• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Alabama: pregnant woman shot in stomach is charged in fetus's death

Hatuey said:
Hmmmmm, what do you think happens when some country bride falls of an ATV, Chevy or horse or whatever it is they do in Alabama?

Will they blame the horse, atv, Chevy bride if a fetus so happened to have been in her? Lol, does she get to claim ahe didn't know riding horses or ATVs or driving was dangerous?

We shall see. I bet they'll have some legalese ready for when that happens to explain how she isn't guilty. Their logic on this is impregnable and nobody will notice their soft power grab.




Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
Click to expand...

Depends if she's white, I think.
 
I think the geniuses in Alabama should take it a step further and search abortion records then incarcerate every woman listed on those records. Be she a poor man's wife or a governor's mistress all women who have received abortions in Alabama should be sent to prison to reach the logical conclusion of the moronic arguments made in favor of this decision to charge.

:)

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
Hatuey said:
I think the geniuses in Alabama should take it a step further and search abortion records then incarcerate every woman listed on those records. Be she a poor man's wife or a governor's mistress all women who have received abortions in Alabama should be sent to prison to reach the logical conclusion of the moronic arguments made in favor of this decision to charge.

:)

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
Click to expand...

The point really isn't about putting them in prison, it's about subjugating them. You only need to throw a few in jail to spread fear.

My guess is that Alabama will now work towards decriminalizing domestic battery.
 
Hamish Howl said:
The point really isn't about putting them in prison, it's about subjugating them. You only need to throw a few in jail to spread fear.

My guess is that Alabama will now work towards decriminalizing domestic battery.
Click to expand...

Lol, let's stay in this world.

They don't need to decriminalize domestic battery because there is nothing to decriminalize. Who do you think is walking around trailer parks and swamp land or bush asking the Duck Dynasty guys if they beat their wives? Come on. You act as if women in these places are taken seriously or even get regularly seen by cops.

Just look at what happened with the localized case of Roy Moore. That was a statewide issue, and people literally came out with stories about how the alleged rapes resembled Mary and Joseph's. The goal for them is theocracy, and that ain't going to happen if there is a clear visibility of the women involved.

That's why the GOP needs to go national with the Alabama implementation of whatever crazy law and subjection they're gambling on to keep them in control for now.

:)




Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
 
Amelia said:
Get shot in the stomach five times. Get charged with manslaughter for getting shot. What a nightmare.

Dear God,

Please help the people of Alabama escape.

Please help this sickness not spread any further, and help these afflicted states find a way to stop the madness.
Click to expand...

The prosecutor in that Alabama town explained why he charged her with murder while he was having sex with his horse. :mrgreen:
 
Hatuey said:
Lol, let's stay in this world.

They don't need to decriminalize domestic battery because there is nothing to decriminalize. Who do you think is walking around trailer parks and swamp land or bush asking the Duck Dynasty guys if they beat their wives? Come on. You act as if women in these places are taken seriously or even get regularly seen by cops.

Just look at what happened with the localized case of Roy Moore. That was a statewide issue, and people literally came out with stories about how the alleged rapes resembled Mary and Joseph's. The goal for them is theocracy, and that ain't going to happen if there is a clear visibility of the women involved.

That's why the GOP needs to go national with the Alabama implementation of whatever crazy law and subjection they're gambling on to keep them in control for now.

:)




Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump is completely right. We need a wall. We need a wall around Alabama, which should be annexed by Iran. **** Alabama. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Hmmm, let's check the facts....

I found a video on the subject:



So apparently the "shooter" was also a Black woman, one who was determined by a Grand Jury as having acted in self-defense.

That blows your "racism" and possible "sexism" assumptions out of the water.

Next, the woman who was shot apparently acted with depraved indifference, engaging another woman in a deadly fight despite knowing she herself was pregnant.

This ultimately resulted in her child's death.

Seems to me there is no "injustice" in any part of this story, save that of her indifference to the life of her own baby.
Click to expand...


If we're going to insert race in reporting of news, then the race of ALL involved should be reported.

Had the shooter been charged, would the story have been about a black woman being charged for defending her own life, in the racist State of Alabama?
Perhaps she can plea innocent claiming she intended to abort the fetus, and initiated the fight because she couldn't afford to pay for the abortion.
 
Amelia said:
Get shot in the stomach five times. Get charged with manslaughter for getting shot. What a nightmare.

Dear God,

Please help the people of Alabama escape.

Please help this sickness not spread any further, and help these afflicted states find a way to stop the madness.
Click to expand...

Stupid charges .....yes I agree.

But, this lady initiated the confrontation which led to the violence and learned a hard lesson regarding the consequences for her own violent actions.
 
Grand Mal said:
Alright, this ought to be good. Explain 'felony manslaughter doctrine' and how it applies here.
Click to expand...
From The People's Law Dictionary (bold by me):

felony murder doctrine

n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder.​

From Justia:

Almost every state in the United States has a felony murder rule, and federal law recognizes the felony murder rule, as well. In most states, felony murder is categorized as a first-degree murder and can result in sentencing from several years to a life imprisonment.​

In conclusion:

  • the felony murder doctrine is common throughout the US, and certainly not unique to Alabama
  • the doctrine is not new
  • as @SLC capably points out, laws protecting the lives of unborn babies are neither uncommon nor new
  • I personally agree with you that applying the felony murder doctrine to this kind of unintentional homicide-by-proxy during an assault is excessive, and I hope the sentencing judge exercises considerable leniency

While I'm sorry to hear that the what-ifs of a fantasy TV series have your panicked hearts aflutter, rest assured that back here in the real world these charges reflect longstanding laws and do not represent any significant shift in legal doctrine.
 
Individual said:
If we're going to insert race in reporting of news, then the race of ALL involved should be reported.

Had the shooter been charged, would the story have been about a black woman being charged for defending her own life, in the racist State of Alabama?
Perhaps she can plea innocent claiming she intended to abort the fetus, and initiated the fight because she couldn't afford to pay for the abortion.
Click to expand...
Argh! Beat me to it..lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
uptower said:
Why is it smoking?
Click to expand...

If so many people thought you were nothing and it’s perfectly fine, admirable even, to have you killed, wouldn’t you smoke too?
 
Hatuey said:
Hmmmmm, what do you think happens when some country bride falls of an ATV, Chevy or horse or whatever it is they do in Alabama?

Will they blame the horse, atv, Chevy bride if a fetus so happened to have been in her? Lol, does she get to claim ahe didn't know riding horses or ATVs or driving was dangerous?

We shall see. I bet they'll have some legalese ready for when that happens to explain how she isn't guilty. Their logic on this is impregnable and nobody will notice their soft power grab.




Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
Click to expand...

Its all to get their challenge against Roe ready for their packed court.
 
ocean515 said:
So a pregnant women gets into a violent fight that results in the death of the baby she is carrying, and she carries no responsibility for that.


What kind of classes do Progressives take that teaches them they don't have to take responsibility for much of anything?
Click to expand...

I agree.

Any time a woman has a miscarriage she should be investigated to the full extent of the law. Perhaps it was her diet that led to the miscarriage. Perhaps she had a drink. Perhaps she was too physically active. If there is any reason that she may have been responsible for the miscarriage, she needs to be charged.
 
COTO said:
From The People's Law Dictionary (bold by me):

felony murder doctrine

n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder.​

From Justia:

Almost every state in the United States has a felony murder rule, and federal law recognizes the felony murder rule, as well. In most states, felony murder is categorized as a first-degree murder and can result in sentencing from several years to a life imprisonment.​

In conclusion:

  • the felony murder doctrine is common throughout the US, and certainly not unique to Alabama
  • the doctrine is not new
  • as @SLC capably points out, laws protecting the lives of unborn babies are neither uncommon nor new
  • I personally agree with you that applying the felony murder doctrine to this kind of unintentional homicide-by-proxy during an assault is excessive, and I hope the sentencing judge exercises considerable leniency

While I'm sorry to hear that the what-ifs of a fantasy TV series have your panicked hearts aflutter, rest assured that back here in the real world these charges reflect longstanding laws and do not represent any significant shift in legal doctrine.
Click to expand...

That doesn't apply here. She's not being charged with felony murder (and I think you are mixing this up with manslaughter). She's being charged with manslaughter - causing a death by her reckless actions.

For example, if I toss a brick off an overpass, it's probably not a felony, but is a stupid and dangerous thing to do. If it causes an accident that kills someone, I could be charged with manslaughter. My intent was not to kill, but my stupid action directly resulted in a death = manslaughter. In this case, the woman's stupid actions (relentless assault of her husband's coworker) resulted in the death of her child.

I think many are getting 'abortion' tangled up with this, perhaps because an abortion rights group weighed in early in the woman's defense. Abortion isn't an issue here. The woman wasn't trying to have an abortion. This falls under the laws regarding death of an unborn child.

Teasing out the issue a bit. Let's say she wasn't pregnant, but had a newborn in an infant harness. She tracks down and physically assaults her husband's coworker in a public place, with that baby strapped to her chest. People try to pull them apart, but she refuses to give up. Finally, the coworker shoves the woman away, she falls on top of the baby, killing him. In this case, would you consider the woman negligent? Reckless? Responsible for the death of the newborn?
 
COTO said:
From The People's Law Dictionary (bold by me):

felony murder doctrine

n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder.​

From Justia:

Almost every state in the United States has a felony murder rule, and federal law recognizes the felony murder rule, as well. In most states, felony murder is categorized as a first-degree murder and can result in sentencing from several years to a life imprisonment.​

In conclusion:

  • the felony murder doctrine is common throughout the US, and certainly not unique to Alabama
  • the doctrine is not new
  • as @SLC capably points out, laws protecting the lives of unborn babies are neither uncommon nor new
  • I personally agree with you that applying the felony murder doctrine to this kind of unintentional homicide-by-proxy during an assault is excessive, and I hope the sentencing judge exercises considerable leniency

While I'm sorry to hear that the what-ifs of a fantasy TV series have your panicked hearts aflutter, rest assured that back here in the real world these charges reflect longstanding laws and do not represent any significant shift in legal doctrine.
Click to expand...

How does any of this apply here? This isn't murder, and thie 'doctrine' kicks in if the woman who was shot was commiting a felony. Unless you know something I don't here, unless she was committing a felony when the shooting happened we've entered a circle where the manslaughter is the felony that makes her in jeopardy of manslaughter.
And keep your juvenile snark to yourself. I'm done with you. You get the last word- make it good.
 
dcsports said:
That doesn't apply here. She's not being charged with felony murder (and I think you are mixing this up with manslaughter). She's being charged with manslaughter - causing a death by her reckless actions.
Click to expand...
According to other members, she's being charged with fetal homicide.

As I have only 5 minutes here presently, I leave the mission to you: post a link to primary source on the story dated today that mentions specifically what the woman is being charged with. Good luck, soldier.

dcsports said:
I think many are getting 'abortion' tangled up with this, perhaps because an abortion rights group weighed in early in the woman's defense. Abortion isn't an issue here. The woman wasn't trying to have an abortion. This falls under the laws regarding death of an unborn child.
Click to expand...
Agreed on both points.

dcsports said:
Teasing out the issue a bit. Let's say she wasn't pregnant, but had a newborn in an infant harness. She tracks down and physically assaults her husband's coworker in a public place, with that baby strapped to her chest. People try to pull them apart, but she refuses to give up. Finally, the coworker shoves the woman away, she falls on top of the baby, killing him. In this case, would you consider the woman negligent? Reckless? Responsible for the death of the newborn?
Click to expand...
I personally wouldn't charge her with anything. I'd consider the death of her baby sufficient punishment for the assault. Which, not coincidentally, is the very same as my assessment for this case in Alabama.

Grand Mal said:
How does any of this apply here? This isn't murder, and thie 'doctrine' kicks in if the woman who was shot was commiting a felony. Unless you know something I don't here, unless she was committing a felony when the shooting happened we've entered a circle where the manslaughter is the felony that makes her in jeopardy of manslaughter.
And keep your juvenile snark to yourself. I'm done with you. You get the last word- make it good.
Click to expand...
If she's being charged under the felony murder doctrine (there seems to be some question about this), then obviously Alabama regards assault and battery--or whatever crime it is the mother is charged with for provoking and physically attacking the other woman--as a felony.

If the charges are related to negligence, as @dcsports contends, then whether or not the assault is considered a felony is irrelevant. But in this case, I'd expect the primary charge to contain either the word "manslaughter", "negligent", or both if @dcsports' contention is true.

I appoint you the backup for @cdsports. If he fails to procure the aforementioned primary source, the duty falls to you. I have faith in you both. :)
 
So an unarmed pregnant woman gets in a fight with a grown man and he shoots her 5 times in "self defence". And then she gets charged for the death of the baby and goes free? What kind of ****ed up society is this? Handmaiden tale in real life?

The man should be charged with premated murder and attempted murder period. He should not be able to claim self defence against an unarmed person, especially 5 ****ing shots. The disproportionate amount of force here is nuts...its like saying to get rid of a fireant hill, you need to nuke the 100km around it..

No this is because she is black and a woman.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
 
PeteEU said:
So an unarmed pregnant woman gets in a fight with a grown man and he shoots her 5 times in "self defence". And then she gets charged for the death of the baby and goes free? What kind of ****ed up society is this? Handmaiden tale in real life?

The man should be charged with premated murder and attempted murder period. He should not be able to claim self defence against an unarmed person, especially 5 ****ing shots. The disproportionate amount of force here is nuts...its like saying to get rid of a fireant hill, you need to nuke the 100km around it..

No this is because she is black and a woman.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Your reading comprehension is lacking.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Stupid charges .....yes I agree.

But, this lady initiated the confrontation which led to the violence and learned a hard lesson regarding the consequences for her own violent actions.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that she was the aggressor, but it’s not clear what the nature of that aggression was. I asked this question before but nobody replied:

what exactly did she do to justify getting shot? It seems to me that shooting someone is justifiable only if one believes her life is in imminent danger, so what was the pregnant woman doing to the shooter to make her feel that way? Brandishing a knife or something?
 
Birdzeye said:
Supposedly, the pregnant woman was shot after being the aggressor in a fight and supposedly escalating the hostilities. I don’t know any more details than that. Now , shooting someone seems to me like something that’s only justifiable when the shooter has reason to fear for his/her life. So I’m wondering if the shooter was justified in shooting?
Click to expand...

Grand jury said she was.
 
COTO said:
I understand the reasons behind the felony murder and felony manslaughter doctrines, but they've never sat particularly well with me in general.

In this case I hope the sentencing judge exercises lenience. I should think that getting shot multiple times and losing one's baby is punishment enough for an assault.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like dropping the homicide charge. Try her for assault and leave it at that.
 
Hatuey said:
How long did it take for the baby killer chants to start? Ask yourselves. Anyone who didn't see the same old chant coming is lying to themselves.

The point for them is to create a cult around fetuses at any stage. Except the fetuses of pregnant women at the border. The fetuses want soap? **** them.

We don't owe nothing. Lol, goofballs.

Sent from the Oval Office using Putin's MacBook, and Barr's Wi-Fi password.
Click to expand...

Baby still INSIDE the mother: "Precious and worth saving"
Baby OUTSIDE of the mother: "Welfare mooching spawn that needs to learn responsibility and good life choices"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom