Shot American woman who miscarried faces homicide charge
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Shot American woman who miscarried faces homicide charge
Reproductive rights advocates protest in the Alabama state capital Birmingham on May 19, 2019 (AFP Photo/Seth HERALD)Washington (AFP) - An American woman who miscarried after being shot five times has been charged by Alabama authorities in the death of her fetus, a move abortion rights groups condemned on Thursday.
The arrest of Marshae Jones came amid heightened tensions around abortion after more than a dozen states in the southern and midwestern United States, including Alabama, passed restrictive abortion laws that are currently being challenged in court.
"Marshae Jones was indicted for manslaughter for losing a pregnancy after being shot in the abdomen five times. Her shooter remains free. We're going to get Marshae out of jail," tweeted The Yellowhammer Fund, an Alabama-based group that gives financial help to people seeking abortions.
Jones, 27, was shot in December during a fight with another woman. While the shooter was initially charged by a grand jury, prosecutors dropped that case and instead brought charges against Jones, who was arrested on Wednesday.
"The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby," Danny Reid, a police lieutenant in the town of Pleasant Grove where the December shooting took place, said according to the web site AL.com.
"It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby," he added.
Last May, Alabama adopted a law banning abortion even in cases of rape or incest, equating it with homicide.
The law is set to come into force in November, but is likely to be blocked in court because it goes against the 1973 US Supreme Court Roe v Wade ruling that legalized abortion.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF), which supports access to abortion, said Jones's case was one of many where women who miscarried as a result of misfortunes like prescription drug overdoses and car accidents are being prosecuted.
"This is how people -- especially women of color -- are already being punished & having their pregnancies criminalized," the NAF tweeted, referencing Jones, who is black.
Most of the new restrictive abortion measures are expected to face legal challenges and eventually end up before the Supreme Court, with the laws' supporters hoping the justices will hand down a decision restricting the right to abortion nationwide.
The top US court is now dominated by a conservative majority, including two justices appointed by President Donald Trump.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
So basically a pregnant woman starts and continues a fight with another woman. The other woman shoots the pregnant woman and she (predictably) miscarries.
The pregnant woman (who was shot) is charged with the murder of her unborn child.
At best this is reckless endangerment (albeit the fetus was not legally a person). The other woman who fired 5 shots into the abdomen of the pregnant woman is the one who killed the fetus. But she was set free.
The prosecutors here seem to be confused; I wonder what lies at the heart of this confusion.
Ignoring facts.
Which facts do you contend have been ignored?
Yes she started the fight and continued the fight. Not an overlooked fact.
Read what I posted:
Continuing with your logic:
There is no fact that the other woman tried to disengage. That might have been the situation but we do not know from what is presented. But let's assume that the shooter tried to disengage and the pregnant woman would not stop. Rather than flee the scene (presuming the shooter is more agile than the pregnant woman) the shooter instead fired 5 shots into the pregnant woman'a abdomen — killing the fetus.
Had she not fired the gun directly at the fetus, the woman might not have miscarried the (presumably dead) fetus.
This shooting is an indefensible act.
The confusion is they want to drag women back to the 1800's plain and simple.
Man, I do not know. I am a bit surprised that someone would defend a person who has shot a pregnant woman 5 times in the abdomen during an aggressive encounter. The shooting was unnecessary and far beyond responsible restraint. Further, I cannot imagine any legal gun owner finding this to be responsible behavior of a gun owner. Rather, I would expect gun owners to be appalled at the tragic abuse of such a weapon.
You did a lot of assuming to come to that conclusion....
Grand Jury did not indict the person, and they where more privy to the facts than you.
Right...which completely justifies shooting her in the stomach once...no twice, no three times... "Oh no! She's like a mama grisly and she's got some long press-on nails that might scratch my face! I guess I'll have to keep shooting!"... four... five...
oh please...now all Grand Juries and Prosecutors are corrupt.
Hard to imagine how that flies.
I am going by the facts stated in the article.
You seem to presume all sorts of 'facts' based on a single word: 'continued'. I need more than that to find 5 shots into the abdomen of a pregnant woman to be justified. I am surprised that anyone would defend the shooter given the facts presented in this seed (which is what we all are working on).
What did I assume? My comment was based on the facts presented in the article.
So you assume that the grand jury was correct. Looks to me like you are the ones assuming (and presuming) whereas my opinion was based on the facts as presented in the article.
Now if you wish to add to the base of facts and make a case then great. Your speculation, however, is not a fact.
Are these not your words?
How do you know without assumptions? Do you have all the facts?
There is nothing to assume...their decision is final at this point.
I said the Grand Jury was more informed on the case than you.
Yea, Sunshine, you quoted my conclusion. You do understand there is a difference between a conclusion based on the facts as presented and an assumption, right?
You said that rebutting my opinion. Yet you do not know what took place in the grand jury - you just presume they got it right.
As I noted, you are the one making the assumptions.
Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing...
If you can't say you made assumptions to come to your conclusion...well I can't help you.
Have a good one.
I am responding directly to your nonsense 'Sunshine'.
You made an allegation, failed miserably to back it up and now run away repeating the failed allegation.
Tessy,
Please don't call Sunshine "Dear". She has requested that you do not so many times already.
Thanks.
Is that how you would recommend a firearms owner handle this situation? If you are attacked by a pregnant woman, unholster your weapon and discharge 5 rounds into her abdomen?
No Xdm, the attack by the pregnant woman is only one part of a greater story and the firing of this weapon is, IMO, entirely unjustified based on the facts presented.
I would have expected you to be among the first to condemn this abuse of a firearm and the excess in which it was used in 'self defense'. Quite surprised.
Jeez, TiG, when you put it that way, it sounds really bad.
But that's what happened, isn't it?
Given the facts presented (treat it a hypothetical situation) — an unarmed attack by a 5 month pregnant woman — do you see yourself (if you were a woman) needing to resort to deadly force? Especially firing directly at the fetus?
So do you think any and all fights should be stopped with a gun? That's ridiculous.
She doesn't like nicknames either. Only the full monty.
I made this query on a prior occasion but in lieu of this I suppose it is worth asking again:
Something in the waters of Alabama that befogs the mind, too much fluoride perhaps?
It's all the pesticides and herbicides in the air. That's cotton country, ya know, and it takes a lot of shit to make it grow
As staunchly as I view abortion as murder, this case doesn’t fit the charges. This case is clearly a case of Reckless Endangerment. However I looked it up and in Alabama that is a Class A misdemeanor
Her attorney(s) should plead it down to that misdemeanor
“Reckless Endangerment Law and Legal Definition
Reckless endangerment is a crime consisting of acts that create a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. The charge may occur in various contexts, such as, among others, domestic cases, car accidents, construction site accidents, testing sites, domestic/child abuse situations, and hospital abuse.
Abortion has nothing to do with this issue. Your view regarding abortion are also factually and legally erroneous, no matter how staunchly you cling to them.
What do you mean it has nothing to do with it. She is being charged under Alabama’s abortion law and I’m saying I agree that she shouldn’t be charged with it.
I mean, abortion has nothing to do with it. I thought I made that clear.
She didn't have an abortion. She miscarried. Big difference.
I didn't take issue with your agreement. only your point regarding abortion.
I would not practice Alabama law on the internet unless I passed the bar in Alabama......
I’m not practicing law. I merely gave my opinion which is what we engage in on this site.
She is not being charged under an abortion law Larry.
The new controversial AL Abortion Law doesn't even go into effect until November.
She's been charged with plain old manslaughter.
My point remains. She only seems to meet the legal standard for reckless endangerment which is a misdemeanor.
you all seem to miss that I disagree with the prosecution of her.
i also think the shooter should be charged with both manslaughter and attempted manslaughter
And my point remains that you are not a prosecutor in Alabama.
Well, I'm sure the DA and all of those Alabama lawyers will eventually get it right. /s
Both women met the standard for manslaughter. Period.
Can more charges be added? Definitely.
Jemison is the only one who should be charged with reckless endangerment - there were 9 women shoving and slapping and Jemison discharged a gun into the pavement hoping to deescalate the situation, which it did.
Even this more detailed story seems suspect to me.
"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.”
I would think when there is "too much going on" and "just too many bodies" around you, that would seem to be the exact wrong time to discharge a weapon as a "warning shot".
But it's clear there's a lot more (or perhaps less) to this story than the initial seeded article seemed to indicate.
Always is.
Maybe by Monday one of our esteemed internet news outlets will get the story straight.
I somehow doubt it , they have had 7 months to get the story straight .
first question I had was why was the shooter not charged past a grand jury? so I searched alabama law on self defense and took a look at what the law of the state is , seems this case would fit within what that law or circumstances allows.
IMHO the prosecutor charged both and presented both cases to the GJ and only one case looked like it could be pursued within the way the states laws are written .
One thing I am pretty sure of , is everyone commenting would have handled the situation differently if they had been a participant ,I know I would have.
If this stands, Then a woman could be charged if she had a miscarriage after a car wreck where she was convicted of reckless driving. This a very dangerous door that is being opened up.
Agree, this is very dangerous. This is Twilight Zone material.
The violence against the unborn laws have been in effect for many years. It is nothing new except the pro-abortion groups have decided to try and align this case with abortions and it has nothing to do with abortions or civil rights against women.
There are federal and state laws in 38 states so it isn't the "Talibama", as some like to say, targeting women. Many states have the same statutes as Alabama including California.
The seed is misleading what the actual crime committed is and the facts of the case.
If they get this door pried open then after the car wreck case the next step will be charging a woman who has a miscarriage after playing catcher in a rec league softball game and blocking the plate. These laws are ripe for abuse.