independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 19th Jul 2019 5:45pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > A pregnant woman indicted for shooting death of her baby.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 06/27/19 4:58am

benni

avatar

A pregnant woman indicted for shooting death of her baby.

Marshae Jones, 27, was just indicted by an Alabama grand jury for the death of her 20-week-old fetus. Jones is being accused of “starting an argument” that led to her being shot. Jones was indicted on manslaughter charges and brought into custody.

The woman who actually shot Jones was charged with manslaughter, but a grand jury failed to indict her, and the charge was dismissed. At the time, police alleged that Jones started the argument, and that Jemison shot Jones in self-defense. Jones was unarmed.

https://www.al.com/news/b...issed.html
_____________________________________________________________________


So, in essence, she is being charged with manslaughter because she got into an argument with another woman, over the father of her baby, and the woman she fought with pulled out a gun and shot her, resulting in the termination of her pregnancy.

She is being charged with manslaughter, because she did not realize the other woman would pull out a gun and shoot her, ending her pregnancy.

[Edited 6/27/19 5:00am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 06/27/19 5:25am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

I need more info on the event. If a person is killed during the commission of a crime all persons taking part in the crime can be charged. So I am thinking there is more to this. (I have not read the link)
Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 06/27/19 5:34am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

So here is the thing. This charge is bogus. If a bystander was killed then yes. But as it was her fetus I would have a very hard time voting to convict.
Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 06/27/19 7:26am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Trump is telling us that being immoral is how you suceed in life.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 06/27/19 9:44am

SupaFunkyOrgan
grinderSexy

avatar

These sick freak will stoop to any level to get their fetal cult laws enacted. You might as well bring back the witch trials. Just kill them all to see if they float or not, if they are innocent oh well at least you tried to determine if they are a witch or not.

[Edited 6/27/19 9:46am]

2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 06/27/19 1:21pm

2elijah

avatar

That is bs. They’re using her as a scapegoat. These states with these ridiculous restrictions should be boycotted. She should not be indicted for that. It’s the woman who shot her who should be indicted. Seems like they’re looking for any reason to fill up the prisons. They should have indicted the shooter, not the pregnant lady.
[Edited 6/27/19 13:23pm]
As an American you have a right to question/call your country out on its wrongs/injustices. That doesn’t make you un-American nor does anyone have a right to tell you to leave, because you have the courage to stand up against any injustice in this count
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 06/27/19 1:48pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

I don't know. At first blush you want to say, "WTF? Typical Alabama Republicans". But on the other hand...

If she started the fight, she did put her fetus in danger. Especially if the other person feared for their life and shot Jones in self-defense.

Certainly she didn't intend to put her fetus in danger - especially mortal danger - but if she started the physical altercation, she is responsible for what happened to the fetus (assuming self-defense).

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 06/27/19 3:19pm

PennyPurple

avatar

So the one who actually shot her, got off free... sad

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 06/27/19 4:31pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

PennyPurple said:

So the one who actually shot her, got off free... sad

it sounds like a clear case of self defence. and her disposition has zero legal bearing on the other case.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 06/27/19 9:23pm

benni

avatar

The woman that shot her is claiming self-defense, but claiming self-defense is easy. I've seen some cat fights in my time, and one woman always gets her butt kicked. If pregnant mama was beating her up, that is not a reason to pull out a gun. (You shouldn't mess with a baby daddy when babay mama is hormonal and pregnant.)

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 06/28/19 5:06am

CherryMoon57

avatar

This twisted case is probably meant to cause yet another social media turmoil. Let the fools rush in. This time I'll just watch popcorn

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 06/28/19 7:11am

2elijah

avatar

benni said:

The woman that shot her is claiming self-defense, but claiming self-defense is easy. I've seen some cat fights in my time, and one woman always gets her butt kicked. If pregnant mama was beating her up, that is not a reason to pull out a gun. (You shouldn't mess with a baby daddy when babay mama is hormonal and pregnant.)


Exactly. Don’t be surprised if the foolish pro-lifers side with the jurors that the pregnant woman should have been indicted. Most folks wouldn’t fight a pregnant woman. The fact that she was pregnant, the lady who shot her should have been indicted. Why did she have to result in using a gun? So if the pregnant woman died, would the jury still have let her walk free? She was the one who did the shooting.

What about pregnant woman on drugs? How many of them have gone to prison for being drug addicts, and pregnant? Anyone researched that yet? I have a feeling these will be the next group to face prison time.
[Edited 6/28/19 7:16am]
As an American you have a right to question/call your country out on its wrongs/injustices. That doesn’t make you un-American nor does anyone have a right to tell you to leave, because you have the courage to stand up against any injustice in this count
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 06/28/19 7:58am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

Read it yesterday on FB. Seriously it doesn’t matter who started the fight, the other woman shouldn’t have shot the pregnant woman. So she not only lost her child, she’s also being charged for losing it?? And of course the shooter walks off free
"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 06/28/19 8:08am

RodeoSchro

avatar

2elijah said:

benni said:

The woman that shot her is claiming self-defense, but claiming self-defense is easy. I've seen some cat fights in my time, and one woman always gets her butt kicked. If pregnant mama was beating her up, that is not a reason to pull out a gun. (You shouldn't mess with a baby daddy when babay mama is hormonal and pregnant.)

Exactly. Don’t be surprised if the foolish pro-lifers side with the jurors that the pregnant woman should have been indicted. Most folks wouldn’t fight a pregnant woman. The fact that she was pregnant, the lady who shot her should have been indicted. Why did she have to result in using a gun? So if the pregnant woman died, would the jury still have let her walk free? She was the one who did the shooting. What about pregnant woman on drugs? How many of them have gone to prison for being drug addicts, and pregnant? Anyone researched that yet? I have a feeling these will be the next group to face prison time. [Edited 6/28/19 7:16am]



Police initially DID charge the shooter with manslaughter but after hearing the evidence, a grand jury would not indict her. So that means that an Alabama grand jury did NOT indict a black woman for shooting another black woman and killing a fetus. That kind of takes the "They're picking on a black woman" argument out of it, doesn't it?

Although the article doesn't cite it, what other reason could the grand jury have decided not to indict the shooter other than they were convinced it was a case of self-defense? Forget about the baby for one second. The grand jury found that Woman A shot Woman B and even though the police charged Woman A with manslaughter, the grand jury failed to indict Woman A for that shooting. Clearly the grand jury HAD to believe that Woman A acted in self-defense. Can you think of any other reason they wouldn't indict the shooter?

The article does state that it was the pregnant woman who started the fight, and she was also the one who pressed it. I'm sure she didn't intend for the fight to become deadly but even if no gun had been involved, she still could have subjected the baby to injury or death through a punch, kick or even a fall.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 06/28/19 11:37am

EmmaMcG

avatar

America...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 06/29/19 8:58am

poppys

RodeoSchro said:

2elijah said:

benni said: Exactly. Don’t be surprised if the foolish pro-lifers side with the jurors that the pregnant woman should have been indicted. Most folks wouldn’t fight a pregnant woman. The fact that she was pregnant, the lady who shot her should have been indicted. Why did she have to result in using a gun? So if the pregnant woman died, would the jury still have let her walk free? She was the one who did the shooting. What about pregnant woman on drugs? How many of them have gone to prison for being drug addicts, and pregnant? Anyone researched that yet? I have a feeling these will be the next group to face prison time. [Edited 6/28/19 7:16am]



Police initially DID charge the shooter with manslaughter but after hearing the evidence, a grand jury would not indict her. So that means that an Alabama grand jury did NOT indict a black woman for shooting another black woman and killing a fetus. That kind of takes the "They're picking on a black woman" argument out of it, doesn't it?

Although the article doesn't cite it, what other reason could the grand jury have decided not to indict the shooter other than they were convinced it was a case of self-defense? Forget about the baby for one second. The grand jury found that Woman A shot Woman B and even though the police charged Woman A with manslaughter, the grand jury failed to indict Woman A for that shooting. Clearly the grand jury HAD to believe that Woman A acted in self-defense. Can you think of any other reason they wouldn't indict the shooter?

The article does state that it was the pregnant woman who started the fight, and she was also the one who pressed it. I'm sure she didn't intend for the fight to become deadly but even if no gun had been involved, she still could have subjected the baby to injury or death through a punch, kick or even a fall.


Yes, I can think of another reason they didn't indict the shooter. Maybe the grand jury is NOT above reproach.

Maybe they decided that this would be a great way to piggyback on Alabama forcing women to give birth when they don't want to, even in the case of rape and incest. Maybe not, but it is suspect and we don't know.

To indict a mother who started a fight for murdering her own fetus when it was another person who actually murdered the fetus is overreach.


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 06/29/19 9:46am

PennyPurple

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

Read it yesterday on FB. Seriously it doesn’t matter who started the fight, the other woman shouldn’t have shot the pregnant woman. So she not only lost her child, she’s also being charged for losing it?? And of course the shooter walks off free

I know, right?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 06/29/19 9:50am

maplenpg

avatar

poppys said:

RodeoSchro said:



Police initially DID charge the shooter with manslaughter but after hearing the evidence, a grand jury would not indict her. So that means that an Alabama grand jury did NOT indict a black woman for shooting another black woman and killing a fetus. That kind of takes the "They're picking on a black woman" argument out of it, doesn't it?

Although the article doesn't cite it, what other reason could the grand jury have decided not to indict the shooter other than they were convinced it was a case of self-defense? Forget about the baby for one second. The grand jury found that Woman A shot Woman B and even though the police charged Woman A with manslaughter, the grand jury failed to indict Woman A for that shooting. Clearly the grand jury HAD to believe that Woman A acted in self-defense. Can you think of any other reason they wouldn't indict the shooter?

The article does state that it was the pregnant woman who started the fight, and she was also the one who pressed it. I'm sure she didn't intend for the fight to become deadly but even if no gun had been involved, she still could have subjected the baby to injury or death through a punch, kick or even a fall.


Yes, I can think of another reason they didn't indict the shooter. Maybe the grand jury is NOT above reproach.

Maybe they decided that this would be a great way to piggyback on Alabama forcing women to give birth when they don't want to, even in the case of rape and incest. Maybe not, but it is suspect and we don't know.

To indict a mother who started a fight for murdering her own fetus when it was another person who actually murdered the fetus is overreach.


Whilst I agree the pregnant woman should not be charged with murder of her own fetus, I'm not sure there is any wider conspiracy. It seems the pregnant woman started the fight, which she should not have. It seems that, for whatever reason the other woman shot her, which is why I support a ban on guns, and the jury (who heard way more details than you and me) found she acted in self-defense. The pregnant woman has suffered enough - she should not be charged. This was a stupid argument that went too far over a guy. A baby got killed, there are no winners, no need to take it further IMO. I liked this article on the case:


https://www.al.com/news/2...-isnt.html

If you're going to refer to people as 'scum', at least have a reason to do so.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 06/29/19 10:13am

poppys

maplenpg said:

poppys said:


Yes, I can think of another reason they didn't indict the shooter. Maybe the grand jury is NOT above reproach.

Maybe they decided that this would be a great way to piggyback on Alabama forcing women to give birth when they don't want to, even in the case of rape and incest. Maybe not, but it is suspect and we don't know.

To indict a mother who started a fight for murdering her own fetus when it was another person who actually murdered the fetus is overreach.


Whilst I agree the pregnant woman should not be charged with murder of her own fetus, I'm not sure there is any wider conspiracy. It seems the pregnant woman started the fight, which she should not have. It seems that, for whatever reason the other woman shot her, which is why I support a ban on guns, and the jury (who heard way more details than you and me) found she acted in self-defense. The pregnant woman has suffered enough - she should not be charged. This was a stupid argument that went too far over a guy. A baby got killed, there are no winners, no need to take it further IMO. I liked this article on the case:


https://www.al.com/news/2...-isnt.html


The post I was responding to was Rodeo's, who specifically asked the question of 2elijah - Can you think of any other reason they wouldn't indict the shooter?

Alabama has gone batshit crazy recently with their control of women's bodies. Just because a grand jury did not indict the shooter, does not make them above reproach on this issue.


Your (valid) points are separate from what I am saying. Whether you think there was a conspiracy or not does not prove or disprove anything.

[Edited 6/29/19 10:22am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 06/29/19 11:22am

RodeoSchro

avatar

poppys said:

RodeoSchro said:



Police initially DID charge the shooter with manslaughter but after hearing the evidence, a grand jury would not indict her. So that means that an Alabama grand jury did NOT indict a black woman for shooting another black woman and killing a fetus. That kind of takes the "They're picking on a black woman" argument out of it, doesn't it?

Although the article doesn't cite it, what other reason could the grand jury have decided not to indict the shooter other than they were convinced it was a case of self-defense? Forget about the baby for one second. The grand jury found that Woman A shot Woman B and even though the police charged Woman A with manslaughter, the grand jury failed to indict Woman A for that shooting. Clearly the grand jury HAD to believe that Woman A acted in self-defense. Can you think of any other reason they wouldn't indict the shooter?

The article does state that it was the pregnant woman who started the fight, and she was also the one who pressed it. I'm sure she didn't intend for the fight to become deadly but even if no gun had been involved, she still could have subjected the baby to injury or death through a punch, kick or even a fall.


Yes, I can think of another reason they didn't indict the shooter. Maybe the grand jury is NOT above reproach.

Maybe they decided that this would be a great way to piggyback on Alabama forcing women to give birth when they don't want to, even in the case of rape and incest. Maybe not, but it is suspect and we don't know.

To indict a mother who started a fight for murdering her own fetus when it was another person who actually murdered the fetus is overreach.





Generally a theory like that would possibly hold water only with the greatest of credibility-stretching if the shooter was a white woman, so that you have a situation where a white woman shoots a black woman, and a white grand jury not only doesn't indict the white woman but indicts the black woman who got shot.

That's not what happened here. A black woman was the shooter, was charged with manslaughter but the police, and yet a (presumably) white grand jury declined to indict her. Clearly, they had to believe that the shooter feared for her life and acted in self-defense.

Let me ask you this:

Let's say a pregnant woman goes out and gets drunk. Then she gets in her car and doesn't bother with the seatbelt. She plows into a lamp post and the airbag explosion kills the fetus.

Is she responsible for the death of her unborn child?


Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 06/29/19 11:24am

RodeoSchro

avatar

maplenpg said:

poppys said:


Yes, I can think of another reason they didn't indict the shooter. Maybe the grand jury is NOT above reproach.

Maybe they decided that this would be a great way to piggyback on Alabama forcing women to give birth when they don't want to, even in the case of rape and incest. Maybe not, but it is suspect and we don't know.

To indict a mother who started a fight for murdering her own fetus when it was another person who actually murdered the fetus is overreach.


Whilst I agree the pregnant woman should not be charged with murder of her own fetus, I'm not sure there is any wider conspiracy. It seems the pregnant woman started the fight, which she should not have. It seems that, for whatever reason the other woman shot her, which is why I support a ban on guns, and the jury (who heard way more details than you and me) found she acted in self-defense. The pregnant woman has suffered enough - she should not be charged. This was a stupid argument that went too far over a guy. A baby got killed, there are no winners, no need to take it further IMO. I liked this article on the case:


https://www.al.com/news/2...-isnt.html




Valid points.

It would seem to me that if the pregnant woman acted in such a manner that her attack on the other woman made the other woman justified in shooting her, then the pregnant woman would be guilty of assault or something like that.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 06/29/19 12:05pm

poppys

RodeoSchro said:

poppys said:


Yes, I can think of another reason they didn't indict the shooter. Maybe the grand jury is NOT above reproach.

Maybe they decided that this would be a great way to piggyback on Alabama forcing women to give birth when they don't want to, even in the case of rape and incest. Maybe not, but it is suspect and we don't know.

To indict a mother who started a fight for murdering her own fetus when it was another person who actually murdered the fetus is overreach.





Generally a theory like that would possibly hold water only with the greatest of credibility-stretching if the shooter was a white woman, so that you have a situation where a white woman shoots a black woman, and a white grand jury not only doesn't indict the white woman but indicts the black woman who got shot.

That's not what happened here. A black woman was the shooter, was charged with manslaughter but the police, and yet a (presumably) white grand jury declined to indict her. Clearly, they had to believe that the shooter feared for her life and acted in self-defense.

Let me ask you this:

Let's say a pregnant woman goes out and gets drunk. Then she gets in her car and doesn't bother with the seatbelt. She plows into a lamp post and the airbag explosion kills the fetus.

Is she responsible for the death of her unborn child?



I don't care what color either woman is. My question to you is regarding what you already asked 2elijah.

Can you think of any other reason they (Alabama Grand Jury) wouldn't indict the shooter?

Hypotheticals aside, I can think of another reason, can you?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 06/29/19 12:39pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

poppys said:


I don't care what color either woman is. My question to you is regarding what you already asked 2elijah.

Can you think of any other reason they (Alabama Grand Jury) wouldn't indict the shooter?

Hypotheticals aside, I can think of another reason, can you?

other than it seems to be textbook self defence?

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 06/29/19 12:42pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

The woman that shot her is claiming self-defense, but claiming self-defense is easy. I've seen some cat fights in my time, and one woman always gets her butt kicked. If pregnant mama was beating her up, that is not a reason to pull out a gun. (You shouldn't mess with a baby daddy when babay mama is hormonal and pregnant.)

.

if you got attacked would you our would you not defend yourself?

and I predict she wll take a plea to battery and be done with it...

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 06/29/19 12:52pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

poppys said:

RodeoSchro said:




Generally a theory like that would possibly hold water only with the greatest of credibility-stretching if the shooter was a white woman, so that you have a situation where a white woman shoots a black woman, and a white grand jury not only doesn't indict the white woman but indicts the black woman who got shot.

That's not what happened here. A black woman was the shooter, was charged with manslaughter but the police, and yet a (presumably) white grand jury declined to indict her. Clearly, they had to believe that the shooter feared for her life and acted in self-defense.

Let me ask you this:

Let's say a pregnant woman goes out and gets drunk. Then she gets in her car and doesn't bother with the seatbelt. She plows into a lamp post and the airbag explosion kills the fetus.

Is she responsible for the death of her unborn child?



I don't care what color either woman is. My question to you is regarding what you already asked 2elijah.

Can you think of any other reason they (Alabama Grand Jury) wouldn't indict the shooter?

Hypotheticals aside, I can think of another reason, can you?



Nope.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's Palladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 06/29/19 1:01pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



benni said:


The woman that shot her is claiming self-defense, but claiming self-defense is easy. I've seen some cat fights in my time, and one woman always gets her butt kicked. If pregnant mama was beating her up, that is not a reason to pull out a gun. (You shouldn't mess with a baby daddy when babay mama is hormonal and pregnant.)




.


if you got attacked would you our would you not defend yourself?

and I predict she wll take a plea to battery and be done with it...



If someone attacked me, I would defend myself. But I would NOT "defend" myself with a gun. Because that is not self defense. That is murder. The only way they could claim self defence in this case was if the pregnant woman also had a gun and used it to attack the other woman.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 06/29/19 1:02pm

poppys

RodeoSchro said:

poppys said:


I don't care what color either woman is. My question to you is regarding what you already asked 2elijah.

Can you think of any other reason they (Alabama Grand Jury) wouldn't indict the shooter?

Hypotheticals aside, I can think of another reason, can you?



Nope.


Ok. I can - because of what is going on regarding pregnancy in Alabama. I'm sure you haven't missed that. We had close to a 30 page thread on it here until it got shut down a few days ago. Nobody else brought up color in this thread either.

Even grand juries can and do have ulterior motives. Just like the United States Supreme Court does - all the time.

[Edited 6/29/19 14:24pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 06/29/19 1:30pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

.

if you got attacked would you our would you not defend yourself?

and I predict she wll take a plea to battery and be done with it...

If someone attacked me, I would defend myself. But I would NOT "defend" myself with a gun. Because that is not self defense. That is murder. The only way they could claim self defence in this case was if the pregnant woman also had a gun and used it to attack the other woman.

I do not think I could disagree more... To suggest that a victim should have to wait and see what weapons or abilities their assailant may or may not have is ridiculous.

What about a knife? Or if the attacker was much bigger? Or if they had a .22 and you had a .40 would you have to not use your bigger gun?


What if someone was an expert in hand to hand combat? Would they have to not use their skills?



to me any reasonable threat to life, limb, or property is 100% justification for the use of deadly force.

no one should have to wait to be a victim... as long as the threat passes the reasonable person test then you should be able to use anything you have at hand to defend yourself.

Being a die-hard civil rights champion,
Being a die-hard libertarian,
Sometimes I have to defend
that which I find distasteful.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 06/29/19 3:40pm

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:

The woman that shot her is claiming self-defense, but claiming self-defense is easy. I've seen some cat fights in my time, and one woman always gets her butt kicked. If pregnant mama was beating her up, that is not a reason to pull out a gun. (You shouldn't mess with a baby daddy when babay mama is hormonal and pregnant.)

.

if you got attacked would you our would you not defend yourself?

and I predict she wll take a plea to battery and be done with it...


I would not shoot someone who brings fists to a fight.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 06/29/19 3:46pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



EmmaMcG said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:



.


if you got attacked would you our would you not defend yourself?

and I predict she wll take a plea to battery and be done with it...



If someone attacked me, I would defend myself. But I would NOT "defend" myself with a gun. Because that is not self defense. That is murder. The only way they could claim self defence in this case was if the pregnant woman also had a gun and used it to attack the other woman.


I do not think I could disagree more... To suggest that a victim should have to wait and see what weapons or abilities their assailant may or may not have is ridiculous.

What about a knife? Or if the attacker was much bigger? Or if they had a .22 and you had a .40 would you have to not use your bigger gun?


What if someone was an expert in hand to hand combat? Would they have to not use their skills?



to me any reasonable threat to life, limb, or property is 100% justification for the use of deadly force.

no one should have to wait to be a victim... as long as the threat passes the reasonable person test then you should be able to use anything you have at hand to defend yourself.



What if. What if. What if. Your scenarios are irrelevant to this case. The fact is, it was a pregnant woman who was attacking. Even I, at barely 5'2" and weak as fuck would not resort to using lethal force to "defend" myself against a pregnant woman. Now, if it was a 6'4" man attacking me, maybe it would be a different story. But a pregnant woman? Come on! This is just the latest example of needless gun violence in a nation of wannabe cowboys (and cowgirls).
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > A pregnant woman indicted for shooting death of her baby.