So the mother is being charged with manslaughter, which I'm guessing is also what you'd get if you started a fight and a bystander caught a stray?

EDIT: Like, it's all in the article, guys. I can't tell if y'all are just surprised or legitimately didn't bother to read it.

Click to shrink...

Being that 90% of replies are "wut!" any by the question being asked it's obvious almost no one read the article..this applies to most threads and even OPs

 

[Violence Jack]

If they were fighting over the baby's father, then the shooter knew the lady was pregnant and shot her in the stomach anyway. But she walks free why?

Fuck that backwards-ass, piece of shit state forever.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Being that 90% of replies are "wut!" any by the question being asked it's obvious almost no one read the article..this applies to most threads and even OPs

Click to shrink...

Or maybe don't assume people aren't reading the article and after doing so still concluding that this is a massively dangerous and dumb precedent.

 

[DeckardWintermute]

Like, it's all in the article, guys. I can't tell if y'all are just surprised or legitimately didn't bother to read it.

Click to shrink...

Honestly I went to the article and it told me to turn off adblock so I just closed the tab. Thanks for the summary though! I figured it wasn't cut and dry because it sounds insane.

 

[JackSwift]

The mother incited a fight that caused the shooter to defend themselves. The charges against the shooter are dismissed on the grounds of self-defense.

The unborn infant died as a result of the mother's negligence and assault, and she's charged with manslaughter.

This is an utterly bizarre ass case.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for this explanation. I'm very high right now and the article is very confusing to me at the moment.

This is some Law & Order SVU level shit right here.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Would someone explain to me the difference under the laws of Georgia?

The law says a doctor (outside attacker), can be charged for performing an abortion (fetus death), and also the mother can be charged for allowing it (and even paying for it to happen).

Here, a mom made a decision to get into a fight, which is unfortunate - self actor if you will. As a result, her fetus died. And as a result, the state is charging the mom for the death of the fetus. Is there a major difference here?

In my view, it's cut from the same cloth of draconian views of women's rights.

 

[Mest08]

Fucking gun culture. A woman loses her child because she allegedly started a fight that escalated to her being shot and that is on her? Yet the shooter gets off? The arresting officer gets to make the assertion that the only victim is the fetus? What the hell?

Click to shrink...

Yes, the arresting officer is to blame for the grand jury dropping the charges against the shooter.

Some of you all quick to say fuck the police at any chance (except when the GOP threatens law enforcement, that is.)

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Yes, the arresting officer is to blame for the grand jury dropping the charges against the shooter.

Some of you all quick to say fuck the police at any chance (except when the GOP threatens law enforcement, that is.)

Click to shrink...

The police in America have earned their fuck themselves status. Oh well.

 

[FeliciaFelix]

There's definitely an argument that this sets dangerous precedent, but it also presents an interesting legal dilemma.

If a person were to shoot an obviously pregnant woman (Say 9 months) with the intention to kill the baby, do they charge the shooter with murder, attempted murder, or felony assault with a deadly weapon? If a fetus has no rights until it's actually born, then it has to be either attempted murder (of the mother) or assault with a deadly weapon. At that point, could the defense argue that the shooter had no intentions of killing the mother, only the unborn child and preempt the attempted murder charge?

Click to shrink...

Nah, a reasonable person would know that a miscarriage can kill the woman. It's still trying to murder a woman but the miscarriage is the murder weapon so to speak. It could be first degree if the prosecution words it right. But probably a manslaughter.

 

[Mest08]

The police in America have earned their fuck themselves status. Oh well.

Click to shrink...

90% of the the time, sure. But not here.

 

[flatearthpandas]

What the actual fuck. It took me like 4 times to read that headline to process how fucked this is

 

[Deleted member 12224]

This is such a lawschool hypothetical on one hand. On the other hand, it couldn't possibly be a hypothetical because it really happened. Lastly, I don't know what public policy argument to finish my essay off with because everything about this case sucks.

Click to shrink...

Deterrence over rehabilitation and reform the MPC. Close the laptop and hit the bar.

 

[Masseyme]

This would set the dumbest precedent I've ever seen. I can't believe people are even pondering this nonsense.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS STORY

 

[Syriel]

This is new territory that Alabama is going down due 100% their obsession with regulating women pregnancies.

Click to shrink...

This would set the dumbest precedent I've ever seen. I can't believe people are even pondering this nonsense.

Click to shrink...

You're both about 25 years too late if you think this is a new legal theory.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/20/us/when-the-death-of-a-fetus-is-murder.html

If they were fighting over the baby's father, then the shooter knew the lady was pregnant and shot her in the stomach anyway. But she walks free why?

Fuck that backwards-ass, piece of shit state forever.

Click to shrink...

Because the shooter is considered the victim of an attack, and the shooting is considered an act self defense.

Thank you for this explanation. I'm very high right now and the article is very confusing to me at the moment.

This is some Law & Order SVU level shit right here.

Click to shrink...

There probably is a L&O ep covering it. That show seems to hit all the legal case theories.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

You're both about 25 years too late if you think this is a new legal theory.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/20/us/when-the-death-of-a-fetus-is-murder.html

Because the shooter is considered the victim of an attack, and the shooting is considered an act self defense.



There probably is a L&O ep covering it. That show seems to hit all the legal case theories.

Click to shrink...

What? Nobody is arguing that an outside attacker can't or shouldn't be held responsible for a crime that results in the death of a fetus that the mother did not want.

This on the other hand is punishing the mother herself for making a bad decision. Which is a terrible precedent and a direct attack on a woman's autonomy. The point of something like this it to try to criminalize attacking a fetus in any capacity even within abortion. And it's extremely obvious here.

 

[Surakian]

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...

Thanks, I read it twice before your reply and even after your reply I still think it is bullshit.

 

[InceptionLoop]

Some of the comments here are weird. I seriously doubt the mother's attack was anything close as to warrant being shot at.

 

[DevilMayGuy]

Shit is stranger than fiction

 

[GaimeGuy]

The person who got shot was charged with manslaughter. I don't give a damn if she started the fight, that's just ridiculous.

Again, The person who got shot was charged with manslaughter. That makes no sense

 

[Sean C.]

The person who got shot was charged with manslaughter. I don't give a damn if she started the fight, that's just ridiculous.

Again, The person who got shot was charged with manslaughter. That makes no sense

Click to shrink...

That part does actually make sense — if the person who was attacked was found to be legally justified in defending herself, then fault resides with the attacker. You see that also in cases involving, for instance, the use of bystanders as a human shield.

Now, the question in this case is the decision to assign the fetus that sort of separate legal personhood for the purposes of criminal law.

 

[GrapeApes]

I read the article. Alabama still a fucked up place.

 

[qaopjlll]

So what if instead of being pregnant, the woman who started the fight had an actual child with her, and the woman defending herself shot and killed the child? Does the shooter still walk and the mother still gets charged, according to Alabama law?

 

[Kin5290]

How is this possible?

Click to shrink...

So, from the article, the pregnant woman was the one who started the fight, and the woman who shot her was acting in self defense. I don't know how much this represents what actually happened but presumably there's some kind of evidence behind this chain of events.

 

[FF Seraphim]

So you can kill someone and get away scott free as long as you make sure you're not the one who started, got it.

Click to shrink...

This has always been true for whatever state has castle or stand your ground laws.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The mother incited a fight that caused the shooter to defend themselves. The charges against the shooter are dismissed on the grounds of self-defense.

The unborn infant died as a result of the mother's negligence and assault, and she's charged with manslaughter.

This is an utterly bizarre ass case.

Click to shrink...

It's probably entirely about Alabama building strong fetal personhood precedent so they can pass bullshit abortion restrictions

 

[bobbychalkers]

As a resident of Alabama, Fuck Alabama.

 

[Deleted member 19003]

wtf, that's the most backwards racist and sexist shit I've read. I hope they get laughed out of the court room by a higher court. Backwards pricks.

 

[GaimeGuy]

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

That part does actually make sense — if the person who was attacked was found to be legally justified in defending herself, then fault resides with the attacker. You see that also in cases involving, for instance, the use of bystanders as a human shield.

Now, the question in this case is the decision to assign the fetus that sort of separate legal personhood for the purposes of criminal law.

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[Aine]

Alabama needs to sink into the earth.

 

[Zed]

This is really going under the radar with the debates tonight and tomorrow. I hope someone brings this up tomorrow night at the debate.

 

[Tya]

A woman whose unborn baby was killed in a 2018 Pleasant Grove shooting has now been indicted in the death.

Marshae Jones, a 27-year-old Birmingham woman, was indicted by a Jefferson County grand jury on a manslaughter charge. She was taken into custody on Wednesday.

Though Jones didn't fire the shots that killed her unborn baby girl, authorities say she initiated the dispute that led to the gunfire. Police initially charged 23-year-old Ebony Jemison with manslaughter, but the charge against Jemison was dismissed after the grand jury failed to indict her.

Click to shrink...

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/...-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

I'm not really sure what to add.

 

[psynergyadept]

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

 

[Eldy]

And it's an epically dumb one. But one that should be of no shock with a shit tier police institution within the United States and especially Alabama. An outside actor causing an issue, sure. Going after the mother with a 5 month old fetus? Nah, that shit is nothing but an avenue to try to prosecute a pregnant mom for anything undesirable. An unborn fetus does not have the rights and protections of a born human.

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[F34R]

Already up:

https://www.resetera.com/threads/al...aby-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.125803/

 

[Silver-Streak]

So I get dropping the charges against the other woman if the gun was fired in self-defense because the mother was actively trying to kill the other woman, or something...but I don't get charging the mother with anything other than assault unless she was actively trying to get the fetus killed?

 

[Mona]

well this is an odd one

 

[Ramala]

I'm curious why the mother went to a store to shop after being shot. Probably shock right?

 

[Desparadina]

it's already been said that strict abortion laws affect women of color (particularly black women) despite the absurdity of the entire thing it's not a surprise to me that they've found a new way to criminalize black women's bodies like this.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

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...

Which wouldn't be shocking for a backwards state like Alabama. And again, someone attacking a mother and causing the death of a fetus is a completely different situation than prosecuting the mother herself for causing the death of her own fetus.

I think there are very few people that have an issue with an outside attacker being held liable for causing the death of a fetus. This situation, though, is fucked as like you pointed out the clear aim is to go after abortion rights.

 

[gutter_trash]

read the article..


that's some Taliban shit... indicting the victim? blaming the victim?


poor woman

 

[Eldy]

Which wouldn't be shocking for a backwards state like Alabama. And again, someone attacking a mother and causing the death of a fetus is a completely different situation than prosecuting the mother herself for causing the death of her own fetus.

I think there are very few people that have an issue with an outside attacker being held liable for causing the death of a fetus. This situation, though, is fucked as like you pointed out the clear aim is to go after abortion rights.

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[TheMango55]

Without actually seeing the altercation I can't say whether the shooting was justified or not.

But how the hell are you going to charge the person who was shot with manslaughter? If it was justified then charge the person who was shot with battery or whatever for the inciting the shooting, but FFS charging them with manslaughter for someone else shooting them?

 

[Pwnz]

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...

Yup thanks for spelling out the immediate thoughts most of us have.

So fucking insane.

Heard on Howard stern that it's totally possible to rape a woman in Alabama, force her to go through pregnancy, and have paternal rights after relatively little prison time. Fucking insane. Alabama is fucked up.