[Closed] Get shot and your baby dies: your fault

Have you even read the article?!

I thought of starting a thread on this when it appeared in the Guardian a few days back but then realised that for the moment nothing much has happened. I'll save my outrage for if she is ever found guilty. It's not so much the laws that are messed up but the way they are used or abused, or in this case attempts are made to abuse them which may or may not be successful.

Keep watching

didnt read it, but(from here) I guess the question is- you know its a loony with a gun, why go there?

It's a complex and difficult legal conundrum.
Basically the pregnant woman attacked another woman. The other woman fearing for her life, legally as it's been deemed pulled out a legally liscensed handgun and fired it into the ground as a warning. The bullet ricocheted and struck the pregnant woman wounding her and killing the baby. There's a position that the pregnant womans criminal actions were responsible for her babies death. I don't know, but there's an argument for it. The courts will decide, thats what their there for.

It's a ridiculous case for a number of reasons, particularly as they haven't even managed to indict the person who blasted her with a gun. I suppose pulling your gun during a scuffle and blasting* an unarmed, pregnant woman is a perfectly defensible act in the modern US.

The settled status of a 20 week or so foetus as a legal entity, whatever your views on abortion, opens the door to all kinds of interesting legal intervention on its behalf if the mother is perceived as not doing a good job to protect it.

Reductio ad Absurdum, but will we see lawsuits against IUD makers on the basis that the device prevents the implantation of a day-old embryo?

*discharging it near, M'lud, honest.

Taxi25 summary is much more accurate.

It’s a ridiculous case for a number of reasons, particularly as they haven’t even managed to indict the person who blasted her with a gun. I suppose pulling your gun during a scuffle and blasting* an unarmed, pregnant woman is a perfectly defensible act in the modern US.

Love how your so certain of the circumstances surrounding the event, were you there ? No you weren't, so how can you pre judge anything except to fall back on your own prejudices.
It's by no means certain the woman will be charged, just that all eventualities are being looked into.
I'm not particularly clever but can understand the principles surrounding this case.

It’s a complex and difficult legal conundrum.
Basically the pregnant woman attacked another woman. The other woman fearing for her life, legally as it’s been deemed pulled out a legally liscensed handgun and fired it into the ground as a warning. The bullet ricocheted and struck the pregnant woman wounding her and killing the baby. There’s a position that the pregnant womans criminal actions were responsible for her babies death. I don’t know, but there’s an argument for it. The courts will decide, thats what their there for.

Too many facts spoil the wrath.

Thanks taxi25.

It’s a ridiculous case for a number of reasons, particularly as they haven’t even managed to indict the person who blasted her with a gun. I suppose pulling your gun during a scuffle and blasting* an unarmed, pregnant woman is a perfectly defensible act in the modern US

Actually, it could be quite a reasonable defence in the UK if you had a legally held gun with you at the time you were attacked. If you were in fear of your life, then it would be a decent defence. If the other person was coming at you with a knife, again, a pretty good defence.
Thats why most Police Officers who shoot/kill someone do not get any charges against them, as they are using the necessary force to protect themselves/the Public.
If you feel you are likely to be seriously injured/killed, any force can be reasonable when used as self defence, but, undue force may lead to prosecution. e.g., you have a gun in your hand, someone says they are going to kill you, but do not approach you, you cannot just shoot them, they have to be in the process of attacking/coming to attack you.

Easy answer....
50/50
First fifty pregnant lady shouldn't have started it.
Other fifty other lady shouldn't have pulled a gun and fired a shot so loosely..

It may be complicated but it's also simple...

To be fair, shooting someone in self defence is legal in the UK, dependent on the circumstances. A farmer near here wasn't charged for wounding an intruder a year or two after Tony Martin was convicted (for very different circumstances)

I guess where you have gun laws which allow the population on mass to buy guns. They will be fired in public places and innocent people will get hurt.

what if the attacked didnt have a gun- what could she have done? be a martial arts champion?
think its alright to attack someone? well thats too bad!

Where does the bit about the shot being a ricochet come from taxi25? Haven't read a lot about the case, but the coverage in the Guardian last week mentions the pregnant woman having been shot several times:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/27/alabama-pregnant-woman-shot-manslaughter-charge-marshae-jones

@morecashthandash, Kenneth Hall?

Seems like a bit of a click bait headline that nobody read beyond and then everyone condemned the shooter. If you live in a society that allows you to use deadly force to defend yourself, don’t start fights with people. Especially when pregnant.

Where does the bit about the shot being a ricochet come from taxi25? 

Washington post.

“Ebony was afraid for her life and reached in her purse for the gun,” her mother said, adding that her daughter had a license to carry the weapon. “She tried to fire a warning shot to get away from her.”

But the shot — which Jemison’s mother says was aimed at the ground — ricocheted into Jones. Earka Jemison told The Post that her daughter received threats after the indictment."

I'd imagine balistic evidence supports this, but I don't know.

@tomhoward don't recall details, just stuck in my memory as the local press were comparing it to Tony Martin

alric

Member

what if the attacked didnt have a gun- what could she have done? be a martial arts champion?

Just be a normal person? They were having a fistfight in the street, not a kung fu duel. There's report that the shooter sustained any notable injury.

What a completely ****ed-up situation.

I guess it all comes down to whether Jemison's use of her gun was found to be "justified" - ie: was Jones being sufficiently threatening to justify shooting her. Was there a reason Jemison couldn't just walk away?

Ugh: just googled, and Alabama has a "stand-your-ground" law.

"A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground."

Where:

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose.  A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (5), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

So I guess this is about whether Jemison's use of "physical force" was justified in Alabama law - I suspect it was, as the threshold for that is pretty low. And whether shooting at the ground is considered reasonable "physical force", or becomes "deadly force" by default when a gun is fired ("It was just a warning shot your honour, but he walked into it").

I suspect Deadly force wasn't warranted unless Jones was actually armed.... and I haven't read anywhere to suspect she was.

So from Jones's perspective, she would be responsible for the use of physical force (as the instigator of a confrontation), but not "deadly force".... particularly where (by Jemison's own admission) the use of deadly force was accidental.

#ironside