independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 19th Jul 2019 6:32pm
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 2 of 2 <12
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 06/29/19 4:25pm

IanRG

EmmaMcG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

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).

.

Exactly, Only is so willing to write off the sacrifice of the unborn baby as just the cost of protecting self-defense within the "stand your ground" style legislation promoted by people that put guns before people. Even within this, the Alabama "stand you ground" legislation has a reasonableness test in the degree of force in the self defense considered necessary under the circumstances. In a sane society, it is an extremely rare situation that would require the shooting of a pregnant woman in thw womb as a reasonable proportional response. But without all the facts or any understanding of the extreme threat in this situation (if any), Only sees this as a clear cut and unquestionable: Shoot to kill first, then assess if this was reasonable.

[Edited 6/29/19 16:30pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 06/29/19 4:51pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

Chief Assistant District Attorney Valerie Hicks Powe late Thursday night issued a statement about the case.

[...]

“While the grand jury has had its say, our office is in the process of evaluating this case and 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,’’ Powe said. “We will take a through look at all the facts provided, the applicable laws, and reach a decision that we believe will lead to an outcome that is the most just for all the parties involved. We will announce our decision only after all due diligence has been performed.”

“Unfortunately, some groups have attempted to tie this case to the anti-abortion law recent passed by the (state) legislature,’’ Powe said. “This case predates the passage of the legislation and we must point out the new law played no role in the consideration of the grand jury.”

Powe pointed out that it was the grand jury, after looking at the facts presented by the investigation law enforcement agency, which made the decision to bring charges against Jones. “In fact, the actions of both Ms. Jones and the shooter, Ebony Jemison, were presented to the grand jury at the same time,’’ she said. “The grand jury, based on the facts presented, determined that Ms. Jemison acted in self-defense and did not warrant charges against her, and that Ms. Jones should face charges for her actions resulting the death of unborn child.”


As Powe told AL.com earlier Thursday, she reiterated that the case has not been handled any differently than the way any other felony case is handled.

“Fairness and justice are the driving principles for this office,’’ Powe said. “The public can rest assured that we will be guided by those principles in this case.”


https://www.al.com/news/b...death.html

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 06/29/19 9:49pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

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).

I subscribe to the idea that 1) you take your victims as you find them and 2) you are no obligated to make ANY accommodation against an attacker who poses a reasonable threat to life, limb, or property. I assure you there are woman who are pregnant who are more that capable of deadly force without a weapon... I want you to be safe. If someone attackes you... I do not want to to worry about meeting force with force.

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 #33 posted 06/29/19 9:50pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni 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...


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

then you choose to be a victim.

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 #34 posted 06/29/19 10:02pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

EmmaMcG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said: 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).

.

Exactly, Only is so willing to write off the sacrifice of the unborn baby as just the cost of protecting self-defense within the "stand your ground" style legislation promoted by people that put guns before people. Even within this, the Alabama "stand you ground" legislation has a reasonableness test in the degree of force in the self defense considered necessary under the circumstances. In a sane society, it is an extremely rare situation that would require the shooting of a pregnant woman in thw womb as a reasonable proportional response. But without all the facts or any understanding of the extreme threat in this situation (if any), Only sees this as a clear cut and unquestionable: Shoot to kill first, then assess if this was reasonable.

[Edited 6/29/19 16:30pm]

I do not know what or even of there is a "stand your ground" law in Alabama... I know that in 2012 in florida the "stand your ground" was not the same as "self defence." (the Martin shooting was a case of self defence and NOT "Stand your ground")


And NO i am not willing to "sacrifice of the unborn baby." (I did not know you were for banning abortions at 5 months?)

And thankfully the law where I live doesn't make the victim second guess how much of a threat an attacker poses.

As to the need to shoot a pregnant woman... well that woman should have not started a fight.

The one thing that may well cause her to be convicted is getting into a fight when 20 weeks pregnant carries with it a risk to the life of the fetus. That is it is foreseeable that even in a minor fight the fetus could be killed.

it boils down to if a pregnant woman doesn't want to get shot she should not start a fight.

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 #35 posted 06/29/19 11:24pm

EmmaMcG

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:



EmmaMcG said:


OnlyNDaUsa said:



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).


I subscribe to the idea that 1) you take your victims as you find them and 2) you are no obligated to make ANY accommodation against an attacker who poses a reasonable threat to life, limb, or property. I assure you there are woman who are pregnant who are more that capable of deadly force without a weapon... I want you to be safe. If someone attackes you... I do not want to to worry about meeting force with force.



So in other words, you are in favour of shooting an unarmed pregnant woman if there is even a slight chance that she might be capable of deadly force. You realise how that sounds? You realise that it's these kinds of beliefs that make America the laughing stock of the world?
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 06/30/19 1:49am

maplenpg

avatar

EmmaMcG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I subscribe to the idea that 1) you take your victims as you find them and 2) you are no obligated to make ANY accommodation against an attacker who poses a reasonable threat to life, limb, or property. I assure you there are woman who are pregnant who are more that capable of deadly force without a weapon... I want you to be safe. If someone attackes you... I do not want to to worry about meeting force with force.

So in other words, you are in favour of shooting an unarmed pregnant woman if there is even a slight chance that she might be capable of deadly force. You realise how that sounds? You realise that it's these kinds of beliefs that make America the laughing stock of the world?

This. Also it seems these girls were fighting over a man. I'm also going to assume (I don't know this) that he was in some way playing them both. Why oh why won't people learn that it is the cheater that is the one at fault, not the other party who falls for his (or her) charms. They should have got together and faced him together, girl power and all that, kicked him to the kerb.

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 #37 posted 06/30/19 3:14am

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

Exactly, Only is so willing to write off the sacrifice of the unborn baby as just the cost of protecting self-defense within the "stand your ground" style legislation promoted by people that put guns before people. Even within this, the Alabama "stand you ground" legislation has a reasonableness test in the degree of force in the self defense considered necessary under the circumstances. In a sane society, it is an extremely rare situation that would require the shooting of a pregnant woman in thw womb as a reasonable proportional response. But without all the facts or any understanding of the extreme threat in this situation (if any), Only sees this as a clear cut and unquestionable: Shoot to kill first, then assess if this was reasonable.

[Edited 6/29/19 16:30pm]

I do not know what or even of there is a "stand your ground" law in Alabama... I know that in 2012 in florida the "stand your ground" was not the same as "self defence." (the Martin shooting was a case of self defence and NOT "Stand your ground")


And NO i am not willing to "sacrifice of the unborn baby." (I did not know you were for banning abortions at 5 months?)

And thankfully the law where I live doesn't make the victim second guess how much of a threat an attacker poses.

As to the need to shoot a pregnant woman... well that woman should have not started a fight.

The one thing that may well cause her to be convicted is getting into a fight when 20 weeks pregnant carries with it a risk to the life of the fetus. That is it is foreseeable that even in a minor fight the fetus could be killed.

it boils down to if a pregnant woman doesn't want to get shot she should not start a fight.

.

That you don't know the law, how to look up the law or the how "stand you ground" vs "duty to retreat" affects laws on self defense does not surprise me given your poor history with legal issues here.

.

In you rush to assume and accuse me in regards to a completely off-topic matter, all you demonstrated is that you failed to understand that what I was pointing out the was your acceptance without knowing the full facts of a person shooting and killing an unborn baby as just an acceptable outcome of self defense.

.

I have no idea where you live, but as far as I am aware all self-defense laws in the USA include something similar to the Alabama use of a degree of force reasonable believed necessary. For example, it is not reasonable to use deadly force against a threat of second degree assault in the street such as the threat of stamping on a person's foot.

.

If you read what I said, I did not say that it is impossible that the mother was responsible for this event: I said "it is an extremely rare situation that would require the shooting of a pregnant woman in the womb as a reasonable proportional response".

.

The point I was making was that it is YOUR position that is deplorable - the one you just repeated several times: You, without knowing the full details and with no regard for human life, constantly support the shooter. You constantly put guns before people to the point that you cannot even appreciate that shooting a person, especially an unarmed pregnant person, should be nothing but a last resort in an extreme situation, not just one you so easily consider as OK.

[Edited 6/30/19 3:26am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 06/30/19 6:14am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:


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

then you choose to be a victim.


Because I would choose to be in a fair fight, that would make me a victim? Well, then, I guess I would rather be a victim in a fight, than to shoot an unarmed person. If I get my butt kicked, then I get my butt kicked. That's what happens in a fight. Someone always loses. But when you bring a gun into a fight, it is no longer a fair fight, and life becomes the price paid. That's the problem today, people get into fights and when it starts turning against them, suddenly they fear for their life and have to resort to using a lethal means of attack. People are afraid of getting their butts kicked today.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 06/30/19 10:36am

CherryMoon57

avatar

It's a chicken and egg situation.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 06/30/19 4:38pm

IanRG

CherryMoon57 said:

It's a chicken and egg situation.

.

It is more like the "Paradox of thrift" where people can be better off by saving unless this means that there is too much saving so everyone is, in fact, made worse off. In the US self defense paradox people believe that they can be better off if they are better able to defend themselves but this means there are too many arms for self defense so everyone is made worse off. Rather than being safer, they are more at risk of violence to the point that people in the US are around ten times more likely to be victims of deadly force violence than people in other equivalent countries.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 07/03/19 1:08pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

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.

proven right once again... charges dropped. As I said the charge was bogus. I did think that at worst she would take a plea for assault but this is good news. But it is being twisted in to being into some sick anti-self defence crap. but that will be approved of here with all the anti-self defence people here....



https://www.nbcnews.com/n...8t9jJHquF8

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 #42 posted 07/03/19 2:07pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

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.

proven right once again... charges dropped. As I said the charge was bogus. I did think that at worst she would take a plea for assault but this is good news. But it is being twisted in to being into some sick anti-self defence crap. but that will be approved of here with all the anti-self defence people here....

.

No, the charges were not dismissed, the DA just dropped them.

.

This is not a result of a legal test that confirms whether the charge was "bogus".

.

What you think was not proven right - You also said "The one thing that may well cause her to be convicted is getting into a fight when 20 weeks pregnant carries with it a risk to the life of the fetus. That is it is foreseeable that even in a minor fight the fetus could be killed". Having an each way bet and confusing charges being dropped by the DA with charges being dismissed as "bogus" does not mean you were proven right.

.

It is far more likely that the DA is just responding to the international political focus and reconsidered due to the potential backlash.

[Edited 7/3/19 14:08pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 07/03/19 2:30pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

proven right once again... charges dropped. As I said the charge was bogus. I did think that at worst she would take a plea for assault but this is good news. But it is being twisted in to being into some sick anti-self defence crap. but that will be approved of here with all the anti-self defence people here....

.

No, the charges were not dismissed, the DA just dropped them.

.

This is not a result of a legal test that confirms whether the charge was "bogus".

.

What you think was not proven right - You also said "The one thing that may well cause her to be convicted is getting into a fight when 20 weeks pregnant carries with it a risk to the life of the fetus. That is it is foreseeable that even in a minor fight the fetus could be killed". Having an each way bet and confusing charges being dropped by the DA with charges being dismissed as "bogus" does not mean you were proven right.

.

It is far more likely that the DA is just responding to the international political focus and reconsidered due to the potential backlash.

[Edited 7/3/19 14:08pm]

you are correct I used the wrong term... thank you....they were dropped.

as to the rest of you desperate attempt to prove me wrong. But Yeah I am right!


funny how you assume the motive of the DA... which is fine... but the fact is My gut reaction was that she would not get convicted.

I did opine as to what could happen if I was proven wrong as it went to trial. It was not an each way bet.

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 #44 posted 07/03/19 3:15pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

No, the charges were not dismissed, the DA just dropped them.

.

This is not a result of a legal test that confirms whether the charge was "bogus".

.

What you think was not proven right - You also said "The one thing that may well cause her to be convicted is getting into a fight when 20 weeks pregnant carries with it a risk to the life of the fetus. That is it is foreseeable that even in a minor fight the fetus could be killed". Having an each way bet and confusing charges being dropped by the DA with charges being dismissed as "bogus" does not mean you were proven right.

.

It is far more likely that the DA is just responding to the international political focus and reconsidered due to the potential backlash.

[Edited 7/3/19 14:08pm]

you are correct I used the wrong term... thank you....they were dropped.

as to the rest of you desperate attempt to prove me wrong. But Yeah I am right!


funny how you assume the motive of the DA... which is fine... but the fact is My gut reaction was that she would not get convicted.

I did opine as to what could happen if I was proven wrong as it went to trial. It was not an each way bet.

.

Yeah ... No!

.

If you understood the legal difference between the terms "dismissed" and "dropped", then you would understand that the former would have been a test of one of your opinions - the charges would have been found "bogus". However, the latter, the one that actually occurred, means that neither of your opinions has been proven right or wrong - the "bogusity" has not been proven one way or the other.

.

As to your each way bet: you opined in both directions. Your were not proven right on one of them and the other will never be tested. Each way you were wrong, the charges were not dismissed as bogus and she will not be convicted in the way you opined.

.

P.S. As to who is deparate to prove anything: It was you who claimed proof and in the process got the legal concepts wrong and you who had the each way bet in case you were wrong on the first.

[Edited 7/3/19 15:34pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 07/03/19 3:36pm

poppys

Bogusity. lol


 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 07/03/19 4:06pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

IanRG said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

you are correct I used the wrong term... thank you....they were dropped.

as to the rest of you desperate attempt to prove me wrong. But Yeah I am right!


funny how you assume the motive of the DA... which is fine... but the fact is My gut reaction was that she would not get convicted.

I did opine as to what could happen if I was proven wrong as it went to trial. It was not an each way bet.

.

Yeah ... No!

.

If you understood the legal difference between the terms "dismissed" and "dropped", then you would understand that the former would have been a test of one of your opinions - the charges would have been found "bogus". However, the latter, the one that actually occurred, means that neither of your opinions has been proven right or wrong - the "bogusity" has not been proven one way or the other.

.

As to your each way bet: you opined in both directions. Your were not proven right on one of them and the other will never be tested. Each way you were wrong, the charges were not dismissed as bogus and she will not be convicted in the way you opined.

.

P.S. As to who is deparate to prove anything: It was you who claimed proof and in the process got the legal concepts wrong and you who had the each way bet in case you were wrong on the first.

[Edited 7/3/19 15:34pm]

oh i know the diffrence between "dismissed" and "dropped" I made a rare error. I did say it was a bogus charge and the DA seems to agree with me.

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 #47 posted 07/03/19 4:18pm

IanRG

OnlyNDaUsa said:

IanRG said:

.

Yeah ... No!

.

If you understood the legal difference between the terms "dismissed" and "dropped", then you would understand that the former would have been a test of one of your opinions - the charges would have been found "bogus". However, the latter, the one that actually occurred, means that neither of your opinions has been proven right or wrong - the "bogusity" has not been proven one way or the other.

.

As to your each way bet: you opined in both directions. Your were not proven right on one of them and the other will never be tested. Each way you were wrong, the charges were not dismissed as bogus and she will not be convicted in the way you opined.

.

P.S. As to who is deparate to prove anything: It was you who claimed proof and in the process got the legal concepts wrong and you who had the each way bet in case you were wrong on the first.

[Edited 7/3/19 15:34pm]

oh i know the diffrence between "dismissed" and "dropped" I made a rare error. I did say it was a bogus charge and the DA seems to agree with me.

.

Rare error! Look back over the years.

.

You explained what you meant by bogus. This was whether you would find her guilty in the court case, not whether it would be dismissed let alone dropped. Your each way bet was also about how you would instead seek to convict her.

.

"Funny how you assume the motive of the DA... which is fine... but the fact is" you don't know the DA's motive. In my opinion, the reason the charge was dropped and not replaced with potentially easier charge for a conviction is as the DA said, and public opinion world-wide has generally agreed: She has been punished enough already.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 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.