Alabama woman charged with manslaughter after she is shot and miscarries

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/...-child-charges-against-shooter-dismissed.html

Well that's dehumanising.

I'm sure few would disagree with the assertion that pregnancy is a massive responsibility, but "sole responsibility" is another matter entirely. Yes this woman was having a fight and arguably shouldn't have done so for several reasons, but she did not discharge the weapon. I dare say she should be charged with something, certainly it sounds as though she was the aggressor and engaged in physical violence on some level, but manslaughter of the baby? I don't know that she should solely bear responsibility for the babies death, what circumstances made her such a danger that the other woman felt the need to shoot her?

What does, however, give me cause for puzzlement is this business of being driven to a convenience store having been shot whilst pregnant. That seems a bizarre course of action which must surely have factored into the decision to press charges, to my mind she had a duty of care at that point to seek immediate medical attention.

More broadly speaking though if any act which might harm the baby is to be criminalised then women would be pretty much expected to spend pregnancy lay in bed and avoiding all human contact. There's a balance between an ideal and practicality here, getting into a car increases risk, boarding a train increases risk, climbing stairs increases risk. There must be a line somewhere, such an absolute statement can't work in the real world even if you take a hard line pro life stance.

Now this has the germ of another issue, that of drinking during pregnancy.

The sad truth is that there is no clinically viable lower safe limit for alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Whilst we can't say for sure that absolutely any alcohol consumption whatsoever instantly increases the risk of miscarriage or foetal alcohol syndrome, the data does strongly indicate a picture where abstinence is statistically vastly preferable to even the most moderate drinking. That's not a statement of my political views on abortion or the ethics of the situation, but it is very much evidence based and that evidence is hard to ignore.

Whether there could or should be grounds for legal restrictions is a matter for debate but having that information freely available is in everyones' interest if women are to be able to make an informed choice. Of course some people will presumably point out that the baby doesn't get such a choice, but this is an area where I'm personally not a rank and file "lefty" and am actually open to that being a fair point of discussion.

Looking to imprison women for having the nerve to vote against them.

Dollar General yet again...... they are the "Waffle House" of discount stores when it comes to gun play, being armed robbery or impulse control.
On a lighter note...........thoughts & prayers!

This is insane.

Come on now, whose first thought, after getting shot, isn't "I think I need a Slushy!"?

A step in the right direction. Women need to be brought to heel.

It is convenient for you to service them mr. not our village idiot, but pretty close to reading his mind.

spot forgets Americans are a little tougher than the average Brit. It takes a little more than a bullet to ruffle our feathers.

I couldn't understand why they'd pursue such a ridiculous and cruel case.
Then I saw a picture of the woman accused and it all made sense.

Yup, I got shot three times today just walkin out to get the mail. My friend Bob just recycles the metal from the bullets. he gets 15 dollars a month from it.

Yeah sure, we have wussbags who are so fucking soft they can't go grocery shopping without their emotional support animal. OMG I might see a tomato I better take fluffy so I don't cry. Oh no I have some pain please give me some morphine or perhaps some fentanyl.

Good. This is consistent application of law. If someone created a situation that got their five year old kid shot and killed, they would have likewise been charged.

I have no idea why the shooter wasn't charged. Self-defense? Maybe.

The increased fat layers and decreased occupation of the available cranial volume do come in handy, but in the long run it's a losing strategy.

If your "logic" were sound, why wasn't the shooter charged?

anytime you want to compare fat levels with me let me know. Granted cranial capacity might make it a wash.

if you are implying because she is black remember the shooter is black too but wasn't indicted - just sayin'

Self defense can actually happen for a black woman ya know.

yes it can! But I think you missed the point - I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the woman who was shot is being railroaded because she is black, and Space Turkey conveniently ignoring the fact that the black shooter totally got over.

The shooter wasn't charged because it was determined to be self-defense by the grand jury and they didn't indict her.

In the article it even says, "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.”

Reid said the fight stemmed over the unborn baby’s father. The investigation showed, he said, that it was Jones who initiated and pressed the fight, which ultimately caused Jemison to defend herself and unfortunately caused the death of the baby."

And the keywords in those statements is continued and pressed. That tells me that to the police the investigation shows that Jones actions raised to a level where deadly force was necessary for the victim to save themselves.

Take note non-gun owners on this board: If you start a fight and you continue to fight, if you press the fight, if you don't stop and you leave the other person in fear that you're going kill them they would be justified to use deadly force to stop you. Even if the only weapons you have are your fists and your feet.

On what basis? Are you saying the fetus isn't a person? If so than I guess it would be insane. If however you think a fetus is a person than the mother got her child killed.

That's not his point.

SpaceTurkey is being a typical leftist and basically saying that the lady was only charged because she's black. He's ignoring the fact that the victim is herself black and wasn't charged.

"Take note non-gun owners on this board: If you start a fight and you continue to fight, if you press the fight, if you don't stop and you leave the other person in fear that you're going kill them they would be justified to use deadly force to stop you." - Zombie

duly noted!

No, his point is the victim was charged because she got shot while pregnant and black.

It makes perfect sense in southern bizarro world that the shooter would not.

She's not the victim.

There are two victims. Her unborn baby and the adult person who shot her.

She's the aggressor. She attacked another person and her actions eventually got to a level that the adult victim had to use deadly force to stop her.

You don't get a hall pass to beat someone to death because you're pregnant.

Now if you want to argue that the fetus is not human and she shouldn't be charged with manslaughter for that reason that's a better argument.

so we only discriminate/oppress part of the time to the same demographic? You do realize that this is black-on-black crime, correct? Just askin'

Did you forget the rest of your post?

maybe the fetus was egging the shooter on! Posthumously charge the fetus with aiding & abetting!

You do realize the shooter shot a pregnant black person? Self defense wasn't apparent at the time of the shooting.

What, this part?

Charges against the shooter were dismissed after the grand jury failed to indict.

Though I see your point that the woman who shot her did it in self defense which I will go along with given there is no evidence the grand jury was wrong. I do have to say they would have never tried charging a pregnant white woman with murder for pressing a person to shoot her in self defense killing her baby. The court would probably say the loss of the child was tragic enough for the family and dismiss that charge if she were white. I agree it is good that the grand jury did not indict the other woman given she was probably attacked pretty good.