woman shot in the stomach, charged with death of fetus

[Hakons]

So pregnant women don't deserve to live, but fetuses do.

Alabama everybody.

That law has broken people, I swear, this is not a relevant observation to this story. It has nothing to do with this story.

People that read the slanted headline are going to get enraged by it, as it does seem to be the perfect storm, especially with unrelated laws passed recently in the same state.

For those wondering why the comment was so incoherent: the pregnant woman didn't die, and the point of fetal homicide is to equate the murder of a woman's child with homicide (because it clearly is). Regardless of your opinion on abortion, this isn't an abortion scenario. This isn't an "lol Alabama" situation (though that in itself is increasingly just bigotry against Alabamans), it would be entirely according to law in my state as well.

Which of these is an incorrect legal principle?

1) Assailants in an attack are guilty for the damages resulting from the attack

Ex: Someone tries to stab you, so you injure them with a knife in self defense. You are not guilty for their injury, they are.

2) A fetus killed in an assault is a crime that could be considered a form of homicide

Ex: A person assaults you, and in the assault your unborn child is killed. Since this action was clearly against your will, it's a crime and fetal homicide.

3) Manslaughter is applied when reckless actions result in accidental death

Ex: A drunk driver runs you over and kills you. The driver is charged with manslaughter because they accidently killed you because of their reckless drunk driving.

Applied to the case, the pregnant woman was the assailant and incurs fault for the resulting damages, the damages include the resulting killing of her unborn child, and this reckless action that resulted in the killing of her unborn child is cause for the charge of manslaughter.

One may view this as too legalistic, and the sad circumstances may compel someone to desire no punishments result from the case, but it is wrong to say this is some kind of failure of justice.

[Galloism]

It's nothing to do with it being alabama.

Felony murder laws and laws prosecuting people for killing an unborn child exist in loads of places.

Hmmm? Not sure of what would be the England equivalent of Alabama.

Actually Alabama is a reason. They recently passed a law which makes the fetus sacrosanct. You pretty much can't get an abortion now for any reason.

What is interesting is the ruling basically says gun rights > fetus.

I don't think anybody is saying the woman is without blame. The punishment is rather heavy handed and the shooter getting cut free is absurd.

Every state in blue or pink could get this result, except Kentucky.

[Galloism]

The gun aspect is uniquely American, but not particularly interesting imo beyond It ticking all the boxes for far-left political outrage. It's easily forseeable that a fight can result in miscarriage like this even if unarmed.

^ this

It's obviously a shocking headline (perhaps because key info was omitted) that appears to be a grave injustice. However, it's legally sound. Each legal premise (crime to kill a fetus in this manner, assailant is at fault for injuries, manslaughter is applied for accidental murder) is sound and makes sense, and they were applied as the law demands. It won't get you as many retweets, but that's the reality of it.

Yeah, I mean... it's the logical application of all the relevant laws.

It's kind of a stupid result, because had she had intentionally wanted to kill the fetus and gotten it aborted, she'd be 100% in the clear, but because it was an unintentional result of another crime, then the felony murder/manslaughter rule applies, and she gets charged.

Not to mention, arguably, she's received a greater than sufficient punishment for her actions already.

The law wasn't applied incorrectly. It was applied exactly as written, and could be applied the same way in the majority of US states. It's just a strange result.

Arguably, this does highlight a good reason to get rid of fetal homicide laws, or at least pare them back to when the fetus could reasonably survive outside the womb under its own capability (IE, 8+ months).

[Tekania]

What exactly was the reason for the shooting?

From I read and the details are lacking.

Alabama is one of those stand your ground states. Basically; the angry pregnant woman scared another woman and she had to shoot her five times to defend herself.

*edit* I don't know why I thought it was five times. Re-reading an article said once.

It should be noted that the pregnant woman both started the altercation and continued to press it when the other woman tried to flee it. I don't particularly like stand-your-ground laws either, but the law applies in this case. It would have been better had it been a simple case of calling the police rather than shooting the pregnant woman and have the pregnant woman arrested for assault.But that's stand-your-ground for you.

[Cappuccina]

That law has broken people, I swear, this is not a relevant observation to this story. It has nothing to do with this story.

People that read the slanted headline are going to get enraged by it, as it does seem to be the perfect storm, especially with unrelated laws passed recently in the same state.

For those wondering why the comment was so incoherent: the pregnant woman didn't die, and the point of fetal homicide is to equate the murder of a woman's child with homicide (because it clearly is). Regardless of your opinion on abortion, this isn't an abortion scenario. This isn't an "lol Alabama" situation (though that in itself is increasingly just bigotry against Alabamans), it would be entirely according to law in my state as well.

Which of these is an incorrect legal principle?

1) Assailants in an attack are guilty for the damages resulting from the attack

Ex: Someone tries to stab you, so you injure them with a knife in self defense. You are not guilty for their injury, they are.

2) A fetus killed in an assault is a crime that could be considered a form of homicide

Ex: A person assaults you, and in the assault your unborn child is killed. Since this action was clearly against your will, it's a crime and fetal homicide.

3) Manslaughter is applied when reckless actions result in accidental death

Ex: A drunk driver runs you over and kills you. The driver is charged with manslaughter because they accidently killed you because of their reckless drunk driving.

Applied to the case, the pregnant woman was the assailant and incurs fault for the resulting damages, the damages include the resulting killing of her unborn child, and this reckless action that resulted in the killing of her unborn child is cause for the charge of manslaughter.

One may view this as too legalistic, and the sad circumstances may compel someone to desire no punishments result from the case, but it is wrong to say this is some kind of failure of justice.

Ah, this clears things up. The woman should be held responsible for the death of her child since she put it in harms way.

[Tekania]

Hmm, in my opinion, it hinges on whether it's reasonable to expect someone to shoot you or stab you in this sort of situation. If it is, then I think that the mother cops the blame, because she initiated the fight.

However, if not, and it certainly isn't in Australia, then blaming the mother is unfair. How can she have foreseen that a catfight would lead to guns out?

If the foetus is considered a person, then the shooter should be convicted of shooting that person, regardless of whether she was defending herself from the mother.

If they're to be consistent.

That is why the amending was to manslaughter rather than murder when it was taken to the grand jury. Since the shooter had a legal right of self-defense under Alabama law. It was the grand jury which refused to indict.

[Tekania]

I was under the impression that warning shots were a strict no-no, and that one should not even be touching the trigger unless one is prepared to put holes in whatever the gun is pointed at.

That is what is generally taught to people who carry firearms by reputable firearms education. That being said in the US there really is no mandatory education. Basically anyone short of ex-cons can get legally get firearms and there is pretty much no required safety courses for them especially in deep-south states like Alabama. It's like handing keys to a car to someone who has no idea how to drive.

[Tekania]

The shooter claims to have been trying to fire a warning shot.

2 things.
Understood, the question is did she have legal reason to shoot, and the cops are saying yes

The mother to be is the one who put her baby in danger by instigating the fight.

If you want to say the mother to be suffered enough with getting shot and losing the baby I would go along with that, but i am not seeing a basic issue with the bad actor pregnant or not is responsible for her actions.

To be fair, the cops didn't necessarily say she had a legal reason to shoot. The Shooter did in fact had charges taken before the grand jury, it was specifically the grand jury who made the determination that the woman had a legal reason to shoot and thereby refused to indict.

[Ethel mermania]

^ this

It's obviously a shocking headline (perhaps because key info was omitted) that appears to be a grave injustice. However, it's legally sound. Each legal premise (crime to kill a fetus in this manner, assailant is at fault for injuries, manslaughter is applied for accidental murder) is sound and makes sense, and they were applied as the law demands. It won't get you as many retweets, but that's the reality of it.

Yeah, I mean... it's the logical application of all the relevant laws.

It's kind of a stupid result, because had she had intentionally wanted to kill the fetus and gotten it aborted, she'd be 100% in the clear, but because it was an unintentional result of another crime, then the felony murder/manslaughter rule applies, and she gets charged.

Not to mention, arguably, she's received a greater than sufficient punishment for her actions already.

The law wasn't applied incorrectly. It was applied exactly as written, and could be applied the same way in the majority of US states. It's just a strange result.

Arguably, this does highlight a good reason to get rid of fetal homicide laws, or at least pare them back to when the fetus could reasonably survive outside the womb under its own capability (IE, 8+ months).

Not really, no. Because you wind up with this

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/fe ... ortion-law

[Galloism]

Yeah, I mean... it's the logical application of all the relevant laws.

It's kind of a stupid result, because had she had intentionally wanted to kill the fetus and gotten it aborted, she'd be 100% in the clear, but because it was an unintentional result of another crime, then the felony murder/manslaughter rule applies, and she gets charged.

Not to mention, arguably, she's received a greater than sufficient punishment for her actions already.

The law wasn't applied incorrectly. It was applied exactly as written, and could be applied the same way in the majority of US states. It's just a strange result.

Arguably, this does highlight a good reason to get rid of fetal homicide laws, or at least pare them back to when the fetus could reasonably survive outside the womb under its own capability (IE, 8+ months).

Not really, no. Because you wind up with this

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/fe ... ortion-law

Well, we can't have it both ways.

Either fetuses that are victims of crimes and die are murdered, in which case the result here is just (if strange), or fetuses can't be victims of crimes or can't be murdered, only the mothers that carry them, in which case the New York law is just.

[The Grims]

Not really, no. Because you wind up with this

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/fe ... ortion-law

Well, we can't have it both ways.

Either fetuses that are victims of crimes and die are murdered, in which case the result here is just (if strange), or fetuses can't be victims of crimes or can't be murdered, only the mothers that carry them, in which case the New York law is just.

What if the fetus is not killed but injured, resulting in a handicapped child ?

[The Black Forrest]

Did they say what the fight was about and what led to it?

Not that it matters and more of a curiosity. Was the shooter black or white? Haven't seen a picture of her.....
Missed Bombys post. Question answered.

[Scomagia]

“We both could have did something different to avoid it,” Jemison said. “I’m not saying that it all falls on me or that it all falls on her. We both actually took actions that led up to that.”

According to Jemison, she, Jones, and the baby’s father worked together at a warehouse in Royal Oaks at the time of the shooting. She said that Jones would often get suspicious when the baby’s father — who was a supervisor — would talk to new female employees in the warehouse.

Jemison, who was a temp at the warehouse, said that she talked to the man only in the capacity of her work and that Jones had never confronted her directly about it.

But, Jemison said, on the day of the shooting she and three of her friends went to the Dollar General store during their lunch break when she saw Jones with four of her friends approaching her outside the store.

An altercation broke out, and Jemison claimed that Jones grabbed her hair.

Jemison said she then fired a single shot from her gun toward the ground that was intended to be a “warning shot” because “there was too much going on and just too many bodies.”


“My shot wasn’t to hurt anybody,” Jemison said. “It was just to get everybody to leave.”

Jemison said that after she fired the shot, everybody left in their respective cars. She said she only found out that she had struck Jones and killed her unborn baby when a detective showed up at her house after the shooting.

Jemison was arrested and charged with manslaughter.

“The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,’’ Pleasant Grove police Lt. Danny Reid told AL.com at the time of Jemison’s arrest. “It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby.”

Reid also then hinted at the possibility of potential charges against Jones, saying that it was her responsibility as a mother to protect her child and avoid physical altercations.

“The mother’s involvement and culpability will be presented to a grand jury,” Reid said at the time. “When a 5-month pregnant woman initiates a fight and attacks another person, I believe some responsibility lies with her as to any injury to her unborn child. That child is dependent on its mother to try to keep it from harm, and she shouldn’t seek out unnecessary physical altercations.”

Link

Seems fair, then.

[Scomagia]

Hmm, in my opinion, it hinges on whether it's reasonable to expect someone to shoot you or stab you in this sort of situation. If it is, then I think that the mother cops the blame, because she initiated the fight.

However, if not, and it certainly isn't in Australia, then blaming the mother is unfair. How can she have foreseen that a catfight would lead to guns out?

She should have seen that any physical confrontation carried a likelihood of killing her baby. It's to be expected. You don't scrap when you're pregnant. It's stupid, dangerous, and just plain trashy.

[Galloism]

Well, we can't have it both ways.

Either fetuses that are victims of crimes and die are murdered, in which case the result here is just (if strange), or fetuses can't be victims of crimes or can't be murdered, only the mothers that carry them, in which case the New York law is just.

What if the fetus is not killed but injured, resulting in a handicapped child ?

In those states where crimes can be committed against the fetus, that would be some form of aggravated assault, one would assume - the same as if you injured a child and left him or her disabled.

In states where crimes can't be committed against the fetus, then the only thing you could charge them with is whatever you could be charged with against the mother.

[Ethel mermania]

Not really, no. Because you wind up with this

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/fe ... ortion-law

Well, we can't have it both ways.

Either fetuses that are victims of crimes and die are murdered, in which case the result here is just (if strange), or fetuses can't be victims of crimes or can't be murdered, only the mothers that carry them, in which case the New York law is just.

I am on the side of.
during the commission of a crime, which in this case was initiated by the mother, killing the fetus is murder.....

Well really reckless indifference leading to death is more accurate of my opinion, but you get the general idea.

[Page]

This thread is yet another shining example of how people justify cruelty by trading ethics for legalism

[The Grims]

What if the fetus is not killed but injured, resulting in a handicapped child ?

In those states where crimes can be committed against the fetus, that would be some form of aggravated assault, one would assume - the same as if you injured a child and left him or her disabled.

In states where crimes can't be committed against the fetus, then the only thing you could charge them with is whatever you could be charged with against the mother.

So the handicapped child would not be able to sue his or her handicapper in the second type of state ?
But would be able to do so if the injuries were inflicted after birth ?

[Galloism]

Well, we can't have it both ways.

Either fetuses that are victims of crimes and die are murdered, in which case the result here is just (if strange), or fetuses can't be victims of crimes or can't be murdered, only the mothers that carry them, in which case the New York law is just.

I am on the side of.
during the commission of a crime, which in this case was initiated by the mother, killing the fetus is murder.....

Well really reckless indifference leading to death is more accurate of my opinion, but you get the general idea.

I'm not convinced fetal murder makes sense. This is particularly true of a fetus of only 5 months - we recognize the right to abort it just because we feel like it, so clearly we don't consider it a person who can be murdered.

But, to that same extent and reason, injuring a woman in such a way that the equivalent fetus dies isn't murder either. You can't murder those we don't recognize as people to be murdered.

And given we can't claim a fetus as a dependent nor is it recognized as a citizen, resident alien, or nonresident alien, under which categories all persons fit, I'm not convinced it's legally a person that can be murdered.

[Galloism]

This thread is yet another shining example of how people justify cruelty by trading ethics for legalism

Legalism is ethics codified.

[Galloism]

In those states where crimes can be committed against the fetus, that would be some form of aggravated assault, one would assume - the same as if you injured a child and left him or her disabled.

In states where crimes can't be committed against the fetus, then the only thing you could charge them with is whatever you could be charged with against the mother.

So the handicapped child would not be able to sue his or her handicapper in the second type of state ?
But would be able to do so if the injuries were inflicted after birth ?

That is probably correct. I'd have to think about it, but it would seem to be the case.

On the fetal example, the parents might be able to sue for their excess costs in raising the child, but the child would seem to have no right to sue.

[Ostroeuropa]

This thread is yet another shining example of how people justify cruelty by trading ethics for legalism

Cruelty would be to allow the legal system to carry out its responsibilities in this case without a pardon for the unforseen and exceptional circumstances followed by a discussion of what changes need to be made to the law to prevent its re-occurence. It is not cruel to support the legal system in carrying out its responsibilities according to the logical and evident conclusions that can be drawn from the laws merely because there is outrage about them.

These kind of cases are what pardons and moratoriums are for.

[Ifreann]

The shooter claims to have been trying to fire a warning shot.

2 things.
Understood, the question is did she have legal reason to shoot, and the cops are saying yes

The mother to be is the one who put her baby in danger by instigating the fight.

If you want to say the mother to be suffered enough with getting shot and losing the baby I would go along with that, but i am not seeing a basic issue with the bad actor pregnant or not is responsible for her actions.

I'm saying that it's my understanding that firing a warning shot at all is improper shooty behaviour, that one should only be shooting when one wants to kill something, be it a deer, a person, or a paper target. Firing actual live rounds just for the sake of making a loud noise is super dangerous. And if you do something super dangerous and someone dies then I think that's a thing that people go to jail for.

[Neutraligon]

I'm of the opinion that killing a fetus should not be considered manslaughter or murder. Something like involuntary termination of a pregnancy should be against the law.

[Ethel mermania]

2 things.
Understood, the question is did she have legal reason to shoot, and the cops are saying yes

The mother to be is the one who put her baby in danger by instigating the fight.

If you want to say the mother to be suffered enough with getting shot and losing the baby I would go along with that, but i am not seeing a basic issue with the bad actor pregnant or not is responsible for her actions.

I'm saying that it's my understanding that firing a warning shot at all is improper shooty behaviour, that one should only be shooting when one wants to kill something, be it a deer, a person, or a paper target. Firing actual live rounds just for the sake of making a loud noise is super dangerous. And if you do something super dangerous and someone dies then I think that's a thing that people go to jail for.

You are not required to shoot to kill, but it is generally considered a best practice.