M
maryjk
Guest
Exactly. This story has nothing to do with abortion.Aquinas11 said:
And everything to do with a woman attacking another woman. And an innocent bystander getting shot.
Last edited:
- Status
And everything to do with a woman attacking another woman. And an innocent bystander getting shot.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Pro Abortion crowd say three parts to story
(1) Pregnant woman
(2) Accused killing her own baby
(3) Alabama
Case closed. They didn’t need to read anything else.
(1) Pregnant woman
(2) Accused killing her own baby
(3) Alabama
Case closed. They didn’t need to read anything else.
Last edited:
1
13pollitos
Guest
This isn’t too far removed from charging pregnant moms with child abuse when they test positive for drugs. Or children removed from their care when a newborn has drugs in their system. I’ve even seen cases where a pregnant mother was charged with child endangerment for getting into a physical fight while they were pregnant, purposely not receiving prenatal care, and drinking alcohol. Most of those cases were brought about by OB/GYNs.
In this case, the mom attacked the other woman over the baby’s father. She didn’t even get herself to the hospital after being shot. She left the dollar store parking lot the fight and shooting happened at and went to a convenience store. She only went to the hospital after the police arrested her. That was how concerned she was with the health of her baby and her own health.
The shooting happened about noon on Dec. 4, 2018, outside Dollar General on Park Road. Officers were dispatched to the scene on a report of someone shot but arrived to find the shooting victim – later identified as Jones - had been picked up and driven to Fairfield. Police and paramedics then found the Jones at a Fairfield convenience store.
Jones was taken from Fairfield to UAB Hospital. She was five months pregnant and was shot in the stomach. The unborn baby did not survive the shooting.
“The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,’’ Pleasant Grove police Lt. Danny Reid said at the time of the shooting. “It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby.”
In this case, the mom attacked the other woman over the baby’s father. She didn’t even get herself to the hospital after being shot. She left the dollar store parking lot the fight and shooting happened at and went to a convenience store. She only went to the hospital after the police arrested her. That was how concerned she was with the health of her baby and her own health.
The shooting happened about noon on Dec. 4, 2018, outside Dollar General on Park Road. Officers were dispatched to the scene on a report of someone shot but arrived to find the shooting victim – later identified as Jones - had been picked up and driven to Fairfield. Police and paramedics then found the Jones at a Fairfield convenience store.
Jones was taken from Fairfield to UAB Hospital. She was five months pregnant and was shot in the stomach. The unborn baby did not survive the shooting.
“The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,’’ Pleasant Grove police Lt. Danny Reid said at the time of the shooting. “It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby.”
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I see the actual shooter was acquitted of manslaughter.
Don’t see the OP charges going anywhere unless she was particularly violent, which was not detailed in the articles.
Don’t see the OP charges going anywhere unless she was particularly violent, which was not detailed in the articles.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Sure, just as soon as you pay my retainer for the research. 
You’re asking me for “a” reference to over 700 years of the Common Law?
In all seriousness, I’m not going to go pull references unless someone pays my hourly rate . . .
This its basic, and any lawyer who doesn’t remember these rules, even if he doesn’t practice criminal law, should turn in his license.
Any misdemeanor where the death is foreseeable can be charged this way. I(t’s that simple.
Now I guess I know what Fr; @edward_george1 feels like when people unecumbered by a seminary decree deign to correct him . . .
hawk
You’re asking me for “a” reference to over 700 years of the Common Law?
In all seriousness, I’m not going to go pull references unless someone pays my hourly rate . . .
This its basic, and any lawyer who doesn’t remember these rules, even if he doesn’t practice criminal law, should turn in his license.
Any misdemeanor where the death is foreseeable can be charged this way. I(t’s that simple.
Now I guess I know what Fr; @edward_george1 feels like when people unecumbered by a seminary decree deign to correct him . . .
hawk
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I can’t find one, where the participants were not committing the felony together. What I read said it might only apply if the felony was severe and the death was a probable outcome the person ignored. I don’t think a cat fight over the baby daddy qualifies.
So yes, I think you are off base and that charge rarely if ever is applied in a parallel situation. I do think you misapplied the case law here. BTW, what sort of law do you practice?
So yes, I think you are off base and that charge rarely if ever is applied in a parallel situation. I do think you misapplied the case law here. BTW, what sort of law do you practice?
Last edited:
A
adgloriam
Guest
Yes. In many countries people don’t resort to guns or knives. And taking one punch was normally enough to end any fight.
I know you might think this is strange, but I am a bit shocked whenever I hear/read the “non sympathetic” comment. That’s not how things go in my society. You feel sad and sorry for any damage resulting from a sin, both for the sinner and for the victim. That’s basic compassion taking the forefront. And I am appalled to even think that one day my own society could loose such a value. Sometimes certain comments/mindsets here come across as cruel and insensitive…
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
That’s the Felony Murder Rule, not the Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule.
It doesn’t come up nearly as often; most things where death is foreseeable are already felonies.
In a rough bar, for example, the cat fight would qualify. A simple battery of nudging someone aside in line would probably not.
There’s no “application:” of the rule. Forseeable death in the course of a misdemeanor is manslaughter. End of story. No, it’s not a common charge, but it’s been there since long before English was spoken in North America.
A contrary position would cause massive loss of points on a bar exam.
These days, mostly bankruptcy and business law. In another day, Ihandled serious criminal work, but no more.
btw, at the time it came about, both murder and manslaughter were capital . . .
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Hey would they use “reasonable pregnant woman” standard for recklessness on manslaughter charge? Seems like more pertinent than reasonable person standard, no? A reasonable pregnant woman would be far less likely to engage in fight, continue the fight AND not go hospital when child shot
T
Trader
Guest
If he really understands tax law he must be really smart. I would listen to him.
I am, by the grace of God, not a lawyer. My advice is free. Avoid committing any crime, felony of misdemeanor. It will not improve your life and may end it. It can also have eternal consequences.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Mad respect. Bankruptcy law is a beast to grasp. Tried it on internship and chickened out haha
D
dochawk
Guest
Look at what I originally posted, and move back half the distance to the goal.
I noted the Felony Murder Rule, explained it, and noted that the Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule was a parallel rule.
You replied that the cases you found were felonies–which is the wrong rule.
I explained why you were looking at the wrong rule.
Are you trying to be offensive and obnoxious??? (btw, look up “slander per se”, and understand what you’re doing here . . .). And for that matter, try reading the second to last paragraph of the post . . .
D
dochawk
Guest
Not quite. For Felopny Murder/Misdemeanor Manslaughter, there is no intent requirement (at all) for the death; it’s about forseeasblity. There rules can, indeed, be harsh. If anyone dies as a (foreseeable) consequence of lawful force being used to fend off your attack, for example, you are liable under these rules.
For regular murder, the intent required is “reckless disregard for human life”, which is roughly aware of the risk and proceeds anyway. For manslaughter, it’s “criminal negligence”, which is rough to define: it’s more than plain negligence, but less than reckless (aware of risk).
The standard in law is old enough to be about the “reasonable man” rather than “reasonable person.” (The old law school joke is that is because after all these centuries, we haven’t found a reasonable woman. I actually got another guy hit by my female friend for saying that, as I was safely on the other end of a phone line, while he was in reach . . .)
Anyway, the reasonable man doesn’t come into play much in criminal law. He never loses his temper. The “ordinary man”, though, is the standard for voluntary manslaughter, which is a reduced form of murder: the elements for murder are mt, but his capacity was impaired, the classic case being finding his wife in bed with another man. So it has the intent for murder (or the diminished capacity reduces the intent), while involuntary manslaughter carries the criminal negligence intent.
Also, note that when you look up a state on either of these, you’re not dealing with the actual Common Law crime, but a restatement or modification of it. Every state (and foreign English speaking juridiction) has variants, such as dividing murder buy degree.
Per the above, her reasonableness doesn’t come into play. It’s whether or not the outcome was foreseeable. General intent (general criminal intent, no specific intent of harm or conduct) carries from one crime to any other accidentally committed.
hawk, esq.
D
dochawk
Guest
Thanks. But I find tax law mind-numbingly dull (although it beats construction defects).
I probably spend about an hour a day keeping up on it . . . it’s one of the most psychotic areas of US law, and among the most poorly written . . . "the hanging paragraph"k, indicating that it wasn’t attached properly in the legislation, and that it’s less than clear which part it modifies, is far too common; bankruptcy has a few.
hawk
D
dochawk
Guest
No, it was a grand jury.Dr_Meinheimer said:
If she attacked in such a way as to make the use of deadly force by her victim, death was quite foreseeable! (I offer no opinion as to the justification, but the grand jury found that there was).F_Marturana said:
To make the use of a gun in self defense lawful, there was an imminent risk of serious bodily harm to the victim. (those words used in the colloquial, and not legal, sense. The standard varies by state).
In any event, if a gun was justified in fending off your attack, you were doing something seriously wrong . . .
Here, it’s not so much “child neglect”, as that other than by willful prenatal infanticide (aka “abortion”), the law largely does not distinguish between whether a person has been born or not when killed. For manslaughter, it’s not that her unborn child was killed, but that anyone was killed. If the bullet had hit the bartender, for example, the charge would be obvious . . .Dr_Meinheimer said:
hawk, esq.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
No, it was a grand jury.Dr_Meinheimer said:
Also, this thread is a duplicate of the “woman in Alabama” thread and should be closed or merged.
Anyway, it’s a simple application of the Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule, which predates English being spoken in North America . . . but see that thread for details.
hawk, esq.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
M
MamaJewel
Guest
Hi DocHawk,
Since your background is law, I was wondering how the law is applied in this case. I found an article that quotes Ebony Jemison’s perspective of the shooting incident.
Below in italics is a portion of the article that tells the story from Ms. Jemison’s perspective.
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.
How can firing a shot to “get everybody to leave” be considered self-defense?
Ms. Jemison’s remark to the reporter doesn’t sound like she was in direct fear for her life.
Is it legally permissible for a person to fire a “warning shot” if he/she/they perceive that a situation is beginning to get out of control?
I don’t follow how a woman with her friends nearby can claim the need to use a gun on a pregnant woman who pulled her hair. Using a gun seems to be excessive force. But I’m not familiar with the nuances of law, so I may be off base with my understanding.
Since your background is law, I was wondering how the law is applied in this case. I found an article that quotes Ebony Jemison’s perspective of the shooting incident.
Pregnant Marshae Jones Was Shot In Alabama, Then Charged In Fetus's Death. Ebony Jemison Apologized.
Below in italics is a portion of the article that tells the story from Ms. Jemison’s perspective.
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.
How can firing a shot to “get everybody to leave” be considered self-defense?
Ms. Jemison’s remark to the reporter doesn’t sound like she was in direct fear for her life.
Is it legally permissible for a person to fire a “warning shot” if he/she/they perceive that a situation is beginning to get out of control?
I don’t follow how a woman with her friends nearby can claim the need to use a gun on a pregnant woman who pulled her hair. Using a gun seems to be excessive force. But I’m not familiar with the nuances of law, so I may be off base with my understanding.
D
dochawk
Guest
I haven’t followed the details on this one, I just stepped in for the legal issues.
IF deadly force is permissible, a “warning shot” is not required, but is certainly a lower level of force, and thus permissible.
When faced with wrongful force, the victim doesn’t have a legal obligation to accept more risk to protect the wrongdoer.
Whether a gun was a lawful response is a question of fact based on the circumstances. If it was, the criminal consequences apply to the wrongdoer, not the victim using force.
M
MamaJewel
Guest
Thank you for your explanation.
- Status