woman shot in the stomach, charged with death of fetus

[Ethel mermania]

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?

Remeber when I told you the states are weird?
Keep that in mind now.

Depends on the state, and that goes to both criminal and civil liability

[Gormwood]

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).

i.e. Total And Complete Exoneration.

[Galloism]

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.

Basically, an indictment means they can be charged with a crime. Then, if they are indicted, they go to trial where a jury will find them guilty or not guilty.

A grand jury refusing to indict means that they do not believe there is probable cause that that person committed a crime.

And famously, since you can get a "grand jury to indict a ham sandwich", that doesn't bode well for the prosecution when the grand jury refuses to indict.

[Cekoviu]

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).

i.e. Total And Complete Exoneration.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If not, no, that's extremely wrong.

[Galloism]

i.e. Total And Complete Exoneration.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If not, no, that's extremely wrong.

Notably, while a not guilty plea generally invokes double jeopardy, a grand jury refusing to indict does not. You can bring an indictment to the grand jury as many times as you want, for any reason, until if and when the indictment is given, or you get tired and give up.

But if the grand jury repeatedly refuses to indict, you probably have a ridiculously weak case.

[Vassenor]

i.e. Total And Complete Exoneration.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If not, no, that's extremely wrong.

Sarcasm. It's the Trumpist logic regarding the content of the Mueller report.

[Kannap]

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.

Basically, an indictment means they can be charged with a crime. Then, if they are indicted, they go to trial where a jury will find them guilty or not guilty.

A grand jury refusing to indict means that they do not believe there is probable cause that that person committed a crime.

And famously, since you can get a "grand jury to indict a ham sandwich", that doesn't bode well for the prosecution when the grand jury refuses to indict.

Ah, makes sense. Yeah, I don't expect the woman to be indicted since she was defending herself.

[Cekoviu]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If not, no, that's extremely wrong.

Sarcasm. It's the Trumpist logic regarding the content of the Mueller report.

Ah. Gauth has become somewhat of a Poe to me at this point, so that's good to know.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

It means the grand jury didnt think there was enough evidence to bring a case to t trial. Usually only the prosecutor presents to the grand jury. The defense is never heard from

[Gravlen]

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.

The prosecutors do not have a duty to prosecute. The prosecutors have full prosecutorial discretion in such cases, including this case, and they have yet to make a determination on whether to prosecute or not.

An Alabama prosecutor’s office hasn’t decided whether to prosecute a woman who lost her fetus after she was shot in the stomach and was subsequently indicted on manslaughter charges.

However, the office of Dist. Atty. Lynneice O. Washington said there has been no decision on whether to pursue the case against Jones. Washington’s office said in a statement they “feel sympathy for all the families involved, including Mrs. Jones, who lost her unborn child.”

Though the grand jury “had its say,” the statement said, the office has “not yet made a determination about whether to prosecute it as a manslaughter case, reduce it to a lesser charge or not to prosecute it.”

“Foremost, it should be stated that this is a truly tragic case, resulting in the death of an unborn child,” the prosecutor’s office said. “The fact that this tragedy was 100 percent avoidable makes this case even more disheartening.”

https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-alabama-fetus-death-marshae-jones-20190628-story.html

Note also that the charges are related directly to the death of the child, not the assault as such. So she's being prosecuted for intentionally causing the death of her unborn child, not for assaulting Jemison leading to the death of the unborn child. There's a difference there.

The indictment stated Jones did “intentionally cause the death” of “Unborn Baby Jones by initiating a fight knowing she was five months pregnant.”

[Loben The 2nd]

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

What if you’re in a gunfight?

[The Emerald Legion]

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?

She hit them. Which is unquestionably assault. Though the law also includes any unwanted physical contact.

[Gormwood]

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

What if you’re in a gunfight?

So where does it say the pregnant woman carried a gun? Life is not a summer blockbuster despite what gun rights activists might wish.

[Loben The 2nd]

What if you’re in a gunfight?

So where does it say the pregnant woman carried a gun? Life is not a summer blockbuster despite what gun rights activists might wish.

You may never know if the fetus was packing. *nods*

[The Emerald Legion]

What if you’re in a gunfight?

So where does it say the pregnant woman carried a gun? Life is not a summer blockbuster despite what gun rights activists might wish.

Again, it's irrelevant. Jones hit Jemison with her fist. Under Alabama's stand your ground law even if you SEE someone committing assault you're legally permitted to use lethal force to stop them, even if they aren't attacking you. Meaning at that point, Jemison was fully entitled by law to shoot at Jones, which they then did. Thereby killing Jones's unborn child. Jones filed charges against Jemison, the grand jury threw them out and brought up charges against Jones, as the initiator of the crime that Jemison was defending herself from, including the manslaughter charge for the death of the unborn child.

[Kannap]

So where does it say the pregnant woman carried a gun? Life is not a summer blockbuster despite what gun rights activists might wish.

You may never know if the fetus was packing. *nods*

Babies in Alabama are born with guns in their hands, though the gun is always unloaded at birth.

[Loben The 2nd]

You may never know if the fetus was packing. *nods*

Babies in Alabama are born with guns in their hands, though the gun is always unloaded at birth.

Theyre derringers, even if they were loaded they are like a pea shooters.

[Gravlen]

Jones filed charges against Jemison, the grand jury threw them out and brought up charges against Jones

Minor points, but still:

The police originally filed charges against Jemison, and it was also the police who later brought up charges against Jones. The grand jury does not have the power to indict on their own.

[Thepeopl]

How are you in fear for your life when you are inside a vehicle trying to escape an unarmed, 5 months pregnant woman?
https://www.al.com/news/2019/06/its-not ... death.html

According to authorities, Jones was the aggressor in the dispute that day and continued to press the fight even after Jemison had gotten into her vehicle to try to get away. It was then that Jemison got hold of a gun and fired a shot at Jones to stop the attack.

Patrice Jones, however, denied that account.

“She (Jemison) had three people in the car with her. When Marshae saw the gun, she walked away and that’s when she was shot,” she said. “He (Reid) said Marshae threw the first lick.”

[Ethel mermania]

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.

The prosecutors do not have a duty to prosecute. The prosecutors have full prosecutorial discretion in such cases, including this case, and they have yet to make a determination on whether to prosecute or not.

An Alabama prosecutor’s office hasn’t decided whether to prosecute a woman who lost her fetus after she was shot in the stomach and was subsequently indicted on manslaughter charges.

However, the office of Dist. Atty. Lynneice O. Washington said there has been no decision on whether to pursue the case against Jones. Washington’s office said in a statement they “feel sympathy for all the families involved, including Mrs. Jones, who lost her unborn child.”

Though the grand jury “had its say,” the statement said, the office has “not yet made a determination about whether to prosecute it as a manslaughter case, reduce it to a lesser charge or not to prosecute it.”

“Foremost, it should be stated that this is a truly tragic case, resulting in the death of an unborn child,” the prosecutor’s office said. “The fact that this tragedy was 100 percent avoidable makes this case even more disheartening.”

https://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-alabama-fetus-death-marshae-jones-20190628-story.html

Note also that the charges are related directly to the death of the child, not the assault as such. So she's being prosecuted for intentionally causing the death of her unborn child, not for assaulting Jemison leading to the death of the unborn child. There's a difference there.

The indictment stated Jones did “intentionally cause the death” of “Unborn Baby Jones by initiating a fight knowing she was five months pregnant.”

So ... they haven't decided whether to prosecute anybody yet. and sound like they are trying to be fairly reasonable?

[Kannap]

How are you in fear for your life when you are inside a vehicle trying to escape an unarmed, 5 months pregnant woman?
https://www.al.com/news/2019/06/its-not ... death.html

According to authorities, Jones was the aggressor in the dispute that day and continued to press the fight even after Jemison had gotten into her vehicle to try to get away. It was then that Jemison got hold of a gun and fired a shot at Jones to stop the attack.

Patrice Jones, however, denied that account.

“She (Jemison) had three people in the car with her. When Marshae saw the gun, she walked away and that’s when she was shot,” she said. “He (Reid) said Marshae threw the first lick.”

Jones had a group of people with her, aggressively approached and attacked Jemison, followed her to her car as Jamison tried to get away, continuing to press the fight after Jemison got into the vehicle. For all we know, her friends could have been standing in the path of the vehicle while Jones continued to fight. Ripe situation for pulling out a gun in self defense.

[Tekania]

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.

Grand juries don't determine guilt or innocence. They determine whether or not the allegations merit charges and taken to court or not (ie they chose to indict or not).

[Chernoslavia]

Yet another example why I'm glad I'm on the other side of the planet.

The ''other side'' is much worse actually.

[Fartsniffage]

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

Grand juries don't determine guilt or innocence. They determine whether or not the allegations merit charges and taken to court or not (ie they chose to indict or not).

What makes up a grand jury? A bunch of judges, lawyers..what?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Yet another example why I'm glad I'm on the other side of the planet.

The ''other side'' is much worse actually.

You're not wrong, the other side of the planet from Alabama would be the Indian Ocean.