Woman in alabama, arrested

  • Thread starter Thread starter Labaddy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Speaking as a lawyer . . . and this applies in pretty much all English speaking jurisdictions . . .

The “Felony Murder Rule” is that any foreseeable death in the commission of a felony is murder (generally capital murder, at that!).

So if you and I rob a bank together and you get shot by the guard, I am guilty of murder.

There is a parallel “Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule”, which makes a foreseeable death during a misdemeanor manslaughter.

If she was criminally culpable for the fight, the latter rule would apply. It’s not even vaguely novel.

Note that manslaughter can also have no prison term in many jurisdictions, or a suspended sentence.

hawk, esq.
 
When Pro-Life gets absurd

There is just so much wrong here and it is hard to imagine a much worse disservice to the pro-life movement. When women say my body, my choice this is what they mean and there’s no evidence she intended to abort the baby. Whatever she did or did not do she was shot by someone else, I can’t recall anyone charged this way after being shot, baby or not. Even if the changes are dismissed a horrible message has been sent about pro-life causes.
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong about it at all…this is akin to putting a child in harm’s way and allowing him or her to get shot and die.
 
Last edited:
What if the baby had been five months old and in a bassinet and the mother gets into an argument with someone and that person shoots at the mother, misses, and hits the baby? Should the mother be criminally liable?
What if the mother is driving her child to a doctor appointment and cuts someone off in traffic, and the other driver road rages and shoots into her car and hits the child? Should the mother be charged?
What if the mother is pregnant and working as a cashier at a convenience store and an armed robber shoots her? Should the mother be charged?

I’m beginning to realize: Just as there are “conspiracies” to remake society as completely secular, morally relativistic free-for-alls, there are probably people out there who are desirous enough of creating a very rigid pseudo-religious order that they’ll use every opportunity to inch closer to it.

I guess it’s all part of the political game and most of us are just pawns.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
Even if the changes are dismissed a horrible message has been sent about pro-life causes.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that pro-life causes aren’t everyone’s first priority.
 
Last edited:
You probably want to read what actually happened.

The shooter was defending themselves from attack. And in doing so, shot the attacker. It just so happened that the attacker was pregnant. Because of the original attack, the baby died.

This has to do with charging the woman that attacked. Just like, if you and a friend rob a bank, and your friend gets shot and dies. It doesn’t matter that the cops shot your friend, you are the one charged in their death.

It really doesn’t have anything to do with being “Pro-life.”
 
Last edited:
I think there are extremists on both sides of the issue.
Though I am against abortion, I never try to demonize those who are on the other side of this issue.
 
Last edited:
Then she should be charged with asssult of the woman who shot her.

How could she anticipate being shot and her child dying?
 
Last edited:
She certainly should have anticipated that she might be hurt. And should therefore have anticipated that her child might be hurt.
 
Last edited:
F_Marturana said:
How could she anticipate being shot and her child dying?
Click to expand...
I am reminded of a line from Men in Black - “Don’t START nothin’, won’t BE nothin’”. Rather succinct way of saying that you don’t have to anticipate every possible bad outcome in order for said bad outcome to be your fault when you start a fight.
 
Last edited:
Generally, charges of child neglect lies in the realm of unintended consequences.

And why do people who take issue with the pro-life movement and are always looking for bones to pick (the OP, judging from past topics) seek to tie this into a smear of the pro-life movement?

Take issue with the judge if you want. Take issue with the mother if you want. Take issue with the shooter if you have all the facts and believe she was hasty.

How is the pro-life movement remotely connected to any of this? Is some unanimous spokesperson pushing for charges? Most of us just observe these events, pray, and comment on a message board.

This decision was made by a single judge, who has no direct association with the pro-life community.

And since the catechism allows for legitimate defense, and requires us to uphold the right and dignity of life, I do not see a conflict anyway. A tragic event that could have been avoided if a pregnant mother had not assaulted another person who defended herself, but no conflict. If we were to apply another Catholic principle, that of Just War, and a combatant who was pregnant lost her child, would this be a stain on the pro-life movement too, or simply following Catholic teaching? Unfortunately, our fallen nature often results in terrible things happening, even when outside observers think it isn’t fair.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Meinheimer said:
And why do people who take issue with the pro-life movement and are always looking for bones to pick (the OP, judging from past topics) seek to tie this into a smear of the pro-life movement?
Click to expand...
Personally I’m Pro-Life, but I take issue with the approach being taken. Enough said there, you can look up my past posts on the topic for more.

You have to put this in context. Alabama just enacted a virtual ban on abortion, ironically women are not supposed to charged under the law, just providers. The community, both an elected Prosecutor and grans jury (23 people) indicted her. It’s not hard to see that a decent number of people will connect the two.

This is how much of the world thinks conservative, liberal, whatever. Often just a few facts of the situation define the event. Welcome to the world of Memes.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
When Pro-Life gets absurd
Click to expand...
Nope, got this one wrong.

This is a Dem DA grandstanding
being intentionally absurd
on_the_hill said:
What if the baby had been five months old and in a bassinet and the mother gets into an argument with someone and that person shoots at the mother, misses, and hits the baby? Should the mother be criminally liable?
Click to expand...
Starting a fight has never carried murder charges, Only the shooter can be charged with murder.
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
If she was criminally culpable for the fight, the latter rule would apply. It’s not even vaguely novel.
Click to expand...
They you could provide a reference, correct?
Must be tons of security guards or police who have killed innocent bystanders because someone was breaking the law but not using lethal force. To charge her with this, she would need to be very dangerous herself, probably armed. Starting a fight likely doesn’t measure up.

And all should remember this is just grandstanding by the democratic DA.
He’s intentionally being absurd.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
There is just so much wrong here
Click to expand...
Blacks are 13% of population yet 46% of abortions. What is “so wrong” here is Pro Choice movement seem committed to blacks aborting their babies at disproportionate levels, why? Could it be that Planned Parenthood is still fulfilling the wishes of its founder Margaret Sanger?
 
Last edited:
Senator Ben Sasse said Planned Parenthood dictates abortion policy for the Democrat party.

Everything says that is so, from former Planned Parenthood staff being on staff of Senators or Representatives or even being a Senator as with Tina Smith MN ( she was with PP at one time) or making donations and endorsements, everything points to this being so on down to radical legislation we may see in some individual states.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
When Pro-Life gets absurd
When Pro-Life gets absurd
Click to expand...
Nope, got this one wrong.

This is a Dem DA grandstanding
being intentionally absurd
on_the_hill said:
What if the baby had been five months old and in a bassinet and the mother gets into an argument with someone and that person shoots at the mother, misses, and hits the baby? Should the mother be criminally liable?
Click to expand...
Starting a fight has never carried murder charges, Only the shooter can be charged with murder.
Click to expand...
I believe the charge is manslaughter.
 
Last edited:
What if instead of killing the baby, the bullet had gone through the assailant and hit someone walking by, like you, or your child. Would you feel like the assailant should be charged then?
 
Last edited:
Why is abortion even topic here? This is a story about a shooting.

Notice how Pro Abortion crowd won’t let any crisis go to waste. They’ll even turn ANY tragedy into a pro abortion narrative if suits their agenda. No indication she either wanted or sought an abortion.
 
Last edited:
She’s been charged with manslaughter, under the reasoning that her violent actions required the shooter to defend herself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top