General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAlabama woman indicted for manslaughter after miscarrying when shot
~snip~
An Alabama woman who suffered a miscarriage after being shot last year has been indicted for manslaughter in the loss of the fetus.
Marshae Jones was five months pregnant in December 2018 when, during a fight, Ebony Jemison shot her in the stomach but a Jefferson County grand jury said the former mom-to-be was responsible because she started the brawl, AL.com reported.
Lets not lose sight that the unborn baby is the victim here, said Pleasant Grove Police Lt. Danny Reid.
Initially, police charged Jemison, 23, with manslaughter but the charges were dismissed when a grand jury didnt indict her.
Read More: https://nypost.com/2019/06/26/alabama-woman-indicted-for-manslaughter-after-miscarrying-when-shot/?fbclid=IwAR17x4a0Ma4ODctQU1Jsqen0KTTDrU1Ge9lRc0nypQ1O7E8if-itHOVS_T4
walkingman
(7,511 posts)Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... who shot that pregnant woman was initially charged. The GJ declined to indict her because it appears the evidence showed she was defending herself from an assault by the pregnant woman.
So the manslaughter charge (its not a murder charge) results from the pregnant woman attacking the other woman and getting her fetus killed in the process.
Under Alabama law, you can be charged criminally or sued in civil court for killing or injuring a fetus. Thats been the law for 15-20 years.
We can debate whether thats a good law. But as long as its the law, this is a legit charge. Its no different under Alabamas law than if she had attacked this woman while holding her 2 year old in her arms and the infant was shot and killed in the fight.
LiberalFighter
(50,500 posts)qazplm135
(7,447 posts)First, it is different than holding a 2 year old in her arms. And in that scenario, anyone would be hard pressed to believe that she was a threat to the woman who shot her that deadly force was a suitable level of self-defense.
Second, what evidence is there that using deadly force was acceptable self-defense in this case?
Third, the authorities TRIED to charge the shooter. So CLEARLY they thought that she had not used an appropriate level of force in self-defense. It was only after they couldn't get an indictment that they turned to trying the person who was shot.
This is all about trying to make someone responsible for the fetus being dead. They don't care who.
Whiskeytide
(4,459 posts)... the fact that a grand jury did not indict the shooter. At that hearing, the state presents its evidence. The shooter would not have presented evidence. It is a very low bar for the prosecution. If they failed to get an indictment in Alabama for the shooting death of a fetus, the only logical reason must have been that the prwgnant woman was the instigator and attacker, and that they felt the shooter was justified.
And its exactly like holding a baby in your arms so long as the state considers the fetus in the uterus to be a protected life, regardless of whether you think that would somehow lower the threat level.
I suppose I would expect the state to pursue the shooter first, and when evidence of self defense prevented that, they changed tact.
Again. Highly fact specific. This case does NOT mean a woman who is shot by an attacker and loses a child will be charged.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)Prosecuting and defending criminal cases.
Mariana
(14,849 posts)Exactly.
no_hypocrisy
(45,772 posts)If you aim to shoot A but end up shooting B, you're still responsible for shooting B despite B wasn't your target.