Alabama woman charged with unborn baby's death after being shot in the stomach

First topic message reminder :

An American woman who lost her unborn baby after being shot in the stomach has been charged with manslaughter for initiating the fight.

Marshae Jones, from Birmingham, Alabama, was five months pregnant when she was shot in the stomach by Ebony Jemison, 23, in December 2018.

Ms Jones, 27, was rushed to a nearby hospital and recovered, but her unborn baby girl did not survive.

However it was Ms Jones who was charged on Wednesday over the baby's death.

The two women were fighting outside a Dollar General store in December when the shooting occurred.

The shooter, Ms Jemison, was initially charged with manslaughter, but police said their investigation found she was acting in self-defence in a dispute over the baby's father.

Police said that Ms Jones had initiated the fight and was therefore at fault for the death of her baby.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/27/alabama-woman-charged-unborn-babys-death-shot-stomach/

Words fail me

I am shocked they would find this woman who fired her gun innocent. Imagine the parents of the friends of eahc person here. Listening to her argument that she intended to fire into the ground and warn people. Never contemplating the potential harm of doiing so, if we are to believe her story. Anyone of them if we are to believe her story, could have ended up shot here. Even more if we buy rags claim, she did fire and hit the ground and it was a ricochet bullet that hit the woman

See how its that easy to pull apart a false story by the shooter?

She may have shown remorse, but the reality is, she was ruled by her emotions and here and in my eyes deliberatly shot the woman. She did not take care for the fact many other people were there and could have been hurt by her claim to firing a warning shot into the ground. It shows her story was bullshit and bought by the court

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I might hit them with my handbag. I wouldn't shoot them because I'm not allowed to carry a gun.

Why, in Alabama, aren't you allowed to carry a gun?  Did you do something wrong?  Are you on parole?  

I'm not in Alabama.

phildidge wrote:I am shocked they would find this woman who fired her gun innocent. Imagine the parents of the friends of eahc person here. Listening to her argument that she intended to fire into the ground and warn people. Never contemplating the potential harm of doiing so, if we are to believe her story. Anyone of them if we are to believe her story, could have ended up shot here. Even more if we buy rags claim, she did fire and hit the ground and it was a  ricochet bullet that hit the woman

See how its that easy to pull apart a false story by the shooter?

She may have shown remorse, but the reality is, she was ruled by her emotions and here and in my eyes deliberatly shot the woman. She did not take care for the fact many other people were there and could have been hurt by her claim to firing a warning shot into the ground. It shows her story was bullshit and bought by the court

It wasn't my claim, it was her claim.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:I am shocked they would find this woman who fired her gun innocent. Imagine the parents of the friends of eahc person here. Listening to her argument that she intended to fire into the ground and warn people. Never contemplating the potential harm of doiing so, if we are to believe her story. Anyone of them if we are to believe her story, could have ended up shot here. Even more if we buy rags claim, she did fire and hit the ground and it was a  ricochet bullet that hit the woman

See how its that easy to pull apart a false story by the shooter?

She may have shown remorse, but the reality is, she was ruled by her emotions and here and in my eyes deliberatly shot the woman. She did not take care for the fact many other people were there and could have been hurt by her claim to firing a warning shot into the ground. It shows her story was bullshit and bought by the court

It wasn't my claim, it was her claim.

But you did defend this Rags, until I pointed this out and change your stance when i reasoned this the previous page

Glad at some level I could reason this to you

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't my claim, it was her claim.

But you did defend this Rags, until I pointed this out and change your stance when i reasoned this the previous page

Glad at some level I could reason this to you

I said there appears to be no evidence that the bullet didn't hit Jones via richochet. I didn't change my stance.

Maddog wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Apparently, Ms Jones also took some mates with her, so that would probably have made Ms Jemison more apprehensive.

There you go. Several people on one person will do it every time. That's why the victim was no billed.

That's why guns are called equalizers.

The problem with having more mates is not physical strength; it is that there are more witnesses for your side. The gun is of no use there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why, in Alabama, aren't you allowed to carry a gun?  Did you do something wrong?  Are you on parole?  

I'm not in Alabama.

But the case is!

Surely you're not arguing this case according to UK law?

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

But you did defend this Rags, until I pointed this out and change your stance when i reasoned this the previous page

Glad at some level I could reason this to you

I said there appears to be no evidence that the bullet didn't hit Jones via richochet. I didn't change my stance.

Then we are back to my point on how she missed the pavement.As that is what she was aiming for. So again, how irresponsible was that to do, if we are to believe the person firing the gun? As she ended up shoooting the person, when she claims to not have aimed for her?

Does that not prove my point on gun onwership, how it needs to be restricted?

Hence those laying blame at the pregnant women are utterly misguided here

This other woman pulled her gun. Claiming to fire at the pavement and instead shooting the woman. That is an act of complete irresonsibility and negligence. Hence how was she cleared of the charge of manslaughter?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not in Alabama.

But the case is!

Surely you're not arguing this case according to UK law?

No, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't retreat. You asked why someone wouldn't retreat.

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I said there appears to be no evidence that the bullet didn't hit Jones via richochet. I didn't change my stance.

Then we are back to my point on how she missed the pavement.As that is what she was aiming for. So again, how irresponsible was that to do, if we are to believe the person firing the gun? As she ended up shoooting the person, when she claims to not have aimed for her?

Does that not prove my point on gun onwership, how it needs to be restricted?

Yes. I don't agree with the gun laws there. However, that is the law at the moment.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Then we are back to my point on how she missed the pavement.As that is what she was aiming for. So again, how irresponsible was that to do, if we are to believe the person firing the gun? As she ended up shoooting the person, when she claims to not have aimed for her?

Does that not prove my point on gun onwership, how it needs to be restricted?

Yes. I don't agree with the gun laws there. However, that is the law at the moment.

Is that you inadvertantly being in agreement with me rags?

Holy crap

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. I don't agree with the gun laws there. However, that is the law at the moment.

Is that you inadvertantly being in agreement with me rags?

Holy crap  

I agreed with you earlier too - that firing the gun was irresponsible.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Is that you inadvertantly being in agreement with me rags?

Holy crap  

I agreed with you earlier too - that firing the gun was irresponsible.

I know you did Rags, and i saw that too. kudos for being humble

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I agreed with you earlier too - that firing the gun was irresponsible.

I know you did Rags, and i saw that too. kudos for being humble

I'm not being humble, I just happen to agree.

It's also irresponsible to start a fight when you're pregnant.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

I know you did Rags, and i saw that too. kudos for being humble

I'm not being humble, I just happen to agree.

It's also irresponsible to start a fight when you're pregnant.

Its you being humble to the fact you took my points on board and altered your stance

I already said its wrong to start a fight and will ad even more so over potential paranoid jealousy

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But the case is!

Surely you're not arguing this case according to UK law?

No, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't retreat. You asked why someone wouldn't retreat.

The only reason that someone wouldn't retreat, if s/he could retreat, is s/he is bent on murder. 'Stand your ground' is perverted. Let's face it...the only reason it is so popular in the south is that it gives greater leeway for killing blacks.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't retreat. You asked why someone wouldn't retreat.

The only reason that someone wouldn't retreat, if s/he could retreat, is s/he is bent on murder.   'Stand your ground' is perverted.  Let's face it...the only reason it is so popular in the south is that it gives greater leeway for killing blacks.

Except in this case, the shooter wa also black

There is no case for racism here Quill, in regards to the reason for the shooting

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I'm simply saying that I wouldn't retreat. You asked why someone wouldn't retreat.

The only reason that someone wouldn't retreat, if s/he could retreat, is s/he is bent on murder.   'Stand your ground' is perverted.  Let's face it...the only reason it is so popular in the south is that it gives greater leeway for killing blacks.

Not every case of stand your ground results in murder or death though. Are you suggesting that black people are likely to be aggressors?

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not being humble, I just happen to agree.

It's also irresponsible to start a fight when you're pregnant.

Its you being humble to the fact you took my points on board and altered your stance

I already said its wrong to start a fight and will ad even more so over potential paranoid jealousy

I didn't alter my stance. I thought it was irresponsible to fire the gun from the start.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Its you being humble to the fact you took my points on board and altered your stance

I already said its wrong to start a fight and will ad even more so over potential paranoid jealousy

I didn't alter my stance. I thought it was irresponsible to fire the gun from the start.

So you must then disagree with the jury?

And yes you have altered your stance

That is obvious rags

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't alter my stance. I thought it was irresponsible to fire the gun from the start.

So you must then disagree with the jury?

And yes you have altered your stance

That is obvious rags

I haven't altered it - I think they were both irresponsible. However, being irresponsible is not the same thing as committing a crime. I've already said that it's pointless prosecuting Ms Jones.

The whole thing should be dropped. An unborn baby will never be born, and nothing can change that, and there's no point punishing anyone for it.

Wow again from rags. Rags neglected when laws can be bad and irresponsible when based on religion and not secularism/Humanism. Sadly I thought she could be humble, but she certainly changed her stance from earlier. Hey ho, if this is to much to admit, no worries

phildidge wrote:Wow again from rags. Rags neglected when laws can be bad and irresponsible when based on religion and not secularism/Humanism. Sadly I thought she could be humble, but she certainly changed her stance from earlier. Hey ho, if this is to much to admit, no worries

I haven't changed it. According to the law, she was entitled to fire the gun. It's nothing to do with religion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:Wow again from rags. Rags neglected when laws can be bad and irresponsible when based on religion and not secularism/Humanism. Sadly I thought she could be humble, but she certainly changed her stance from earlier. Hey ho, if this is to much to admit, no worries

I haven't changed it. According to the law, she was entitled to fire the gun. It's nothing to do with religion.

IIt has everything to do with religion. A peron irresponsible with a gun and shot someone is let off. The woman who grabbed her hair is being charged with manslaughter, due to the fact the woiman who shot her, killed her fetus. And you have the audacity to claim this is not down to religion?

Holy crap on a cracker

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The only reason that someone wouldn't retreat, if s/he could retreat, is s/he is bent on murder.   'Stand your ground' is perverted.  Let's face it...the only reason it is so popular in the south is that it gives greater leeway for killing blacks.

Not every case of stand your ground results in murder or death though. Are you suggesting that black people are likely to be aggressors?

So what? Malice is still malice. 'Stand your ground' is a loop-hole that lets malice in.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not every case of stand your ground results in murder or death though. Are you suggesting that black people are likely to be aggressors?

So what?  Malice is still malice.  'Stand your ground' is a loop-hole that lets malice in.

So where was all the democratic voices under Obama when this was happenining Quill, under his charge?

If Malice was malice. Then do you think the Democrats now are hyporictes, to only speak oput now?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So what?  Malice is still malice.  'Stand your ground' is a loop-hole that lets malice in.

So where was all the democratic voices under Obama when this was happenining Quill, under his charge?

If Malice was malice. Then do you think the Democrats now are hyporictes, to only speak oput now?

Oh, I'm in favor of putting away criminals. Remember, I was a prosecutor once.

The problem with Trump is, he'll put anyone in prison. It's not supposed to work that way. Under due process, you have to commit a felony before they lock you up.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Retreating is the best option. You're supposed to be a lawyer. You know what the legal costs are even if you are no billed or found not guilty.

As a laymen, I suggest you retreat unless you really feel that death or a debilitating injury is imminent.  

I'll give you that advice for free.

That's the advice I've been giving everybody.  I'm not paying you to echo my words.

BTW, it's not always expensive to shoot someone.  Geo. Zimmerman's lawyer admitted Zimmerman made a fortune on 'Go Fund Me' contributions from southerners...as well as large corporate contributions.  That came out in the Petition to Revoke Bail hearing.

It's usually very expensive.

I definitely wouldn't shoot someone unless I felt I had to, to save a life.

However, after dark, in Texas, the law allows trespassers to be shot. Keep that in mind next time you're snooping around Southlake. Those rich folks can hire some good lawyers.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's the advice I've been giving everybody.  I'm not paying you to echo my words.

BTW, it's not always expensive to shoot someone.  Geo. Zimmerman's lawyer admitted Zimmerman made a fortune on 'Go Fund Me' contributions from southerners...as well as large corporate contributions.  That came out in the Petition to Revoke Bail hearing.

It's usually very expensive.

I definitely wouldn't shoot someone unless I felt I had to, to save a life.

However, after dark, in Texas, the law allows trespassers to be shot. Keep that in mind next time you're snooping around Southlake. Those rich folks can hire some good lawyers.  

The trespasser exception is a different exception. Stand your ground says once the affray has started, if you didn't start it, you are licensed to kill.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's usually very expensive.

I definitely wouldn't shoot someone unless I felt I had to, to save a life.

However, after dark, in Texas, the law allows trespassers to be shot. Keep that in mind next time you're snooping around Southlake. Those rich folks can hire some good lawyers.  

The trespasser exception is a different exception.  Stand your ground says once the affray has started, if you didn't start it, you are licensed to kill.

You mean in many cases a license to murder, correct?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's usually very expensive.

I definitely wouldn't shoot someone unless I felt I had to, to save a life.

However, after dark, in Texas, the law allows trespassers to be shot. Keep that in mind next time you're snooping around Southlake. Those rich folks can hire some good lawyers.  

The trespasser exception is a different exception.  Stand your ground says once the affray has started, if you didn't start it, you are licensed to kill.

True. But with a trespasser, there needs to be no affray.

What i am really intrigued about, Is this insessant need to own and carry guns by so many americans. It really makes no sense. I have shown studies that where people carry guns more deaths from guns oocur. Where even more so carrying guns fail to deter murder. mainly as when someone has intent to do so. That unless you have intelligence. Your chances of surviving said attack are diminished.

Are yanls still holding onto a view around independence? That they believe they still need to carry guns, even though they won? Sounds like many people paranoia to me

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The trespasser exception is a different exception.  Stand your ground says once the affray has started, if you didn't start it, you are licensed to kill.

True. But with a trespasser, there needs to be no affray.

I don't think you can invite a girl home, and then kill her. Phil Spector taught us that. You don't need a fight, but you might need some threat. The law is more generous with trespassers than 'SYG', sure, but it's not an open field.

phildidge wrote:What i am really intrigued about, Is this insessant need to own and carry guns by so many americans. It really makes no sense. I have shown studies that where people carry guns more deaths from guns oocur. Where even more so carrying guns fail to deter murder. mainly as when someone has intent to do so. That unless you have intelligence. Your chances of surviving said attack are diminished.

Are yanls still holding onto a view around independence? That they believe they still need to carry guns, even though they won? Sounds like many people paranoia to me

I think part of it is the American fascination with gadgetry, but part of it is the American lust for dominion. The fascination with guns began during post-civil war days, when southerners were feeling defeated and powerless. As these people moved west and abandoned their homes, they became the cowboys and gunslingers of film. Romantics aside, they are exactly what you saw in Charlottesville.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:What i am really intrigued about, Is this insessant need to own and carry guns by so many americans. It really makes no sense. I have shown studies that where people carry guns more deaths from guns oocur. Where even more so carrying guns fail to deter murder. mainly as when someone has intent to do so. That unless you have intelligence. Your chances of surviving said attack are diminished.

Are yanls still holding onto a view around independence? That they believe they still need to carry guns, even though they won? Sounds like many people paranoia to me

I think part of it is the American fascination with gadgetry, but part of it is the American lust for dominion.  The fascination with guns began during post-civil war days, when southerners were feeling defeated and powerless.  As these people moved west and abandoned their homes, they became the cowboys and gunslingers of film.  Romantics aside, they are exactly what you saw in Charlottesville.

I think it goes further back and more of a view instilled into each generation around independence

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think part of it is the American fascination with gadgetry, but part of it is the American lust for dominion. The fascination with guns began during post-civil war days, when southerners were feeling defeated and powerless. As these people moved west and abandoned their homes, they became the cowboys and gunslingers of film. Romantics aside, they are exactly what you saw in Charlottesville.

I think it goes further back and more of a view instilled into each generation around independence

Yes, back in the frontier days people became familiar with firearms. After all, Kentucky wasn't London.

But this southern lust for guns came out of the civil war, the feeling of being defeated, and the sense that a quick death was somehow justice.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's usually very expensive.

I definitely wouldn't shoot someone unless I felt I had to, to save a life.

However, after dark, in Texas, the law allows trespassers to be shot. Keep that in mind next time you're snooping around Southlake. Those rich folks can hire some good lawyers.  

The trespasser exception is a different exception.  Stand your ground says once the affray has started, if you didn't start it, you are licensed to kill.

I would have thought it was a good way to stop people going around causing trouble. If you know that you can be shot for picking a fight with someone, why would you pick a fight with someone?

Because you think you'v got a bigger Gun ?

nicko wrote:Because you think you'v got a bigger Gun ?

Yes, if you actually have one. It's not a good idea to pick a fight with someone when you haven't got one - not in the US anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

True. But with a trespasser, there needs to be no affray.

 

I don't think you can invite a girl home, and then kill her.  Phil Spector taught us that.  You don't need a fight, but you might need some threat.  The law is more generous with trespassers than 'SYG', sure, but it's not an open field.

It has to be after dark, at least in Texas. And an invited guest would not be a trespasser.

phildidge wrote:What i am really intrigued about, Is this insessant need to own and carry guns by so many americans. It really makes no sense. I have shown studies that where people carry guns more deaths from guns oocur. Where even more so carrying guns fail to deter murder. mainly as when someone has intent to do so. That unless you have intelligence. Your chances of surviving said attack are diminished.

Are yanls still holding onto a view around independence? That they believe they still need to carry guns, even though they won? Sounds like many people paranoia to me

I guess a great number of Americans are not as impressed with your opinion as you are.

All one has to do, is read The Federalist Papers and they will understand why Americans believe in the Second Amendment.

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29]

Alabama is one of our dumbest redneck states. They suck Trump's dick daily and hate anything good. Common sense is hard to find in that state ( like most southern states).

Maddog wrote:

phildidge wrote:What i am really intrigued about, Is this insessant need to own and carry guns by so many americans. It really makes no sense. I have shown studies that where people carry guns more deaths from guns oocur. Where even more so carrying guns fail to deter murder. mainly as when someone has intent to do so. That unless you have intelligence. Your chances of surviving said attack are diminished.

Are yanls still holding onto a view around independence? That they believe they still need to carry guns, even though they won? Sounds like many people paranoia to me

I guess a great number of Americans are not as impressed with your opinion as you are.

I guiess a great number of Saudis are not impressed with my sound reasoning against the hateful ideology that they follow

When people have been bnrought up on a myth as you have, its clearly hardl to let go of sald poor beliefs

Maddog wrote:If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [Federalist 29]

Ever heard of a terrotorial army?

Rather that than  a bunch of ill disciplined bunch of wallies that think a god is a right to own a gun

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
 

I don't think you can invite a girl home, and then kill her.  Phil Spector taught us that.  You don't need a fight, but you might need some threat.  The law is more generous with trespassers than 'SYG', sure, but it's not an open field.

And an invited guest would not be a trespasser.

And if the host demands the guest leave, subsequently? Mightn't s/he re-invoke the trespasser status of the guest and shoot him or her?

I see a litigation breeder taking shape. So...invite the guest over, kill him or her, and then tell the cops you re-invoked trespasser status.

We've been so involved in the self-defense aspect of this case that we have forgotten the other important issue.  The personhood question.

Is the foetūs a person, such that a state may prosecute his or her own mother for homicide?

If so, can an expectant mother who falls down the stairs and has a miscarriage, be charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide?

Or, suppose mum is an antivaxer, and the target disease kills the foetūs.  Can the mom be charged with manslaughter or intentional homicide?

Suppose mum is an antivaxer by reason of her religion.  Is she entitled to religious protection in the US under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, even though it leads to the death of the foetūs?

Might a mother who drinks during pregnancy, potentially exposing the child to fetal alcohol syndrome, have the foetūs removed from her for child endangerment?

My Head hurts !