Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, the message here is that you should not attack people and if you do you should accept the consequences of your stupid actions.
So if I get into a verbal argument with you, I should expect that I might be shot as a result, and I need to just accept that.
Come to Alabama, where it's perfectly legal for someone to shoot you if you argue with them. And YOU will go to jail for getting shot while your assailant walks free.
She is not being charged for getting shot herself.
I'm not even sure how I feel about this but I know one thing for sure. I know of no sane or law abiding woman who would ever get into any kind of physical or even verbal confrontation while she was carrying a child that she cherishes.
Yes, she's being charged for getting shot herself. The state asserts that her actions led to her being shot. Which led to the death of her unborn daughter. So she is charged with manslaughter via another person shooting her.
And women get into confrontations EVERY SINGLE DAY, whether pregnant or not. Because woman aren't doormats. They stand up for themselves. I know, it's terrible that women have to stand up for themselves.
The death or great bodily injury of a fetus happens everytime a pregnant woman is in a physical confrontation? Or most every time? Or the majority of times? Numerous times does not mean that a woman should expect it to be the outcome? And once again, "foreseeable outcome" means pretty much every possible outcome. A "foreseeable outcome" of this confrontation could be that the pregnant woman scares the other woman enough that her relationship with the baby-daddy is protected. That might have been the "foreseeable outcome" that the pregnant woman was thinking about.
You are correct that there are several foreseeable outcomes of this confrontation. The death or bodily injury of this child was one of them, the criminal liability for which is not mitigated by the fact that there were other foreseeable outcomes.
What's more, it need not happen "every time" or even most time to be a foreseeable outcome. For example, 80% of shooting victims survive. That "only" 20% die doesn't mean death by shooting is not a foreseeable outcome.
Nor does it matter that there are other foreseeable outcomes. If I shoot you in the leg, one foreseeable outcome is that you say "ouch Charlie, that hurts!", go to a hospital, and get patched up. Another foreseeable outcome is I strike your femoral artery and you bleed out before medical personnel can get to you in time. I would still be liable for murder because the latter outcome was foreseeable even though the former outcome was also foreseeable.
If she climbed a ladder, she put the child in danger. Right?
Yes.
I'm so glad that I left Alabama as a teen-ager when I had the opportunity and never looked back. I just don't see anything that Alabama has going for it - even 40 years later.
Can you identify any legal principle where these circumstances would be considered "precipitated?" Did the woman initiate the storm? Did she cause the tree branch to fall? Do you know what "precipitate" even means, or is this just laughable attempt to gaslight?
Did the shooting victims in these cases below precipitate the circumstances. The victim initiated the aggressive assault. The shooter acted in self defense yet the shooter was held responsible and charged. The aggressor should have foreseen the risk of being shot therefore the aggressor should be charge with his own murder. It seems to me these cases below would set a legal precedent for shooting an aggressor.
Now justify the difference in charging the pregnant woman with being shot and actually charging the shooter in the cases below?
So to recap, if you get into an altercation with someone and they have a gun and shoot you, it's your fault for getting into an altercation with someone with a gun. And the shooter goes free while the victim is deemed at fault and is charged in her own shooting.
Only in gun-loving America.
I don't know what happens on the planet you're from, but there's no requirement here that one can only use a gun for protection if your attacker has one, too.
You don't even need a permit to carry in Alabama. The pregnant woman was the aggressor, who initiated the physical fight, escalated it, then was shot when the other woman shot her, in self-defense.
As for the manslaughter charge due to the death of the fetus, that's just nuts.
If she climbed a ladder, she put the child in danger. Right?
Possibly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
