Shot American woman who miscarried faces homicide charge

"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.

usbreakingnews

These were two women, fighting over a man, the same man responsible for the pregnancy.

In self defense, I would shoot someone in the chest, not 5 times into a very pregnant belly.

The shooter, the latest girlfriend of the unnamed father, in my opinion intended to kill the unborn child to "free" the father from any more contact with Jones.

Today the Prosecutor waffled about pressing the case.

The district attorney's office said it will decide how to proceed "only after all due diligence has been performed." abcnews.go

If the shooter's intent was to cause a miscarriage, then she's the one who should be charged, shouldn't she?

Not in Talibama obviously.  

Talibama

I'm stealing that one!

I'm thinking of Lynyrd Skynyrd and Sweet Home Alabama and there must be a good twisted tune in there somewhere.  

While Jones may have been fighting over her unborn babies father, I have seen nothing stating that Ebony was a girlfriend of the unnamed father.

Outside of posted article I have seen no reputable source state that Jones was shot 5 times. Shot in the stomach, yes. 5 months pregnant, yes. Ebony Jemison cleared of manslaughter charges by a grand jury after police verified she acted in self defense, yes. Finally that Jones was indicted for manslaughter in regards to her baby, yes. All of that information is agreed on; of course some left leaning articles leave out key details and try to blame the shooter.

I only found 1 article with Jemison's side of the story. How accurate it is I do not know. I have no court record to compare it to; because Google and Fire Fox are completely dominated by Jones indictment articles.

buzzfeednews

Ebony Jemison wishes she could have done something differently on the day she fired a shot that killed Marshae Jones’ unborn child outside a store in Alabama.

On Dec. 4, 2018, Jemison, 23, fired a bullet that hit Jones’ stomach outside the Dollar General store in Pleasant Grove, Alabama, during an altercation over the baby’s father.

Jones, 28, was five months pregnant at the time. The fetus didn’t survive.

According to Jemison, she, Jones, and the baby’s father worked together at a warehouse in Royal Oaks at the time of the shooting. She said that Jones would often get suspicious when the baby’s father — who was a supervisor — would talk to new female employees in the warehouse.

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.

If it is proven that Jones initiated the fight, and escalated it- then she wasn't concerned the slightest for her unborn baby. Why shouldn't Jones be charged with manslaughter, the same charge Jemison faced?

Not saying I agree with the Alabama law, because I don't agree with all of it. Not allowing abortions cases of rape, incest, pregnancy resulting to endangerment to the mother, or the child having a birth defect that would shorten or cause it prolonged pain- is flat out wrong. 

Those against the law need to find a better case to use for overturning. 

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.

If the shooter's intent was to cause a miscarriage, then she's the one who should be charged, shouldn't she?

As Tessy hinted, logic and intelligence are foreign concepts in Alabama.  Thankfully it seems that the DA isn't a supporter of this abortion legislation. Just stay out of Alabama and in the 20th century.  Id say 21st century but there are fewer and fewer states that aren't trying to turn the clock back 50 to 100 years. It seems that the moronic politicians in Columbus see Alabama and Mississippi as a goal for this formerly rational state.

If it is proven that Jones initiated the fight, and escalated it- then she wasn't concerned the slightest for her unborn baby. Why shouldn't Jones be charged with manslaughter, the same charge Jemison faced?

Because she didn't fire the gun 5 times.  She might deserve a disorderly conduct charge but that is about the limit.

The fact that she was a willingly participant in a fight doesn't mean that she consented to be shot 5 times.  Was her body supposed to reject the bullets or the effects thereof?

Good find.  The fives shots appear to be imaginary.

But she doesn't appear to be charged with violating the new abortion bill which isn't in effect yet.

She's been charged with plain old manslaughter.

Alabama is one of at least 38 states that consider the killing of an unborn child as a homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In 2006 state politicians amended the Code of Alabama to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability as a person and human being for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.”

(from the same article ...)

'Good find.  The fives shots appear to be imaginary.

But she doesn't appear to be charged with violating the new abortion bill which isn't in effect yet.

She's been charged with plain old manslaughter.'

I don't know why two different reports says five shots and the one Ronin found - says one shot being fired.  

Neither do I.

The Vox article just says she was shot without specifying once or five times,

that would lead me to believe she was shot once by the claimed ricochet,

which is why the Grand Jury refused to indict the shooter, Jemison.

me too!

"If the shooter's intent was to cause a miscarriage, then she's the one who should be charged, shouldn't she?"

I agree.  That was intent to kill - but then there will be arguments about whether or not the fetus was alive - what a mess.

Because she didn't fire the gun 5 times.

Irrelevant. If she was shot in self defense; which both the police and the grand jury decided.

She might deserve a disorderly conduct charge but that is about the limit.

Disorderly conduct? For starting a fight, and then pressing it when the other person tried to disengage twice? What about assault and battery?

The fact that she was a willingly participant in a fight

Willing participant? She is the one that started it, and continued it. She was far more than willing.

doesn't mean that she consented to be shot 5 times.

It does if the Ebony felt her life was threatened after trying to disengage twice. What is this bullshit about it somehow being a "fair fight" or something? This is not the school playground, these are fully grown adults. Starting and continuing a fight is assault and battery.

Was her body supposed to reject the bullets or the effects thereof?

She was shot in self defense. What part of that was hard to comprehend? If she wouldn't have started the fight, and continued it, she wouldn't have been shot, and her "baby" would still be alive.

This is not the fight to pick trying to get the law overturned. It is exceedingly hard to be sympathetic to Jones.

Some backup someone else did trying to sift through the insane amount of articles out there to get the facts. They also didn't come up with the 5 shots fired.

blog.equalrightsinstitute

Yes, he is a commentator for a right to life organization. If you don't like it stop reading after the facts in the case.

I am still searching the for grand jury trial that failed to indicted Ebony. That should have all of the facts- and maybe the alleged video that Jones' mother says exists.

Talk about blaming the victim. No surprise it's Alabama too. 

Does this qualify for a Darwin award?

What the huh?

Too bad women cannot leave Talibama en masse.  

"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.

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.

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:

TiG @3 ☞

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.

Continuing with your logic:

That is indicative that the initial victim attacked by the woman who has been charged tried to disengage from the situation and avoid further confrontation. 

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.

The woman who perpetrated the entire incident is the one who has been charged.  Had she also disengaged from the situation, nothing further would have happened.  

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.

How in the hell is shooting an obviously pregnant woman in the abdomen 5 times self defense?

This shooting is an indefensible act.

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.

the initial victim TRIED to disengage and the perpetrator continued the attack

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.

As you were not there, you have no idea what was or was not necessary.  As indicated by local law enforcement, the initial victim TRIED to disengage and the perpetrator continued the attack.

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).

'This shooting is an indefensible act.'

Yes and some will defend the indefensible beyond all reason and logic.  

According to some she was just a lowlife scum thug.  

You did a lot of assuming to come to that conclusion.

What did I assume?    My comment was based on the facts presented in the article.

Grand Jury did not indict the person, and they where more privy to the facts than you.

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.   

Keep on defending the indefensible.  You're doing a great job.  I was thinking about closing this thread because of your absurd victim blaming but I will keep it up for all to see [Deleted]

What did I assume? 

Are these not your words?

This shooting is an indefensible act.

How do you know without assumptions?  Do you have all the facts?

So you assume that the grand jury was correct.

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.

'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.'

I concur with rtb   Hear Hear!

The defense of the indefensible is mind boggling.  

Are these not your words?

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?   

I said the Grand Jury was more informed on the case than you.

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.

You obviously didn't understand what r.t.b. was referring to.  

Yea, Sunshine, you quoted my conclusion

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.

'Have a good one.'

[Deleted]

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.

I don't recall any requests but okay.  

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.

If you are attacked by a pregnant woman, unholster your weapon and discharge 5 rounds into her abdomen?

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.

judicial.alabama

codes.findlaw

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.

What do you mean it has nothing to do with it.

I mean, abortion has nothing to do with it. I thought I made that clear.

She is being charged under Alabama’s abortion law

She didn't have an abortion. She miscarried. Big difference.

and I’m saying I agree that she shouldn’t be charged with it.

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......

However, the office of District Attorney Lynneice O. Washington said there has been no decision on whether to pursue the case against Jones. Washington's office said in a statement they "feel sympathy for all the families involved, including Mrs. Jones, who lost her unborn child."

While the grand jury "had its say," the statement said, the office has "not yet made a determination about whether to prosecute it as a manslaughter case, reduce it to a lesser charge or not to prosecute it."

abcnews.go

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.

Alabama is one of at least 38 states that consider the killing of an unborn child as a homicide in at least some circumstances, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In 2006 state politicians amended the Code of Alabama to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability as a person and human being for purposes of the state laws dealing with murder, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, and assault.”

buzzfeednews

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.

Well, if what Ronin wrote is true, it looks like she may not have shot 5 times, but who knows?

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.

buzzfeednews

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.   

This a very dangerous door that is being opened up.   

Agree, this is very dangerous. This is Twilight Zone material.

If this stands,

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.