This is going to provoke outrage but there’s a rather simple explanation to it. A pregnant woman has been charged over the death of her foetus. But she, that pregnant woman, is the one who got shot, causing the death of the baby. So, why isn’t the person who fired the shot getting charged? You know, if it’s going to be murder, or manslaughter, or child endangerment, or procuring a miscarriage, then why isn’t it the person who actually did those things?
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] A pregnant woman who lost her baby when she was shot in the stomach has been charged with the unborn infant’s death. Marshae Jones, 27, became involved in a fight with 23-year-old Ebony Jemison while she was five months pregnant in Birmingham, Alabama, in December last year. The incident resulted in Jemison firing a gun at Jones, who went on to suffer a miscarriage. However, police decided that Jones should be charged with the baby’s death as she instigated the fight and continued to lash out after she was shot. [/perfectpullquote]It’s the instigated there that matters:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] The case has raised alarm among pro-choice groups who say it is shocking evidence of how the state’s restrictive abortion laws are now being used against pregnant women. “The investigation showed that the only true victim in this was the unborn baby,’’ said Lt Danny Reid of Pleasant Grove police following the shooting, reported AL.com in December. “It was the mother of the child who initiated and continued the fight which resulted in the death of her own unborn baby.” The Guardian has contacted Jefferson county district attorney’s office for comment. It comes after the Alabama governor, Kay Ivey ,signed a bill in May banning abortion in almost every circumstance – including rape and incest – posing a challenge to Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 supreme court judgment that guaranteed abortion rights across the nation. [/perfectpullquote]It’s actually nothing to do with abortion law at all. It’s just the standard way the law works.
If you start a fight and someone dies in that fight then you’re responsible for that person having died. Because death is an unusual but foreseeable result of a fight. So, you started it, you’re responsible. And that’s it.
The lady with the gun was defending herself, as she’s every right to do. The death was a result of the initiation of the fight – thus the person who initiated is responsible.
How else does anyone think this should work?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
The rabid proponents of abortion believe the mother should be allowed to do whatever she wants to the unborn child until it pops out as it is part of her own body.
So the question should be would she be charged for shooting herself?
How else does anyone think this should work?
Well, let us consider how various activists would like to interpret the law nowadays, since they may well obtain their wishes, given modern politicians...
1. Is the woman of a minority persuasion? Yes, she's black. Therefore she cannot be guilty of a crime.
2. Is there a white person of privilege involved in the case anywhere? Maybe. I don't know if the arresting officer, the doctor who treated her, or the person who sold the gun to her opponent were white. If they are, they get charged for being accessories with malice aforethought.
3. Is there any other 'woke' issue which can be shoehorned into this case, even peripherally? Yes. It concerns a baby, so we can bring up abortion. I note that the left-wing activists have already done so, ably supported by the BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48789836
Aha! The result of the case can be considered a forcible abortion! We all know that abortions are good for women, so it appears that the assailant has provided a service to Ms Jones, and therefore ought to be paid for it. Such payment to be provided by state funds, of course.
Case Dismissed!
P.S. - I forgot to insert 'Climate Change' into the equation, but rest assured that it's in there somewhere. Extra predicted heat will no doubt have caused the altercation, made the air less dense thus augmenting the effects of the bullet, and .. let me see... I know! Let's have an automatic penalty in all cases - an bit like a 'victim surcharge', which goes to fund victims of global warming. Or rather, the activists looking for them...
Recent case here in California: One of a pair of 12 year old twins shot and killed the other. The mother was charged in the death because she improperly stored the gun.
We need to know the totality of the circumstances. It is blithely assumed that the shooter, Ms Jemison, was legitimately defending herself against what she perceived to be a real and imminent threat to life and limb from the shootee, Ms Jones. But, while Ms Jones may have started the altercation, that alone is not a blanket justification for charging her for the tragic outcome. Charging her is only justifiable if, in the very moment that Ms Jemison shot her, Ms Jones was actively and imminently threatening her with violence. Then the self-defense is justifiable, and the charges against Ms Jones may be similarly justifiable. Otherwise, not. Simply saying that 'she started the argument, so she is responsible for the outcome, no matter when and how' is ridiculous and unjust. By that standard, Ms Jemison and Ms Jones may have gone their separate ways, Ms Jones may have taken a train to Topeka, Ms Jemison may have followed her there a week later, met her in passing at the Piggly-Wiggly, shot her, and then claimed 'Well, she started it . . . .' If you start a fight, but then end it by running away, for example, or by losing the fight, the person you were fighting with does not then have blanket justification to re-start the fight, or to (for example) to shoot you because, at some earlier point, you threatened him with violence, simply because 'you started it'. Similarly, what Ms Jones may have done to Ms Jemison after being shot by her, has no bearing on the matter at all. At that point, Ms Jones may have been legitimately defending herself against an unjustified and murderous attack.
The reporting is both sloppy (the police don't decide to charge anybody with anything, that is the job of the prosecutor) and completely incomplete. There's no way to tell whether this is an entirely-proper charge or a ridiculous and inappropriate over-charge.
llater,
llamas
Well, I looked at the reporting, and it clearly said that the prosecution first considered charging the shooter, but determined that she did indeed act appropriately in self-defence. Perhaps you should look at the story again...?
Well, you know, before writing what I wrote, I actually went and looked up the grand jury bill that indicted Ms Jones, and the exact wording is '"intentionally caused the death of another person, to-wit: "UNBORN BABY JONES by INITIATING A FIGHT KNOWING SHE WAS FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT." So the grand jury indicted her for (felony manslaughter) on the basis that she started the fight and nothing-much else.
As there is no real reporting in the linked story of the actual circumstances of the fight - and since the grand-jury proceeding hears only from the prosecutor - and since it's well-understood that the grand jury almost-inevitably sides with the wishes of the prosecutor (there's a common line about a ham sandwich which you may have heard) - the situation is just exactly as I said - we have no way to tell from this story whether this is an entirely-righteous charge or a ridiculous over-charge.
However, if we look further for other accounts of the incident, we find (based solely on media reporting, so grain of salt, usual caveats) that what this was, was a fistfight that was escalated when Ms Jemison produced a handgun and fired what she intended to be a 'warning shot', which ricocheted and struck Ms Jones, with the outcomes we now know.
And, indeed, the prosecutor is now indicating that Ms Jones will not be prosecuted - thus proving that the initial prosecution was as much about political grandstanding as it was about the due process of law, as it was withdrawn in the face of political protest just as quickly as it was brought for political reasons.
llater,
llamas