woman shot in the stomach, charged with death of fetus

[Rojava Free State]

It's alabama. Abortion, being a Mexican or muslim and being gay are the only unacceptable things in that state. Everything else, including and especially violence is acceptable

Violence to preserve yourself is always acceptable.

Doesn't Alabama have a stand your ground law? In other words you could shoot someone anywhere as long as you "fear for your life" (that's literally so vague and open to interpretation). Stand your ground can easily be exploited. If Alabama actually cared about stopping violence, they would tighten the rules for self defense so it's way more reasonable ttham "he scared me so I shot him."

[Old Hope]

A crime was supposedly committed.
Supposedly, as a result of that crime, a fetus was shot.
If both are true, then the verdict should be normally "guilty".

[Rojava Free State]

Double down, all or nothing. I see your 5 shots and raise you 10 shots.

Shit depending on the pistol that means he must’ve reloaded.

In a logical world, if you can stop to reload, you aren't defending yourself and just murdered someone

In alabama, proceeding to shoot someone repeatedly counts as legit self defense

[Rojava Free State]

A crime was supposedly committed.
Supposedly, as a result of that crime, a fetus was shot.
If both are true, then the verdict should be normally "guilty".

Shouldn't the person who pulled the trigger be the one facing the jury?

[Andsed]

Shit depending on the pistol that means he must’ve reloaded.

In a logical world, if you can stop to reload, you aren't defending yourself and just murdered someone

In alabama, proceeding to shoot someone repeatedly counts as legit self defense

Okay again there is nothing really backing up the claim that five shots were fired. Where the hell are you getting that from?

[Old Hope]

A crime was supposedly committed.
Supposedly, as a result of that crime, a fetus was shot.
If both are true, then the verdict should be normally "guilty".

Shouldn't the person who pulled the trigger be the one facing the jury?

It depends. If it was legally justifiable as self-defense, then no.

[Ostroeuropa]

A crime was supposedly committed.
Supposedly, as a result of that crime, a fetus was shot.
If both are true, then the verdict should be normally "guilty".

Shouldn't the person who pulled the trigger be the one facing the jury?

They faced a grand jury. The grand jury ruled that their argument of self-defence was justified and they were not responsible for the consequences of their actions. Then the district attorneys concluded this legally meant the perpetrator of the assault should be tried for assault and the consequences of that assault (the manslaughter of the fetus), which was the correct legal conclusion to draw.

The incident is not in question. Initially, prosecutors decided to go with prosecuting the shooter. They cannot then all of a sudden abandon investigating the incident and trying to seek justice for the unborn once that process has started, and moreover the shooters claim of self-defence being accepted means the prosecutors have a duty to prosecute the mother for the assault.

The assault which led to the death of the fetus.
Hence this.

In a logical world, if you can stop to reload, you aren't defending yourself and just murdered someone

In alabama, proceeding to shoot someone repeatedly counts as legit self defense

Okay again there is nothing really backing up the claim that five shots were fired. Where the hell are you getting that from?

A pro-abortion group claimed it without evidence and as usual a certain faction of the left has uncritically spread made up bullshit because it conforms to a narrative.

[Scomagia]

You mean aside from the prego chick assaulting her and having her crew there to probably do the same?

So what did she do that constitutes assault?

Couldve been battery. I'm not going to go into legal semantics with you, though. The point is that she attacked the woman with her crew at the ready. If you have any sense at all, you should assume your death may be well at hand in such a situation.

[Fartsniffage]

Question. If a person fires a shot in self defense and that shot kills a person walking by, is the person they fired at considered culpable?

[Rojava Free State]

Shouldn't the person who pulled the trigger be the one facing the jury?

They faced a grand jury. The grand jury ruled that their argument of self-defence was justified and they were not responsible for the consequences of their actions. Then the district attorneys concluded this legally meant the perpetrator of the assault should be tried for assault and the consequences of that assault, which was the correct legal conclusion to draw.

So if I shoot at a burglar but miss and hit a random kid on a tricycle, the burglar should be charged with murder and not me?

The logic is beyond faulty. Charging a pregnant woman with deliberate murder after she is shot by someone else is nothing short of absolutely stupid

[Galloism]

Btw, I haven't found an actual credible source for the "five times". Police didn't say that in the local reports, just a pro-abortion group. Does anyone have any evidence it was 5 times?

So what makes the shooting in any way acceptable?

So you don't have evidence of the five times since you tried to change the subject?

[Galloism]

Question. If a person fires a shot in self defense and that shot kills a person walking by, is the person they fired at considered culpable?

Presuming the self-defense is appropriate to the given situation, the person being shot at committed a felony leading to the self defense, and the state has a felony murder rule, yes.

[Ostroeuropa]

They faced a grand jury. The grand jury ruled that their argument of self-defence was justified and they were not responsible for the consequences of their actions. Then the district attorneys concluded this legally meant the perpetrator of the assault should be tried for assault and the consequences of that assault, which was the correct legal conclusion to draw.

So if I shoot at a burglar but miss and hit a random kid on a tricycle, the burglar should be charged with murder and not me?

The logic is beyond faulty. Charging a pregnant woman with deliberate murder after she is shot by someone else is nothing short of absolutely stupid

That is often the law yes.

The logic isn't faulty, it's designed to protect people engaged in self-defense and to punish criminals for creating volatile situations with their crimes. The felony murder rule for instance rules that if you and your friend burgle someone and the home owner shoots your friend to defend their property, you are responsible for the death of your friend and will be charged with murder.

That is how these cases have been handled for centuries mate.

[Ostroeuropa]

So what did she do that constitutes assault?

Couldve been battery. I'm not going to go into legal semantics with you, though. The point is that she attacked the woman with her crew at the ready. If you have any sense at all, you should assume your death may be well at hand in such a situation.

The specifics of the use of force are also not relevant in the case here because the state has a Stand Your Ground law, where victims of crimes are not required to retreat and may respond with force to defend their right to be a place. I.E, if someone is trying to force you to leave somewhere you have a right to be, you may respond with lethal force even if your life is not in danger, because your right to be there is at reasonable risk of being violated. It shifts the burden from "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your life?" to "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your rights in general?".

If you have to shoot someone to go about your business, you can shoot someone to go about your business. It's an absolutists view of human rights and the risks others incur by violating them. The "Why not just walk down a different street if this asshole insists on blocking your way?" point isn't relevant.

The woman here was assaulted by a gang. Under both situations she can argue self-defence, but with a stand your ground law in place, that defense is airtight. (Arguably that's the point of the law. Similar laws exist to defend people shooting fleeing thieves lethally.).

[Kannap]

A crime was supposedly committed.
Supposedly, as a result of that crime, a fetus was shot.
If both are true, then the verdict should be normally "guilty".

Shouldn't the person who pulled the trigger be the one facing the jury?

They did face a jury, the jury found them not guilty.

[Scomagia]

Violence to preserve yourself is always acceptable.

Doesn't Alabama have a stand your ground law? In other words you could shoot someone anywhere as long as you "fear for your life" (that's literally so vague and open to interpretation). Stand your ground can easily be exploited. If Alabama actually cared about stopping violence, they would tighten the rules for self defense so it's way more reasonable ttham "he scared me so I shot him."

The criteria is actually "reasonable fear for your life". As in, it has to appear reasonable to someone outside of the situation. This woman had plenty of reason to fear for her life. If you disagree, you've obviously never caught a group beatdown.

[Galloism]

Couldve been battery. I'm not going to go into legal semantics with you, though. The point is that she attacked the woman with her crew at the ready. If you have any sense at all, you should assume your death may be well at hand in such a situation.

The specifics of the use of force are also not relevant in the case here because the state has a Stand Your Ground law, where victims of crimes are not required to retreat and may respond with force to defend their right to be a place. I.E, if someone is trying to force you to leave somewhere you have a right to be, you may respond with lethal force even if your life is not in danger, because your right to be there is at reasonable risk of being violated. It shifts the burden from "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your life?" to "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your rights in general?".

That's not a good idea, btw. From a practical standpoint, there should be a reasonable duty to retreat.

We've already seen in Florida two people plausibly standing their ground at each other.

[Gormwood]

Violence to preserve yourself is always acceptable.

Doesn't Alabama have a stand your ground law? In other words you could shoot someone anywhere as long as you "fear for your life" (that's literally so vague and open to interpretation). Stand your ground can easily be exploited. If Alabama actually cared about stopping violence, they would tighten the rules for self defense so it's way more reasonable ttham "he scared me so I shot him."

Stand Your Grounds basically imply you can shoot anybody you want for any reason as long as you can convincingly claim you felt your life was in danger and there are no third person witnesses or video footage that show you're a liar. It's exactly like how Uncle Jimbo from South Park goes hunting.

"MY GOD IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!" *BLAM*

[Galloism]

Shouldn't the person who pulled the trigger be the one facing the jury?

They did face a jury, the jury found them not guilty.

Um, actually the grand jury refused to indict.

[Ostroeuropa]

The specifics of the use of force are also not relevant in the case here because the state has a Stand Your Ground law, where victims of crimes are not required to retreat and may respond with force to defend their right to be a place. I.E, if someone is trying to force you to leave somewhere you have a right to be, you may respond with lethal force even if your life is not in danger, because your right to be there is at reasonable risk of being violated. It shifts the burden from "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your life?" to "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your rights in general?".

That's not a good idea, btw. From a practical standpoint, there should be a reasonable duty to retreat.

We've already seen in Florida two people plausibly standing their ground at each other.

I agree, I think stand your ground laws are pretty terrible.

[Cekoviu]

It sounds like she'd provoked the attack, but manslaughter seems like an excessive charge.
As an aside, it's really ironic that this occurred in a city called "Pleasant Grove."

[Scomagia]

Couldve been battery. I'm not going to go into legal semantics with you, though. The point is that she attacked the woman with her crew at the ready. If you have any sense at all, you should assume your death may be well at hand in such a situation.

The specifics of the use of force are also not relevant in the case here because the state has a Stand Your Ground law, where victims of crimes are not required to retreat and may respond with force to defend their right to be a place. I.E, if someone is trying to force you to leave somewhere you have a right to be, you may respond with lethal force even if your life is not in danger, because your right to be there is at reasonable risk of being violated. It shifts the burden from "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your life?" to "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your rights in general?".

If you have to shoot someone to go about your business, you can shoot someone to go about your business. It's an absolutists view of human rights and the risks others incur by violating them. The "Why not just walk down a different street if this asshole insists on blocking your way?" point isn't relevant.

The woman here was assaulted by a gang. Under both situations she can argue self-defence, but with a stand your ground law in place, that defense is airtight. (Arguably that's the point of the law. Similar laws exist to defend people shooting fleeing thieves lethally.).

Ah. Thanks for that. I wasn't quite aware of those specifics.

[Ostroeuropa]

The specifics of the use of force are also not relevant in the case here because the state has a Stand Your Ground law, where victims of crimes are not required to retreat and may respond with force to defend their right to be a place. I.E, if someone is trying to force you to leave somewhere you have a right to be, you may respond with lethal force even if your life is not in danger, because your right to be there is at reasonable risk of being violated. It shifts the burden from "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your life?" to "Is this force necessary and proportionate to protect your rights in general?".

If you have to shoot someone to go about your business, you can shoot someone to go about your business. It's an absolutists view of human rights and the risks others incur by violating them. The "Why not just walk down a different street if this asshole insists on blocking your way?" point isn't relevant.

The woman here was assaulted by a gang. Under both situations she can argue self-defence, but with a stand your ground law in place, that defense is airtight. (Arguably that's the point of the law. Similar laws exist to defend people shooting fleeing thieves lethally.).

Ah. Thanks for that. I wasn't quite aware of those specifics.

I should note that stand your ground laws only apply to violent crimes, but aren't specific on the level of violence required. The "You can shoot a fleeing thief" law was notoriously brought up here a few years ago when a man shot a prostitute who hadn't slept with him after receiving payment, and was found not guilty. (Despite prostitution being illegal in texas.).

That judgement was in error legally speaking for a number of reasons in ways this one isn't, in my opinion.

[Kannap]

They did face a jury, the jury found them not guilty.

Um, actually the grand jury refused to indict.

Sorry, I'm not well versed in judicial proceedings or legal terms.

In my mind, refusing to indict is equivalent of saying somebody's not guilty. The implication being the person didn't break a law, therefore they're not guilty of breaking a law, therefore refusal to indict.

If there are technicalities or differences, I'd be interested to know.

[Cekoviu]

Um, actually the grand jury refused to indict.

Sorry, I'm not well versed in judicial proceedings or legal terms.

In my mind, refusing to indict is equivalent of saying somebody's not guilty. The implication being the person didn't break a law, therefore they're not guilty of breaking a law, therefore refusal to indict.

If there are technicalities or differences, I'd be interested to know.

Refusal to indict can also mean they are considered guilty by the jury but that there is insignificant evidence to prosecute, as well as some other technicalities (iirc).