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

nicko wrote:My Head hurts !

Assuming those headaches is why lawyers get paid the big bucks.

phildidge wrote:

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

Who would be in charge of this territorial army? If it was the government, you're missing the point.

Federalist 20 wrote:This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union ``to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.''

Alexander Hamilton, who wrote Federalist No. 29, was previewing what has now become the National Guard, in the several states.

Original Quill wrote:

Federalist 20 wrote:This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union ``to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.''

Alexander Hamilton, who wrote Federalist No. 29, was previewing what has now become the National Guard, in the several states.

The militia is not the Guard.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Alexander Hamilton, who wrote Federalist No. 29, was previewing what has now become the National Guard, in the several states.

The militia is not the Guard.  

It was in Alexander Hamilton's day.  The Continental Army disbanded at the close of the Revolutionary war. The idea of a citizens' army seeded the notion of the National Guard.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The militia is not the Guard.  

It was in Alexander Hamilton's day.  The Continental Army disbanded at the close of the Revolutionary war.  The idea of a citizens' army seeded the notion of the National Guard.

No, it wasn't.

And your saying something different won't change that.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It was in Alexander Hamilton's day.  The Continental Army disbanded at the close of the Revolutionary war.  The idea of a citizens' army seeded the notion of the National Guard.

No, it wasn't.

And your saying something different won't change that.  

The men of the Continental Army were disgusted with the conditions, the supplies and not getting paid. They deserted in droves. If they didn't technically disband, they were reduced to nil until they were built up with the Whiskey Rebellion.

By the time Hamilton wrote Federalist 29, he was arguing for a state militia.

And your saying something different won't change that.

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

Shhhh...people are asleep.