Shot American woman who miscarried faces homicide charge

  
Via:  tessylo  •  3 weeks ago  •  164 comments

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




8fa087af30f49f703924bd102095e1ab5908d2d9Reproductive 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

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

"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.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Tessylo @1    3 weeks ago
While the shooter was initially charged by a grand jury, prosecutors dropped that case and instead brought charges against Jones

Sigh. If ever there was an argument that deferring to 'states rights' is not always in the best interest of the citizenry, this may be the most glaring example. To date.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1    3 weeks ago

This exemplifies precisely why abortion rights must be federally protected and supported. Clearly some states are effectively brain dead, especially with situations like this. States rights my @ss!

 
 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @1.2    3 weeks ago

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." https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/alabama-woman-charged-fetal-death-shooter-free-63984247
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.2    3 weeks ago

Not in Talibama obviously.  

 
 
 
lib50
1.2.4  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
Talibama

I'm stealing that one!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lib50 @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.6  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

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.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

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. 

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.6    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.8  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
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.

 

 
 
 
epistte
1.2.9  epistte  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.6    3 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.11  Split Personality  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.6    3 weeks ago

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 ...)
 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @1.2.11    3 weeks ago
'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.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.13  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.2.14  devangelical  replied to  lib50 @1.2.4    3 weeks ago

me too!

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.2.15  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
"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.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.16  Ronin2  replied to  epistte @1.2.9    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.17  Ronin2  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.16    3 weeks ago

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.

https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/bringing-clarity-shooting-marshae-jones-story/

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @1    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
cjcold
1.4  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @1    3 weeks ago

Does this qualify for a Darwin award?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

What the huh?

Too bad women cannot leave Talibama en masse.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  TᵢG    3 weeks ago
"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.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  TᵢG @3    3 weeks ago
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.

The prosecutors here seem to be confused;  I wonder what lies at the heart of this confusion.

She initiated the fight.  Had she not done so, the unborn baby would not have been injured much less die.

In many places, simply participating in the act makes the participant as culpable for the crime as the one who commits the offense.  Murder for example.  A 'driver' of a get away car can be prosecuted for 1st degree murder even if he/she never leaves the vehicle and doesn't even see something happen.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.1  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    3 weeks ago
She initiated the fight.  Had she not done so, the unborn baby would not have been injured much less die.

The definition of jumping the shark. This is simply indefensible by any logical measure.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
The definition of jumping the shark. This is simply indefensible by any logical measure.

Hardly.   As someone who carries a handgun, I cannot start a fight, and then if things go badly for me, shoot the other individual and claim self defense.  

SHE started the fight.  The other individual was the initial VICTIM.   In reality, the other individual had every right to shoot in self defense.  Period, end of story.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

Victim blaming.  What a surprise.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

'As someone who carries a handgun,'

[Deleted]

 
 
 
luther28
3.1.7  luther28  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.2    3 weeks ago
SHE started the fight.  The other individual was the initial VICTIM.   In reality, the other individual had every right to shoot in self defense.  Period, end of story.

While that may allow the shooter to receive a pass, it does not allow for the homicide charges against the mother, which are quite if nothing else absurd.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  luther28 @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
While that may allow the shooter to receive a pass, it does not allow for the homicide charges against the mother, which are quite if nothing else absurd.

Neither you nor I know how far into the pregnancy she was.  Many states can bring murder charges against a perpetrator who kills the yet to be born baby even when the mother/victim survives.   If you don't like it, change the law.   But tell the parents of the dead unborn child that it's too bad and you can't bring absurd murder charges against the perpetrator.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
Victim blaming.

Blaming the low life scumbag thug that started the fight in the first place is somehow wrong in your opinion?  [deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

Ah, the truth comes out.  This woman is nothing but a thug to you.  [Deleted]  Got it.  

Why don't you move along and take your victim blaming elsewhere.  I can't stop you but you are not welcome here.  

 
 
 
luther28
3.1.11  luther28  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

It does not matter a wit how far along the mother was, she did not kill her child, she miscarried. Again to charge her with homicide is absurd.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.12  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    3 weeks ago
She initiated the fight.  Had she not done so, the unborn baby would not have been injured much less die.

So when a parent initiates an incident, say by leaving a loaded weapon accessible to a child, and that child is shot, or shoots another child, the parent should be prosecuted. If they had not left the weapon accessible the child wouldn't have been shot after all. 

Yet that rarely happens. The go to excuse is that it was 'accidental' and the parent has suffered enough. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.10    3 weeks ago
I'm sure her race has absolutely nothing to do with it. 

I have no idea about her race.  Please note EXACTLY where it is indicated.

I can't stop you but you are not welcome here.

Oh well.  Deal with it.  I have to deal with you now don't I?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @3.1.12    3 weeks ago
So when a parent initiates an incident, say by leaving a loaded weapon accessible to a child

Leaving something laying around is appreciably different than starting a fight.  You should understand the difference.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

Fetal homicide laws are absurd and nothing more than emotional knee jerk reactions. Charging a woman who miscarries with homicide is the epitome of absurd!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.16  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.8    3 weeks ago
But tell the parents of the dead unborn child that it's too bad and you can't bring absurd murder charges against the perpetrator.

The perpetrator is walking. The parent is facing the charges. Absurd doesn't begin to describe it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.17  Gordy327  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.16    3 weeks ago

What's equally absurd are those who actually defend the shooter or the law pressing charges against the victim.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.18  r.t..b...  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.17    3 weeks ago
What's equally absurd are those who actually defend the shooter

For some, it always devolves into a gun rights issue and they will contort the dialogue in whatever means necessary, no matter how convoluted, to defend the thing that brings that point (blank) home.          

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.19  Sunshine  replied to  luther28 @3.1.11    3 weeks ago
she miscarried.

5 gunshots to the abdomen will do that.

There are federal and state laws protecting an unborn child...

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    3 weeks ago
She initiated the fight.

Looks like other NT members have sufficiently opined on this ill-conceived opinion.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.21  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.16    3 weeks ago
The perpetrator is walking.

Wrong.  The victim who shot in self defense is walking.  The perpetrator is facing charges.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.22  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.18    3 weeks ago
For some, it always devolves into a gun rights issue and they will contort the dialogue in whatever means necessary, no matter how convoluted, to defend the thing that brings that point (blank) home.

EXACTLY where did I or anyone mention gun rights?   Had the woman attacked used a baseball bat against her antagonist, she would still have been well within her SELF DEFENSE RIGHTS.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.23  Sunshine  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.22    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.24  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.22    3 weeks ago
EXACTLY where did I or anyone mention gun rights?

" As someone who carries a handgun, I cannot start a fight, and then if things go badly for me, shoot the other individual and claim self defense."

whatever, 9mm.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.25  XDm9mm  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.23    3 weeks ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.26  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.24    3 weeks ago
whatever, 9mm.

Whatever is right.  EXACTLY where did I mention anything about rights.   I simply made an observation from a legal perspective.   I NEVER mentioned a right.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.27  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.8    3 weeks ago

She was five months pregnant.  She is also black.  

Since according to you she was a 'lowlife scumbag thug', why would you care one way or the other?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.28  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.19    3 weeks ago

So the woman who shot her 5 times in her abdomen knowing she was pregnant should be going to jail, not the woman who miscarried because she was shot 5 times in the abdomen and obviously pregnant.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.29  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.19    3 weeks ago

As I said, such laws are emotionally based reactions. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.30  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.27    3 weeks ago
She is also black.  

What's your point?

Since according to you she was a 'lowlife scumbag thug', why would you care one way or the other?

First, I've noted numerous times, lowlife scumbag thugs come in both sexes, and all races and nationalities.  The community of lowlife scumbag thugs is all inclusive and entirely nondiscriminatory to its members.

Second, I really don't care.  She's being charged and rightly so.  I would also have charged her with assault on her initial victim.

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.31  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    3 weeks ago

Are you really blaming the victim....and you wonder why we see this as the continuing republican/conservative/deporable/red state war on women.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.32  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.29    3 weeks ago
As I said, such laws are emotionally based reactions. 

They are federal and state laws.  Emotionally based is your opinion only.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.33  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.21    3 weeks ago
The victim who shot in self defense is walking.

So this woman's real crime was starting a fight with someone who was carrying a gun. I don't see anywhere that says the pregnant woman had a gun or a knife or anything deadly that she was threatening the other woman with. Just because someone raises their hand as if to slap you does not give that person the right to pull their deadly weapon and shoot first to avoid a slap or even a punch in the nose. She has to truly have been in fear for her life to claim she was justified in gunning down a pregnant woman possibly killing both mother and fetus.

It really is insane how many of the same people who demand access to a woman's reproductive rights by trying to ban all abortion are rallying to the defense of a woman who shot an unarmed pregnant woman in the stomach 5 times. Would they support planned parenthood if they simply changed the method of abortion to "shoot 5 times"?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.34  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.26    3 weeks ago
I simply made an observation from a legal perspective.

Simply? yes. Legal perspective? Funny that...do you practice law in Alabama?

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.35  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.28    3 weeks ago
So the woman who shot her 5 times in her abdomen knowing she was pregnant should be going to jail, not the woman who miscarried because she was shot 5 times in the abdomen and obviously pregnant.  

So you want to send someone who was defending herself to prison.  The grand jury did not indict the person defending herself.  Do you think you know more about the case than they do?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.36  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @3.1.31    3 weeks ago
Are you really blaming the victim

I'm hardly blaming the "victim".  The woman charged was the initial PERPETRATOR.  HER victim defended herself.

It really is as simple as that.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.37  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @3.1.34    3 weeks ago
Legal perspective? Funny that...do you practice law in Alabama?

Yes legal perspective.  No one who carries can initiate an altercation then claim self defense if he/she shoots the victim he/she initially attacked.  Ask any lawyer anywhere.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.38  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.35    3 weeks ago

So self defense takes 5 shots in the abdomen to an obviously pregnant woman?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.39  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.32    3 weeks ago

I am aware they are laws. And yes, they are based on emotional,  knee jerk reactions. There is no logical reason for such laws.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.40  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.30    3 weeks ago

Marshae Jones: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

23084c30216f3bef3d7c2a1707f678ab?s=140&dadmin 1 day ago
 0 1,438 9 min read
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/marshae-jones-e1561642088660.jpg?quality=65&strip=all

Pleasant Grove Police Department L: Marshae Jones, R: Ebony Jemison

Marshae Jones is an Alabama woman who was shot in the stomach while five months pregnant and later charged with manslaughter in her fetus’ death after police said she initiated the dispute that led to her being shot.

Jones, 27, was indicted Wednesday by a Jefferson County grand jury, AL.com reports.

Police said that although Jones did not fire the shots, officials determined that she initiated the fight with the shooter, 23-year-old Ebony Jemison.

Jemison had been charged with manslaughter but the charge was dismissed after a grand jury failed to indict her.

Police say the 2018 shooting occurred during a dispute over the unborn child’s father.

Jones is being held at Jefferson County Jail on $50,000 bond.

Here’s what you need to know:


1. Marshae Jones Was 5 Months Pregnant When She Was Shot in the Stomach

marshae-jones-arrested-1.jpg

marshae-jones-arrested-1.jpg

Marshae Jones — Pleasant Grove PD

Police say Marshae Jones and Ebony Jemison got into a dispute over Jones’ unborn baby’s father on December 4, 2018 outside of a Dollar General store, AL.com reported last year.

First responders arrived to the scene to find that Jones had been taken to a convenience store in nearby Fairfield. She was taken to UAB Hospital.

Jones was hospitalized and survived but her fetus did not. She was five months pregnant at the time.

Jemison was initially charged with murder but the charge was later revised to manslaughter.


2. Police Say The Fight Was Over The Unborn Baby’s Father

Reid told AL.com that the fight stemmed over the unborn child’s father.

Police said Jones initiated and escalated the fight that led to her being shot.

“Let’s not lose sight that the unborn baby is the victim here,’’ Reid told the outlet. “She had no choice in being brought unnecessarily into a fight where she was relying on her mother for protection.”

“All indications and all evidence point to the fact of the victim or the other of the unborn child was the aggressor, she is no longer listed as the victim, the only victim we have here is that unborn child,” Reid told WIAT.


3. Ebony Jemison Went Free

ebony-jemison-1.jpg

ebony-jemison-1.jpg

Ebony Jemison – Pleasant Grove PD

Jemison was charged with murder but police amended the charge to manslaughter, AL.com reported last year.

The charge against her was dismissed after a grand jury failed to indict her, AL.com reported this week. Police had said that Jemison was forced to defend herself after Jones initiated and pressed the fight.

Though Jemison was the only one charged at the time, Pleasant Grove Lt. Danny Reid told AL.com in 2018 that “the mother’s involvement and culpability will be presented to a grand jury” as well.


4. Jones Was Charged With Manslaughter After Police Said She ‘Initiated’ The Fight

Jones was indicted on a manslaughter charge by a grand jury and taken into custody Wednesday.

“The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,” Reid told 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.”

“When a 5-month pregnant woman initiates a fight and attacks another person, I believe some responsibility lies with her as to any injury to her unborn child,” he said. “That child is dependent on its mother to try to keep it from harm, and she shouldn’t seek out unnecessary physical altercations.”

Jones was taken to Jefferson County Jail where she is being held on $50,000 bond.


5. Women’s Rights Group Vows to ‘Fight For Justice’ for Jones

The Yellowhammer Fund, which helps women get abortion services, issued a statement to AL.com Wednesday vowing to fight for justice for Jones, who the group said was wrongly charged.

“The state of Alabama has proven yet again that the moment a person becomes pregnant their sole responsibility is to produce a live, healthy baby and that it considers any action a pregnant person takes that might impede in that live birth to be a criminal act,’’ Executive Director Amanda Reyes said in the statement.“

“Today, Marshae Jones is being charged with manslaughter for being pregnant and getting shot while engaging in an altercation with a person who had a gun. Tomorrow, it will be another black woman, maybe for having a drink while pregnant. And after that, another, for not obtaining adequate prenatal care,” the statement said.

Reyes vowed to make sure that Jones is “released from jail on bond” and vowed to assist her with legal representation so that “she gets justice for the multiple attacks that she has endured.”

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.41  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.40    3 weeks ago
'Jones was indicted on a manslaughter charge by a grand jury and taken into custody Wednesday.'

I imagine the Grand Jury was made up of white inbred morons.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.35    3 weeks ago

Do you have any additional facts to share?   Maybe this article leaves out a bunch of facts.   If so, that would be good information to have.

Unless you have other facts in mind, based on the facts of the article, would you drop charges on the shooter and try the pregnant woman for murder?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.43  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.37    3 weeks ago
No one who carries can initiate an altercation then claim self defense if he/she shoots the victim he/she initially attacked. 

Lovely. But how about we get back to the real issue...how in the world is it justifiable to charge the woman who was shot...shot mind you, to be held on criminal charges for being shot? That is where this is FUBAR.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
3.1.44  livefreeordie  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    3 weeks ago

Posted to wrong person

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.45  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.42    3 weeks ago
Do you have any additional facts to share? 

You didn't come to your conclusions based on facts but assumptions.  

I will leave it up to the state who do know all the facts.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.46  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.13    3 weeks ago
I have no idea about her race. 

Proof that you didn't even glance at the article or you would know the woman's race

                                             OR

You do know the race of the woman and are now trying to sidestep your way out of the mud puddle you created

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.47  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.45    3 weeks ago
You didn't come to your conclusions based on facts but assumptions.  

Do more than make a bullshit claim.

Show where I assumed anything.

I will leave it up to the state who do know all the facts.  

A pathetic argument.   That ignores all the facts presented here and simply defers to the grand jury (presuming it got this right).   Why, if you are going to defer all thinking to the grand jury, do you even bother commenting on this seed?

Do you have 'faith' that the grand jury is right?   No need to bother using reason based on the facts as presented in the seed?      

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.48  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.39    3 weeks ago
I am aware they are laws. And yes, they are based on emotional,  knee jerk reactions. There is no logical reason for such laws.

Well you will need to let the Federal government and 38 states now how you feel.  

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.49  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.36    3 weeks ago

I does NOT matter if she started it, once again, blame the victim.  

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.50  epistte  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1    3 weeks ago
She initiated the fight.  Had she not done so, the unborn baby would not have been injured much less die.

That assumes that she knew that she would be shot 5 times as the only way that the fight would or could have ended. You have to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

The fight could just as easily have ended with a few slaps to the face, vulgar names and hair pulling, which would not have caused a miscarriage.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.51  Sparty On  replied to  lady in black @3.1.31    3 weeks ago
Are you really blaming the victim

The victim?  

Is that what you call someone who assaulted another person?   The victim?

Wow!

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.52  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @3.1.50    3 weeks ago

Attempting to justify her actions as anything less than assault absolutely ignores established law everywhere in this land.   With the possible exception of the few spots that are progressive moon-bat havens.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.53  Trout Giggles  replied to  epistte @3.1.50    3 weeks ago

I'm looking at this as a totally unfair fight. I'm sure the pregnant woman started it. But the woman with the gun could have easily walked away (run away) and not fired her gun 5 times. She could have told the other woman "Look! I have a gun! Now effing stop it!"

So how does anyone justify shooting an unarmed pregnant woman 5 times in the abdomen?

 
 
 
epistte
3.1.54  epistte  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.52    3 weeks ago
Attempting to justify her actions as anything less than assault absolutely ignores established law everywhere in this land.

A case of simple assault would not cause a miscarriage.

With the possible exception of the few spots that are progressive moon-bat havens.

Your personal attack is noted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.55  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.51    3 weeks ago
The victim?  

Sparty, this really amazes me.   It is as though all the conservatives are playing politics.

There are three victims here:

  1. The unborn child was killed.
  2. The shooter was attacked by the pregnant woman.
  3. The pregnant woman was shot 5 times by the shooter.

Seems to me, victim 1 was hurt the most.   Next we have victim 2 who was attacked (in some way) by a pregnant woman.   I would expect the fury of the attack was mitigated given this is a woman who is 5 months pregnant.   But let's say she was really aggressive.    Finally we have victim 3 who was shot 5 times in the abdomen.

  1. Killed
  2. Unarmed attack
  3. Shot 5 times in abdomen

How are conservatives in this article all concluding that victim 2 is the 'true' victim?    This is bizarre (to me).

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.55    3 weeks ago

Addendum:

I just called my brother who is a big time gun guy.   Loves the history, makes classic firearms, fixes firearms, gun club shooting ace, etc.

He stated (and I was sure he would) that this seems to be an irresponsible gun owner who used excessive dangerous force.  Further (I knew this too) he stated that this is bad for all responsible, legal gun owners.   

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.57  lady in black  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.51    3 weeks ago

Yes, she may have started it but the other person shot her...thus VICTIM OF SHOOTING

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.58  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.55    3 weeks ago

Other  reasonable reports indicate that the shooter fired once into the ground to break up what was about to be a fight involving 9 women.

The shooter and her friends left the scene unaware of any injury to Jones.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.59  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.46    3 weeks ago
Proof that you didn't even glance at the article or you would know the woman's race

Actually I read the entire article that Tessy posted...   Not a fucking word printed that indicates race.

The fact that she is black came out later.

Try again TG...  I'll give you two more guesses to get it right.

On another note, indicate exactly where in the printed article that Tessy used where race is noted.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.60  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @3.1.57    3 weeks ago
VICTIM OF SHOOTING

Nope....   she's a perpetrator that was shot.  Hardly a victim.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.61  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.59    3 weeks ago

Ah....the photo????????

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.62  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.61    3 weeks ago
Ah....the photo????????

Posted AFTER the initial post.  Try again.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.1.63  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.62    3 weeks ago

whatever.....

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.1.64  Split Personality  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.59    3 weeks ago

then you should re read the seed, next to last paragraph...

"This is how people -- especially women of color -- are already being punished & having their pregnancies criminalized," the NAF tweeted, referencing Jones, who is black.
 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Split Personality @3.1.58    3 weeks ago

That changes the facts of the case.   That suggests the shooter was acting substantially more responsibly than reported in the seed.   Shooting a single shot into the ground to get everyone to back off and stop is entirely different than shooting 5 rounds into the abdomen of a 5 month pregnant woman.    According to your report, the bullet ricocheted from the ground and hit the pregnant woman.   Very different facts.

That established ...

My concern is that when dealing with the facts, as presented in this seed, the positions taken surprised me.

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.66  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.60    3 weeks ago

Wrong

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.67  MrFrost  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.1.33    3 weeks ago

Unfortunately that's the society we now live in...got a beef with someone? Pull a gun and start shooting. I remember when I was a kid, you just punched it out, shook hands and walked away....now...ANY perceived slight against ANYONE and you could very well end up dead. I have many guns, and I enjoy them, but when society has gotten to this point? Gotta do something because shit like this is almost a daily event all over the USA. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.68  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.48    3 weeks ago
Well you will need to let the Federal government and 38 states now how you feel.

That's why we have forums such as this.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.69  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.62    3 weeks ago

Um, duh, the victim, the pregnant woman who was shot, is her photo, which is on the front page of newstalkers and right above the title on this page

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.70  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.69    3 weeks ago
is her photo,

That photo was not there when you first posted the seed, so you can stop suggesting that it was.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.71  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.14    3 weeks ago
Leaving something laying around is appreciably different than starting a fight. 

Leaving a deadly weapon unsecured and accessible by a child isn't just 'something'. 

You should understand the difference.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.72  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.70    3 weeks ago

Yes it was.  It was always at the top of the seed itself so you should stop saying it wasn't 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.73  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @3.1.49    3 weeks ago

You are not a victim if you start the fight you are a perpetrator.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.74  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.72    3 weeks ago
Yes it was. 

No it [wasn't....Deleted]  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.75  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.1.73    3 weeks ago

Nonsense MUVA she was the victim.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.76  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.74    3 weeks ago

Yes it was so [Deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.78  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.75    3 weeks ago

If you start a fight you are not the victim when you lose for fucking sake you argue just for the sake of it.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.79  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.76    3 weeks ago

Nope not there till after many post...and you know it.

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.80  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.1.78    3 weeks ago

I'm not losing.  The pregnant woman was the victim

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.81  Sparty On  replied to  epistte @3.1.54    3 weeks ago
A case of simple assault would not cause a miscarriage. 

Assault is against the law.    Assault someone and suffer the consequences.   Regardless of your rationalizations

Your personal attack is noted.

As is your emotional overreaction to my opinion.    Noted.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.82  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.55    3 weeks ago
How are conservatives in this article all concluding that victim 2 is the 'true' victim?    This is bizarre (to me).

Not me, I agree that the baby was injured the most and it seems to me that the person who set this chain of events in motion, the attacker, is most responsible for that.

The bizzare thing too me is all the pro choice people who suddenly became pro life because the baby was shot and not simply ripped out of the womb.  The irony of that is thicker than molasses 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.82    3 weeks ago

New facts have come in which change the seeded story significantly so let me address this in two parts.

Part One:  The facts only per this seed

Per the seed, the pregnant woman seems to be guilty of reckless endangerment (to me).   There is no indication that she had any intention of bringing harm to her fetus, much less killing it.   Per the seed, the shooter had clear intent to kill the fetus by firing 5 shots into the pregnant woman's abdomen.    Given these facts I restate that I am quite surprised that the shooter was not seen as the least victimized and the most aggressive.

Part Two:  The additional correcting facts

New facts show that the shooter did not discharge five rounds into the abdomen of the pregnant woman.   Instead, the shooter fired a single shot into the ground to stop things from getting out of hand.   The shot apparently ricocheted into the pregnant woman's abdomen killing the fetus.

Going with this as the scenario, the fetus remains as the main victim.   The pregnant woman was the aggressor and was an accidental victim.   The shooter probably should not have used her gun in this situation, but without the very specific details it is not possible to make that call.

The bizzare thing too me is all the pro-choice people who suddenly became pro life because the baby was shot and not ripped out of the womb.  The irony of that is thicker than molasses 

I think you are relying too much on the labels here.   Pro-choice people are not pro-death;  they hold that the mother is the person who should be making choices about her body ... including when she is pregnant.   It does not surprise me at all that pro-choice people oppose the equivalent of a forced abortion; it does not seem as though the pregnant woman wanted to lose her fetus.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.84  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.83    3 weeks ago
I think you are relying too much on the labels here.

Perhaps but I wasn’t trying to make a sweeping generalization.    I speak of the folks who are hypocritical in that regard and that is most certainly not most pro choice folks.

Of that I have little doubt.

That said, just read some of the comments in this thread and you’ll see what i’m Talking about.

Well thought out analysis by the way! 👍

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.85  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.83    3 weeks ago

Well TG I would agree with just about everything in the second part but one point , the part about being an accidental victim as you put it .

IF she is the victim of anything  it would be the stupidity of her own actions that she pursued on her own accord. I cant say that she might have thought being visibly pregnant would make her immune to any retaliatory actions I don't know , It was she that knew she was pregnant and decided to pursue a confrontation and for lack of a different term she was the one that decided she would go full hood rat on someone else . so the only one she is a victim of is herself and her actions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.86  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.85    3 weeks ago

My view (even with the original facts) is that she was being reckless (and thus I could see her being charged with reckless endangerment).   This I stated right off the bat a few days ago.  So I agree she is not without fault.   That said, she is also one of the victims.   An unarmed pregnant woman (of ordinary build) does not pose a threat that warrants a bullet in the abdomen.    

A person can be an instigator and a victim in the same scenario.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.87  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.86    3 weeks ago

I can live with that , we can agree to disagree on who we think she is actually a victim of.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @3    3 weeks ago
I wonder what lies at the heart of this confusion.

Ignoring facts.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.2    3 weeks ago

Which facts do you contend have been ignored?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
Which facts do you contend have been ignored?

How about this fact:

"It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby,"

Please note the word in bold in the above sentence.  Continued.  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.  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.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.2    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
lady in black
3.2.4  lady in black  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    3 weeks ago

The confusion is they want to drag women back to the 1800's plain and simple.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  lady in black @3.2.4    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.7  XDm9mm  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    3 weeks ago
The shooting was unnecessary and far beyond responsible restraint.

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.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.2.8  r.t..b...  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    3 weeks ago
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.

Hear, Hear!!

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.9  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
This shooting is an indefensible act.

You did a lot of assuming to come to that conclusion....jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif 

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

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.10  XDm9mm  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
There is no fact that the other woman tried to disengage.

Other than the local law enforcement indicating that the perpetrator CONTINUED the attack, which as noted above indicates the victim TRIED to disengage from her attacker.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.2.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
Grand Jury

A grand jury is no place to expect any outcome other than what the prosecutors desire.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.7    3 weeks ago
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...

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.12    3 weeks ago
Right...which completely justifies shooting her in the stomach

Which completely justifies shooting as many rounds as it takes to STOP THE THREAT.  The number, whether one or twenty is immaterial.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.14  Sunshine  replied to  r.t..b... @3.2.11    3 weeks ago

oh please...now all Grand Juries and Prosecutors are corrupt. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.15  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.6    3 weeks ago

Hard to imagine how that flies.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.7    3 weeks ago
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).

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.17  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    3 weeks ago
'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.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
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.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.19  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.7    3 weeks ago

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]

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.20  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.18    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.21  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    3 weeks ago
'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.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.20    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.23  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.14    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.24  Sunshine  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.22    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.25  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.24    3 weeks ago
'Have a good one.'

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Sunshine @3.2.24    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.27  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.25    3 weeks ago

Tessy,

Please don't call Sunshine "Dear". She has requested that you do not so many times already. 

Thanks.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.28  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.27    3 weeks ago

I don't recall any requests but okay.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.29  XDm9mm  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.16    3 weeks ago
I am surprised that anyone would defend the shooter given the facts

The "shooter" was the one who was attacked.  Period, end of story.  There is no further justification necessary.  It's called self defense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.30  TᵢG  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.29    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
3.2.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.30    3 weeks ago
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?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.32  XDm9mm  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.30    3 weeks ago
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 I can't defuse the situation first, and if I'm unable to control the situation otherwise, I'll fire as many rounds as necessary to stop the threat.  It that means 20 rounds and then reloading, so be it.

Use of a gun is a last resort.  But when it is used, it should be used effectively.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.33  TᵢG  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.32    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.34  MrFrost  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.13    3 weeks ago

So do you think any and all fights should be stopped with a gun? That's ridiculous. 

 
 
 
lib50
3.2.35  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.28    3 weeks ago

She doesn't like nicknames either.  Only the full monty.

 
 
 
luther28
4  luther28    3 weeks ago

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?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  luther28 @4    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
livefreeordie
5  livefreeordie    3 weeks ago

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.

http://judicial.alabama.gov/docs/library/docs/13A-6-24.pdf

https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-13a-criminal-code/al-code-sect-13a-6-24.html

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @5    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
5.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Gordy327 @5.1    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  livefreeordie @5.1.1    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @5    3 weeks ago

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."

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/alabama-woman-charged-fetal-death-shooter-free-63984247
 
 
 
livefreeordie
5.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Split Personality @5.2    3 weeks ago

I’m not practicing law. I merely gave my opinion which is what we engage in on this site.

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @5.2.1    3 weeks ago

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.”

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

 
 
 
livefreeordie
5.2.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Split Personality @5.2.2    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  livefreeordie @5.2.3    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6  Dismayed Patriot    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1  Split Personality  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6    3 weeks ago
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/pregnant-woman-shot-alabama-manslaughter-jones-jemison

Always is.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @6.1    3 weeks ago

Maybe by Monday one of our esteemed internet news outlets will get the story straight.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
6.1.2  Mark in Wyoming  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.1    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
charger 383
8  charger 383    3 weeks ago

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.   

 
 
 
dave-2693993
8.1  dave-2693993  replied to  charger 383 @8    3 weeks ago
This a very dangerous door that is being opened up.   

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

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.2  Sunshine  replied to  charger 383 @8    3 weeks ago
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.

 
 
 
charger 383
8.2.1  charger 383  replied to  Sunshine @8.2    3 weeks ago

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.   

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Bob Nelson
igknorantzrulz
ArkansasHermit-too


37 visitors